Ohio Amendment

[Makalakumu]

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.

In the government's eyes, all marriages should be civil unions. If you are gay (or straight) and find a religion that will marry you, well, the more the merrier.

 

[Bester]

In the end, it doesn't matter what the "Will of The People" is.
I will bet that if you put a lines on the ballots that the following should be law, they would pass:
- Laws restricting minority access/rights in heavy white conservative areas.
- Laws restricting whites in heavy minority areas.
- Laws requiring children be removed from single parents

The purpose of the courts, these so called "Activist" judges, is to protect us, from ourselves.

If you tried to pass a law today that outlawed interracial marriage, it would fail as it is discriminatory. These "Anti-Gay" laws will eventually be overturned. It may take a while as I highly doubt that in todays uber-conservative Amerika that too many judges and justices have the balls to do what it right.

I say, lets legalize gay bashing. What "fag" ever did anything for this country right? While we are at it, lets reinstitutionalize slavery. I've always wanted a house slave. What else can we do? Right. Lets ban cross racial relationships, require the registration of all Arab and Jews (basically because they look too much alike), ban all Hispanics from holding office, and start deporting Asian because those slant eyed bastards just drag our IQ up and we don't need that now do we? Now, have I missed anyone? Oh Right! Once we get all that done, lets build fences and guard posts around all these Indian Reservations and add a $5 car toll to cross the borders on those people buying their cheap tax free cancer sticks and cheap gas. Our President doesn't know the meaning of the word "Sovernty", so we can just do it. Anyway, those dumb redskins lost anyway.

Now that I have managed to offend, well, everyone, pause for a moment.
What part of what I said offended you, and what part didn't?
It should all be offensive. If parts weren't, you might want to think for a moment on what is truly within your hearts.

Discrimination of any form, be it cultural, religious, gender, sexual orientation, or other should not be tolerated, accepted or legislated.

We eliminated slavery.
We eliminated racial and gender barriers to voting, and many other rights.
Profiling based on race/religion/etc is illegal.

So why is it supposedly right to discriminate against gays and deny them the right of happyness?

I for one will be watching for Mr. Bush's reaction to meeting Sir Elton John and his partner at an upcoming gathering.

 

[OUMoose]

In the end, it doesn't matter what the "Will of The People" is.
I will bet that if you put a lines on the ballots that the following should be law, they would pass:
- Laws restricting minority access/rights in heavy white conservative areas.
- Laws restricting whites in heavy minority areas.
- Laws requiring children be removed from single parents

The purpose of the courts, these so called "Activist" judges, is to protect us, from ourselves.

If you tried to pass a law today that outlawed interracial marriage, it would fail as it is discriminatory. These "Anti-Gay" laws will eventually be overturned. It may take a while as I highly doubt that in todays uber-conservative Amerika that too many judges and justices have the balls to do what it right.

I say, lets legalize gay bashing. What "fag" ever did anything for this country right? While we are at it, lets reinstitutionalize slavery. I've always wanted a house slave. What else can we do? Right. Lets ban cross racial relationships, require the registration of all Arab and Jews (basically because they look too much alike), ban all Hispanics from holding office, and start deporting Asian because those slant eyed bastards just drag our IQ up and we don't need that now do we? Now, have I missed anyone? Oh Right! Once we get all that done, lets build fences and guard posts around all these Indian Reservations and add a $5 car toll to cross the borders on those people buying their cheap tax free cancer sticks and cheap gas. Our President doesn't know the meaning of the word "Sovernty", so we can just do it. Anyway, those dumb redskins lost anyway.

Now that I have managed to offend, well, everyone, pause for a moment.
What part of what I said offended you, and what part didn't?
It should all be offensive. If parts weren't, you might want to think for a moment on what is truly within your hearts.

Discrimination of any form, be it cultural, religious, gender, sexual orientation, or other should not be tolerated, accepted or legislated.

We eliminated slavery.
We eliminated racial and gender barriers to voting, and many other rights.
Profiling based on race/religion/etc is illegal.

So why is it supposedly right to discriminate against gays and deny them the right of happyness?

I for one will be watching for Mr. Bush's reaction to meeting Sir Elton John and his partner at an upcoming gathering.

You forgot to remove women's right to vote and own land...

 

[raedyn]

Now that I have managed to offend, well, everyone, pause for a moment.
What part of what I said offended you, and what part didn't?
It should all be offensive. If parts weren't, you might want to think for a moment on what is truly within your hearts.

Nicely put.

I for one will be watching for Mr. Bush's reaction to meeting Sir Elton John and his partner at an upcoming gathering.

Particularly after Sir Elton John has declared that he would like to marry his Rocket Man, longtime life partner David Furnish in small intimate ceremony. (link)

 

[GAB]

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?

Upnorthyosa,

You have a very good point regarding (most of if not all zealots)
who use the bible to bring up something they are for or against.

Does this mean that the bible is good or bad? Depends on how you interpret it.:idunno: I know everytime I read these stories it only strengthens my position even further (freethinker, agnostic) I feel comfortable with that.

If you look at the old testement it is the history of a certain culture and there struggle for survival and finding the promised land, in the story (seen through many eyes) is all the good, bad and ugly, of what man will do to man (women included).

Now the new testement and the koran are both about one mans influence on the face of an already very controversial group of people. The reason I include the koran is because the peoples all go back to the same father who is in the old testement.

Now if you look at our culture we have a freedom of speech ammendment in our constitution, whether you like it or not it is for all to have the same rights.

We can agree to disagree, but we all have the right to an opinion and a right to live life in the pursuit of what the constitution gives us the right to do.

If you truly want a good life then just look no further than the constitution and its bill of rights. It is not perfect but I believe it is better then the bible.

These are the things man and women are dying for as we speak.

Is that ok? for some no, but for others yes.

Personally I am very happy when the populace that does vote is very close to being the same amount on one side or the other, it is when you get to the 2/3 rd is when it bothers me...Now you will see the unjust begin.

Regards, Gary

 

[Bester]

Rewriting the Bible to suit ones needs?
Never. Why, let me quote from the scripture here:

Gen 3:20 Adam named his wife Steve, because he would become the father of all the living.
Gen 4:1 Adam lay with his wife Steve, and he became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. He said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."

See, they do have gay relationships in the Bible.

 

[Xequat]

Nice, Bester...I don't remember that sermon from church, but it sounds about right to me, heh. Come to think of it, if we're going to use the Bible to regulate ourselves, I think we should take the entire Bible and not just parts that are convenient for the timely argument. For example, the Bible endorses stoning wives to death for adultery. Well, it's in the Bible, so I guess we should do it. Seriously, you can't legitmately take part of it and use the fact that it's in the Bible as justification and then not use another part.

 

[Bester]

You mean, like, read the "Whole" book?

I don't have time for that. I have to pick up my white sheet from the drycleaner, unchain my barefoot wife so she can make dinner (It's getting harder for her to get around, being pregnant and all), and still have to complain to my local government about that pagan couple down the block who had the audacity to hold a Samhain celebration on Satans Candy Day, those heathens.





- Note to those without a clue - That was S-A-R-C-A-S-M.

 

[Cruentus]

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?

They care because they use this narrowmindedness to get people to vote for them.

So yes...I must be niave....

 

[Cruentus]

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.

Naw...it's not fundamentalist driven at all....It's not money oriented either (considering all the insurance claims that now get to be denied under the new initiative).

 

[Cruentus]

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.

For the record, yes, there are many consequences on straight marriage with these laws as well.

And for the record, I voted against the gay marriage ban, and I am for Civil Unions for consenting adults, gay or straight.

 

[Xequat]

To back up a little bit, how does the amendment affect heterosexual marriages? I don't see anything in the text of the referendum that says anything about commonlaw marriage or any other "straight" marriage. Just curious.

 

[Bester]

The narrow parameters exclude all but what is included.

 

[raedyn]

from the text of the amendment;

shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals

that would mean no recognition for common law couples.

 

[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...

Cheers,

Ryan

Ryan,

The thread is mostly dead, but I came up with another link you might want to check out concerning past discrimination against Gays:

http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/introduction.htm

In my state of Indiana sodomy was a crime punishable by death at one time in accordance with English Common Law.

This also from the web site:

In an amazing case from 1944, Spence v. Dowd,38 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sternly ordered lower courts to review the case of a man who had been arrested on a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He had been denied an opportunity to consult an attorney, then charged with sodomy, never informed against or indicted, tried without an attorney, and denied the right to prepare his defense. After six years in prison, he had filed for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied summarily without a hearing.39 The Indiana state courts and federal trial court consistently had refused to hear Spence’s claims. Judge Otto Kerner of the Seventh Circuit said that Spence "is entitled to be heard. The District Court should have inquired into and specifically found the facts." The case was remanded with instructions to hear Spence’s case.

Interesting how some of these laws affected heterosexuals as well. In Alabama a person could be castrated for being a sadist, a masochist, a sexual pervert or for indulging in any other "grave" form of sexual perversion. Versions of sterilization were practiced in other states as well. One young girl was sterilized here in Indiana for having loose morals.

An dramatic scene in the movie "Kinsey" has him interviewing a young man that was branded by his brothers for being Gay. Don't know whether the scene is based on fact or not.


Regards,


Steve

 

[lvwhitebir]

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.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Thanks for reminding me. If you voted for Bush you're the devil incarnate. I gotta remember that.

There are fringes on just about every belief. It doesn't mean that if you belong to a particular political party or voted a certain way that you necessarily harbor every opinion by that side.

Don't combine the two (voting for Bush and voting for the amendment). They are separate issues. It's like saying if you voted for Kerry you voted for killing unborn babies.

I'm frankly sadened that the Ohio issue passed. I agree that the church is responsible for "marriage" and the state for "civil unions." But the majority spoke and we either wait until the majority changes it or it's found to be unconstitutional. Blaming political parties or which president you voted for is rediculous.

WhiteBirch

 

[OUMoose]

There are fringes on just about every belief. It doesn't mean that if you belong to a particular political party or voted a certain way that you necessarily harbor every opinion by that side.

Until we can have multiple candidates in office and have "line item voting", this blame is going to exist. Someone may not agree with everything a candidate stands for, but the vote for that candidate is an acknowledgment that you will take the good with the bad, and that you think the pro's outweigh the con's.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Until we can have multiple candidates in office and have "line item voting", this blame is going to exist.

We do have multiple candidates, although we have too strong of a two party system. I was surprised by the extra candidates that were on the ballot that I'd never heard of.

I don't think the blame should exist at all. I will never have 100% exactly the same beliefs, experiences, and priorities of someone else. Just because I belong to a group or agree with a part of what a group believes doesn't mean I believe in everything they believe. That's what makes us human.

The Catholic church doesn't believe in abortion at all, but how many American Catholics disagree?

Someone may not agree with everything a candidate stands for, but the vote for that candidate is an acknowledgment that you will take the good with the bad, and that you think the pro's outweigh the con's.

It doesn't mean I'll "take the good with the bad" simply because I'm not voting for a dictator that gets his way on everything once he's in office. It means that we'll use the checks and balances our government has in place to ensure that the "bad" (as defined by the majority) is held in check. I agree that it does mean that I think the pros outweigh the cons.

WhiteBirch

 

[jfarnsworth]

I don't know if you both were receiving phone calls about this issue but the ones I had were very misleading. Some said if you vote yes this, this, and this will happen. If you vote no then it's subject to change due to the wording of the amendment :idunno: . Then I somewhat heard the opposite from the other cantidate's office. Who were we supposed to believe :idunno: ? How do you sort through who was telling the truth and who wasn't? I was frustrated towards the end and was definately tired of the phone calls.
:asian:

 

[OUMoose]

We do have multiple candidates, although we have too strong of a two party system. I was surprised by the extra candidates that were on the ballot that I'd never heard of.

That's not exactly what I meant. What I was saying was unless we could have multiple offices (meaning Bush AND Kerry for example as president), as you could vote for Bush's stance on crime, but Kerry's foreign policy, there will always be problems.

I don't think the blame should exist at all. I will never have 100% exactly the same beliefs, experiences, and priorities of someone else. Just because I belong to a group or agree with a part of what a group believes doesn't mean I believe in everything they believe. That's what makes us human.

That is true, and I agree with you. Unfortunately the majority of the populous that I've noticed has a "with us or against us" attitude, which is echoed from our President. There is no grey, only black and white (no, I'm NOT trying to bring race into this, before someone says it).

The Catholic church doesn't believe in abortion at all, but how many American Catholics disagree?

Probably not that many, since birth control and abortion are looked negatively upon based on their tenents, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

It doesn't mean I'll "take the good with the bad" simply because I'm not voting for a dictator that gets his way on everything once he's in office. It means that we'll use the checks and balances our government has in place to ensure that the "bad" (as defined by the majority) is held in check. I agree that it does mean that I think the pros outweigh the cons.

The checks and balances will only work if we as a people stand up to exercise them. If we don't like something, we have to voice it to our representatives. Whether they do something about it is questionable, but if they don't, they get ousted for someone that will.