Ohio Amendment

[raedyn]

The following is the text of the amendment Ohio voters passed last week. 61.77% of voters supported this ballot initiative.

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

This is the anti-'gay marriage' amendment for this state, obviously. But it goes farther than banning unions between same sex couples. It also denies recognition to common law relationships. This could prevent unmarried couples - even straight ones - from adopting, from being able to make medical descions about their partners, from recieving each other's pension, etc etc.

I'm not surprised about the denial of rights to gay people because we've been doing that for centuries. But I am surprised that voters would deny all those rights and responsibilties to straight couples.

Why do you think this passed? Were people just blind to the effect the measure would have on straight people? Or does this state actually have such conservative values that the people don't value any relationship unless it has been ordained by God - and the state?

(link pulled from http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/oh/state/issue/1/ )

 

[raedyn]

On a side note:
If they passed this measure here, could I (decidedly NOT single; engaged, living with the father of my daughter, but not yet married) be considered a single mom and get all the money for school, and the extra health coverage and other desirable social programs we have set up for single parents? I'm down with that!

 

[PeachMonkey]

Or does this state actually have such conservative values that the people

Ding, ding, ding! Welcome to the world of compassionate conservatives... where "compassion" really means, "as long as you strictly adhere to our vision of personal behavior".

 

[jfarnsworth]

I'll tell you that it was the hardest fricking decision on the ballot! All I kept hearing was vote yes then it was vote no. The whole damned thing was misleading!!!!!!!!! The people calling my house hour after hour of vote this way or that way was getting on my last ******* nerves. Any one can read how it was stated and form their own opinions on how they perceived issue #1! Whether I voted right wrong or indifferent :idunno: who really knows. All I can say is the wording was very iffy.

Lastly, I don't know your ideas or opinions but for me what people do inside their own house, I could care less. If a man likes a man, fine. If a woman likes a woman, fine. As long as they don't bring it upon me or affect my household I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own home.
:asian:

 

[Xequat]

I'm not surprised about the denial of rights to gay people because we've been doing that for centuries. But I am surprised that voters would deny all those rights and responsibilties to straight couples.

What other rights have been denied to gay people? Seriously, I'm not gay, so I can't think of a single one, but I can see why you think that this one is a denial of a right because it allows, albeit indirectly, only persons of heterosexual preference to marry. I mean, it doesn't say that a gay man and woman can't get married, that's why I say indirectly, but that's idiotic.

I don't know why this even became in issue. Homosexuality has in the past been condemned for promiscuity, but if they are allowed to marry, wouldn't that decrease promiscuity and promote family? Honestly, I couldn't possibly care any less about it. Being gay, in my opinion is just a sexual preference. For example, I like breasts. Other guys like legs. Some guys go for blondes, brunettes, or redheads ahead of other things. Another example, I like rock music. I like guys who like rock music and I like girls who like rock music. Well, I also like girls and guys who like country music even though I hate country music. So why does a person's preference on anything matter. I guess that in a lot of ways, it has to do with religion.

But I'm not sure that we should regulate or honestly even acknowledge homosexuality in a legal sense any more than we should recognize nonsexual preferences. We don't know if gayness is natural or a choice. Personally, I think it depends on the person. I know some guys that are really flamboyant and gay, some that dress nicely and are neat freaks and are actully kind of effeminate but aren't gay, and I know some that seem straight as far as stereotypes go, but are gay. It's possible that the ones who "sound and act gay" are gay through some biological occurrance and the others made the choice. I know two like that and they were both abused as kids and had a rough childhood. But until we know that it's a choice, I'm not sure we should regulate it. And if we find out that it's natural, then it's not their fault any more than race or gender, and therefore probably shouldn't be regulated. But the hyperreligious could argue that we all have a cross to bear.

 

[OUMoose]

I didn't get a chance to vote due to some circumstances beyond my control, but there were only 2 things I wanted to vote for.

Kerry, and "no" on issue-1 (banning same-sex marrage).

I think a friend of mine drove the point home the best, in the least amount of words I've heard to date. He works downtown and was outside near a COTA stop (Central Ohio transit Authority for those not in columbus). Anyways, a black gentleman came up to him and asked if he would sign a petition to get issue 1 put on the ballot. My friend, of course, started asking questions as to what this meant. The gentleman answered them apparently, quite candidly. My friend thought about it, and replied "OK, then get in the back of the bus, *explative beginning with 'n' deleted*..." You have to understand, my friend is the LEAST racist/sexist/anything-ist person I know, and was merely saying that for emphasis. The gentleman looked dumbfounded for a moment, then walked off without another word.

The government, nor anyone else has the right to tell two people they can't get married. You can have all the opinions you want, and you're entitled to them, but the MINUTE you start forcing that opinion on someone else, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Are these people causing harm to anyone else? Are they, in some way, a menace? "Well, the bible says..." Riiiiiiiiight. When common sense and logic fail, run to the good book!

*sighs heavily at the majority's ignorance*

Events like this bill passing only makes me think of one of the lines on the "Witty One-Liners" thread... "Some people are alive only because it's against the law to kill them..."

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Translation of the Ohio initiative, and similar ones across the country: only Christian marriage as the Religious Right defines it counts. We have abolished all recognition of civil unions for EVERYBODY, straight, gay or orange. Common-law marriage is abolished. All "spousal," benefits (receiving retirement benefits, sharing medical insurance, the right to visit one's beloved in the hospital whether or not their traditional family approves, etc.) are abolished. Any child born outside of wedlock as we define it is a bastard, and has no inheritance rights whatsoever. In brief, one agrees with the first poster.

2. If one traces the origins of such initiatives, they come directly from the religious Right--Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell (you know--the 9/11 is God's punishment for America's sins guys?), the ACLJ. They are not in any sense originally popular initiatives, though they became so.

3. So here's a question: suppose a couple meets, falls in love, is strong church-going people, attends a Church that's serious, hears a pastor that seriously teaches God's Love and the Sacrament of Marriage extends to everybody, and wants to get married? For what reasons exactly would any yahoo deny them the right to talk it over with their pastor, receive counseling on marriage and its responsibilities, go down to city hall, get a license, go back to their church, post the banns, send out invites, and get married in their church WITH THE FULL, FREE, WILLING SUPPORT OF THEIR PASTOR, THEIR CHURCH, AND THEIR FELLOW CHRISTIANS?

One's dying to hear the explanation for that one. Wait, wait, don't tell me--they're, "reading the Bible wrong." Their pastor is a heretic--not a real Christian. Their Church is inspired by Satan.

Seriously--one's dying to read the explanation for that one.

Eventually, when we all recover our senses, these stupid little laws whomped up by scared people are going to get thrown out by courts that stand up for religious liberty. Only a question of how long it takes.

 

[Tgace]

61.77% of voters supported this ballot initiative

All other issues aside,this is a fact that shouldnt be ignored. How does one reconcile issues like this with the public will?

 

[PeachMonkey]

All other issues aside,this is a fact that shouldnt be ignored. How does one reconcile issues like this with the public will?

I reckon we reconcile them in a similar fashion to how we dealt with the public will in the South, where the majority of people were quite comfortable with keeping "colored" folk in segregated facilities, preventing them from voting, etc... by recognizing that majority rule doesn't override basic human rights.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The loopy Amendment IS the public will. Hitler got elected, too.

1. This is why we have a Bill of Rights, as already said.

2. Education, education, education.

3. Looking forward to an answer to question of religious liberties.

 

[Ping898]

The way I see things is the amendment got passed for the same reason any law or amendment that restricts a certain groups rights get passed, people are scared of what they don't know. They are afraid that allowing gay people to marry will destroy family values and the sanctity of marriage. People tend to classify others as only one thing, they have tunnel vision, in this case, the person is gay and they can't see anything else, like the fact that the person may have a generous heart, be raising 2 great kids, have been in a stable loving relationship for 20 years and be involved involved in any number of other things that may or may not benefit humanity. All that is seen is that this person/persons are gay.

Also people don't always understand the full impact of their actions. Ohio wasn't the only state to pass an amendment, 11 other states I think also did. And sadly Ohio's amendment isn't the worst one out there.

Obviously this is just my opinion on it, but I think (and admittedly this is a bit simplistic condensation), but as long as it involves consenting adults and doesn't present any physical danger to anyone else, then do whatever makes you happy.

 

[Zepp]

I think a friend of mine drove the point home the best, in the least amount of words I've heard to date. He works downtown and was outside near a COTA stop (Central Ohio transit Authority for those not in columbus). Anyways, a black gentleman came up to him and asked if he would sign a petition to get issue 1 put on the ballot. My friend, of course, started asking questions as to what this meant. The gentleman answered them apparently, quite candidly. My friend thought about it, and replied "OK, then get in the back of the bus, *explative beginning with 'n' deleted*..." You have to understand, my friend is the LEAST racist/sexist/anything-ist person I know, and was merely saying that for emphasis. The gentleman looked dumbfounded for a moment, then walked off without another word.

:rofl: That story is priceless! I'm going to have to pass that one around.

 

[MGM]

Rights have been violated in many, many instances. It was only last year that the Supreme court struck down state laws that made homosexual "acts" illegal.

In the early 50's a California court decided that homosexual men could be jailed at any time with out having committed a crime.

Some state laws actually held the death penalty for being homosexual, several people were put to death.

Some states repealed voting and licensing rights if you were convicted under one of their sodomy laws. Some even refused said people to be a witness at a trial or be a member of a jury.

Some states allowed anyone to murder a homosexual with out any fear of prosecution, you were preventing "unnatural acts" therefor a hero.

I think just a few rights have been violated over the years.

Most people, no doubt, when they espouse human rights, make their own mental reservations about the proper application of the word "human."
Suzanne Lafollette

 

[someguy]

Me for ruler of the world I will take care of all this silliness about human rights being violated.
How can you have a violation when no rights exist of course.
Ok really though what is a persons buessness is a persons buessness and doesn't matter to me unless it hurts some one else or I suppose even them selves.
Ignorance is bliss. I hope America is happy.
Me, me always is happy.

 

[Rynocerous]

Rights have been violated in many, many instances. It was only last year that the Supreme court struck down state laws that made homosexual "acts" illegal.

In the early 50's a California court decided that homosexual men could be jailed at any time with out having committed a crime.

Some state laws actually held the death penalty for being homosexual, several people were put to death.

Some states repealed voting and licensing rights if you were convicted under one of their sodomy laws. Some even refused said people to be a witness at a trial or be a member of a jury.

Some states allowed anyone to murder a homosexual with out any fear of prosecution, you were preventing "unnatural acts" therefor a hero.

I think just a few rights have been violated over the years.

MGM, I'm just curious to were you got this information... I have not heard of these terrible instances when it comes to gays. Being legal to murder gays, executing gays, etc. If you would be able to provide me with a link to this info, that would be brilliant. I'm always interested in history, and always wanting to learn. Thanks a bunch...

Cheers,

Ryan

 

[rmcrobertson]

Try a Googol search under the topic, "Stonewall." Look up Roy Cohn (counsel for Joe McCarthy! early advisor to Nixon!!) and his...career. Read about Terry McAuliffe, onetime Republican bigwig. Scope out some of, say, Michael Moon's writing.

Stillwaiting for discussion of religious issue.

 

[MGM]

Rynocerous,

Unfortunately, the above comes from the voices in my head, mostly stems from research for a collage class years ago.


Most states changed there statutes decades prior to the Supreme Court decision so they have not added them to the on line data base. Unfortunately the only way I know of finding them is to embrace the horror..........leave the sanctity of the computer........ and seek out a Library. Do those things still have micro-fiche?(sp?)


This is the Supreme Court case, it is about 100 pages of legal goop but several state laws are cited.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/decisions/lower_court/14-99-00109-cr.html

 

[TwistofFat]

Ding, ding, ding! Welcome to the world of compassionate conservatives... where "compassion" really means, "as long as you strictly adhere to our vision of personal behavior".

As a registered and long time libertarian I am against government telling me who I can marry and what I can do vis-a-vis sex. After all, all marriage is same sex marriage...the same sex over and over...try the veal. (please, do not let my wife see this or I am dead).
There is no reason beyond the political for a 'ban' on a marriage that harms no one.
PM - if 67% of the vote was YES do we know what percentage were democrats (at least 17%). Are there 'compassionate conservatives' within the giant D?!!

 

[Phoenix44]

On a side note:
If they passed this measure here, could I (decidedly NOT single; engaged, living with the father of my daughter, but not yet married) be considered a single mom and get all the money for school, and the extra health coverage and other desirable social programs we have set up for single parents? I'm down with that!

WOW! I AM a single mom, and I'd LOVE to get all that money for school, extra health coverage and other desirable social programs. Where do I sign up?

 

[Cruentus]

Stillwaiting for discussion of religious issue.

If your looking for a sound, logical reason for the banning of civil unions, I don't think you'll find one. The majority of voters, especially the religious ones, have forgotten the reason our government exists. If you want to call yourself American, you believe that the government exists to keep us safe, and to protect our freedoms. Protecting freedoms doesn't include enforcing religious beliefs and "values" through intrusive laws.

The problem is, as I have said over and over again in the study when the subject has come up, is the word "marriage." The word has a religious conotation, which is why something like a gay "marriage" ban would pass anywhere in a christian driven majority. Remove the word marriage from the constitution, call any union between two consenting adults a civil union, and the problem is solved.

Do you think changing a silly little word here or there would really change all that much? You bet...the republican party has been doing this and winning elections with it for some time now.

The thing is, most non-political religious folk are good people who just don't want their value's trounced on by the "liberals" (there's another silly little word), and the political right knows it. So, they use it against them. They make them afraid that their values are going to be taken away by liberals and their lives by terrorists. When the people are afraid, then the wealthy minority can take away things like healthcare, jobs with decent wages, environment, and good schools all in the name of the almighty dollar. We really are in a sad state of affairs.

I am waiting for the left to wise up and make the case to these good people who just don't want their values trounced on that by enforcing your values on others you create a totalitarian state, for one, and for two, if the government simply protects everyone's rights to have their own values then we'll all be in a better place. You can make decisions on your values with your family, your pastor/priest, and your community when the government is protecting your freedom to do so. This has worked well in the past to a degree. What hasn't worked is the enforcing of religious value's. The left needs to make that case instead of pretending that everyone who has values based on religion at all are just a bunch of dumb former slave owners. That is, WE need to make that case if they ever expect to get these rip-off artists out of OUR government.

And, is anyone surprised that the religious-right makes the arguement against taxation because "people and families should be able to make their own decisions with their money, not with the big fancy government," and then they proceed to legislate morality as if to say that for some reason people and families can't make their own decisions regarding morality and need the government to decide morality for them? I'm not surprised. It's all part of the big scam where the majority is enslaved by a wealthy minority. It's ashame to see that the scam seems to be working.

I guess I'll just arm myself and await the second coming...

Paul