PDA

View Full Version : Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2



FrenchD1
10-20-2004, 09:40 PM
[This post is merely informational and my opinion, it's not designed to make anybody mad at me b/c I know this is a touchy subject]

For those living in Ohio, on November 2, we will be voting on something very important and a lot of people are unaware of it because it's getting overshadowed by the Presidential race.

Issue 1 is for a proposed amendment to the state constitution which reads like this:
"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."

Passage of this amendment would take Ohio down the wrong road. Not only would it ban marriages, but also civil unions, and any priveliges for homosexual couples. Besides my own personal view that I have no problems with gay marriage, you can't legislate discrimination and this amendment would be doing that as well as hurting Ohio's economy which is something that doesn't really need to happen.

The passage of the amendment would kill years of social progress. Whether you're for or against gay marriage, I don't think Ohio can afford to let this pass.

Sorry I don't usually post things like this but I think it's important and needs to be talked about.

Chip R
10-20-2004, 09:44 PM
You are going to owe TeamCasey a lot of M&Ms.

letsgojunior
10-20-2004, 09:45 PM
I think I am going to go hide in Fantasy Island until Election Day.

RBA
10-20-2004, 09:53 PM
I think even the Cincinnati Enquirer said to vote this down. :eek:

WVRed
10-20-2004, 09:58 PM
Besides my own personal view that I have no problems with gay marriage, you can't legislate discrimination and this amendment would be doing that as well as hurting Ohio's economy which is something that doesn't really need to happen.

I've heard the opposite of gay marriage effecting the economy. Just curious how it would hurt the economy if homosexuals were not allowed to marry.

In a divided state like Ohio, who knows whether this will pass or not. It would be twice as likely to pass in West Virginia and practically a lock to pass in Kentucky.

RBA
10-20-2004, 10:00 PM
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Why we are opposed to Ohio Issue 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial


Ohio state Issue 1 is an unnecessary attempt to use the state constitution to ban something already prohibited by law. It would restrict the state's ability to attract new business and new employees and could interfere with the benefits employers offer employees. We oppose its passage.

Billed as an amendment to protect the concept that marriage is between one man and one woman, Issue 1 is poorly written and overly broad. It would go far beyond prohibiting same-sex marriage, opening a Pandora's box of potential litigation over the legal status of all sorts of relationships.

The ballot language forbids the state or any of its political subdivisions from recognizing unmarried relationships that intend "to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." Gov. Bob Taft, who came out against the amendment Tuesday, said that ambiguous sentence could have as many interpretations "as there are judges in the state of Ohio." He's right. If passed, the amendment could have consequences for any two people living together, no matter what their relationship might be.

Sens. Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, and Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro join Taft in opposing the amendment. Several of the state's largest employers have come out against it, including Nationwide Insurance and The Limited Group. AARP is opposed, as is Ohio State University, the League of Women Voters and the AFL-CIO.

Ohio already has a law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed last February.

The real impact of Issue 1 would be on people in relationships that are legal under DOMA. This includes people who live together, but choose not to marry for any number of reasons. Issue 1 could prevent them from being able to give each other legal control over their health care, pension benefits or other assets. Public employers could not offer family health insurance benefits to those who are not in traditional families.

Ohio should be working to develop a reputation that is open and welcoming. We want to be able to attract as diverse and talented a work force as possible. Issue 1 closes a door on those efforts.

RosieRed
10-20-2004, 11:52 PM
This is an important issue. Thanks for posting about it FrenchD1.

For those of us in Cincinnati, another item on the ballot will be voting for or against the repeal of Article XII -- the city charter amendment that bans any laws that would protect gays and lesbians.

TeamCasey
10-21-2004, 06:46 AM
To me it's a no-brainer. No to issue 1, Yes to the repeal of Article XII.

Legitimizing discrimination is wrong. You'd think as a nation we'd have gotten that by now. We can't seem to learn from our own history.

:) M&Ms from FrenchD1 too? I'll be rolling in those bad boys.

GAC
10-21-2004, 09:59 AM
According to most polls taken here in Ohio (one from the Columbus Dispatch, which I read this past weekend), this issue will pass.

RBA
10-21-2004, 10:01 AM
Looks like it's one of those issues put on the ballot to bring out Bush's base.

zombie-a-go-go
10-21-2004, 10:09 AM
To me it's a no-brainer. No to issue 1, Yes to the repeal of Article XII.

Legitimizing discrimination is wrong. You'd think as a nation we'd have gotten that by now. We can't seem to learn from our own history.

Some people are too dumb to learn.

WVRed
10-21-2004, 10:12 AM
Looks like it's one of those issues put on the ballot to bring out Bush's base.

:thumbup:

Red Heeler
10-21-2004, 12:29 PM
United States Constitution; 14th Amendment, Article 1:


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The proposed Ohio law doesn't stand a snowballs chance in Hades of staying on the books. Nor should it.

RedFanAlways1966
10-21-2004, 12:29 PM
Some people are too dumb to learn.

Your words or Teresa Heinz-Kerry's? :mhcky21:

smith288
10-21-2004, 12:37 PM
Remember now, Republicans vote on Nov 2 and Democrats vote on Nov 3rd

;)

(ps. If you fall for it, then you probably shouldnt vote anyways :D )

traderumor
10-21-2004, 01:40 PM
Here's an editorial from my hometown newspaper as well:

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/news/stories/20041021/opinion/1454287.htmlIssue
1 will cause more harm than good


E D I T O R I A L

Today's topic

Issue 1 goes far beyond preventing gay marriage and limits the rights of many other groups.

Issue 1, a proposed amendment to Ohio's Constitution aimed at protecting traditional families by banning gay marriages, will hurt the very groups it's trying to serve.

We don't advocate the legality of gay marriage in Ohio. We believe the historic institution of marriage is still one man and one woman. But we see far too many pitfalls going forward if Issue 1 is approved as it's written.

First, we're fundamentally opposed to changing Ohio's Constitution over the social issue of the day. The constitution establishes how we govern our state, not the laws that dictate how we carry out our lives.

Furthermore, Issue 1 will eliminate rights, benefits and protections for all unmarried couples in Ohio and make our state one of the most restrictive in the nation.

Even many of the people who supported the Defense of Marriage Act -- including top Republicans -- say this amendment, placed on the ballot by initiative petition, is poorly written and too ambiguous.

While claiming to protect Ohio's families, opponents say Issue 1 actually will hurt senior citizens living together to protect pension benefits and unmarried couples seeking to jointly own property. It will also be bad for those who receive health benefits from domestic partner plans, unmarried women seeking maternity leave and adoptive children of unmarried couples.

Even if you don't support an individual's right to choose their own lifestyle, then consider the damage Issue 1 would inflict on the state's economy.

Crain's Cleveland Business publication said, "The ability to offer such (domestic partner benefits) is a critical tool to many companies and universities in Ohio ... Regardless of your feelings about gay marriage, this amendment deserves to be defeated because it is anti-business and anti-competitive."

This is a hot-button issue in Ohio and around the country these days. There is raw emotion on both sides.

But when you get past that emotion and look at the facts surrounding Issue 1, you will see it's not the right time to amend Ohio's Constitution over a social issue.

We urge your "no" vote on Issue 1 Nov. 2.

Email this story

Get home delivery of The Advocate for just $12.35/month.

Originally published Thursday, October 21, 2004

FrenchD1
10-21-2004, 01:44 PM
Thanks for posting that editorial. I don't live in Cincinnati so I wont be voting on Article XII, but I do think it's also a very important issue and should be repealed. They were talking about it on CNN last night and they seemed to look down on Cincinnati for being so behind the times.

RedFanAlways1966
10-21-2004, 03:09 PM
My freshman year in college... I decide to attend a Young Republicans Club meeting. The first meeting that I attend on campus is about nothing but stopping homosexuals from getting "special privileges". The mood of the meeting was angry and made me uncomfortable.

Instead of blindly following these people, I stopped and thought about it. What have gay people done or what do they get that causes my life to be any different? Well it took less time to think about the answer than it did to ask myself the question... nothing. Needless to say I did not attend another one of these meetings and did not officially join (as they begged me to become a member of their little hate-club).

GAC
10-21-2004, 08:22 PM
Looks like it's one of those issues put on the ballot to bring out Bush's base.

Looking at the numbers so far, it's not just Bush's base that are voting for it, and supporting it. ;)

BuckeyeRed27
10-21-2004, 08:34 PM
This is one of those things that I completely fail to understand. Why can't gay people get married? Are they hurting anyone?

I'm on the crew team at Ohio State and one of my teammates (and one of our team elected captains this year) is gay. We were talking about this issue the other night and he told me that the only thing he cares about is if his boyfriend was dying in the hospital that he could be there with him. I think its completely ridiculous that would be withheld from someone because of their sexual orientation.

zombie-a-go-go
10-22-2004, 09:20 AM
Instead of blindly following these people, I stopped and thought about it. What have gay people done or what do they get that causes my life to be any different? Well it took less time to think about the answer than it did to ask myself the question... nothing.

:gac:
:gac:
:gac:

WVRed
11-02-2004, 10:10 PM
Sorry to bump this thread back up, but I thought it was better than the Gay Marriage Amendments Expected to Pass thread.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_el_st_lo/eln_gay_marriage_5

Ga., Ky., Ohio Vote Against Gay Marriage

2 hours, 16 minutes ago

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

Voters in Georgia, Kentucky and Ohio approved constitutional amendments Tuesday to ban same-sex marriage, with similar results expected in most of the eight other states considering such measures.


AP Photo



Early results made clear the amendments would, as expected, win easy approval. Exit polls showed the ban winning by 3-to-1 in Georgia and 3-to-2 in Ohio, while the Kentucky amendment had 64 percent support in early returns.


The Ohio measure, considered the broadest of the 11 because it barred any legal status that "intends to approximate marriage," gathered equal support from men and women, blacks and whites.


In Georgia, gay-rights activists immediately announced they would mount a court challenge of their state's amendment. But supporters of the ban were jubilant.


"I've said all along that this crossed party lines, color lines and socio-economic lines," said Sadie Fields of the Georgia Christian Coalition. "The people in this state realized that we're talking about the future of our country here."


Conservatives hoped the amendments would prevail in all 11 states, sending a signal that the American public disapproved of gay marriage. National and local gay-rights groups campaigned vigorously in Oregon, where polls showed a close race, and in a few other states to try to prevent a sweep.


None of the 11 states allows gay marriage now, though officials in Portland, Ore., married more than 3,000 same-sex couples last year before a judge halted the practice. Supporters of the amendments contend the measures are needed as an extra guard against state court rulings like the one in Massachusetts a year ago that legalized same-sex marriage there.


The proposed amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marriage, specifying that it should be limited to unions of one man and one woman. The measures in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah would ban civil unions as well.


In most cases, those additional provisions generated extra controversy. Some prominent Republican politicians and GOP-leaning newspapers, while stressing that they opposed gay marriage, spoke out against the amendments on grounds that the measures might prevent the extension of even very limited partnership rights to unmarried gay and straight couples.


In five of the states, legislators placed the proposed amendments on the ballots, while in the six others Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon the measures were advanced by conservative, church-backed citizens groups that collected signatures on petitions.


Many gay-rights activists and their allies depicted some of the petition drives as a divisive, GOP-backed tactic to boost conservative turnout on Election Day in crucial battleground states like Ohio and Michigan.


Already this year, voters in Missouri and Louisiana have weighed in on the issue, with gay-marriage-ban amendments winning more than 70 percent of the vote in both states.


Louisiana's amendment was later struck down in state court on the ground that it improperly dealt with more than one subject by banning not only same-sex marriage but also any legal recognition of common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions. The court challenge in Georgia involves a similar argument.


Even if all 11 amendments were approved, the debate would rage on. Conservatives say they will continue to press for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, on the premise that even toughly worded bans in state constitutions could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites).


Gay-rights activists, meanwhile, will continue pressing marriage-rights lawsuits in states like Oregon, California and New Jersey, where they believe the high courts might eventually rule in their favor.

RosieRed
11-02-2004, 10:42 PM
Discrimination makes me sad. :(

savafan
11-03-2004, 01:49 AM
Can't the governor repeal this?

Ravenlord
11-03-2004, 01:52 AM
Can't the governor repeal this?
i don't think so because it's a voted on issue. the Ohio Supreme Court could over turn.

though i think homosexuality is immoral, this should be repealed (more truthfully, it should be a total non-issue).

creek14
11-03-2004, 06:10 AM
Can't the governor repeal this?
Like that guy would repeal anything like this even if he could.

You'd think that by 2004 people wouldn't be so closed-minded (I think I just made up a word).

GAC
11-03-2004, 08:26 AM
Can't the governor repeal this?

Maybe. But then he'd be shooting himself in the foot with the majority of Ohians who voted in favor of the issue.

zombie-a-go-go
11-03-2004, 09:04 AM
Discrimination makes me sad. :(

Ditto.

REDREAD
11-03-2004, 09:20 AM
The proposed Ohio law doesn't stand a snowballs chance in Hades of staying on the books. Nor should it.

I really don't want to step into this, but how does this apply?

This law is a nonissue. Companies and probably the state of Ohio will still continue to offer benefits for gay couples.

WVRed
11-03-2004, 09:24 AM
I give it two years before activist judges rule this unconstitutional.

Chip R
11-03-2004, 09:25 AM
I really don't want to step into this, but how does this apply?

This law is a nonissue. Companies and probably the state of Ohio will still continue to offer benefits for gay couples.
Private companies perhaps but I would think this amendment would be able to legally prevent the state of Ohio to offer benefits to same sex couples as well as non-married couples.

GAC
11-03-2004, 10:05 AM
And nothing makes a bigot happier than taking the right to the pursuit of happiness away from a fellow countryman.

C'mon zombie...on the election day thread you said nothing causes more hurt feelings then either gloating or calling the "other side" (those who ideologically disagree) names. Yet I'm seeing some name calling and labels put on those in this country that happen to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, want to protect/define the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and did so at the polls.

Just say you disagree, and lets cut out the name calling on this particular issue.

zombie-a-go-go
11-03-2004, 10:11 AM
C'mon zombie...on the election day thread you said nothing causes more hurt feelings then either gloating or calling the "other side" (those who ideologically disagree) names. Yet I'm seeing some name calling and labels put on those in this country that happen to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, want to protect/define the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and did so at the polls.

Just say you disagree, and lets cut out the name calling on this particular issue.

You're right. I have to move past my issues as well. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll remove that post.

GAC
11-03-2004, 10:18 AM
You're right. I have to move past my issues as well. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll remove that post.

No. I am not asking you to remove the post. I have to much respect for you. I've gotten to know you from going to games with you. As an "old fart" you're like that son I'm glad I never had (just kiddin ;) ).

Everyone has a right on this forum to express their opinion. We just need to find a way to move past the labels and name calling, even when we disagree.

And I can point the finger at myself just as much.

The issue of homosexuality has become a touchy and divisive issue in this country. For me, even though I thoroughly disagree with the lifestyle, I have always made it a point to NOT use labels or derogatroy language towards either homosexuals, or those who disagree with me on this issue.

P.S.- and no you can't date my daughter! :allovrjr:

Bob Borkowski
11-03-2004, 10:20 AM
C'mon zombie...on the election day thread you said nothing causes more hurt feelings then either gloating or calling the "other side" (those who ideologically disagree) names. Yet I'm seeing some name calling and labels put on those in this country that happen to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, want to protect/define the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and did so at the polls.

Just say you disagree, and lets cut out the name calling on this particular issue.


GAC beat me to the punch on this one. I was also going to mention Zombie's comment in post #11 that "Some people are too dumb too learn".

Rare indeed is the conflict of any kind that does not have 2 legitimate sides to it. If any of us are unable to be empathatic, to put ourselves in the other guys shoes in order to better understand his or her stand, we are being myopic and it degrades our own position, imo.

Name calling on either side is unnecessary.

GAC
11-03-2004, 10:24 AM
As a Christian, there is one situation/analogy that involved Jesus that I use to apply to alot of issues/situations today, including homosexuality. It was when he confronted the men wanting to stone the prostitute in the Gospel of John, and asked Jesus' input in order to somehow trap him. I put the homosexual or whoever (fill in the blank) in the situation of that woman. It taught me a valuable lesson years ago.

Unassisted
11-03-2004, 10:28 AM
The GOP could have called this issue the "Get out the Conservative base" Issue, because there was no particular urgency to get it on the ballot in any state. As I said in another thread, this one is Karl Rove's brainchild. Whether you agree with it or whether it stands up in court is beside the point. This was about getting out the vote and for that goal, it seems to have been successful.

letsgojunior
11-03-2004, 10:32 AM
Bob that line is so good that I'm making it my sig if you don't mind.

GAC
11-03-2004, 10:53 AM
GAC beat me to the punch on this one. I was also going to mention Zombie's comment in post #11 that "Some people are too dumb too learn".

Rare indeed is the conflict of any kind that does not have 2 legitimate sides to it. If any of us are unable to be empathatic, to put ourselves in the other guys shoes in order to better understand his or her stand, we are being myopic and it degrades our own position, imo.

Name calling on either side is unnecessary.

Has anyone ever called you wise? If not, I just did. :)

MWM
11-03-2004, 11:00 AM
Bob that line is so good that I'm making it my sig if you don't mind.

I agree and was thinking the same thing. Its one of the wisest things ever said on the non-BB forum. Thanks Bob.

letsgojunior
11-03-2004, 11:05 AM
Yup - it's so true as well. So many friends and relatives I love voted a different way in this election than I did. But I understand that they have different backgrounds/experiences than me. I really think empathy and understanding should be in full force this morning, but instead all we're getting is hatred, pouting, and gloating. :thumbdown

Bob Borkowski
11-03-2004, 11:17 AM
Has anyone ever called you wise? If not, I just did. :)


A wiseacre maybe. :)

Bob Borkowski
11-03-2004, 11:20 AM
Bob that line is so good that I'm making it my sig if you don't mind.


Wow, I've never been quoted before. Makes me wish I'd spelled 'empathetic' correctly. :)

Ravenlord
11-03-2004, 11:37 AM
I give it two years before activist judges rule this unconstitutional.
as well they should.

Ravenlord
11-03-2004, 11:40 AM
:MandJ:
Wow, I've never been quoted before. Makes me wish I'd spelled 'empathetic' correctly. :)

Red Heeler
11-03-2004, 11:47 AM
I give it two years before activist judges rule this unconstitutional.

Whether or not you consider them activist judges, they should strike this down as unconstitutional. It is.

Once again, U.S. Constitution; 14th Amendment:


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unassisted
11-03-2004, 12:10 PM
As I thought about it some more today, I realized that this was probably designed as a "flanking" issue, designed to shore up the right flank and ensure that the right still got themselves out to the polls in the event that the President had the need to move left for the general election. When Dole ran against Clinton in '96, many on the right sat on their hands because they weren't inspired to vote for the more moderate Dole.

Traditionally, candidates do move toward the center for general elections, but I don't want to open that can of worms and debate about who moved the farthest after the primaries.

REDREAD
11-03-2004, 02:42 PM
Private companies perhaps but I would think this amendment would be able to legally prevent the state of Ohio to offer benefits to same sex couples as well as non-married couples.

I obviously don't know the legalities of this, but what's to prevent the state from offering benefits to a partner? Isn't that how it works now, you could designate a "domestic partner".. I mean, technically if you were single, you could list the guy who mows your lawn or whatever. I don't think any proof or documentation is required.. I'm married, so obviously I don't know the paperwork needed.

But I don't see how this law will really change the status quo much, other than official recognition.

The opponents of this bill claimed it would prevent someone from seeing a dying companion in the hospital.. well, they can get the hospital rules to change.

I mean, step back from the morality side of this (I don't want to start that arguement).. This law isn't going to hinder anything.

letsgojunior
11-03-2004, 02:43 PM
Not to worry - I fixed the spelling in my sig ;)

savafan
11-03-2004, 02:50 PM
Even my parents, who are two of the most conservative people you'd ever meet, voted against this simply because they didn't like the way it was worded.

Chip R
11-03-2004, 02:52 PM
I obviously don't know the legalities of this, but what's to prevent the state from offering benefits to a partner? Isn't that how it works now, you could designate a "domestic partner".. I mean, technically if you were single, you could list the guy who mows your lawn or whatever. I don't think any proof or documentation is required.. I'm married, so obviously I don't know the paperwork needed.

But I don't see how this law will really change the status quo much, other than official recognition.

The opponents of this bill claimed it would prevent someone from seeing a dying companion in the hospital.. well, they can get the hospital rules to change.

I mean, step back from the morality side of this (I don't want to start that arguement).. This law isn't going to hinder anything.I don't think it would prevent the state from doing it. What it would do, I believe, is offer them protection from being required to offer those benefits. If an unmarried couple - regardless of sexual orientation - sues for coverage, the state can say, "Our hands are tied. It's in the constitution that we don't have to recognize that couple as married and since they aren't married, they don't get the same benefits as a married couple would."

savafan
11-03-2004, 02:59 PM
Okay, I'm not in favor of laws giving gays special rights, but what exactly is the problem with giving them equal rights?

And I don't buy the notion of where would it end, a man wanting to marry his own dog? The dog cannot tell the clerk when picking up the marriage license that it is entering into this of it's own free will. The dog cannot say the vows at the ceremony. The dog does not have the concept of free will and thought, but two people do.

RosieRed
11-03-2004, 03:19 PM
Okay, I'm not in favor of laws giving gays special rights, but what exactly is the problem with giving them equal rights?

I don't know what the problem is with that. I have tried to understand why some people are so against it, I really have. But I still don't understand.

I just wrote a tough e-mail to a great friend of mine, who is gay, and is travelling around Europe right now. It's really hard to find a way to say "I'm so sorry that the state you were born in, grew up and went to college in (Ohio) has amended its constitution to make sure that not only can you never get married here, you can't even have a legal 'civil union' here. Ever." I hate that my state has decided this. I hate having to feel like I've let her down, even though I know logically that I haven't. I hate knowing that some people and some laws treat her like she's not a normal citizen of this country.

I can't even imagine what it must feel like to know that so many people voted against you.

WVRed
11-03-2004, 03:19 PM
And I don't buy the notion of where would it end, a man wanting to marry his own dog? The dog cannot tell the clerk when picking up the marriage license that it is entering into this of it's own free will. The dog cannot say the vows at the ceremony. The dog does not have the concept of free will and thought, but two people do.

Tell that to PETA;)

Redsland
11-03-2004, 03:26 PM
And I don't buy the notion of where would it end, a man wanting to marry his own dog? The dog cannot tell the clerk when picking up the marriage license that it is entering into this of it's own free will. The dog cannot say the vows at the ceremony.
That's why I'm a parrot person.

:mhcky21:

traderumor
11-03-2004, 04:08 PM
I can't even imagine what it must feel like to know that so many people voted against you.Maybe it will make some folks stop and think if that many people still think it's wrong, that maybe they might have some very legitimate reasons why they believe that way other than "fear" or self-righteousness.

WVRed
11-03-2004, 04:22 PM
Mark it down, 2006 will be crucial for the Senate and Supreme Court. Im not sure which seats are up, but since 1996, Republicans have been making gains in the Senate. If there are more seats added and justices pass on or retire, we could see the Republicans adding conservative Supreme Court justices that could rule for them on gay marriage and even Roe vs Wade.

Scary thought.

Red Heeler
11-03-2004, 06:02 PM
Maybe it will make some folks stop and think if that many people still think it's wrong, that maybe they might have some very legitimate reasons why they believe that way other than "fear" or self-righteousness.

Exactly which legitimate reasons would that be?

traderumor
11-03-2004, 08:45 PM
Exactly which legitimate reasons would that be?
You're welcome to a search, I've said plenty on this issue and I'm not going into it all over again.

GAC
11-03-2004, 11:14 PM
Okay, I'm not in favor of laws giving gays special rights, but what exactly is the problem with giving them equal rights?

With the exception of being able to "marry", show where a homosexual does not have equal rights in most every area of our society?

In the Ohio amendment that just passed, and in the other states that had them too, no where does it say that it's against the law to offer same-sex couples benefits, discriminate in hiring, etc.

Some say that the gov't, and companies within the private sector, say you have to be "married" in order to be eligible for that spouses/partner's benefits.

Is that still true, or has it been rapidly changing?

MWM
11-03-2004, 11:17 PM
With the exception of being able to "marry", show where a homosexual does not have equal rights in most every area of our society?

GAC, I think you answered your own question. Why should there be ANY "exceptions"?

RosieRed
11-04-2004, 12:17 AM
With the exception of being able to "marry", show where a homosexual does not have equal rights in most every area of our society?

In the Ohio amendment that just passed, and in the other states that had them too, no where does it say that it's against the law to offer same-sex couples benefits, discriminate in hiring, etc.

Some say that the gov't, and companies within the private sector, say you have to be "married" in order to be eligible for that spouses/partner's benefits.

Is that still true, or has it been rapidly changing?


One example in Ohio, from this article (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/10092058.htm?1c):


The amendments drafters said only that it would stop government bodies, including the eight public four-year universities, from offering such benefits in the future.

Ohio State, Miami, Cleveland State and Youngstown State universities already offer insurance to their employees' same-sex partners, and some extend other benefits such as free tuition. The schools will confer on how it may affect them, said Ron Cole, spokesman for Youngstown State, which approved the benefits just last week.

savafan
11-05-2004, 05:16 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=101&e=16&u=/po/oklacouplessueovergaymarriageban

Jen Christensen, PlanetOut Network

SUMMARY: Two lesbian couples in Oklahoma have filed a federal lawsuit that will take on the Defense of Marriage Act and the new anti-gay marriage amendment to the state Constitution.



Two lesbian couples in Oklahoma have filed a federal lawsuit that will take on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the new anti-gay marriage amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution.

Oklahoma was one of 11 states to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment into its state constitution in Tuesday's general election. The Oklahoma amendment defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman; it prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not legally married; and it denies recognition of the legal marriages or civil unions gay couples may have had in other states. The amendment also makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

The lawsuit challenges the amendment, as it denies the couple's liberty and property rights without due process as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit also states that DOMA violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it prohibits the federal government from recognizing the privileges, immunities and rights that couples should be entitled to with a legal civil union.

One of the attorneys for the couples involved in the case, Kay Bridger-Riley, said she has been working for four to five months with the ACLU and several other groups to put together some kind of lawsuit that would challenge the potential amendment. The groups decided to wait until the amendment passed into law to file the lawsuit.

The anti-gay marriage amendment passed with overwhelming voter support. According to the Oklahoma Board of Elections, 75.59 percent of Oklahoma voters said yes to Question 711, the anti-gay marriage amendment. The couples filed their case with the U.S. District Court in Tulsa the day after the election.

"We are excited about this case," said Bridger-Riley. "These are two of the most wonderful couples you'd ever meet -- they deserve the same rights and protections every one else has with a legal marriage."

One couple, Susan G. Barton and Gay E. Phillips from Tulsa, celebrated a legal civil union in Vermont in 2001. The other couple, Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin from Broken Arrow, Okla., have been living in a committed relationship for eight years. They had a commitment ceremony four years ago. To provide legal protection for each other, Bishop and Baldwin have spent almost $1,300 on legal fees to cover wills and power of attorney arrangements -- rights that would been automatic if their state saw their union as legal. Both have made every effort to make their relationships legal, according to attorney Bridger-Riley.

Oklahoma's is just one of many lawsuits expected to challenge the new anti-gay marriage amendments. The ACLU said it will file a lawsuit against Georgia's amendment as soon as election results are approved there.

There is already a case in the state courts challenging Louisiana's constitutional amendment and one in Nebraska challenging an amendment passed there in 2000. There is no known deadline for the courts to hear the case in Oklahoma, but it could be sometime early next year.

Steve4192
11-05-2004, 05:30 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=101&e=16&u=/po/oklacouplessueovergaymarriageban
SUMMARY: Two lesbian couples in Oklahoma have filed a federal lawsuit that will take on the Defense of Marriage Act and the new anti-gay marriage amendment to the state Constitution.
Good for them. This is one Bush-voter that hopes they win.

Red Heeler
11-05-2004, 05:31 PM
Well, that didn't take long. Of course, I didn't think it would. The Oklahoma and Ohio laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

Conspiracy theory time, now. Supporters of an anti-homosexual U.S. Constitutional Amendment have to know that there is no way, right now, that they can get enough votes to ratify the Amendment.

What to do?

Push a bunch of state laws/amendments that will play on the general public's prejudice against homosexuals, knowing full well that they are un-Constitutional. When such laws are struck down by the "liberal" courts, then you have the backing for a national Amendment.

Steve4192
11-05-2004, 05:35 PM
Conspiracy theory time, now. ... Push a bunch of state laws/amendments that will play on the general public's prejudice against homosexuals, knowing full well that they are un-Constitutional. When such laws are struck down by the "liberal" courts, then you have the backing for a national Amendment.
Nah. I think these issues were on the ballot in order to ensure the ultra-conservative wing of the GOP showed up in droves. I don't think anyone in at GOP headquarters will lose a wink of sleep if every last one of these ammendments gets overturned.

Red Heeler
11-05-2004, 05:51 PM
Nah. I think these issues were on the ballot in order to ensure the ultra-conservative wing of the GOP showed up in droves. I don't think anyone in at GOP headquarters will lose a wink of sleep if every last one of these ammendments gets overturned.

I agree that it is a pretty far-fetched idea that I really don't put much stock in myself. I certainly don't think that the head honchos of the GOP cooked it up. I give credit for being smart enough to know that these laws would not stay on the books for long.

It is that quiet guy in back in the corner that you can never be sure of, though. It is plausible that someone who does care about this issue planted the seed that such proposals would turn out the fundamentalists, all the while knowing full well that they would get overturned. Said court action could actually push more people in the direction of the ultimate goal.

Chip R
11-05-2004, 06:32 PM
Good for that Oklahoma couple. However, even thought these laws seem to be blatantly unconstitutional, I could still see them denying the plantiffs' suit because of some technicality. I wonder how far the state(s) and the federal government are willing to go to fight this? It's obvious the voters in these states support these bans overwhelmingly so a governor who is looking to be re-elected may try to fight tooth and nail any attempt to overturn the ban. Even if a federal court decides against the plaintiffs for whatever reason the Supremes may not decide to hear the case and let the ruling of the lower court stand. I just don't think it's going to be as easy as saying, "The 14th Amendment says this ban is wrong" and expect it to be overturned.

Red Heeler
11-05-2004, 06:48 PM
Good for that Oklahoma couple. However, even thought these laws seem to be blatantly unconstitutional, I could still see them denying the plantiffs' suit because of some technicality. I wonder how far the state(s) and the federal government are willing to go to fight this? It's obvious the voters in these states support these bans overwhelmingly so a governor who is looking to be re-elected may try to fight tooth and nail any attempt to overturn the ban. Even if a federal court decides against the plaintiffs for whatever reason the Supremes may not decide to hear the case and let the ruling of the lower court stand. I just don't think it's going to be as easy as saying, "The 14th Amendment says this ban is wrong" and expect it to be overturned.

The Supreme Court has precedent for deciding this case. Consistently, the court has favored the approach of "if the Constitution doesn't rule it out, and it doesn't infringe on other's rights, then states cannot legislate against it."

It may be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court chooses to hear this case. On one hand, popular opinion has no effect on them. They are elected for life, so they can decide based entirely upon legal opinion.

On the other hand, if they do decide for the homosexual couple, then they provide the impetus for a Constitutional Amendment. Quite a sticky situation.

Chip R
11-05-2004, 07:20 PM
The Supreme Court has precedent for deciding this case. Consistently, the court has favored the approach of "if the Constitution doesn't rule it out, and it doesn't infringe on other's rights, then states cannot legislate against it."

It may be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court chooses to hear this case. On one hand, popular opinion has no effect on them. They are elected for life, so they can decide based entirely upon legal opinion.

On the other hand, if they do decide for the homosexual couple, then they provide the impetus for a Constitutional Amendment. Quite a sticky situation.
The Supremes - even the moderates and liberals - aren't exactly a real progressive bunch. They are people in their 60s, 70s and 80s who probably aren't as enlightened about something like this as younger people are no matter how socially liberal they are.

But even if the Supremes do decide for the gay couple, I think it would be pretty tough to get a constitutional amendment passed. It's got to get past the House and Senate by a 2/3 majority. And who knows what will happen by then. It takes years for cases to reach the Supreme Court and they don't exactly decide them overnight. Although on the long shot that an amendment does pass both houses, I could easily see 2/3 of the state legislatures passing it.

WVRed
11-05-2004, 07:23 PM
How long would this possibly take to make it to the Supreme Court?

Chip R
11-05-2004, 07:25 PM
How long would this possibly take to make it to the Supreme Court?
It depends. It could take 3, 4, 5 years. That's if they decide to hear the case.

WVRed
11-05-2004, 07:26 PM
It depends. It could take 3, 4, 5 years. That's if they decide to hear the case.

So if thats the case, as I said earlier, the 2006 senate races will be crucial.

RBA
03-24-2005, 05:23 PM
NewsNet5.com
Judge: Ohio Domestic Violence Law Only Applies To Married Couples
Judge Reduces Felony Charge To Assault, Citing Issue 1

POSTED: 1:12 pm EST March 23, 2005

CLEVELAND -- A judge's ruling could lead to the repeal of Ohio's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

NewsChannel5 reported that a Cuyahoga County judge Wednesday reduced a domestic violence charge against a man accused of attacking his live-in girlfriend, saying the law only applies to married couples under the new amendment.

Frederick Burk was charged with domestic violence, a felony, but Judge Stuart Friedman reduced the charge to assault.

Last fall, Ohio voters passed Issue 1, a constitutional amendment that forbids the state to grant legal status to relationships of unmarried individuals like Burk and his girl friend.

Friedman ruled Ohio's domestic violence charge applies only to married individuals because of Issue 1.

Prosecutors say future domestic violence cases are in jeopardy because of this ruling.

"They are in jeopardy but only in this courtroom," said prosecutor Chipper Xavier. "What you have is a lot of judges who if they get this motion, some will decided that its proper that unmarried partners are subject to the domestic violence statue, but in this court room, Judge Friedman has decided that unmarried couples are not afforded that protection."

Prosecutors plan to appeal Friedman's ruling and both sides expect the case to go to the Ohio Supreme Court.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4311155/detail.html

RosieRed
03-25-2005, 03:53 AM
I hate that Issue 1 is being used like this. Actually, I just hate Issue 1, period. Only good thing that can come from this case is if Issue 1 gets repealled.

How absurd.