Anne
King Lincoln
Login to Send PM
Posted by CGMC_Matthew:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103851334
Maine is now the fifth state to legalize gay marriage, and New Hampshire may become the sixth later today.
In order for Columbus and Ohio to be the welcoming state we all want it to be, it’s going to need to welcome GLBT individuals more forcefully. Let’s see some change, Ohio!
StowCbusCleveland
Jackson Township, Canton, OH
Login to Send PM
I'm pretty confident that if it happens in Ohio at all, it will have to be at the demand of the courts.
shroud
Polaris
Login to Send PM
I'm not sure how all the legal wrangling would work specifically, but wouldn't we first have to overturn the Marriage Amendment to the state constitution from 2004?
15.11
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.
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM
StowCbusCleveland
Jackson Township, Canton, OH
Login to Send PM
@shroud: That's a good point. If marriage is defined in Ohio's Constitution, then presumably the only two ways for the law of the land to change would be by amending the Constitution again or by SCOTUS intervention.
Columbusite
Minneapolis
Login to Send PM
Iowa and Maine? Ouch. If nothing else, the large cities in this state should make token gestures to support it.
michaelcoyote
!seabus
Login to Send PM
Now the Gay people of Maine can enjoy the heartbreak of divorce like any other citizen..
Way to go Maine..
jkostelac
University District
Login to Send PM
Maine will be a good litmus test for this issue because even though it has been passed by the legislature and signed into law the law does not go into effect for 90 days after the legislature adjourns, if the citizens of Maine wish to appeal and send the issue to statewide referendum they need to collect only 55,000 signatures in those 90 days and it will become a ballot issue that November or the following June. The true progress will come when we see the population of an entire state uphold such a law.
misskitty
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Let me start by saying I am all for this and the equal rights that comes with it.
But it seems like the promotion of it may have more people on board if they would address it as a civil union as opposed to a marriage. I have talked to a few people and some seem better with the idea of union more so then marriage.ETA: I realize that civil union does not have all the same rights as marriage under god and state. But in time couldn’t that be changed ?
honavery
Arizona
Login to Send PM
lifeontwowheels wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
I would hope Ohio would one day be as progressive as Iowa.There is just so much wrong with that...
Actually Iowa has quite a history of being progressive.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-defending-iowa-web,0,2979128.story
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM
misskitty wrote >>
Let me start by saying I am all for this and the equal rights that comes with it.
But it seems like the promotion of it may have more people on board if they would address it as a civil union as opposed to a marriage. I have talked to a few people and some seem better with the idea of union more so then marriage.ETA: I realize that civil union does not have all the same rights as marriage under god and state. But in time couldn’t that be changed ?
I think that's how the mason-dixon line was supposed to work, but that didn't turn out so well. the separate drinking fountains also seem, in retrospect, a bad idea.
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM
honavery wrote >>
lifeontwowheels wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
I would hope Ohio would one day be as progressive as Iowa.There is just so much wrong with that...
Actually Iowa has quite a history of being progressive.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-defending-iowa-web,0,2979128.story
I was being serious! (those farmers knew how to collectivize, too)
rus
Login to Send PM
berdawn wrote >>
misskitty wrote >>
Let me start by saying I am all for this and the equal rights that comes with it.
But it seems like the promotion of it may have more people on board if they would address it as a civil union as opposed to a marriage. I have talked to a few people and some seem better with the idea of union more so then marriage.ETA: I realize that civil union does not have all the same rights as marriage under god and state. But in time couldn’t that be changed ?I think that's how the mason-dixon line was supposed to work, but that didn't turn out so well. the separate drinking fountains also seem, in retrospect, a bad idea.
Which might be why I've heard some talk about abolishing marriage as a government institution. Everyone would get a civil union, so all equal under the law, but if someone wanted a marriage ( i.e. a union sanctioned by a religious body ) then they could pursue that privately.
StowCbusCleveland
Jackson Township, Canton, OH
Login to Send PM
misskitty wrote >>
Let me start by saying I am all for this and the equal rights that comes with it.
But it seems like the promotion of it may have more people on board if they would address it as a civil union as opposed to a marriage. I have talked to a few people and some seem better with the idea of union more so then marriage.ETA: I realize that civil union does not have all the same rights as marriage under god and state. But in time couldn’t that be changed ?
I actually agree with this...the defense is at least as much for the word "marriage" as for the accompanying rights. Having grown up in the church, I've had my chance to ask several people who are VERY strongly opposed to gay marriage how they feel about equal rights for things like hospital visitation, next of kin stuff, filing taxes jointly...that sort of thing. A surprising (to me) number said "Sure, give 'em that stuff, they just can't be married." If civil unions have the necessary support to move forward, but gay marriage doesn't then it seems like a no-brainer to move forward on the civil unions, especially if we can make civil unions legally identical to marriage.
I'm not sure the state should be involved in marriages at all anyway...when I get married someday, I'll be married once I go through the ceremony in my church, not when some government worker hands me a piece of paper. I rank the vow before God slightly ahead of the vow before the civil servant. The "marriage license" is just me letting them know. I wouldn't mind if people got married in a church and got their civil union from the government regardless of orientation...but I guess that's another discussion.
Cookie
Flyntonville
Login to Send PM
Walker wrote >>
In semi-related Ohio news:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/05/07/ajoe.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101&title=Joe+the+Plumber+calls+gays+%27queer%27
Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that.
Why is this half-wit still in the news?
Nitsud Regnifloh
Valerio Heights
Login to Send PM
same reason this one is...
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
