Ohio governor signs anti-gay marriage act

[numediaman]

The forces of darkness march on . . .

Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage
Friday, February 6, 2004 Posted: 6:31 PM EST (2331 GMT)
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Ohio Gov. Bob Taft approved one of the country's most-far reaching gay-marriage bans on Friday, saying its adoption was urgent because the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings could take place as early as this spring in Massachusetts.

"It is necessary for us to act now to safeguard Ohio's marriage laws," Taft said. "Ohio could have same-sex couples who were 'married' in Massachusetts taking legal action in Ohio to recognize that marriage and to obtain the resulting benefits."

When the law takes effect in 90 days, Ohio will become the 38th state to adopt a "defense of marriage act" and the second to deny benefits to some employees' partners.

Taft, a Republican, denied assertions that the law promotes intolerance. He said the new law would send a strong positive message to children and families.

"Marriage is an essential building block of our society, an institution we must reaffirm," he said.

[zimv20]

anyone here live in ohio? are people running around the streets in panic and hiding under tables?

"oh my god! the gays are coming! the gays are coming!"

do these legislators not just have any gay friends, or do they have gay friends and they're just that heartless?

such ignorance is beyond me. it's about nothing but FEAR.

[pseudobrit]

Ohio could have same-sex couples who were 'married' in Massachusetts taking legal action in Ohio to recognize that marriage and to obtain the resulting benefits.

God forbid the gays get benefits!

[vwcruisn]

How does not letting someone get married SAVE marriage? Reminds me a lot about vietnam and "operation iraqui freedom" in order to save 'em, we gotta kill 'em. What a sick society we live in huh?

[Desertrat]

I don't see a problem with "Civil Union", and having the law speak to inheritance and most of the economic issues that have been discussed--employer insurance, retirement benefits/partner's death, etc. I would add that dissolution of such a union should be covered under such civil laws that deal with divorce--which is commonly a money issue.

"Marriage" is a specific word, and includes the issue of procreation and natural family. There is an entire history of meaning to the word, and IMO it should be left "as is". (And for those who would bring up the matter of divorce since I mentioned it above, there is the added matter, here, of dealing with children.)

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I don't see a problem with "Civil Union", and having the law speak to inheritance and most of the economic issues that have been discussed--employer insurance, retirement benefits/partner's death, etc. I would add that dissolution of such a union should be covered under such civil laws that deal with divorce--which is commonly a money issue.

"Marriage" is a specific word, and includes the issue of procreation and natural family. There is an entire history of meaning to the word, and IMO it should be left "as is". (And for those who would bring up the matter of divorce since I mentioned it above, there is the added matter, here, of dealing with children.)

'Rat

'Rat,

you will have to explain to me what that history is, because my understanding is that marriage customs and laws have varied widely over the many cultural and historical developments of societies.

Here is an interesting column from Findlaw's (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040206.html) website on the current constorversies.

What's In a Name: Does It Matter If Same-Sex Unions Are Called "Marriage"?


The Massachusetts Supreme Court's Goodridge opinion was quite clear that it was denouncing the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the institution of marriage itself, not just the denial of the benefits of marriage. The Senate's "separate but equal" response was thus constitutionally insufficient, and rightfully rejected. Still, the ease with which it crafted and agreed upon a civil union law is a testament to the powers of social change: In just four years, a "civil union" has become a familiar, accepted relationship form.

One Justice's separate answer to the Senate's query characterizes the dispute between the Court and the Senate as a "squabble over the name to be used." If the rights are truly identical, Justice Sosman argues, the Legislature should be permitted to call each status whatever it wants. (The majority's answer of course disagreed, explaining that the "dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' are not innocuous," but rather assign "same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.")

But that characterization misses the important question: Why is it so important to the Senate that a formally recognized, legally binding relationship between members of the same sex not be called marriage? One might trot out the old "it degrades the institution of marriage" argument, but that has never been very persuasive. After all, as Ellen Goodman pointed out in one of her recent columns, doesn't Britney Spears's 55-hour Las Vegas marriage to someone she apparently doesn't love disparage marriage more than this?

The fight is probably not over in Massachusetts. The next step for opponents of same-sex marriage is an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution banning it. But the procedure required for such an amendment means it could take effect, if ratified, no earlier than November 2006.

In the meantime, there are bound to be hundreds, even thousands of same-sex couples at the altar in Massachusetts. And the motivation to amend the Constitution may look different, even to opponents of same-sex marriage, when the issue is stripping citizens of a right they already have, as opposed to granting them a new one.

[zimv20]

maybe we should just have separate drinking fountains for the Unmarrieds

[IJ Reilly]

I'd be in favor of a law that prohibited Britney Spears from getting married. In fact, marriage between any two people in the entertainment business should not be allowed, on the grounds that it almost certainly will not last. The divorce rate among celebrities is devaluing the entire institution of marriage, and I don't like kids having to see this every time the go into a supermarket. It sends entirely the wrong message, and as we all know, marriage is all about the messages it sends to other people.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'd be in favor of a law that prohibited Britney Spears from getting married. In fact, marriage between any two people in the entertainment business should not be allowed, on the grounds that it almost certainly will not last. The divorce rate among celebrities is devaluing the entire institution of marriage, and I don't like kids having to see this every time the go into a supermarket. It sends entirely the wrong message, and as we all know, marriage is all about the messages it sends to other people.

LOL -- very good, IJ!! :D

[vwcruisn]

its funny.. the people against gay marriage are NOT gay! how irronic. Allowing gay marriages has absolutely NO negative impact on any hetero sexual couple. And if you are gay, and oppose gay marriage.. dont get married! Or maybe Im being too rational? :confused:

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
its funny.. the people against gay marriage are NOT gay! how irronic. Allowing gay marriages has absolutely NO negative impact on any hetero sexual couple. And if you are gay, and oppose gay marriage.. dont get married! Or maybe Im being too rational? :confused:

edit: it reminds me of something comedian george carlin once said: "why is it that most people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to eff in the first place?" :p

[pdrayton]

Originally posted by Desertrat
"Marriage" is a specific word, and includes the issue of procreation and natural family.
Perhaps Massachusetts can declare war on Ohio by banning all of Ohio's childless married couples from entering the state.

After all, we need to protect ourselves!

Thanks, Desertrat, your post was very amusing :p

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Desertrat

"Marriage" is a specific word, and includes the issue of procreation and natural family.

So since I can't have children my husband and I aren't married? :confused:

[pdrayton]

People opposed to gay marriage in Massachusetts frequently use "tradition" and "history" to back their claim that "civil marriage" infringes on the history of marriage being a religious institution.

Well, I guess they'll be surprised to learn that the Pilgrims were left-wing, pinko, God-less, commie, Ted Kennedy liberals!

Boston Globe - Marriage in Massachusetts (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/08/for_massachusetts_a_chance_and_a_choice?mode=PF)

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'd be in favor of a law that prohibited Britney Spears
You could stop right there and I'd be in full agreement :p

from getting married. In fact, marriage between any two people in the entertainment business should not be allowed, on the grounds that it almost certainly will not last. The divorce rate among celebrities is devaluing the entire institution of marriage, and I don't like kids having to see this every time the go into a supermarket. It sends entirely the wrong message, and as we all know, marriage is all about the messages it sends to other people.

There is a precedent for this! Under Justinian law, marriages between senators' daughters and actors were deemed null and void.

[edit: typo]

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
There is an entire history of meaning to the word, and IMO it should be left "as is".

But 'as is' isn't how it's always been, you are just picking an arbitrary point in time and making your stand there because it fits with your worldview. Why not freeze morals of a couple thousand years ago when it wasn't uncommon for older men to take on a young male 'companion'?

I guess the classic definition of a conservative is one who likes things 'as is' and dislikes change eh?

[Neserk]

Originally posted by mactastic
But 'as is' isn't how it's always been, you are just picking an arbitrary point in time and making your stand there because it fits with your worldview. Why not freeze morals of a couple thousand years ago when it wasn't uncommon for older men to take on a young male 'companion'?


Too true. Not to mention polgamy, selling of the bride and other less than nice things done for marriage. As I understand history it is only in the last few hundred years or so that we have married for love. I guess that doesn't occur to people who are in favor of "traditional" marriages?