I just can’t fathom it. Why do so many people care who wants to marry whom? If it doesn’t concern them, they should stay out of it.
We’re a nation of fucking busybodies.
Before the last election (in which Ohio voters approved a SSM ban), I was driving through Holmes County, which has a huge Amish population. I saw many lawn signs that read “VOTE FOR ISSUE 1 / SAVE OUR SCHOOLS” and “VOTE FOR ISSUE 1 / FOR OUR CHILDREN.” I wonder how many people voted to ban SSM, but thought they were voting for a school levy.
If they want to defend traditional marriage, why aren’t they going after Britteny Spears and the Hollywood marriage (averaging just over 1.2 years*)?
[sub]*fake stat[/sub]
Giles:
I suspect that most of those who voted for this nonsense did not read it. It clearly not only forbids gay marriages, but also foirbids giving umarried people the rights of married people (whether they are gay or straight). So a woman living in an unmarried state with a man can’t be given the same protection as a married woman.
The knuckle-grazers who drafted this nonsense wanted to use a double-barrelled shotgun to make sure they hit the gays that they are so frightened of, but using such a blunt scatter-gun approach inevitably hurt others that weren’t in their sights.
But why should they care? I mean, after all, these people aren’t MARRIED. They’re living in SIN!!!
gobear
April 7, 2005, 12:34am
25
I’m really tired of living in Jesusland. I sure hope I can get an exit visa and go back to the United States.
Bricker Having read the amendment, I think Freidmen is right in his assessment. in his own words
Friedman said he was “greatly concerned” as to how his decision might affect judicial decisions setting bail and motions for temporary restraining orders in certain domestic violence cases.
But before announcing his decision, he emphasized that anyone who assumed the ruling was based on any kind of personal, legal or social agenda would be wrong.
And following the law, Friedman said, can sometimes mean taking a path to some “unfamiliar or even frightening” places.
But we’ll all see whether this holds up.
Reeder
April 7, 2005, 1:23am
27
NC…one of the reddest of the red states has declined to jump on the bandwagon too.
Not that some here haven’t tried.
mhendo
April 7, 2005, 5:24am
28
If i can borrow a phrase i heard somewhere recently, these folks want a government just small enough to fit in your bedroom.
Spectre of Pithecanthropus:
I just can’t fathom it. Why do so many people care who wants to marry whom? If it doesn’t concern them, they should stay out of it.
We’re a nation of fucking busybodies.
Becoming?
We’re just going from being Norman Bates nosy to Gladys Kravitz invasive.
We do not want our children to grow up in such a country. And the captain is so kind, he wants to help… but we have no money…
I’m not sure about that. I do know, that if you are transgendered, and are about to engage in sexual activity with someone (who is of the opposite gender now, but wasn’t always) for the first time you have to inform them of this fact beforehand. Someone in my hometown went to jail for that very thing.
Clarifying: Someone in my hometown went to jail because they didn’t inform their new partner that they had been born male, and were post-op transgendered. The partner found out about it afterwards, and she went to jail.
Again, “born male” as in that is what the official, legal paperwork said. My apologies for any offense I may have unintentionally given. I can only think of the person as a her. Jaded me some when I found out about it too.
gobear
April 7, 2005, 11:26am
34
So will Captain Renault keep his promise? Jan is so young; in some ways, I am much older than he.
Zabali_Clawbane:
Clarifying: Someone in my hometown went to jail because they didn’t inform their new partner that they had been born male, and were post-op transgendered. The partner found out about it afterwards, and she went to jail.
Yeep. In jail, was she kept in male or female population?
Giles:
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.
I suspect that most of those who voted for this nonsense did not read it. It clearly not only forbids gay marriages, but also foirbids giving umarried people the rights of married people (whether they are gay or straight). So a woman living in an unmarried state with a man can’t be given the same protection as a married woman.
The knuckle-grazers who drafted this nonsense wanted to use a double-barrelled shotgun to make sure they hit the gays that they are so frightened of, but using such a blunt scatter-gun approach inevitably hurt others that weren’t in their sights.
I don’t know. Ohio’s a pretty damn fundie state. it wouldn’t surprise me to learn this was the actual intent - to prevent them homos AND them straight people living in sin from having anything approaching a marriage.
Rather than unintended consequences, I suspect they were killing 2 birds with one stone.
You want my advice? Go back to Czechoslovakia.
Zabali_Clawbane:
I’m not sure about that. I do know, that if you are transgendered, and are about to engage in sexual activity with someone (who is of the opposite gender now, but wasn’t always) for the first time you have to inform them of this fact beforehand. Someone in my hometown went to jail for that very thing.
I had to do some digging to find where I originally heard it, here’s the slate article:
Paradoxically, it’s the more conservative states that tend to allow such same-sex unions. Courts in Texas and Kansas, for example, have ruled that no operation can alter a person’s sex in the eyes of the law. In the 1999 Texas decision, a state appeals court invalidated the marriage between a deceased man and his male-to-female transsexual widow, after the widow tried to sue her husband’s employer for wrongful death. Gender, the court concluded, is “fixed by our Creator at birth.”
The unintended consequence of that decision, however, is that a transsexual could marry someone of the same gender in Texas. After all, if a male-to-female transsexual is legally a male in the state, regardless of her surgery and appearance, then she is free to marry another female. In fact, at least two couples have taken advantage of this Texan loophole since the ruling. A 2002 Kansas decision, In re Gardiner, created this same loophole, although it’s unclear whether any couples have made use of it yet.
Well, no, it looks like the article is about gay “marriage.”
Those quotation marks piss me off. :mad:
Eve
April 7, 2005, 1:31pm
40
Zabali_Clawbane:
Clarifying: Someone in my hometown went to jail because they didn’t inform their new partner that they had been born male, and were post-op transgendered. The partner found out about it afterwards, and she went to jail.
[Adds to my list of “Reasons I Have Not Dated Since the Coolidge Administration.”]
Yikes—am I supposed to have a Scarlet T emblazoned on me at all times? (I shouldn’t even say that in jest—it will be in the Constitution by next week!)
I think this whole series of events stinks, and I cannot wait until these laws are ripped out by the roots as they should be. It makes me angry and sad at the same time.