NationStates Jolt Archive

My fellow Ohioans, this Nov. 2 a Constitutional Amendment is on the ballot, put there by a right-wing religious coalition. It defines marriage as "a union between one man and one woman", and bans benefits for anything that doesn't strictly follow the model of "moral marriage" set forth in the Amendment by the group.

Your church ministers may be telling you to vote for this Amendment, claiming it is the "moral" thing to do. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing moral about stripping a minority (homosexuals) of a legal right that the majority (heterosexuals) enjoy. There is nothing moral about writing prejudice into the -Constitution- of the Great State of Ohio! I knew a gay person. He was a very thoughtful, quiet, reserved individual who would never do anything to hurt anybody. And every time something like this amendment showed up, I could see how it hurt him. Is that what you want? To turn a blind eye towards, "Equal protection under the law" and use the law as a weapon to satiate hatred? Hate is NOT a family value! Hate is not a CHRISTIAN value! Whatever happened to Christian tolerance, yea, acceptance? Do you want to go down in history as the generation that wrote prejudice into the state constitution? Even when our Republican governor and our Republican Senators have ALL refused to support Issue 1? When Ohio's businesses are rallying against Issue 1 as well?

The writers of this amendment should be ashamed. Their argument is that they are merely protecting the sanctity of religious marriage. But they are writing a law to forbid ALL gay marriages, even secular ones. This isn't an attempt to protect marriage. This is raw, bitter hatred. If there is but a shred of doubt in your heart, I urge you to join me on November 2 in casting a vote for moral democracy. I urge you to help me strike down Issue 1.

-Shalrirorchia

I hate to say it, but you might want to prepare yourself for disappointment.

People who are against gay marriage don't, generally, rely on things like 'rational reasons' or 'logical premises'.

They're reacting to gay sex, with 'eww'. Many seem to consider banning gay marriage a way to say 'we don't like anal sex, and don't think anyone who does it should get married'. Never mind the heterosexuals that do it, or the fact that not all gays do, or that whole nebulous issue of 'lesbians' - who may or may not.

Either that, or they seriously believe it to be an issue of religion, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

While I totally agree with your stance, I fear your plea will fall on many willfully deaf ears.

Actually, the polls I hear say that the amendment is close. We may yet defeat it.

Sorry but I would vote 'No' on that one.

Before I would actually vote 'Yes' on that one. Sorry but I flip-flopped on that issue. Darn.

You Yanks are all over the shop anyways, how would you know? Your polls couldn't predict the result of a one armed boxing match if you had to.. it's all bias and corrupted toward which ever media company own's the presentation of the candidates.

Unfortunately, the leader of the free world is voted by slack-jawed yokels from the south who wouldn't have the slightest clue about the rest of the world.. yet America remains the most powerful country in the world...

All I can say, as an Australian, is never ever think your vote doesn't count - you should always vote - here it's compulsory - and your vote will change the world.. that's a pretty big tasks and it's all laid upon you people to do something about it.

God Save The Queen.

I myself have wondered at the irony of it.

What do they do to people who don't vote in Australia?

You Yanks are all over the shop anyways, how would you know? Your polls couldn't predict the result of a one armed boxing match if you had to.. it's all bias and corrupted toward which ever media company own's the presentation of the candidates.

Unfortunately, the leader of the free world is voted by slack-jawed yokels from the south who wouldn't have the slightest clue about the rest of the world.. yet America remains the most powerful country in the world...

All I can say, as an Australian, is never ever think your vote doesn't count - you should always vote - here it's compulsory - and your vote will change the world.. that's a pretty big tasks and it's all laid upon you people to do something about it.

God Save The Queen.

Here in Australia the people voted for John Howard. Somehow I don't think our country has any right to judge any other country on their voting habits.

Hell, I wish some people's votes didn't count (that's right! I AM a socialist fascist. Fear my illogical and self-opposing views! Freedom for all except when it annoys me! :D*)


*Really, I'm kidding. I'm a lefty all of the time. Well... most of the time... on most issues... except media (advertising and 'music' and 'acting', not news related)... but other than that I'm totally left wing.

Well, as far as I know I am anyway *starts wondering if I have a Hyde complex that's... dear lord no... a right-winger :eek:*

I myself have wondered at the irony of it.

What do they do to people who don't vote in Australia?

Just fines, I think. $200 or something similar.

The reality is, is that Americans are giving away there freedom with every vote that is like this one. What happened to creating laws that are meant to protect people? I should vote "no" just to help prevent things like this from becoming a rule.

Yet, in America, marriage is a joke anyway.
Not many take the idea of marriage & commitment seriously.

I do not base my vote on religious bias, as I'm agnostic, but since I have a small say in the way marriage is handled - I'll vote to ban gay marriage, because I don't think anyone needs to be married.

Forgive my boldness, but that's stupid. You're not going to ban ALL marriages just by banning gay marriage.

Forgive my boldness, but that's stupid. You're not going to ban ALL marriages just by banning gay marriage.

I'm saying - I base my decision on the fact that I don't believe anyone needs to be married.

Issue One is awful! Not only does it take away all homosexual rights, but it also takes away right of heterosexual couples who are unable to marry (like some of the eldery) and it cuts away maternity and paternity leave from single parents.

I also urge all in Ohio to vote NO on Issue One!

Your church ministers may be telling you to vote for this Amendment, claiming it is the "moral" thing to do.

Yup just like the muslims I know are telling me that suicide bombers are right, and the jews I know all tell me Israel's actions are just

You Yanks are all over the shop anyways, how would you know? Your polls couldn't predict the result of a one armed boxing match if you had to.. it's all bias and corrupted toward which ever media company own's the presentation of the candidates.

Unfortunately, the leader of the free world is voted by slack-jawed yokels from the south who wouldn't have the slightest clue about the rest of the world.. yet America remains the most powerful country in the world...

All I can say, as an Australian, is never ever think your vote doesn't count - you should always vote - here it's compulsory - and your vote will change the world.. that's a pretty big tasks and it's all laid upon you people to do something about it.

God Save The Queen.

I have to agree with you about the slack-jawed yokal thing, but the queen thing, no. I was in Italy and I found an Australian coin worth 2 dollars. Why the Fuck did it have the queen on it? Thats just stupid, do you realize the only countrys once ruled by the British empire to not have any sort of royal English family member on their currency is America and India?

The reality is, is that Americans are giving away there freedom with every vote that is like this one. What happened to creating laws that are meant to protect people? I should vote "no" just to help prevent things like this from becoming a rule.

Yet, in America, marriage is a joke anyway.
Not many take the idea of marriage & commitment seriously.

I do not base my vote on religious bias, as I'm agnostic, but since I have a small say in the way marriage is handled - I'll vote to ban gay marriage, because I don't think anyone needs to be married.

What a stupid idea. Why should nobody need to get married, its tradition, it halps insure that a family will stay together, and that they ARE in fact a family. It also helps to insure that the married couple will think about having kids more seriously and reduces the chances of them splitting up.

So everyone knows, this is what Issue One is:

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.

The second line is what can hurt unmarried hetereosexual couples. The issue isn't just about gay marriage.

Unfortunately, the leader of the free world is voted by slack-jawed yokels from the south who wouldn't have the slightest clue about the rest of the world.. yet America remains the most powerful country in the world...
Fuck you. I'm a southerner, and I really am sick of "enlightened" individuals making such ridiculously prejudiced remarks. You don't know what you are talking about, you have never been in the Southern USA, and you don't know the people. Therefore, you have no right to make comments that merely display your ignorance for all the world to see. Not to mention that this thread is about Ohio, which is definitely *not* in the South.

You see, I could make my own sarcastic comments about a man descended from the criminals who were exiled from England, but I will not. Instead, I will simply ask you to pull your head out of your ass.

So everyone knows, this is what Issue One is:



The second line is what can hurt unmarried hetereosexual couples. The issue isn't just about gay marriage.

That's why this amendment is being labeled the most restrictive anti-gay marriage motion in the nation, though Michigan's Proposal 2 is hardly far behind. Sadly, Ohio's Issue 1 will pass with flying colors, though Michigan might have enough of a brain to defeat Proposal 2.

That's why this amendment is being labeled the most restrictive anti-gay marriage motion in the nation, though Michigan's Proposal 2 is hardly far behind. Sadly, Ohio's Issue 1 will pass with flying colors, though Michigan might have enough of a brain to defeat Proposal 2.
Sigh. You liberals need not worry. The Supreme Court will strike it down as soon as it is taken to court. I may be a Repub, but I am also a law student and I work for a lawyer. Trust me, the first person to take it to court will get it struck down.

Sadly, Ohio's Issue 1 will pass with flying colors, though Michigan might have enough of a brain to defeat Proposal 2.

I think you might be right. I was on campus handing out flyers and trying to get people to vote "no" on Issue 1, but people just either didn't care, didn't know what it was, or thought that voting "yes" meant that you didn't want the issue to pass. The people were not at all willing to listen or to take the chance of letting "homos" have any rights.

My campus has to be most conservative university EVER.

Sigh. You liberals need not worry. The Supreme Court will strike it down as soon as it is taken to court. I may be a Repub, but I am also a law student and I work for a lawyer. Trust me, the first person to take it to court will get it struck down.

I wouldn't count on that either...knowing full well that Bush is going to get re-elected, as well as who's on the Court at the time, and I don't see how they will strike it down. Not that I care one way or another; I intend to be living in another state by my 30th birthday, and my hellhole of a home state can flush itself down the toilet for all I care.

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions.
If I remember correctly, Ohio passed this part sometime last year, [ur;=http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/06/gay.marriage.ap/]though as a law and not an ammendment[/url], so it is there primarily to garner support from people who lack long-term memory... (probably). Laws are easier to repeal than amendments, but the effect is the same for the length of Taft's stay in office.

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.
THIS is why republicans in government oppose it. Since there is absolutely no change on the first part whether it passes or not (since it is already law), people who have to know government for their jobs know that this is the only relevant text.

Actual ramifications of this are unknown, but look pretty much like meaning that unmarried/common-law-married heterosexual couples will be missing the same rights that gay couples are looking for, and the Republicans don't like that. There is the "probably" from my first paragraph. Since the gays are getting screwed anyway, if it weren't an amendment, voting for it would do absolutely nothing but hurt the people who decided that they cannot get married. If this was added in, especially as a "clarification," then it's a clause meant to make sure this never passes, which I wouldn't put past a politician.

My fellow Ohioans, this Nov. 2 a Constitutional Amendment is on the ballot, put there by a right-wing religious coalition. It defines marriage as "a union between one man and one woman", and bans benefits for anything that doesn't strictly follow the model of "moral marriage" set forth in the Amendment by the group.

Your church ministers may be telling you to vote for this Amendment, claiming it is the "moral" thing to do. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing moral about stripping a minority (homosexuals) of a legal right that the majority (heterosexuals) enjoy. There is nothing moral about writing prejudice into the -Constitution- of the Great State of Ohio! I knew a gay person. He was a very thoughtful, quiet, reserved individual who would never do anything to hurt anybody. And every time something like this amendment showed up, I could see how it hurt him. Is that what you want? To turn a blind eye towards, "Equal protection under the law" and use the law as a weapon to satiate hatred? Hate is NOT a family value! Hate is not a CHRISTIAN value! Whatever happened to Christian tolerance, yea, acceptance? Do you want to go down in history as the generation that wrote prejudice into the state constitution? Even when our Republican governor and our Republican Senators have ALL refused to support Issue 1? When Ohio's businesses are rallying against Issue 1 as well?

The writers of this amendment should be ashamed. Their argument is that they are merely protecting the sanctity of religious marriage. But they are writing a law to forbid ALL gay marriages, even secular ones. This isn't an attempt to protect marriage. This is raw, bitter hatred. If there is but a shred of doubt in your heart, I urge you to join me on November 2 in casting a vote for moral democracy. I urge you to help me strike down Issue 1.

-Shalrirorchia

Vote Yes!

Fuck you. I'm a southerner, and I really am sick of "enlightened" individuals making such ridiculously prejudiced remarks. You don't know what you are talking about, you have never been in the Southern USA, and you don't know the people. Therefore, you have no right to make comments that merely display your ignorance for all the world to see. Not to mention that this thread is about Ohio, which is definitely *not* in the South.

Mate, I don't care what you are. My care factor is zero.

Ridiculously prejudice remarks? Hardly. I've seen the south, I've travelled from Dallas to Little Rock to Nashville (Good Burgers) to Pittsburough to NYC... It was great... but my god you guys have got some issues. It might not be all of the south - I agree - but the southern states have the most prejudice against blacks, gays and any other person not a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant). It's sickening. You may not agree with me but try and fight the statistics...

As for the voting thing, don't trust that left-wing socialist before.. he's probably a teacher or some kind of horticulturalist... No idea. It was a landslide victory for the Liberal Party (Comparable to the Republican Party in the US - don't be fooled by the name).. Labour (Democrats) came no where in comparison.. We all have to vote which its a right that no one should turn down... It's a fine of $500 AUD or, if it's a repeat, you can go to gaol for it.

As for the commonwealth thing, it's a split country. Personally I love the royal family and the Queen leading the nation and the commonwealth.. She does a lot for our respect and moral when you see the glimmer in people's eyes when they see her on tour. Then some think we should be independant.. Which is also fair enough in some aspects. Either way, the Queen is the head of state, controls more countries than your President and has more dignity on her little finger than the whole of Nashville.

God Save The Queen.

My fellow Ohioans, this Nov. 2 a Constitutional Amendment is on the ballot, put there by a right-wing religious coalition. It defines marriage as "a union between one man and one woman", .................snip.................... I urge you to help me strike down Issue 1.

-Shalrirorchia
It's #36 for Oregon, and if i could vote i would vote no. Not that i really care, i just want as many religions to pissed off as possible

Sigh. You liberals need not worry. The Supreme Court will strike it down as soon as it is taken to court. I may be a Repub, but I am also a law student and I work for a lawyer. Trust me, the first person to take it to court will get it struck down.
That is reassuring.

HOWEVER the Supreme Court only struck down the Texas sodomy laws by a 6-3 majority. That meant 3 of the current US Supreme Court justices thought the government had a right to restrict private sexual practices within the privacy of our own homes.

I wish I could be more confident that at least 5 of the 6 majority rulers would strike down these bans on gay marriage.

What, so in the USA people can vote to take away rights from a minority? Talk about tyranny of the majority! We'ren't your founding fathers against pure democracy for precisely that reason?

I am a Right wing supporter in Australia and if I had to vote in America I would probably vote with the Left Wing. What does that make me????

Well I think I am Centre-Right wing voter. I side with most things right but I hate the extremist right wing views almost as much as the extremist left. If I had to add it up I change depending on which side appeals to me at the time, but I find absolutely no repeal for extremist views in politics

(Grrrr The Australian Greens).

Also in response to a post previous, if you dont vote in Australia you get fined. Although it may be inconvienient to some people, the Australian voting system is really good and accurate.

I dont understand what is so hard about numbering boxes on a ballot. Why do you need voting computers CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET or holepunching cards.
Oh and......

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!!!!

What, so in the USA people can vote to take away rights from a minority? Talk about tyranny of the majority! We'ren't your founding fathers against pure democracy for precisely that reason?
You can't take away rights that someone never had. And if the Founding Fathers really cared one way or the other about gay marriage they would have said something.

They did. They were called anti-sodomy laws.

Back gay marriage if you like. But don't pretend that the Founding Fathers would have been in favour of it. They would not have been.

Personally I love the royal family and the Queen leading the nation and the commonwealth.. She does a lot for our respect and moral when you see the glimmer in people's eyes when they see her on tour. Then some think we should be independant.. Which is also fair enough in some aspects. Either way, the Queen is the head of state, controls more countries than your President and has more dignity on her little finger than the whole of Nashville.
Leading the nation and the commonwealth? She doesn't do anything apart from scrounge off taxpayers money...
Glimmer in people's eyes? I don't think I've ever known ANYONE who was a monarchist.
Yep, can't beat the dignity of a parasite...
As for the gay marriage thing, I find it unbelievable that people [Often politicians] can claim they support equality and fairness, then go on and vote for amendments like this banning gay marriage and such.

You can't take away rights that someone never had. And if the Founding Fathers really cared one way or the other about gay marriage they would have said something.

The idea wasn't around back then. Kinsley was really the person who brought the idea of homosexuality in its current interpretation out to the general populous, circa 1920.

Hmm, I don't think I was going to Ohio to get married anytime soon. But yeah, that would suck if I had to start hating Ohio politics too. Meh. Stupid uber conserves. Watch out...you might catch the gay *rolls eyes

They did. They were called anti-sodomy laws.

Back gay marriage if you like. But don't pretend that the Founding Fathers would have been in favour of it. They would not have been.
Erm... You realize that "Sodomy" only very recently and in very specific locales has referred explicitly to homosexual sex, correct? Most places in the world now, and anywhere back then, it meant any nonreproductive sexual act, and in most places within the US, it still means "anal or oral, regardless of gender involved."

Back ignorance if you like, but don't pretend that just because you use a word to mean something it doesn't makes a good arguement. It would not make rational sense.

Leading the nation and the commonwealth? She doesn't do anything apart from scrounge off taxpayers money...
That is not true, the Queen performs tasks and serves purposes. I'd rather have the person elected to serve as my countries leader reminded that they are indeed a servant and having a Queen does that. A Prime Minister is in essence the primary amongst the Queen's ministers - ie a glorified servant, and frankly when you are giving someone power reminding them that they hold that power only as a servant cannot be an entirely bad thing...