Ohio Sets back Gay Rights Laws

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-01-22 02:33am

FoxNews wrote:COLUMBUS, Ohio — Lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a measure banning gay marriage (search) and prohibiting state employees from getting benefits for domestic partners.

The bill is considered among the most far-reaching in the nation because of the benefits ban, which applies to unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples.

The Senate passed the legislation on an 18-15 vote Wednesday. The House has already approved the bill and Gov. Bob Taft (search) has said he will sign it, pending a legal review.

Full Story

i see nothing positive coming out of this ruling. . . . .

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-22 02:37am

OK I see this law getting challenged, the denying of benefits is really nasty and is that really neccessary? You made your point, there's no gay marriage in your state, did you have to get vindictive and fuck over people on their benefits?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-22 06:30am

Stravo, with all due respect, the hatred for gay marriage comes from the same mentality that leads to this denial of benefits. It's not that surprising,

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-22 09:24am

Well, we know that if this is appealed to the Supreme Court, it should get shot down, so...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-22 10:35am

Xenophobe3691 wrote:Well, we know that if this is appealed to the Supreme Court, it should get shot down, so...

I can see that as a good thing and a bad thing It goes to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS rules that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional by a vote of 6 to 3 (and you can guess which three before hand), Fred Phelps head explodes like a melon with a stick of dynamite it. That is good. What is bad is that such a move would be exactly what President Bush was talking about in the SotU, about the "activist judges" foisting their will on the American People and that bullshit, and he and congress renew the push to get the foolish Amendment of the Constitution signed. While it probably won't work, it wouldn't be a good thing.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-22 10:54am

Darth Wong wrote:Stravo, with all due respect, the hatred for gay marriage comes from the same mentality that leads to this denial of benefits. It's not that surprising,

It just never ceases to amaze me the sheer vindictiveness in supposedly dispassionate or rational legislation. Maybe its the mindset we have here in the city but the whole gay marriage thing is not worthy of the vitrol I see from some of these rinky dink legislatures.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-22 11:11am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Xenophobe3691 wrote:Well, we know that if this is appealed to the Supreme Court, it should get shot down, so...
I can see that as a good thing and a bad thing It goes to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS rules that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional by a vote of 6 to 3 (and you can guess which three before hand), Fred Phelps head explodes like a melon with a stick of dynamite it. That is good. What is bad is that such a move would be exactly what President Bush was talking about in the SotU, about the "activist judges" foisting their will on the American People and that bullshit, and he and congress renew the push to get the foolish Amendment of the Constitution signed. While it probably won't work, it wouldn't be a good thing.

So something good will come out of it. It will be appealed and SCOTUS will be forced to rule on it. Maybe this could be settled once and for all.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-01-22 01:33pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Xenophobe3691 wrote:Well, we know that if this is appealed to the Supreme Court, it should get shot down, so...
I can see that as a good thing and a bad thing It goes to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS rules that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional by a vote of 6 to 3 (and you can guess which three before hand), Fred Phelps head explodes like a melon with a stick of dynamite it. That is good. What is bad is that such a move would be exactly what President Bush was talking about in the SotU, about the "activist judges" foisting their will on the American People and that bullshit, and he and congress renew the push to get the foolish Amendment of the Constitution signed. While it probably won't work, it wouldn't be a good thing.

Wake up Shrubby. Gay Marriage with full benefits IS THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Most of the time voting doesn't work, but sometimes (just enough) the light of Intelligence burns through the stupidity to bring Victory.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-01-22 03:14pm

FUCK!
In my OWN FUCKING STATE and I hear about it here.
Damn it.
I'm betting the people in my college aren't happy about this.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-22 03:18pm

It's those damn conservative southerners, I tell you! Erm...wait...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-22 03:29pm

Wow. I've never seen such a bill proposed with a denial of benefits clause, before. That's pretty harsh, even if you're strongly opposed to gay marriage proper. How did Ohio manage to pass this? How did it garner the necessary support, there?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-22 03:34pm

This legal rollercoaster is making me nauseous. Will they ever get around to just getting the fucking law passed and be done with it?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-22 04:07pm

Wake up Shrubby. Gay Marriage with full benefits IS THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Most of the time voting doesn't work, but sometimes (just enough) the light of Intelligence burns through the stupidity to bring Victory.

It's not, sadly. However, a majority of the population does oppose an amendment to ban gay marriage, fortunately.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-01-22 04:15pm

Oh America, land of freedom and democracy.
What happend to you?
Once many of they left Europe,
because they felt the opression,
concening thier religious beliefs.
Noe in this new land,
they are the opressors,
far better than the one,
they were now history in the old world.
And so they became more bigot,
than the lands thier anecrestors had left.

How do you like that? I think, that it is not a good sign that Amrica is now much more fundamentalist in such things as Europe.....

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-22 06:51pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:What is bad is that such a move would be exactly what President Bush was talking about in the SotU, about the "activist judges" foisting their will on the American People and that bullshit, and he and congress renew the push to get the foolish Amendment of the Constitution signed.

What a moron. Why does he think we have laws and courts if "the People" are paramount to everything?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-22 06:59pm

Joe wrote:
Wake up Shrubby. Gay Marriage with full benefits IS THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Most of the time voting doesn't work, but sometimes (just enough) the light of Intelligence burns through the stupidity to bring Victory.
It's not, sadly. However, a majority of the population does oppose an amendment to ban gay marriage, fortunately.

The Republicans seem to think that there are enough people opposed to it to make it a major campaign issue. That's what this ruling is really about; the Republicans are trying to garner support for their elections this year by promising to block any sort of legislation to legalize gay marriage.

The funny thing about all this is that much like the abortion debate, this issue is likely to be decided in the Supreme Court.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-22 06:59pm

This is legalized gender discrimination. If this gets challenged even in state court it will be thrown out.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 07:11pm

The Kernel wrote:The Republicans seem to think that there are enough people opposed to it to make it a major campaign issue. That's what this ruling is really about; the Republicans are trying to garner support for their elections this year by promising to block any sort of legislation to legalize gay marriage.

There are. It's good politics and from the Republican point of view it's good policy; it will play extremely well in the South and not to shabbily in the Plains States. Elsewhere it is either not all that energizing an issue or, where it is, the Republicans don't expect to win. That's where moderates like Schwarzenegger and Pataki come in.

The funny thing about all this is that much like the abortion debate, this issue is likely to be decided in the Supreme Court.

I wouldn't count on it. Unless this court gets over this idea that Lawrence v. Texas isn't a slippery slope to gay marriage, then don't count on the Supremes to legislate it into law.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 07:12pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:What a moron. Why does he think we have laws and courts if "the People" are paramount to everything?

I imagine he'd respond why do we have legislatures and governor's if the courts are paramount to everything? The man is in position to already start standing up to lower federal courts.

Rev Prez

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-22 07:18pm

revprez wrote: There are. It's good politics and from the Republican point of view it's good policy; it will play extremely well in the South and not to shabbily in the Plains States. Elsewhere it is either not all that energizing an issue or, where it is, the Republicans don't expect to win. That's where moderates like Schwarzenegger and Pataki come in.

That has yet to be seen. The anti-gay marriage campaign issue is likely to be a loser for the Republicans in my opinion, and the early signs aren't that promising for them. Nothing to do but wait and see, but I doubt that there are many people that are feverently against gay marriage that would have voted Democrat in the first place.

I wouldn't count on it. Unless this court gets over this idea that Lawrence v. Texas isn't a slippery slope to gay marriage, then don't count on the Supremes to legislate it into law.

Rev Prez

The Massachusetts State court didn't have a problem finding it unconstitutional and although the Supreme Court dodged the bullet on that case, there is plenty of interest in bringing a test case before them by both sides.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-22 07:32pm

revprez wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:What a moron. Why does he think we have laws and courts if "the People" are paramount to everything?
I imagine he'd respond why do we have legislatures and governor's if the courts are paramount to everything? The man is in position to already start standing up to lower federal courts.

They aren't. They exist to review and make judgements on law, and if he doesn't like it, that's too bad.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-22 07:33pm

The court systems exist to make sure that the constitution is followed, and that laws pass that litmust test. We have a constitutional republic to prtect the minority from the majority for fucks sake.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 07:43pm

The Kernel wrote:That has yet to be seen.

It's probably a loser in NJ (not by much as far as polarizing issues go at 55 to 41) or other blue states. The recent Zogby poll has red states breaking 70% in favor of banning gay marriage. In South Carolina, one in four (24%) would support a Democratic candidate who favored marriage of gay people, while two-thirds would not.

The anti-gay marriage campaign issue is likely to be a loser for the Republicans in my opinion, and the early signs aren't that promising for them.

What early signs? The blue states are far more narrowly divided in their support for gay marriage than red states in their opposition to it. It doesn't seem likely that it will hurt the GOP pushing it.

Nothing to do but wait and see, but I doubt that there are many people that are feverently against gay marriage that would have voted Democrat in the first place.

Don't be so sure. Those numbers in the blue states suggest that Democrats (probably traditional union members and gun owners) and independents aren't as supportive of gay marriage as the liberal base.

The Massachusetts State court didn't have a problem finding it unconstitutional and although the Supreme Court dodged the bullet on that case, there is plenty of interest in bringing a test case before them by both sides.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court referred to the state constitution using the Lawrence decision, it did not find a national constitutional right to gay marriage.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 07:44pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:They aren't. They exist to review and make judgements on law, and if he doesn't like it, that's too bad.

And if the courts overstep and legislate from the bench?

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 07:46pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:The court systems exist to make sure that the constitution is followed, and that laws pass that litmust test. We have a constitutional republic to prtect the minority from the majority for fucks sake.

No shit, but judicial review, if unchecked by Congress and the President, can also be abused. Case in point, the "right to privacy" so conveniently dropped out of the 9th amendment. Congress and the Executive are coequal branches of government.

Rev Prez