Ohio Senate Approves Gay-Marriage Ban

[gamenaught]

Their own poll just proved how stupid they are. Typical.

I'm sure they wouldn't have abandoned the project if the numbers were in their favor - even with overwhelming evidence that large numbers of non-members participated. Dishonest. Stupid and dishonest. The irony!

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

The trend towards employer benefits for partners of unmarried employees (regardless of sex orientation) is mostly limited to very large private sector companies and some public agencies - it's not at all standard practice across the whole range of employers, and not likely to be, as employers are under no general legal obligation to provide such benefits, or to pay for those that are provided.

[chequita guevara]

It costs more to apply benefits to unmarried partners. At my dot.bomb, I pushed for bennies for dmoestic partners, seeing as the Bunnygrrl and I had no intention of being maried at that time. It impressed my gay bosses as well. We didn't get the bennies though.

[Capt Dizle]

I support equal rights for all people. I support civil unions with rights equal to those found in marriage. Of course. Any nitwit can see that these things are just.

I do not support allowing gays to marry. If gays don't like my opinion on that they can kiss my arse.

I resent the importance this issue plays in national politics. People are out of work. That is a far more pressing problem.

The Federal government needs to get out of the social issue business. It should be a state or local issue.

And I think it's pretty lousy that conservatives fought to keep the Federal government at bay on racial issues but now want a constitutional amendment on marriage.

[Japher]

I support equal rights for all people. I support civil unions with rights equal to those found in marriage.

I do not support allowing gays to marry.

How can you support equality, but then say some are more equal than others? What is marriage if not a civil union?

The Federal government needs to get out of the social issue business. It should be a state or local issue.

I agree... but you seem to only agree if the government fist steps in and bans gay marriages, and the steps out...

Why do people who support less government interference only do so on issues that concern their ideology? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And I think it's pretty lousy that conservatives fought to keep the Federal government at bay on racial issues but now want a constitutional amendment on marriage.

Oh, yeah, Civil Rights and AA had nothing to do with Federal Government... Give me a break...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


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?

One of the few things you and I agree on.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher




How can you support equality, but then say some are more equal than others? What is marriage if not a civil union?

A civil marriage or union is valid for all legal purposes, but is not, and doesn't pretend to be sacramental.

Oh, yeah, Civil Rights and AA had nothing to do with Federal Government... Give me a break...

But both are firmly founded on clear Federal prerogatives under the Constitution, in the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment, and in the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Marriage and purely social issues are not covered under any enumerated powers of the Federal government, and are clearly reserved to the States or the People under the 10th Amendment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun


One of the few things you and I agree on.

That just shows you have some potential - that dim light at the end of the tunnel just might be the light of reason, penetrating through miles of darkness, rather than an oncoming train.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It costs more to apply benefits to unmarried partners. At my dot.bomb, I pushed for bennies for dmoestic partners, seeing as the Bunnygrrl and I had no intention of being maried at that time. It impressed my gay bosses as well. We didn't get the bennies though.

If it becomes a standard practice, then it shouldn't be priced any differently - health insurance statistics haven't caught up, and two people shacking up are viewed statistically as two wild and crazy single horndogs out to impress potential rutting partners, as opposed to two lumps on the sofa who have no life, and therefore less prospect of needing expensive medical treatment.

It's also a question of how companies pick up the costs - whether they cover employees 100% and dependents 50% or what have you. In time, if the trend towards insuring any form of dependent / domestic partner continues, the pricing effects should end up being pretty neutral.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


That just shows you have some potential - that dim light at the end of the tunnel just might be the light of reason, penetrating through miles of darkness, rather than an oncoming train.

Riiiiiiiiight -- because everyone who disagrees with you, MUST be incapable of objective thought and cognitive thinking.

[Japher]

Look out MrFun!!! A Train!!!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I support equal rights for all people. I support civil unions with rights equal to those found in marriage. Of course. Any nitwit can see that these things are just.

Ohio must be run by worse than nitwits then, as this law has nullified any ability for the state to provide such civil unions.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
the forces of the right are amassing in ohio for their massive frontal attack on the forces of the left, which are amassing in the american northeast.

the climactic battle will take place in adams county, pennsylvania, and much blood will be spilt.

we ride at dawn, boys, to war.

I wish. Then with the hippi liberals and tight ass conservatives out of the way, us moderates can finally rise to power

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
Look out MrFun!!! A Train!!!

You better jump out of the way before it hits you, then.

[Japher]

moderates can finally rise to power

and do nothing...

You better jump out of the way before it hits you, then

good ide...umpff