Ohio governor signs anti-gay marriage act

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by numediaman, Feb 7, 2004.

  1. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #1
    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.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    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.
     
  3. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #3
    Re: Ohio governor signs anti-gay marriage act

    God forbid the gays get benefits!
     
  4. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
    #4
    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?
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #5
    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
     
  6. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #6
    '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 website on the current constorversies.

     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    maybe we should just have separate drinking fountains for the Unmarrieds
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #9
    LOL -- very good, IJ!! :D
     
  10. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
    #10
    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:
     
  11. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
    #11
    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
     
  12. pdrayton macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #12
    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
     
  13. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #13
    So since I can't have children my husband and I aren't married? :confused:
     
  14. pdrayton macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #14
    Those left-wing liberal Pilgrims!

    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
     
  15. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #15
    You could stop right there and I'd be in full agreement :p

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

    [edit: typo]
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    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?
     
  17. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #17
    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?
     

Share This Page