Ohio Set to Enact Same-Sex Marriage Ban

[LynneSin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=3&u=/ap/20040122/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_ohio

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Ohio Senate has approved one of the most far-reaching gay marriage bans in the nation despite charges from some lawmakers that the legislation was mean-spirited and discriminatory.

A divided Senate approved the bill 18-15 Wednesday and sent it back to the House, which is expected to approve minor changes next week. Gov. Bob Taft has said he will sign the bill.

The measure says same-sex marriages are "against the strong public policy of the state," and would prohibit state employees from getting benefits for domestic partners, whether they were gay or unmarried heterosexual couples.

The bill permits exceptions to the benefits ban, including cities, villages, townships, schools and private companies. However, universities are included in the ban.

Senate Minority Leader Gregory DiDonato, a Democrat, said the bill was mean-spirited and "just plain wrong." Sen. C.J. Prentiss, also a Democrat, quoted from Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech as she called the bill "good, old-fashioned discrimination."

But Republican Sen. Jay Hottinger, a longtime supporter of the same-sex marriage ban, said that opponents were misstating the bill's intentions. He said the bill was not an attack on gays, but was meant to protect a traditional definition of marriage.

---

Don't hide behind your fancy wording. This bill is discrimination and anything else you say is bullshit. If Ohio passes this law I will boycott Ohio. Heck, I'll even stop supporting my beloved Cincinnati Reds (a team I have worshipped for 30 years) to show my disgust in passing these bills.

My only hope is that this bill goes to the supreme court where it will hopefully be found unconstitutional in someway

[slackmaster]

1. Another state goes stupid

(Shaking head in disbelief.)

[lefty_mcduff]

2. Goons

I find this part particularly disturbing -

"prohibit state employees from getting benefits for domestic partners, whether they were gay or unmarried heterosexual couples."

I may be slower than our genius political leaders, but how can this be constitutional?

[Buffler]

Question

Why should unmarried heterosexual couples be granted spousal benefits? Why should the government provide spousal benefits to an employees boyfriend or girlfriend?

And if said benefits should be provided, what kind of requirements and safeguards should be put in place?

[lefty_mcduff]

4. Well...

Because many couples (myself included) are 'common-law' ie" living together. Have been for seven years. Bought house together. Raise two kids (mine) together. Lefty's lady pays for spousal benefits at her company (I'm technically self-employed) so I receive the medical/dental/eyeweare benefits. As do my kids. No problem. The usual requirement and 'safegueard' is amount of time cohabitating. In my case - 1.5 years (not sure why).

[Bill McBlueState]

3. term limits are the source of a lot of the problems

Ohio legislators are term-limited, which leads to experienced lawmakers having to retire in favor of backwoods hicks with as much governing experience as your average freeper.

Most of the Republicans in the majority have no idea whether the law is constitutional or not, they just want to please their homophobic constituencies.

We'll have to see what the (elected) Ohio Supreme Court thinks.

--
(lived in OH for 21 years)

[Lalock]

5. Discrimination, pure and simple

But not unconstitutional. There is no fundamental right to employment benefits, let alone for those benefits to be extended to a nonmarried domestic partner.

I am rabidly against this measure, and I can't believe I live in a state where it actually made it through the legislature. But I can comfort myself somewhat that this is the same state from which Dennis Kucinich sprang, so we can't be all bad.

This actually may be a good thing, in a backhanded way. It will obviously be challenged in court, which could eventually force the Ohio Supreme Court to make a Massachusetts-like ruling on the constitutionality of legislating discrimination like this. I don't believe there is anything in the Ohio Constitution which could be upheld here. That would mean that the only way to keep a law like this on the books would be to change the Ohio Constitution, which would open a whole ugly can of banner-waving, protesting, march-on-Columbus worms.

[LynneSin]

6. Welcome to DU

and thanks for letting us know there are some good folks in the Buckeye State (other than Kucinich)

[newyawker99]

13. Hi Lalock!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[fjc]

7. Standard right-wing wordsmithing.

This is not against 'a' but for 'b'. That's why they call it the marriage protection act. But what the hell are they protecting it against? Bush echoed this in that speech he called the state of the union. He said that his administration would 'protect' the institutions of the church, and marriage, and the like. Protect them against what? The real answer is democratic equality, which is what all this is intended to undermine.

[ninkasi]

8. Mean spirited and vicious

This is just becoming sickening, that lawmakers feel that they need to pass laws to discriminate against people who are different. This law does absolutely nothing one way or another to strengthen heterosexual marriage.

If they were sincere about preserving traditional marriages, they would instead pass laws covering living wages, health care, child care, and things like that. Those are the things that put strains on marriage, not gay marriage. Do they think that by denying gays the same rights as anybody else they are going to keep people from entering into relationships?

These have got to be the most spiteful, hateful, vengeful people to ever disgrace a country...the ultra-right wing of the Republic (yes, that's intentional) party.

[saigon68]

10. They would pass new sodomy Laws in a heartbeat if they could.

Make no mistake these are evil vengeful people.

The kind, who burned young girls at the stake, for being witches.

They have not evolved at all--- in 1500 years.

They still drag their knuckles on the ground.

They are mostly republican.(the party that is)

[dusty64]

12. Yeah, but unfortunately

they are determined to drag the rest of us with them. The corporate theocracy is coming and it doesn't look like the firewalls the Founder's put up to protect us are working, what do we do now?

[gator_in_Ontario]

9. I read this article...

and it is no surprise to me, having lived in Ohio that the Senator pushing this is from Newark (pronounced by Ohioans as "Nerk"). I bet Cincinnati folk are rejoicing, and Columbus folk are ready to take to the streets!

[keithkam]

11. Marriage ban and stupid governer Bob Taft (R) (of course)

Passing this was bad enough, but Taft's reasoning was even worse. He said we need to protect the "sanctity" of marriage. How is it up to the state to decide what is sacred? This is a purely religious matter and should be left to the different religious places of worship. According to the Catholic church, any marriage performed in another denominations' church or by the state is not valid. It would make just as much sense for the government to side with that idea to "protect" marriage. I don't think this ban will hold up when challenged since it is blatantly unconstitutional.

[newyawker99]

14. Hi keithkam!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: