5th Banniversary of Marriage Equality in Ohio
From OutInOhio.com:
Equality Ohio Recognizes 5th Banniversary: The Anniversary of the Ban on Marriage Equality in Ohio
Today marks the 5th anniversary of Ohio’s voter approved constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. As they have for the past 5 years, today, lebian, gay, transgender and straight Ohioans are reaching out to lawmakers to show them that equality for LGBT people is an issue of our common humanity.
This entry was posted
on Friday, December 4th, 2009 at 3:30 pm and is filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Related Tags: Gay Marriage • gay rights • lgbt • ohio • out in ohio • Politics
December 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
That’s Ohio for you…Equal rights for all!!
December 4th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Unfortunately, that’s also most of the rest of the country too… :(
December 4th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Except Iowa. Progressive Iowa. I love that we aren’t just red. We’re the worst kind of red.
But hey, the majority is always right. So we should just live with it. Right?
December 4th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Hmmm. That sounds like it could apply to a few of the threads on here.
Hopefully the day is coming when basic human rights aren’t offensive to the majority.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Uggg… I remember that vote. I voted no. Even if you disagree with gay marriage personally or on a theological level, is it really the role of government to put a ban on it? Is it necessary to make it a Constitutional amendment? Why can’t the legislature handle this? Ohh, because it gets right wingers to the polls… Nevermind.
I still don’t get why a limited government ideology stops for so many at their wallets…
December 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I’m certain we’ll see the day when this is changed, not just in Ohio but on a larger scale, but I am so without a clue in trying to estimate how soon or distant that will be.
December 5th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
At OSU I became active in a number of liberal causes and I was amazed at how indifferent many local gay people are on this issue and I assume it’s the same deal in Cleveland and Cincinnati. If a large percentage of gay people themselves aren’t interested in marriage equality, why should they expect allies even bother to assist in this struggle?
December 5th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
It shouldnt be a struggle…it should be a free right.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Shhh. Some people round here don’t believe in rights.
December 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I still just don’t get this. I mean, I really don’t understand the issue because I don’t understand state sanctioned unions to begin with. A marriage is a religious thing, at least in my mind. Its a performing of a ritual representing a commitment of two people to each other for life, right? I mean, why the hell does the government have a say in this at all? I’m all for eliminating all tax considerations, and just treating everyone as an individual, and then let the social concept of marriage take care of itself.
December 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I think society is too caught up in what label we put on all this. I think there should be some legal recognition of a relationship as being responsible for one another, like Power of Attorney. The main thing would be to facilitate transfer of assets, hospital visitation, advanced directive designee, dependent custody, etc. The responsible designee would not be of a specific gender as long as they are over 18. I think all this focus on marriage and ‘gay marriage’ has been juiced by the opposition as a wedge issue. If the LGBT community could get the legal status benefits of marriage, regardless of what you call it, I think that could go a long way.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Jody and Core said everything that needs to be said. The government has no business regulating or placing incentives on marriage. Marriage is not really a “right” that needs to be afforded to anyone because this is and always has been a religious institution. If there’s a church that will marry 2 men, or 1 man to 6 women, or any other combination that you can think of I say go for it but, this is another example of where our government has seized our choice and we need to take it back.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:05 am
I remember seeing the Unitarian Church take the stand that, since the issue (narrowly defined) actually is the civic institution of marriage, the Unitarians themselves shouldn’t be allowed to have a say in the matter. Nor should any other church, by that logic — so religious objections to same-sex marriage shouldn’t be permitted.
The funny thing is, whether you take Core’s position (it’s a religious institution, the state has no role) or the Unitarian position (it’s a state institution, the church has no role), you can make the case for same-sex marriage.
Also, love the measure currently in the works in California to protect the sanctity of marriage further — by banning divorce. http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/12/protect-marriage-but-ban-divorce.html
January 21st, 2010 at 2:45 pm
I stopped being gay or bisexual and, instead, CHOSE to be queer.