Turn Off Ads?
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 75 of 75

Thread: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

  1. #61
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    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"?
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #62
    MarsArmyGirl RosieRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    2,783

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    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:

    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.

  4. #63
    Maple SERP savafan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    17,564

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gaymarriageban

    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.
    My dad got to enjoy 3 Reds World Championships by the time he was my age. So far, I've only gotten to enjoy one. Step it up Redlegs!

  5. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    4,232

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    Quote Originally Posted by savafan
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gaymarriageban
    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.

  6. #65
    Member Red Heeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    1,658

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    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.

  7. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    4,232

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Heeler
    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.

  8. #67
    Member Red Heeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    1,658

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve4192
    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.

  9. #68
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,346

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    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 Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  10. #69
    Member Red Heeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    1,658

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R
    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.

  11. #70
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,346

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Heeler
    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.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  12. #71
    C-A-T-S CATS! CATS! CATS! WVRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    8,445

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    How long would this possibly take to make it to the Supreme Court?
    Quote Originally Posted by savafan View Post
    I've read books about sparkling vampires who walk around in the daylight that were written better than a John Fay article.

  13. #72
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,346

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    Quote Originally Posted by WVRed
    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.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  14. #73
    C-A-T-S CATS! CATS! CATS! WVRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    8,445

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by savafan View Post
    I've read books about sparkling vampires who walk around in the daylight that were written better than a John Fay article.

  15. #74
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,984

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    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

  16. #75
    MarsArmyGirl RosieRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    2,783

    Re: Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

    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.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25