ohio people? are you out there?

[pianorocker]

I know that there are probably weightier issues this election holding your attention, but please....take a good look at Issue One, especially the wording of Issue One before you make your decision.


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.

To me, this amendment goes way way beyond the purposes of banning gay marriage. I will not make my personal opinions known, although it's probably obvious here, but I just hope that you end up deciding to vote against the issue. Thanks.

 

[drivemytrabant]

Hey Piano--I live in ohio--can you tell me exactly what you mean by going way beyond the purposes of banning gay marriage?

 

[indra]

Hiya, pianorocker, yeah, I'm in Ohio and I most certainly am going to vote against this stupid, vicious, bigoted proposed law. To me it's an embarassment that it's even on the ballot.

 

[drivemytrabant]

Hiya, pianorocker, yeah, I'm in Ohio and I most certainly am going to vote against this stupid, vicious, bigoted proposed law. To me it's an embarassment that it's even on the ballot.

Please can you tell me why you feel this way? I'm not on one side of the issue or the other totally--but you guys are opposed to the wording of the issue? Or the issue itself? Is this about civil unions?

 

[indra]

I think if you read the wording you should understand why I'm against it. If you still do not understand my position, please read the now closed Spain Unveils Controversial Gay Marriage Law thread (currently on page 2 of this section). I'm not meaning to be rude or abrupt with you, but I don't feel like hashing through the reasons yet again so soon after the Spain thread.

The very short version (of my objection to this ballot initiative) is that I find the idea of denying a group of people very basic rights is wrong. Despite trying to make the wording appear not to target homosexuals, this initiative clearly does just that.

* edited so the blasted post makes sense! I'm having computer "issues"... errgghh! Antiquated machine! Yikes!

 

[indra]

I didn't intend to post this one!

 

[drivemytrabant]

I think if you should understand why I'm against it. If you still do not understand my position, please read the now closed Spain Unveils Controversial Gay Marriage Law thread (currently on page 2 of this section). I'm not meaning to be rude or abrupt with you, but I don't feel like hashing through the reasons yet again so soon after the Spain thread.

The very short version (of my objection to this ballot initiative) is that I find the idea of denying a group of people very basic rights is wrong. Despite trying to make the wording appear not to target homosexuals, this initiative clearly does just that.

Your not being rude or abrupt--just looking for your opinion that's all. This is a tough issue for me and since I'm going to have to vote on it in a month or so I'm trying to decide which side to come down on. I can say that I am against a constitutional amemdment.

 

[starsgoblue]

I'm an Ohio girl. But I'm staying out of this potential atomic bomb....

 

[drivemytrabant]

I'm an Ohio girl. But I'm staying out of this potential atomic bomb....

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

 

[sharky]

There is a similar initivative in Michigan that my mom said she will be voting for. I asked her why and she said she was just always raised to believe that being gay is wrong. Fine, so be it. I don't agree with my mom but if she wants to vote based on her religion, so be it.

If I had a choice like this, I would vote against it. funny enough -- it would also be because of my religion. I just think God wants us to love and respect one another. If it is wrong, it's not something for us to decide. We don't get to choose who goes to Heaven or not. God has never given us that power. But while we are here on earth, we should do our best as humans to act humanly toward one another.

Not to mention the so-called Marriage Tax would be able to generate more revenue when you open up a whole extra group of people who have to pay it.

 

[deep]

There is a similar initivative in Michigan

There are several, probable a couple of dozen.

This is a strategy to get the religious right out to vote.

Bigotry may keep Bush in the Whitehouse.

 

[pianorocker]

Hey Piano--I live in ohio--can you tell me exactly what you mean by going way beyond the purposes of banning gay marriage?

Sure! It's this phrase: 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.
that I believe goes way beyond just defining marriage, or banning gay marriage. This phrase removes the possibility of civil unions, and/or domestic partnerships. However, as I mentioned before (I think...), this phrase also jeopardizes relationships or business interactions that may, in some way, approximate a marriage, such as jointly owning property. If someone wanted to contest two people's right to jointly own property, regardless of whether it's a romantic relationship, they could simply say that the interaction violated the amendment because it approximated a marriage.

I firmly believe that the passage of this amendment will greatly harm the potential for business growth in this state. I ask, Who would want to set up a company here with the risk of being dragged to court over something that approximates a marriage? Additionally, domestic partner benefits are becoming a more common perk for businesses, and those would definitely become illegal under this law...once again, a deterrent to business growth.

With that said, I guess I will tell you what I believe and I hope that it does not diminish my argument above. I believe that we all have the right to love the person that we choose, and the law should respect that. As in the words of the 14th Amendment:... 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 I understand that marriage is not under federal jurisdiction. However, I believe that this amendment is also unconstitutional since it clearly violates the 14th Amendment. Equal protection of the laws mean equal protection no matter who you are.

 

[drivemytrabant]

Sure! It's this phrase: 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.
that I believe goes way beyond just defining marriage, or banning gay marriage. This phrase removes the possibility of civil unions, and/or domestic partnerships. However, as I mentioned before (I think...), this phrase also jeopardizes relationships or business interactions that may, in some way, approximate a marriage, such as jointly owning property. If someone wanted to contest two people's right to jointly own property, regardless of whether it's a romantic relationship, they could simply say that the interaction violated the amendment because it approximated a marriage.

I firmly believe that the passage of this amendment will greatly harm the potential for business growth in this state. I ask, Who would want to set up a company here with the risk of being dragged to court over something that approximates a marriage? Additionally, domestic partner benefits are becoming a more common perk for businesses, and those would definitely become illegal under this law...once again, a deterrent to business growth.

With that said, I guess I will tell you what I believe and I hope that it does not diminish my argument above. I believe that we all have the right to love the person that we choose, and the law should respect that. As in the words of the 14th Amendment:... 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 I understand that marriage is not under federal jurisdiction. However, I believe that this amendment is also unconstitutional since it clearly violates the 14th Amendment. Equal protection of the laws mean equal protection no matter who you are.

Thanks for the clarification Piano. I had thought about the civil unions argument but not the business one.

 

[Klaus]

If I had a choice like this, I would vote against it. funny enough -- it would also be because of my religion. I just think God wants us to love and respect one another. If it is wrong, it's not something for us to decide. We don't get to choose who goes to Heaven or not. God has never given us that power. But while we are here on earth, we should do our best as humans to act humanly toward one another.

 

[nbcrusader]

I firmly believe that the passage of this amendment will greatly harm the potential for business growth in this state. I ask, Who would want to set up a company here with the risk of being dragged to court over something that approximates a marriage? Additionally, domestic partner benefits are becoming a more common perk for businesses, and those would definitely become illegal under this law...once again, a deterrent to business growth.

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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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!

 

[pianorocker]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[drivemytrabant]

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?

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[drivemytrabant]

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

 

[pianorocker]

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. =)

 

[Klaus]

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?

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[Scarletwine]

I just agreed with NBC.
I'm voting no on this because of the wid

 

[nbcrusader]

Hey, there is probably a lot we can agree on

 

[starsgoblue]

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

Yes, I am voting.

 

[drivemytrabant]

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.

 

[pax]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.