Ohio Amendment

[Phoenix44]

Are you all really that naive? Sure, these laws are bigoted examples of one religious group inflicting its narrowmindedness on others. But seriously, why should the Bush Administration REALLY care?

Because if you deny people the right to marry, and you deny people the right to civil unions, and if you deny life partners any alternative recognition for their relationship, then the REAL Bush base--no, not the few million fundamentalist Christians the Bushies duped--but BIG BUSINESS, doesn't have to provide benefits to their employees' partners. And that's what's REALLY important to the Bushies. Money, not Jesus. Bush said it himself: "You're my base. The haves and the have-mores."

 

[OULobo]

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.

While I agree it was motivated by the christian conservative and religious right, the law doesn't require christian marriage. Any religion's service is recognized provided it is in accordance with state laws (legal ages, no duress, and unfortunately now, between a man and a woman).

 

[PeachMonkey]

Are there 'compassionate conservatives' within the giant D?!!

Absolutely, my good man -- take a look at Joe Lieberman.

 

[Zepp]

While I agree it was motivated by the christian conservative and religious right, the law doesn't require christian marriage. Any religion's service is recognized provided it is in accordance with state laws (legal ages, no duress, and unfortunately now, between a man and a woman).

Yes, but the fact remains that the law now defines a religious institution, namely marriage. If it remains, it sets a legal precedent for future laws that could discriminate between particular religions.

Something else that worries me about this nonsense: The 1st amendment provides for the separation of church and state. It specifically says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, if a constitutional amendment was passed that defined or set limits on marriage, wouldn't that invalidate the first amendmant?

As a non-christian, I find this scary.

 

[Tgace]

Just playing "devils advocate" ..but is there an "establishment of religion" here? I read that as meaning a State Sponsored religion shouldnt be established, much as the Church of England was during the founding fathers days. I believe OULobo said that the gvt. isnt saying that "you must be married by X church". Just that marriage is a religious institution. Personally, like Paul J. im for civil unions. If you want to share benefits, insurance, property etc. let a lawyer draw up a contract.

 

[Zepp]

Just playing "devils advocate" ..but is there an "establishment of religion" here? I read that as meaning a State Sponsored religion shouldnt be established, much as the Church of England was during the founding fathers days. I believe OULobo said that the gvt. isnt saying that "you must be married by X church". Just that marriage is a religious institution.

The way I read things, if marriage is a religious institution, then a law defining it is a law that respects an "establishment of religion," even if that particular establishment hasn't been defined yet.

And by the way, I'm also in favor of civil unions, and like Paul, I think that should be the legal status of all marriages.

 

[Tgace]

If I am reading this properly, its saying that the State shall not recognize a marriage except when a man and woman are wed. Does that mean a church wont be able to perform a ceremony if it so desires? I suppose that would make it a "marriage" as far as that church was concerned, but the state wont recognize it. Granted that would only be for a "spiritual union". Does this also prevent a gay couple from drawing up legal documents that would allow them to have power of attorney, wills, etc.??

 

[rmcrobertson]

That's precisely what it means.

The State is, in effect, saying that marriage is NOT a private and or/religious institution. It is saying that whatever one's individual beliefs, whatever one's church teaches, nobody may get married, unioned, or whatever, unless their marriage conforms precisely to the State's criteria for legitimacy and decency.
No domestic partnerships, no spousal benefits, nada.

If you're not married, and you are presently covered by your domestic partner's health insurance, this very likely means that you will lose your benefits. As was mentioned below.

It's not at all a fundamentalist initiative. No, not at all. After all, it was pushed to serve the political needs of a born-again fundamentalist Protestant, inspired and supported by radical fundamentalist groups like the 700 Club, voted for in overwhelming numbers by radical fundamentalists, and it relies on a fundamentalist Christian definition of marriage. But it's not Protestant fundamentalist!

Hope folks who voted for Bush enjoy what's going to happen, in this regard and many others.

 

[raedyn]

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?

Move to Canada.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

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...

William Manchester's book "Goodbye Darkness" tells of the story of a Marine Sergeant Major who was sentenced to fifty years for oral sex with a Navy Corpsman.

Then there is this:

Early Colonial statutes echoed English law, making sodomy a capital crime. But it was much more common for offenders to be flogged or just booted out of town. Thomas Jefferson, one of the few Founding Fathers who made known his views on sodomy, thought that castration was a more poetic form of justice than death. After independence, the death penalty was dropped for sodomy in most states. Until the late 19th century, there was very little persecution of homosexuals in America. But then you began to see some medical writings on so-called deviant sexuality. Some physicians began to look upon homosexuality as part of a larger syndrome, called degeneracy, which also included madness, criminal behavior, poverty and idiocy. It was believed that all of these social pathologies could be transmitted genetically from parents to children. So castration of homosexuals, or commitment to insane asylums, was often recommended on medical grounds. Even as late as the 1940s, some doctors tried to treat homosexual patients by injecting them with hormones. By 1961 all of the states had antisodomy statutes, though because of repeals the number is now down to 24 states.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/history/history04.htm


Note that all sodomy laws were overturned by the Supreme Court last year.

Some other sources...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hate1.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel2.htm


Here's some stuff on current advocacy for the death penalty for Gays and adulterers (the latter of which the Ohio referendum also seems to discourage to a degree) by members of the Religious Right:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2049

http://scottmaui.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/25/5445/1320

http://www.outfront.org/action/update9.html


And my favorite, of course....

http://www.godhatesfags.com


Regards,


Steve

 

[raedyn]

I believe OULobo said that the gvt. isnt saying that "you must be married by X church". Just that marriage is a religious institution.

No. It was a social institution before it was formalized as a religious institution. And people can get a marriage licence without going to ANY religious organization, so it's not exclusively religious. I don't believe there is anyone arguing that all churches should be forced to bless same sex unions. I'm not, anyways. But I do believe there is no good reason for the state to treat a couple any differently based upon the genders of the people involved. Any couple should be able to go to the churches that DO bless their relationship, get married, and have that legally recognized. Or they should be able to go to a sexular marriage commisioner and get a marriage licence and all the rights and responsibilties that go along with that.

Personally, like Paul J. im for civil unions. If you want to share benefits, insurance, property etc. let a lawyer draw up a contract.

So then gay people become second class citizens. Anybody can get a lawyer to draw up a legal contract but it's a helluva lot more expensive and complicated than getting a marriage licence.

I'll reiterate;

There are two separate issues with respect to marriage:
1) What a given church/synagouge/mosque/etc. will recognize
2) What the state will recognize

I do not believe it's right or desirable for a state to legislate what a church should do in this respect, but I cannot be comfortable with the government ignoring some families as if they don't count.

 

[raedyn]

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.

Fair enough. Many people feel this way. But if what that means to you is also "so gays, please keep it out of my face", I ask you to consider;

Do straight people keep it out of my face?
What about movies, TV ads, people walking down the street holding hands, kissing, talking graphically about sex at work, telling about their husbands/wives etc etc.
Straight people don't leave it at home, why should gay people?

I don't know if this is what you meant, so sorry if I misinterpreted, but I've often heard people that felt it wasn't homophobic to feel gay was okay as long as they didn't have to look at it. Of course, this is preferrable to someone that feels gays should be shot, but it still isn't equality.

Just something to think about?

 

[raedyn]

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?

Hey, interesting idea. I hadn't thought of it that way. But I feel I must point out, the idea of homosexuals being more promiscuous that heterosexuals is a myth.

And don't kid yourself, people. Just because the government doesn't give status to queer couples doesn't mean they aren't already having families!

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.

Exactly. Gay & lesbian people should be treated the same as everyone else. They shouldn't get special mention in laws at all. Nothing preventing them from adopting, from marrying, from engaging in consensual sexual acts, from teaching, from serving in the military - nothing special at all.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Anybody who voted for these Amendments, anybody who voted for Bush on the grounds that he would restore traditional morality to this country, here's your buddies. They may easily be found through a search for "godhatesfags."

**
Established in 1955 by Pastor Fred Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) of Topeka, Kansas still exists today as an Old School (or, Primitive) Baptist Church. See the WBC Monograph. In short, we adhere to the teachings of the Bible, preach against all form of sin (e.g., fornication, adultery, sodomy), and insist that the doctrines of grace be taught publicly to all men. These doctrines of grace were well summed up by John Calvin in his 5 points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Although these doctrines are almost universally hated today, they were once loved and believed. For example, Augustine (one of the early Church fathers), Martin Luther (the founder of the Lutheran Church), John Knox (the founder of the Presbyterian Church), Augustus Toplady (hymnist and leader in the Episcopal Church), Charles Spurgeon (a well-known preacher), and John Leland (who was partially responsible for our First Amendment in the United States) are just a few examples of people who have advanced these ideas. Please see The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination by Jerom Zanchius and our MEMO ON THE CHURCH. Most of the major Confessions of Faith throughout the history of the New Testament Church have also advanced these ideas. So, even though the Arminian lies that "God loves everyone" and "Jesus died for everyone" are being taught from nearly every pulpit in this generation, this hasn't always been the case. In fact, if you are in a Church that supposedly believes the Bible, and you are hearing these lies, then your church has apostatized. If you are interested in this subject, we encourage you to do some independent research on the history of the Church from Adam to now and, more importantly, we encourage you to carefully read the entire Bible.

WBC engages in daily peaceful sidewalk demonstrations opposing the homosexual lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth. We display large, colorful signs containing Bible words and sentiments, including: GOD HATES FAGS, FAGS HATE GOD, AIDS CURES FAGS, THANK GOD FOR AIDS, FAGS BURN IN HELL, GOD IS NOT MOCKED, FAGS ARE NATURE FREAKS, GOD GAVE FAGS UP, NO SPECIAL LAWS FOR FAGS, FAGS DOOM NATIONS, etc.

Perceiving the modern militant homosexual movement to pose a clear and present danger to the survival of America, exposing our nation to the wrath of God as in 1898 B.C. at Sodom and Gomorrah, WBC has conducted over 22,000 such demonstrations since June, 1991, at homosexual parades and other events (including funerals of impenitent sodomites, like Matthew Shepard). WBC teams have picketed all over the United States, and internationally (including Canada, Jordan and Iraq). The unique picketing ministry of Westboro Baptist Church has received international attention, and WBC believes this gospel message to be this world's last hope.

For more information about WBC, feel free to attend one of our weekly church meetings. We are located at 3701 W. 12th Street in Topeka, KS. Regular service time is 11:30 a.m. (Central time)


This...stuff, incidentally, is from today. Today. But there's no problem with it really, and no way in which this sort of doctrine has any impact upon, "normal," people.

Some will try to argue that this is merely an eccentric, marginal set of ideas with no ties to mainstream Republican thought. One recommends a stroll through the Internet.

The owner of the "Washington Times," a paper seen quoted repeatedly in these forums, agrees with this guy. "Pastors," like Jerry Falwell do.

So, before the next diatribe about John Kerry, the VVAW, and Jane Fonda...here's your buddies, O diatribers.

 

[TwistofFat]

67% of the Ohio voters - this covered both parties. Bush and Kerry voters alike supported this measure. If all R's voted Yes then at least 17% of D's and I's are on board. If someone can supply the percentages - formally count not exit polls - then the discsussion must move beyond the wing-nut fringes. This happened in 11 states not just Ohio.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Strictly speaking, "67% of the Ohio voters," means 67% of those who voted on this Amendment.

Is the argument that Bush supporters did not, and do not, overwhelmingly oppose gay rights, including the right to marriage and/or civil union?

Of course folks who voted Democratic may have voted for this shameful Proposition. All the more shame on them; at least if one is voting Republican and gay-bashing, these days, one is consistent.

One hopes that Republican voters are looking forward to the denial of civil liberties across the board--them homosexuals! those captives at Gitmo!! those dratted A-rab citizens!!! first them, then...

Have changed mind. Shouldn't re-read Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here." Should re-read, "Elmer Gantry."

Rather than the chest-thumping yahoos like Karl Rove who valued their boy's election so much that they thought it perfectly OK to whip up hatred in the interest of votes, let's hear it for the Doremus Jessups and Cass Timberlanes of the world, and all the many, many kindly folk who simply want to live and let live, who go to church and try to live a Christian life, who try to balance work and life and raising their kids in a hostile society run by the likes of John Ashcroft, and who would never, never hurt anybody.

 

[raedyn]

Strictly speaking, "67% of the Ohio voters," means 67% of those who voted on this Amendment.

agreed. good point.


I still wonder - and it was really my question when posting this thread - did the people who voted for this know the consequences it would have for straight people? I'm disappointed but not surprised that people would vote to keep those dirty homos down. But I AM suprised there would be this amount of support for a measure that affects families headed up by one mand and one woman that just haven't bothered (or don't want) to get married.

 

[Makalakumu]

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".

Where "good" means you do what you are told and "evil" is anything else...

 

[Makalakumu]

Are you all really that naive? Sure, these laws are bigoted examples of one religious group inflicting its narrowmindedness on others. But seriously, why should the Bush Administration REALLY care?

Because if you deny people the right to marry, and you deny people the right to civil unions, and if you deny life partners any alternative recognition for their relationship, then the REAL Bush base--no, not the few million fundamentalist Christians the Bushies duped--but BIG BUSINESS, doesn't have to provide benefits to their employees' partners. And that's what's REALLY important to the Bushies. Money, not Jesus. Bush said it himself: "You're my base. The haves and the have-mores."

Karl Rove estimates that there are 80 million conservative christian voters. Many stayed home in 2000 and they did their damnedest to get them out this time. So in a sense, big business is enslaving the so called "moral majority."

The money changers are in the church again...

 

[Makalakumu]

And my favorite, of course....

http://www.godhatesfags.com

This guy rewrote the bible to support his prejudice. How many times has this been done in the past? Can you be so sure that you are holding the "word of God" anymore?