Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

[Red Heeler]

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]

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]

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]

Not to worry - I fixed the spelling in my sig

[savafan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?