ohio people? are you out there? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-05-2004, 08:01 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:44 PM
What it boils down to is either fucking around setting up new layers of buerocracy and legal niches to uphold a restriction based on religious grounds.

If they dont want gays to be afforded the same reciognition then just call the forms "Gay Marriage" forms. Sheesh!
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-05-2004, 10:14 AM   #17
Acrobat
 
pianorocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: the cosmos
Posts: 339
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Based on the quoted wording, only the government would be unable to recognize domestic partnerships. Business would still be able to provide benefit programs to domestic partners, including same-sex domestic partnerships.
Yes, but businesses must comply with the laws of a state, and if the laws of that state forbid those benefits to only those partnerships consisting of a married man and woman, then it seems to me that a business wouldn't be allowed to do that.

There is also the entire picture to look at in this situation. It is not just "businesses" in the sense of corporations or companies, but also universities and other government offices. Ohio State recently granted certain benefits to faculty members and their domestic partners. I recall, not specifically, but I do remember some government offices that have similar domestic partnership benefit systems in place as well, and this amendment would cancel those as well.

I hope that makes sense.
__________________

__________________
pianorocker is offline  
Old 10-05-2004, 10:31 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pianorocker


Yes, but businesses must comply with the laws of a state, and if the laws of that state forbid those benefits to only those partnerships consisting of a married man and woman, then it seems to me that a business wouldn't be allowed to do that.

There is also the entire picture to look at in this situation. It is not just "businesses" in the sense of corporations or companies, but also universities and other government offices. Ohio State recently granted certain benefits to faculty members and their domestic partners. I recall, not specifically, but I do remember some government offices that have similar domestic partnership benefit systems in place as well, and this amendment would cancel those as well.

I hope that makes sense.
I understand your concern, but I believe your reading of the proposed law is too broad. If a law restricts public entities (government), it does not automatically apply to private entities (corporations). Universities do not constitute a political subdivision per se, so the law would not apply to them. The law would limit government agencies. It is much harder to challenge the law when it only applies within the state. Applying it to corporations would force corporation to potentially have two sets of benefits programs - far easier to challenge and get overturned.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-05-2004, 10:43 AM   #19
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I understand your concern, but I believe your reading of the proposed law is too broad. If a law restricts public entities (government), it does not automatically apply to private entities (corporations). Universities do not constitute a political subdivision per se, so the law would not apply to them. The law would limit government agencies. It is much harder to challenge the law when it only applies within the state. Applying it to corporations would force corporation to potentially have two sets of benefits programs - far easier to challenge and get overturned.
Hey nbc--can you give me a general interpretation of what you think the law will then do if not what is described by Piano?
__________________
drivemytrabant is offline  
Old 10-05-2004, 10:53 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by drivemytrabant


Hey nbc--can you give me a general interpretation of what you think the law will then do if not what is described by Piano?
Based on the quoted material, the law does two things:

1. It prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriage.

2. Prohibits public entities from granting benefits to unmarried couples of a natural that is normally granted to married couples (i.e., inclusion on insurance policies, death benefits).

This second provision likely affects more heterosexual couples than homosexual couples.

If activists want to defeat this law, they could easily do so on this second point. There are too many unmarried couples living together who would not want to lose benefits.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-05-2004, 11:47 AM   #21
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Based on the quoted material, the law does two things:

1. It prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriage.

2. Prohibits public entities from granting benefits to unmarried couples of a natural that is normally granted to married couples (i.e., inclusion on insurance policies, death benefits).

This second provision likely affects more heterosexual couples than homosexual couples.

If activists want to defeat this law, they could easily do so on this second point. There are too many unmarried couples living together who would not want to lose benefits.
Thank you
__________________
drivemytrabant is offline  
Old 10-05-2004, 02:24 PM   #22
Acrobat
 
pianorocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: the cosmos
Posts: 339
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I understand your concern, but I believe your reading of the proposed law is too broad. If a law restricts public entities (government), it does not automatically apply to private entities (corporations). Universities do not constitute a political subdivision per se, so the law would not apply to them. The law would limit government agencies. It is much harder to challenge the law when it only applies within the state. Applying it to corporations would force corporation to potentially have two sets of benefits programs - far easier to challenge and get overturned.
Good point. I admit, I did forget about the public/private matters.

I guess the worry that still remains with me on the business issue is the fact that this amendment would open up the chance for a greater frequency of challenges and lawsuits, which become expensive eventually.

Thanks though for the explanations. =)
__________________
pianorocker is offline  
Old 10-05-2004, 04:42 PM   #23
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:44 AM
nbc:
is there any rational argument to the thesis that homosexuals shouldn't marry?
Or is it just forcing a minority (homosexuals) to believe what others believe (that it's wrong)?

If there is no logical explination for this law - do you think a government can be allowed to turn personal opinions into laws?
How about a law that americans must believe in our Lord, our saviour and our holy spirit? Do you think that would be helpful for the american society?
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 07:42 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Klaus,

You have thrown a number of issues together.

If we characterize laws as "forcing" society to believe a certain way, we might as well open the books from page one and do an analysis of what we "force" people to believe.

As for the proposed Ohio law, I find the broad ban on domestic partnerships pointless and counterproductive.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 02:22 PM   #25
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:44 AM
I just agreed with NBC.
I'm voting no on this because of the wid
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 02:25 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Hey, there is probably a lot we can agree on
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 12:11 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
starsgoblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Looking for direction to perfection
Posts: 17,828
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drivemytrabant


Don't do that--tell us what you think! You are gonna vote right?

Yes, I am voting.
__________________
starsgoblue is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 07:12 AM   #28
War Child
 
drivemytrabant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Ohio State University
Posts: 535
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Hey guys I don't know if any of you saw this, but on Bill O'Reilly last night, they had a guy on who was defending what sounds like a similar law. The measure had passed by receiving 78% of the vote in Louisiana, but one judge overturned it saying it was unconstitutional. The matter is headed to the state supreme court.
__________________
drivemytrabant is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 09:54 AM   #29
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Just an educated guess, but probably most of these attempted laws will be struck down. A law would have to be worded very carefully, I think, to be able to pass the muster of, say, an equal protection clause in a state constitution.

Which is why, incidentally, I *think* (though I'm no lawyer) a federal ban on gay marriage would ultimately fail. I think the 14th amendment (yes?) is equal protection...and any law or amendment could be challenged under the equal protection clause. Also, as both Cheney and Edwards mentioned the other night, marriage has typically been left to the states to regulate, and there is no evidence that states are unfit to regulate it as it stands.

That said, I still like Alan Dershowitz's (!) solution to this problem: The government(s) should simply offer CUs to everyone, and leave the thorny issue of marriage to churches, synagogues, and religious/spiritual denominations to sort out. Then, persons of various consciences and faith traditions are free to continue to recognize or not recognize spiritual unions as they see fit.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 11:09 AM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
Just an educated guess, but probably most of these attempted laws will be struck down. A law would have to be worded very carefully, I think, to be able to pass the muster of, say, an equal protection clause in a state constitution.

Which is why, incidentally, I *think* (though I'm no lawyer) a federal ban on gay marriage would ultimately fail. I think the 14th amendment (yes?) is equal protection...and any law or amendment could be challenged under the equal protection clause. Also, as both Cheney and Edwards mentioned the other night, marriage has typically been left to the states to regulate, and there is no evidence that states are unfit to regulate it as it stands.
Pax, you should be a lawyer.

You are correct, the laws must be carefully drafted to avoid running afoul with federal and state equal protection laws (including the 14th amendment).

If left to the states, gay marriage will likely be banned in many, but not all, states. The constitutional amendment approach, while unchallengable in court, is nearly impossible to achieve.
GWB cleverly proposed a method that will appease the voter base that considers this an issue while ensuring that it will likely never happen. It has already failed in both the House and Senate.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com