Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

Spiff. I have avoided this thread, but I've got to comment about Ohio's passage of State Issue 1. It read:

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.

I voted against this Issue, and am appalled, and embarrassed, not only that it passed, but passed resoundingly.

This editorial from the Cincinnati Enquirer exlains it prefectly.

Why we are opposed to Ohio Issue 1 - Editorial

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.

What can I say. The passage of this issue leaves me speechless. It brings into question the competence of the electorate in general.

Jack - This topic is just one of thousands in which the government has gotten involved, much to the detriment of our freedoms.

Most of the electorate you mention spends from January 1 until May 1 to pay his or her taxes. Then we have to pay the rent, car payment, food ... etc... how much time do you think the "stupid people" have to research each candidate and bill ? Or to care what goes on with other people's lives ?

Like it or not, All these groups go after things the wrong way. Everyone is interested in HIS own problem, and not those of others.

When you try telling the family of 5 that they need to worry about Spiff's marital status, or the fact that I have to spend $150,000 re-doing the drainage around my dealership because the local government, which is a different set of nit wits than we had three years ago, changed the laws that I JUST complied with... They just don't care.

Until we Americans QUIT trying to get the government to control what we as INDIVIDUALS deem important, we will get more of this. Had the government not co-opted a religious item (marriage), this would not matter.

The government controls us by controlling our money. Get married ? Here is a tax break (govt. controlling behavior). Have a kid ? Here is a tax break (govt. controlling behavior). Make $5 million running a business ? Send us 40%. Make $5 million in a Municipal Bond ? OOPS... YOU get to keep it ALL.

Again, take the three steps I outlined above, and WATCH the government's role diminish for EVERYONE. This means everyone is more FREE.

By the way ... Pass all these things, and if Spiff and his Sig Other get married in THEIR church, I will be happy to attend. And if they HAVE no church (due to their beliefs), but want to have a private ceremony, it is none of my business.

I would still go to the party, if invited...

Nice to see Jack and craigsub back in the politics thread.

There is an article in the Constitution (Article VI?) that states states must acknowledge the laws of other states. Gay marriages performed legally in Massachussetts, Hawaii or wherever, will have validity in every other state - regardless of varying state laws - according to the Constitution. I'm not sure how that will shake out in the real world, however.

I have to agree with craigsub and the Libertarians about all this. The ACLU-types want the gov't to legislate their values and ditto for the homophobic conservatives. As VP Cheney said, freedom means freedom for everybody. We need to let communities be free to live the way they see fit. If that means spiff and Roger can't have a wedding ceremony in Jones County, Mississippi, then that is fine. If it means the homophobes can't legislate their morality in West Hollywood, then fine.
To each his own, I say. Plenty of room for us all to find our places.

I can see your point, BigWill, but this plops society right back into the 'separate but equal' conundrum. The whole idea that a citizen's specific rights are tied to a geographical region is flawed, and would never endure the test of time.

A ban on gay marriage is discrimination based on an aspect of a person's identity, e.g. skin color, nationality, sexual orientation. On the simplest level, it is no different than the ban on interracial marriage, which was deemed unconstitutional only as late as 1967 by the Supreme Court.

No doubt, there are still some communities in the U.S. which look upon interracial marriage as an abomination and against God's will. They have a right to hold those views, but they don't have a right to restrict others' freedoms because of them.

If you are free only because you meet certain qualifications -- e.g. Caucasian, straight, non-Muslim -- are you truly free, or just lucky?

And I understand your angst PM ... But I have to ask, Why is gay marriage so important ?

Gay marriage, straight marriage, Bigamy ... NONE should never even appear in government. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution. The government being involved in subsidizing ITS version of marriage would be like government having an official, sanctioned prayer.

There should be NO such thing as government marriage licenses. THAT is the problem, not these amendments.

And it all gets back to money. If you eliminate all the government's control of money by behaving the way they want us to, ALL of these problems go away.

For example, take a person who detests the mere idea of EVER marrying, Why should THEY not have the "right" to leave their estate and Social Security to whomever they desire.

Again, look at the elimination of the IRS, Estate Taxes, and ANY government licensing of marriage, and Spiff can marry as a gay in any church he desires, and HE gets the choice to do with HIS money and life as HE sees fit.

So does Jack as a single man ...

Personally, I am for more freedom for EVERYONE.

Peter is right, "civil unions" for gays and lesbians is going back to the idea of separate but equal. Which the courts have already ruled, (and history has proven) is anything but equal.

I also agree that the best solution to this issue is to remove the government from the issue of marriage all together. The fact is marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, and the government has no place being involved. Tax-wise or otherwise.

The problem is that's a MUCH harder sell to the American public. Look at the resistance the gay community has just trying to get the right to marry. Imagine the outrage if what we were proposing was the end of state sanctioned marriage all together for everyone! We'd be demonized beyond all belief.

Whether or not it's the best solution or not, the only feasible way for gay and lesbian couples to have the same rights as straight couples is to allow us to marry.

Actually Spiff... Once the whole IRS/Estate/Social Security thing got handled... I think you would be pleasantly surprised when people found that marrying was no longer a govt. function, that they would WELCOME the idea of marriage being a true union as the couple wanted... not as some silly law.

Perhaps someday...

spiff, I read the following on some other forum:

Those of us on the left are not telling you red-staters to do a god damn thing. You are the ones telling us that we can't marry who we want, we have to fight your war in Iraq, we have to give our money to your churches though "faith based" programs, and that we have to run a huge debt, which we, in the blue states, paying the vast majority of taxes must make good on. You are the ones telling us that we can't get an abortion. The federal government is not an instrument to advance your religion -- it belongs to all citizens of this country. America was not founded on "christian values." It was founded on enlightenment values, as anyone who has read a decent amount of U.S. history would find obvious.

That post reminds me why I quit frequenting here. Hatred is so sad...

woe is me