Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest zaceman

Ohio gay marriage

Recommended Posts

Wording Approved For Ohio Anti-Gay Amendment

by John McCarthy

The Associated Press

 

 

Posted: August 17, 2004 5:01 pm ET

 

(Columbus, Ohio) Backers of a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages in Ohio still don't know if it will be on the Nov. 2 ballot, but their proposed language for the issue was approved Tuesday.

 

The Ohio Ballot Board unanimously approved the language proposed by the Cincinnati-based group Citizens for Community Values. The language says that if the issue passes, the state will recognize only unions between one man and one woman as marriage.

 

Ohio's county boards of elections still must certify more than 390,000 signatures submitted by backers to get the issue on the ballot. They'll need almost 320,000 of those to be valid signatures of certified voters. The deadline for certification is Aug. 27. If the petitioners fall short, they will have 10 days after that to gather additional signatures.

 

...

 

http://www.ap.org/

 

Yay lets vote on minority issues!  I cant wait.  Could you imagine if the public got to vote on civil rights back in the 1960s?  That would have been interesting heh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey' date=' never mind about the inept governor and the horrendous job losses Ohio has had - we've got more important things to worry about like keeping those darned queers and radical activist judges from leading us down that slippery slope!!![/quote']

 

Danged right, MayDay, 'specially a slope made slippery with KY jelly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cincinnatus

Would that the state's electorate were as enlightened as urbanohio members if it is actually on the ballot in Nov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't think anyone on this site would vote for yes. We are all intelligent people that know that this is essentially a slap in the face to human progression.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cincinnatus

September 17, 2004

Conservatives Urge Boycott of Procter & Gamble

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

 

Two influential conservative Christian groups are calling for a boycott of two best-selling products of Procter & Gamble to protest a statement on the company's internal Web site that opposes a local statute to exempt gays and lesbians from special civil rights protection.

 

The leaders of the groups, Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family and the Rev. Donald E. Wildmon of American Family Association, contend that by making the statement, Procter & Gamble, based in Cincinnati, is implicitly supporting same-sex marriage. Social conservatives are trying to place on the ballot a measure to amend the Ohio Constitution to ban same-sex marriage..

 

"For Procter & Gamble to align itself with radical groups committed to redefining marriage in our country is an affront to its customers," Dr. Dobson said yesterday.

 

...

 

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company - http://global.nytimes.com/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for P&G.

 

I will say this again. While I don't understand why two dudes would want to be together it is there American right. Whats next? Christian radicals blowing up gay bars like they blow up abortion clinics? Real Christian of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

While were on the subject. I hate those bumper stickers that I've been seeing that say, "You can't be Christian and Pro Choice".

 

I almost want to make a sticker saying..."But you can be a Christian and touch little boys".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ monte's comment (granted this happened a few years back but it's not unheard of):

 

Sources: Reuters News Agency, 1997-FEB-24; Associated Press, 1997-FEB-26

 

A militant fundamentalist Christian group, the Army of God claimed responsibility FEB-24 for recent bombings in Atlanta GA of an abortion clinic and a gay/lesbian nightclub. A group called by this name has been known to the FBI; they have circulated bomb-making manuals which advocate how to blow up abortion clinics. The letter described the bombs' design and set up a mechanism by which future claims of responsibility could be confirmed for upcoming bombings. They threatened total war against the federal government and promised to attack gays, lesbians, their organizations and supporters in the future.

 

The explosive devices at the abortion clinic and nightclub were packed with nails in order to maximize personal injury. A second bomb was left in an outside parking lot, apparently located and timed to try to kill investigators responding to the first blast. At least a half dozen people were injured outside the Sandy Springs abortion clinic when the second bomb went off. Five people were injured by the first blast at the Otherside Lounge.

 

Federal officials have concluded that these two bombings and the deadly Centennial Olympic Park bombings bear points of similarity. They have speculated that a serial bomber may be at large in Atlanta.

............

 

http://www.reuters.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^

While were on the subject. I hate those bumper stickers that I've been seeing that say' date=' "You can't be Christian and Pro Choice".

 

I almost want to make a sticker saying..."But you can be a Christian and touch little boys".[/quote']

 

No doubt. I used to be Catholic (raised Catholic -communion, confirmation, etc...) but we now attend Presbyterian Church. We looked into many Christian churches went I realized how hypocritical Catholicism was and found Presbyterians to be more in line with what I believe socially then most of the right wing Christian hypocrisy churches. The whole molesting thing that the Catholic Church has looked away at for so many years is quite tragic. These priests should spend life in prison or even something harsher for their crimes.

 

Plus any church that doesn’t believe in birth control for the reason of populating their congregation is a sick foundation and I want no part of it. I also love how Catholics embrace gambling within the church but are adamantly against it in cities throughout the country. We recently went to the local Catholic carnival two weeks ago and there were blackjack, bingo booths set up throughout the grounds. It was laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a reply I pulled from Brian Griffin's Cincinnati Blog today, it struck a nerve so I thought I would post it.

 

http://cincinnati.blogspot.com/

 

Slam the Bigots

A group is disputing the validity of petitions from Phil Burress's storm troopers trying to ban gay marriage via the Ohio Constitution. It has been banned already, but with Phil if you can't beat a dead horse, you just might have sex with it. Idle hands are the devil's tool and all, ya know?

 

Feel free to respond to that site if you wish.

 

 

*******************************************************************

 

I believe in marriage between a man and woman. It's how I was raised and under the banner of my faith (Catholic) it is how I was taught.

 

I have a brother, Patrick, that is gay. He's been married a couple of times in ceremonies that were outside the church and not recognized by the government. And I guess that is where it comes down... Church & State.

 

Within my faith, I say no. It is my faith and if I wish to belong to a church that only recognizes or blesses marriges between man and woman, to me where I practice is my business there is nothing wrong with that, it is too deep in me to believe any other way. I hope you understand, as I'm sure that my brother never will.

 

...snip...

 

*******************************************************************

 

Here is the article from the Enquirer today

 

 

Group disputes petition validity

Marriage-ban foes file suit

 

By Jim Siegel

Enquirer Columbus Bureau

 

COLUMBUS - Opponents trying to keep a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage off the Ohio ballot want a state appeals court to invalidate all signatures gathered in Hamilton and Cuyahoga counties.

 

The Cincinnati-based Campaign to Protect Marriage must collect 323,000 valid signatures to put the issue before voters in November. But a coalition of gay rights advocates could block the effort by tying it up in court or getting enough signatures tossed out.

 

A lawsuit filed this week in the state 10th District Court of Appeals argues that all petitions collected in the Cincinnati and Cleveland areas should be tossed out for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they do not contain a required summary of the amendment.

 

...

 

E-mail jsiegel@enquirer.com

 

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/09/17/loc_gaylawsuit17.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...end domestic partner benefits offered by four state universities..."

 

In other words, preventing gay and heterosexual unmarried couples at state universities from receiving the SAME and EQUAL health care benefits that married couples are eligible for.

 

"...and could affect legal agreements between unmarried couples..."

 

In other words, the legal agreements (power of attorney, etc.) that are the only recourse gay couples have to ensure things like hospital visitation, estate settlement...

 

Anyone who is in support of this amendment, simply put - you're a bigot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cleveland.com/ohio/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1096105005195512.xml

 

Officials say marriage ban could hurt Ohio's economy

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Sandy Theis

Plain Dealer Bureau Chief

Columbus

 

Philadelphia lures gay tourists with a travel guide titled "The City of Brotherly Love (and Sisterly Affection)."

 

Washington, D.C., coined its own slogan: "Where more than just the cherry blossoms come out."

 

But as cities across America roll out rainbow carpets, Ohio is poised to vote on what experts say is the most far-reaching anti-gay marriage measure in the nation.

 

The state's big-city mayors are trying to defeat the proposed amendment to the state constitution, expected to be on the Nov. 2 ballot.

 

"This isn't about marriage," Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman said this week. "It's about the economic future of Ohio."

 

...

 

I think its interesting how even heterosexuals have to limit their rights just so the gays dont get theirs.  You know whos going to devalue marriage?  The people making these laws.  Its going to get to the point where you have to jump through all the loopholes to get one that people wont even bother to get married.  Not to mention 1 in 2 end in divorce anyway.  And as far as Cleveland Heights, that was a voter approved measure, the only one in the country to be approved in that manner. 

 

Also i think it was interesting how that official mentioned that Cincy just needs to expand its convention center... thats an expensive deflection... i mean look at cleveland's convention center and this year its done rather nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senators reject Ohio ban on gay marriage

DeWine, Voinovich against amendment; bishops support it

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Sandy Theis

Plain Dealer Bureau Chief

Columbus

 

Ohio's U.S. senators said they will vote no on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage a position that places them at odds with their church.

 

U.S. Sens. Mike DeWine of Cedarville and George Voinovich of Cleveland, who are Catholic, announced Wednesday that they oppose the measure, which will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot as Issue 1. The two Republican heavyweights added their voices to a growing chorus of critics who contend the measure is bad for Ohio's economy.

 

Earlier in the day, Ohio's 14 Roman Catholic bishops issued a statement supporting Issue 1.

 

...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/ohio/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1097141733124572.xml

 

 

heh yea there must be some gay in the water in DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. Go away gays and lesbians. We don't want your money. We don't want you to start new businesses in our cities to help the tax base. We don't want to be seen as a progressive state. We'd rather you all go to Minneapolis or Chicago than to come and live in a city in Ohio.

 

Honestly, what type of message are we trying to send to the nation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry folks. Sorry that this is coming from the backyard of Cincinnati. Phil Bur-ass is am embarrassment to our state and city. Phil Bur-ass is a bigot in the true sense of the word. I would rather be in the company of Larry Flynt than a two faced bigot like Phil-Burass any day. One of his trolls, Mike Allen showed the true colors for the Citizens for Community Values. They are scum with a mislead agenda. Just because Phil-Burass masturbated to too much porn as a kid, he is making everyone in the state suffer because of his born again views on families and values which is out of the book of hypocrisy. Look it up under "Conservative" in the dictionary.

 

Isn't it amazing that it wasn't enough for bigots like the CCV to ban gay marriage. After all marriage is sacred. “Who wants to marry a millionaire?” proved that. Hamilton County prosecutor (CCV Crony) Mike Allen's affairs proved that. But they had to take it one step further and ban any other form of gay relationship that would qualify employees the basic rights of healthcare etc under company guidelines. Sad enough, people will see the first sentence and not even read the rest. They will vote with their heart once reading the word gay. Truly sad…

 

Phil Bur-ass may you burn in hell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would sort of expect DeWine to be somewhat less hostile to gay folks as he has a cousin, I think, thats gay. But Voinovich is pretty religous so I was suprised to see him come down against this amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be religious and still see the stupidity of putting an ammendment to ban gay marriage. While I dont think that gay marriage the sacrement should be legal, I have no problem with civil unions. Why can't the state and the majority of the people in the sate (and nation for that matter) just compromise with civl unions and stop having a my way or nothing additude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well the problem lies in recognizing marriage, its a religious institution, but the government recognizes it. Really the government should say everyone can get a civil union, and marriage should be only recognized by a church.

 

But will social conservatives fly with that?? hell no, they're fine with their idea of social engineering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taft opposes proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage

 

COLUMBUS | Gov. Bob Taft said Wednesday he will vote on Nov. 2 against the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit the state from recognizing same sex marriage.

 

In a prepared statement, Taft said that the proposal is "overbroad" and unnecessary because of legislation he already has signed that reaffirms marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

 

The proposed amendment also would prohibit state and local governments, as well as state-supported universities, from extending certain legal rights to unmarried couples.

 

...

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/1013taftweb.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vote NO on Ohio Issue 1

 

 

Ohio state Issue 1 is an unnecessary attempt to use the state constitution to ban something already prohibited by law. It would restrict the state's ability to attract new business and new employees and could interfere with the benefits employers offer employees. We oppose its passage.

 

Billed as an amendment to protect the concept that marriage is between one man and one woman, Issue 1 is poorly written and overly broad. It would go far beyond prohibiting same-sex marriage, opening a Pandora's box of potential litigation over the legal status of all sorts of relationships.

The ballot language forbids the state or any of its political subdivisions from recognizing unmarried relationships that intend "to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." Gov. Bob Taft, who came out against the amendment Tuesday, said that ambiguous sentence could have as many interpretations "as there are judges in the state of Ohio." He's right. If passed, the amendment could have consequences for any two people living together, no matter what their relationship might be.

Sens. Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, and Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro join Taft in opposing the amendment. Several of the state's largest employers have come out against it, including Nationwide Insurance and The Limited Group. AARP is opposed, as is Ohio State University, the League of Women Voters and the AFL-CIO.

 

Ohio already has a law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed last February.

 

 

The real impact of Issue 1 would be on people in relationships that are legal under DOMA. This includes people who live together, but choose not to marry for any number of reasons. Issue 1 could prevent them from being able to give each other legal control over their health care, pension benefits or other assets. Public employers could not offer family health insurance benefits to those who are not in traditional families.

Ohio should be working to develop a reputation that is open and welcoming. We want to be able to attract as diverse and talented a work force as possible. Issue 1 closes a door on those efforts.

 

 

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

 

Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:

That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:

 

Article XV

 

Section 11. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vague Issue 1 would be bad for Ohio

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ohio's Issue 1 is a terrible idea for the state. While polls indicate the amendment will pass by a big margin, voters shouldn't be fooled. The vaguely worded language likely will cost the state years of court battles over the interpretation.

 

The troubling language of the amendment doesn't come from the first sentence of the proposed amendment -- although that is troubling as well.

 

More troubling is the language that would deny any legal recognition by government "that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

 

...

 

http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/news/stories/20041015/opinion/1419353.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to convince me!

 

It does look like it's going to pass in a landslide. I guess our only hope (after voting against it, of course) is that someone out there will challenge its constitutionality after it goes into effect. I don't care if it takes two years or ten...what's right is right in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm if it passes i definately dont see a point in staying in Ohio if you're gay and want to start a family with someone. especially if across the lake its completely legal to get a marriage. things like this get on the books and you wonder why people who live in america hate america heh...

 

its sad that the only way we can justify voting against this is that it "hurts the economy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its sad that the only way we can justify voting against this is that it "hurts the economy".

 

So sad, yet so true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

This issue might be academic to most folks but not to me, as I am in a relationship, and I and my partner have medical powers of attorney over each other. Theres is a question whether or not these would be still valid. And, since my partner has AIDS, the issue of hospital visitation will eventually come up, too.

 

I have looked into emigrating to Canada, and its not that easy, particularly if you don;t have the job skills they are looking for, and, of course the medical condition of my partner is an issue.

 

My advice to young lesbian and gay people would be to seriously look into it, look going to college there, look into the kind of skills countrys like Canada are looking for and study for them, and look into establishing residency and emigrating.

 

I don't see much future for lesbian and gay folks in this country (Im not singling out Ohio here, either) if they want to settle down and form relationships and even adopt kids, the way the political trend is going. People seem to see progress, but I think its stalled and might be starting to go backward. These anti-marriage referendums could be the start of a backward move on the whole gay-rights issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess our only hope (after voting against it' date=' of course) is that someone out there will challenge its constitutionality after it goes into effect.[/quote']

But how do you challenge its constitutionality when it has become a part of the constitution? Or did you mean constitutionality with respect to the U.S. Constitution?

 

Anyway, I am a sure "no" vote on this, and whenever I see signs in favor of this issue (to date I've only seen some in the vicinity of Hocking Hills), I feel like kicking them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess our only hope (after voting against it' date=' of course) is that someone out there will challenge its constitutionality after it goes into effect.[/quote']

But how do you challenge its constitutionality when it has become a part of the constitution? Or did you mean constitutionality with respect to the U.S. Constitution?

 

Anyway, I am a sure "no" vote on this, and whenever I see signs in favor of this issue (to date I've only seen some in the vicinity of Hocking Hills), I feel like kicking them!

 

Prohibition was a constitutional act and it got repealed. So there is hope.

It's just a matter of how long those effected can wait it out. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea but i think this is far scarier than outlawing alcohol. you could always bootleg it or whatever (you cant do that when you're trying to visit your lover at the hospital, theres no alternative heh). And it wasnt against a minority, it was against everyone. so it affected more people and therefore more opposition.

 

i mean the 'wait' could last 10 years or 50 years, but the fact that neighboring countries fully allow gay marriage NOW makes me not want to 'wait' for this country that calls itself "the land of the free" to get its sorry ass together.

 

makes you wonder if the "creative class" will opt for other countries instead of just other states or cities sooner or later heh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess our only hope (after voting against it' date=' of course) is that someone out there will challenge its constitutionality after it goes into effect.[/quote']

But how do you challenge its constitutionality when it has become a part of the constitution? Or did you mean constitutionality with respect to the U.S. Constitution?

I guess constitutionality would be the wrong word.

 

My hope would be that it goes to the courts. Hopefully some high-profile cases come out of it. Hopefully it becomes toothless (or--even worse--noticeably damaging).

 

Constitutions are changed all of the time. My hope is that we will visit this a few years down the line when everyone realizes what a wreck this turns out to be and we can take it off of the books.

 

I have many hopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is... who in their right mind would vote yes on this thing? What good will this do? Why can't the state fix the unconstitutional way that our schools are funded? Why can't the state worry about employing the 200,000 some people that lost their jobs in manufacturing? Who would want to move to a backwards progressing state, and don't we already have enough trouble with the brain drain of young talent leaving the state? How is this law going to help keep them here? Is there any group that is out there that is educating the public on how hurtful this issue is going to be on Ohio's economy? Dammit, I wish Greater Cleveland would just secede form this state, cuz this is truely bullsh!t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who claim to love Jesus a very unhealthy amount think that it's important, and they want to make sure that we know that Jesus loves them and that those of us who don't agree with their interpretation of God's plan need to be legislated into repentance.

 

This shit shouldn't even be on the ballot--I agree. Ohio goes down the crapper and this is the kind of stuff they put forth to take our minds off of how desperate things are actually getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at a party in Cincinnati over the weekend that, well, let’s just say didn’t have what seemed like some of the most "progressive" people in attendance. But yet, to my surprise, not one of them supported Issue 1 and not one opposed Issue 3. However, the problem is, hardly anyone could keep straight the way to vote on the issues. They kept mixing them up and saying Yes on 1 and No on 3. Hopefully it was just an effect of the alcohol.

 

Also, EVERYONE kept talking about how awful the commercial against Issue 3 is. Most said if they didn’t care about the issue, they would still vote for Issue 3 just because that’s how much they hate the commercial. Even though I get Channel 19 on my cable and can get the other Cincinnati stations with my antenna, I haven’t seen the commercial. Is it really that bad? They said the woman is unbelievably annoying and her eyes scare them, among other things. But then again the CCV and their cronies are a pretty scary bunch.

 

Speaking of the CCV, has anyone looked their voter’s guide? What a joke. Hardly any candidates answered their survey, making the whole thing a huge waste of paper (which it still would have been even if there were responses)

http://www.ccv.org/2004_Voter_Guides/2004_Voter_Guide.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The anti-repeal Issue 3 commercial is a little bit unsettling. It's just basically this woman with creepy eyes shot against a white background. The camera is zoomed in wayyyy too far.

 

Then there's the fact that she talks like a kindergarten teacher and her "arguments" are all wrong. I felt like I was being talked down to--then again, what political ad doesn't give me that feeling?

 

P.S> Yeah, you're right about that CCV ballot being a joke. I started laughing as soon as I saw "Non-partisan" at the beginning. Then I looked at the "issues" that they had these candidates (not) respond to and I laughed again. I think I pulled something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...