Ohio Senate Approves Gay-Marriage Ban

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Infertililty? Inapplicable. I was not under the impression that homosexuals were infertile. These married folks certainly have tried to have children, but cannot.

Not all married people without kids have tried to have children, *sshole. Some of us don't want children.

[Starchild]

It's a sad day when a man believes that my love devalues his own.

[DanS]

You can pretty much bank on Republicans getting at least 5% more of the vote in Ohio than they do in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they have reactionary politics. So I am forced to consider the possibility that this is a less reactionary move on Ohio's part -- i.e., that this measure would have large support in many/most parts of the nation.

Btw, I would agree with your 5% figure. But in my book that doesn't make it very conservative. It makes it leaning conservative rather than leaning liberal.

[Solly]

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Starchild
It's a sad day when a man believes that my love devalues his own.

yeah

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I find it interesting that this thread spiralled down into the gay marriage bit without (apart from Boris) anyone commenting on the benefits ban.

This doesn't seem to be about banning gay marriages, although that is the headline. It is discriminating against anyone who doesn't get married. It goes as far as the state legislature can to saying marriage or nothing. Hopefully there will be a way to challenge the legality of this.

How long before they resurrect one of those old laws about putting people in the stocks or whipping them for not going to an approved Christian church on Sundays?

Bingo. That's the only reason I find this case extraordinary beyond the 34 other states who have simply banned gay marriage. Ohio and Nebraska have taken the extra step of discriminating blatantly against non-married couples by saying state agencies can't even choose to provide domestic partner benefits. This sets a legal status for unmarried couples that is, frankly, one of second-class citizenship. In the absence of anti-discrimination laws, there is nothing stopping institutionalized discrimination against gays or anyone who isn't married.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I find it interesting that this thread spiralled down into the gay marriage bit without (apart from Boris) anyone commenting on the benefits ban.

This doesn't seem to be about banning gay marriages, although that is the headline. It is discriminating against anyone who doesn't get married. It goes as far as the state legislature can to saying marriage or nothing. Hopefully there will be a way to challenge the legality of this.

How long before they resurrect one of those old laws about putting people in the stocks or whipping them for not going to an approved Christian church on Sundays?

And yet, too many people think that the concerns of gays are irrelevant to the rest of society.

[gamenaught]

How about the principle of "mind your own ****ing business"? I don't want "the people" having a say in who I (or anyone else) marry. No, really. Mind your own ****ing business. You shouldn't get a damn say.

Brilliant post! That sums it up quite well. Now if I could just get all of that on a bumper sticker!

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Bingo. That's the only reason I find this case extraordinary beyond the 34 other states who have simply banned gay marriage. Ohio and Nebraska have taken the extra step of discriminating blatantly against non-married couples by saying state agencies can't even choose to provide domestic partner benefits. This sets a legal status for unmarried couples that is, frankly, one of second-class citizenship. In the absence of anti-discrimination laws, there is nothing stopping institutionalized discrimination against gays or anyone who isn't married.

I would guess that it's an anti-gay measure where they have included all unmarrieds as a way to avoid the recent SCOTUS rulings.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I would guess that it's an anti-gay measure where they have included all unmarrieds as a way to avoid the recent SCOTUS rulings.

The SCOTUS ruling wouldn't effect marriage, AFAIK, since it it was establishing limits on government prohibiting private consensual sexual behavior.

Its a way of ensuring there won't even be civil unions, which is deplorable.

[gamenaught]

All these people that oppose gay marriage under the pretense that marriage needs to be defended are full of ****. Why haven’t they done anything to curb the 50%+ divorce rate of heterosexual marriages?

Since no one on this board has given valid reasons to deny gay marriage, I can only speculate. And speculate, I will.

The religious right lost the Alabama Ten Commandments case and, to top it all off, the judge got kicked out of the court house along with his Ten Commandments. They lost on school prayer. They lost on the pledge. They lost on abortion. Church attendance is declining and most of those that still attend are just going through the motions. Society is becoming increasingly secular.

With that long losing streak, the religious right is desperate for a win. Given the demographics of the population - 95% hetero, 5% gay, more or less - they feel this is their best shot to finally break their long losing streak. And as an added bonus, this isn’t an issue a campaign that would hurt them personally - unlike, a campaign to outlaw, say, gluttony.

And them they get to say to God: “Hey look, God, I’m taking up the cross in opposing gay marriage!! Sorry, I don’t have time or interest in feeding the hungry. I’m sorry that I have no interest in housing the poor. I’m sorry, that I couldn’t care less about making the world a better place and setting a good example, but, hey, I’ll darn sure pull the lever in the ballot box to prevent gays from marrying. See, Jesus, I’m a good person. Please don’t burn me. Please don’t send me to hell. I’ll do anything to keep from going to hell, Jesus. I’ll even suck your balls.” - which brings up another reason for their opposition to gay marriage: Many of them may be opposing gay marriage to “prove” their heterosexual masculinity or to mask their own gay tendencies: “Hey, I’m not gay. I’m a real man. Look at me! I oppose gay marriage.”

/end of rant

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The SCOTUS ruling wouldn't effect marriage, AFAIK, since it it was establishing limits on government prohibiting private consensual sexual behavior.

Its a way of ensuring there won't even be civil unions, which is deplorable.

AFAIK the reason the law was struck down was because it was unfairly applied to gays. If they had included hetero's it would have been OK. It seems to me thats what they're doing here. Although, as you say, it could be an all out attack on unmarried sinners.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Just because other people like to beat up strangers, does it mean you should go in and join them?

With all the talk about the "sanctity of marriage" and the US Congresswith it's melodramatic and unconstitutional "Defense of Marriage Act" there seems to be an argument that letting those evil sodomites engage in a civil marriage procedute undermines the "sanctity" of good-ol' heterosexual marriage.

Brittney Spears, heterosexual swingers, cheaters, abusers, and general flakes who get divorced half a dozen times apparently can't undermine the institution of marriage, but let a few fairies and fudgepackers have a go at it, and suddenly all the good, God-fearing heterosexual couples who are married have their marriage vows just crumble into insignificance. Atheists at Las Vegas drivethrus? No problem. Gays? Oh dear, all our marriage vows will forever be meaningless.

If that's not your argument, then tell me one good reason why the state has a compelling interest in which legally competent, consenting adults enter into civil marriage with each other?

[Japher]

Yaaay!!!

All Men are created equal... except gay men who are so mentally insane that they shouldn't be aloud to marry.

At least hot lezbians should be allowed to be married. If for nothing else, so that we can imagine their honeymoon.

Two legs are better than four, but god forbid if they actually use the third leg!!!

IMO, marriage is something that is personal between two people, and the government can suck my ****!


Can we really say Dick? I just won't use it in that situation

[Asher]

Gay Marriage Poll Gets Annulled

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61982,00.html

By Daniel Terdiman, 02:00 AM Jan. 22, 2004 PT

When the American Family Association posted an online poll last month asking its constituents their position on gay marriage, it thought it was engaging in a straightforward exercise.

The conservative organization supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, and it planned to forward to Congress the results of the poll, which it expected would support its position, as evidence of Americans' opposition to gay marriage.

But the AFA never counted on the power of the Internet. And once the URL to the poll escaped its intended audience, everything went haywire. As of Jan. 19, 60 percent of respondents -- more than 508,000 voters -- said, "I favor legalization of homosexual marriage." With an additional 7.89 percent -- or 66,732 voters -- replying, "I favor a 'civil union' with the full benefits of marriage except for the name," the AFA's chosen position, "I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and 'civil unions,'" was being defeated by a 2-1 ratio.

"We're very concerned that the traditional state of marriage is under threat in our country by homosexual activists," said AFA representative Buddy Smith. "It just so happens that homosexual activist groups around the country got a hold of the poll -- it was forwarded to them -- and they decided to have a little fun, and turn their organizations around the country (onto) the poll to try to cause it to represent something other than what we wanted it to. And so far, they succeeded with that."

Of course, no such poll can be said to represent an accurate picture of popular opinion. But, clearly, the AFA had hoped Congress would take the numbers it planned to produce as exactly that kind of evidence.

Now, Smith says, his organization has had to abandon its goal of taking the poll to Capitol Hill.

"We made the decision early on not to do that," Smith admitted, "because of how, as I say, the homosexual activists around the country have done their number on it."

So what happened?

Against the wishes of the AFA and its members, the poll leaked to the outside. And soon, people like Gabe Anderson began posting it to blogs, social-networking sites such as Friendster and sundry e-mail lists. When Anderson posted it to his blog on Dec. 18, 2003, the anti-gay-marriage position was leading, with 51.45 percent of respondents opposing gay marriage or civil unions.

But with his posting, in which he alerted his readers to the poll, Anderson -- and many like him -- began to unleash the democratic power that the Internet promises, and which organizations like the AFA must have forgotten: the ability to bring people together to fight for, or against, a cause.

"I definitely think that if an organization like the AFA wants to conduct a poll like this, they open up themselves to more than they expected," said Anderson. "I think it's a great example that the Internet can effect change and have an influence if there is a cause."

Surely, by now, with the rise of organizations like MoveOn.org and Internet-fueled political campaigns like Howard Dean's, such results should surprise no one.

But the AFA seems to have been caught by surprise, and is now trying to gain new currency from the outcome.

"Hopefully the results of the poll will be a wake-up call," said Smith, "to realize the need for us to get more focused and organized and to do what we need to do."

But in the meantime, the AFA and organizations like it will have to get used to the idea that if they want to use the Internet as a tool, they had better understand how it works.

"I think it's pretty cool," said Anderson. "It's empowering that the Internet can have this kind of effect. As an individual, your first reaction is, 'I don't know if I can make a difference.' This is a good example of helping people who are historically apathetic (to say), 'Maybe my vote will matter, too.'"