?

Log in

No account? Create an account
There's more at stake than just the presidency - The Fucking Bluebird of Goddamn Happiness [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Zoethe

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

There's more at stake than just the presidency [Oct. 21st, 2004|03:25 pm]
Zoethe
[Current Mood |worriedworried]

IF you live in Ohio, and

IF you are considering skipping the whole voting thing because you're unimpressed with the candidates, and

IF the issue of gay rights is a concern to you,

PLEASE reconsider going to the polls. There is one initiative on the statewide ballot. This is it:

STATE ISSUE


PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT


By Initiative Petition
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.





"Political subdivision" means any public entity, including municipalites, state-run health clinics, schools, heck, the local library. The intent is to strip same sex couples of any recognition, even civil unions.

Vote your conscience, but vote.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: valarltd
2004-10-21 07:47 pm (UTC)
It won't just strip same sex couples.
Opposite sex couples who are not married for any reason will also have no rights.

This means the elderly couple who didn't marry to protect their respective children's inheritance.

This means the woman who can't call the cops for domestic violence on her live-in boyfriend.

This is everyone! Except folks like me who are married to a motos.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: flcodemonkey
2004-10-21 08:29 pm (UTC)
This means the elderly couple who didn't marry to protect their respective children's inheritance.

Inheritance can be easily protected with a pre-nup. It gets around laws that state you have to leave a certain amount to your spouse.

This means the woman who can't call the cops for domestic violence on her live-in boyfriend.

I thought you could call the cops for any assault and battery incident. Didn't think you had to be married to the person.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sneakingyoda
2004-10-21 07:55 pm (UTC)
*speechless*

...

next they will work on the right to breath air.

....

WHAT THE f*CK is wrong with the world?
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-10-21 08:07 pm (UTC)
No no, they'll only work on withholding the right to breathe air from homosexuals. We can't have them exhaling molecules tainted by their dirty, disease-ridden lifestyle into the same atmosphere our children inhale, now can we? Dear God, won't someone think of the children?

-1em
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: blumindy
2004-10-21 08:06 pm (UTC)

In case anyone cares:

This would also prohibit domestic partnerships between heterosexual couples.
This means no insurance, no access to a partner who is hospitalized or jailed;
nothing without a marriage license.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ashna
2004-10-21 08:16 pm (UTC)

Re: In case anyone cares:

That makes me very sad for the state of the US if people vote for it. probably not evne Thinking of what it really means.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: demetria23
2004-10-21 08:45 pm (UTC)
We have a very similar amendment proposed on the ballot in GA.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: leeann_marie
2004-10-21 09:06 pm (UTC)
And here in MI as well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: fujerica
2004-10-21 11:16 pm (UTC)
This makes so darn angry. I mean... #$^$%*W#%&#^*
My MIL intends to vote fot the amendment proposed here in KY. She says she read it, and she says she understands all the implications. When I started talking about all the ways it will affect hetero couples, however, she admitted to not really getting that far down the thought-trail.

Then she said, "Well if they allow gays to get married, brothers and sisters getting married is right around the corner."
*head thunk*

Let me know when the sky stops falling, okay?

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: darthfox
2004-10-22 12:23 am (UTC)
i wanted so badly to surrender my right to vote on the county issue and local issue that were also on my ballot, and vote "no" on issue one three times. of course i had to settle for punching the card as hard as i could, repeatedly.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: roc441
2004-10-22 01:58 am (UTC)
*sigh*
Stupid stuff like this almost makes me want to start living in sin.

Ohio sucks.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: roc441
2004-10-22 02:11 am (UTC)
Wow. I totally just thought I was commenting on pantherpg's journal. You don't know me. Sorry! :D
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: correspondguy
2004-10-22 03:35 am (UTC)
I believe that these puppies will fail on Constitutional grounds. They're a clear interference with the right to contract. Not to mention the full faith and credit clause.

The limitation that it not "approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage" will blow it up. There is no legitimate government interest there.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2004-10-22 12:39 pm (UTC)
I suspect you are right - unless Bush wins and gets a Justice or two onto the bench. Then they may declare it a state issue and let the states decide, since the next logical step in your scenario would be requiring recognition of civil unions from state to state for interstate commerce reasons - a better argument for classic constitutional interpretation than prohibiting states regulation of civil unions, and I know that there are justices who will not want to do that.

Remember, the amendments do not say that private companies, such as insurance companies, employers, and private hospitals, cannot contract with same-sex couples for benefits, only that the state and its subdivisions can't. I don't think the S.C. gotta do anything about that.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: dream_labyrinth
2004-10-22 11:02 am (UTC)
I'm surprised that something as important as this is apparently a decision on State level, judging from the comments that mention similar amendments in other states (Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Ohio, as far as i can see). What happens if a homosexual couple marries in another state, or another country? Is that marriage then illegal in any of these states?
And why should it be any concern of the law, anyway? I always thought the idea of laws and constitutions is to enable people to live together peacefully and without harming each other. I really don't see any harm when a homosexual couple marries or when a couple decides not to marry but live together.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2004-10-22 12:52 pm (UTC)
Marriage is a State issue in the U.S., not a Federal one. Powers not enumerated in the Constitution of the United States are supposed to be left to the states, though over the years the court has identified many unenumerated powers implied from other Constitutional clauses. They have interfered with marriage as little as possible, the most significant ruling being that states could not prohibit interracial marriage.

A lot of people object to what they see as lawmaking by the judicial branch. They consider this as transgressing into the responsibilities of the legislative branch. The reality, though, is that the judicial branch has always made law, first through the common law system and now through interpretation of statutory law and of the Constitution.

A remarkable number of people in the U.S. consider same sex marriage as a fundamental attack on the definition of marriage. They still regard homosexuality as unsavory, if not outright sinful, and worry that marriage will somehow lose its importance if "just anyone" can do it.

As if Britney Spears 55 hour marriage and television shows designed around marrying strangers to each other haven't already done that.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2004-10-22 12:53 pm (UTC)

Re: On a positive note

I hope so. It's appalling.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: donkey_hokey
2004-10-22 02:57 pm (UTC)
Something nearly identical to this is on the Utah ballot. It's one of the main reasons I'm going to drag my ass to the polls. Even if it's almost a given that it WILL pass, at least I want to know that I voted against it.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: susitna
2004-10-22 03:46 pm (UTC)
I just find the whole idea of restricting someone's right to a relationship of their choice almost incomprehensible. Why would anyone vote "yes" on this? I really don't understand the logic.
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: ilovenirvana
2004-10-26 12:12 am (UTC)
so doesn't that also nullify common law marriage in Ohio?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2004-10-26 12:21 am (UTC)
Common law marriage is already gone in Ohio, though it is a good question for those people old enough to still be common law spouses.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2004-11-03 08:25 pm (UTC)

Re: The people have spoken

Thank you. I might have missed that without your crowing.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)