Issue 1

Printable View

November 18th, 2004, 11:58 AM
reason

I found this to be a well written editorial regarding the passage of Issue 1. From today's Enquirer:

Issue 1 hurts all nontraditional couples

J. Andrew Keller

While the reverent straight folk of the Buckeye State could not remove their gaze from the first sentence of Issue 1 - "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions" - the gay folks, curiously, zoomed right to the second sentence: "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."

Apparently, the majority of our fellow Ohioans were so busy hyperventilating about two dudes kissing, they failed to notice that the rest of Issue 1 strives to ban every nontraditional relationship - gay or straight. So high were the passions that if the second sentence had read, "all puppies within the state will be shot," Issue 1 still no doubt would have passed. Given state demographics, Issue 1 as passed may have the unexpected result of affecting far more straight couples than gay ones.

Unhappily, the only circumstances they might encounter that would enlighten them to their newly destabilized situation are crisis ones - if their significant other were injured and in a hospital, or died, or lost their job and needed to find health care.

These are the situations that gays are already bitterly familiar with, and have been striving for years to turn either avoid or prevent. Do you want to know what the notoriously secret "gay agenda" is? For most, it is simply having the legal safeguards in place such as civil unions or domestic partnerships could provide that would keep a heartbreaking loss from becoming a financial atomic bomb. Not much to ask for, one would think.

Gay couples exist. Gay couples own homes together, adopt children together, have children from former marriages, go through illness and death. All of these situations have legal ramifications.

Is it really the conservatives' idea that stripping gays (and, only in dear old Ohio, nontraditional straight couples) of any rights here is a good idea? Is it moral for our government to intentionally destabilize committed relationships?

Maybe before our new unifying president pushes for a federal amendment bent to this purpose, good citizens should get past the first sentence. Go ahead. Read the second. And only then ask yourself, is this really moral? And is this the role of government?

J. Andrew Keller is an architect who lives with his partner in Clifton.
November 18th, 2004, 12:12 PM
reason

I can't help but recall Lew's comments against the concept of gay marriage and how violating traditional structure will denegrate an orderly society.

It will now be interesting to see what happens now that the straight folks have voted themselves out of basic rights that protect themselves in circumstances arising from life's crisis.

I still have an odd satisfaction about this. I will always remember the voter at the polls who was convinced that she needed to protect marriage from devolving into men marrying their dogs, while heading into the voting booth to cast her ballot to deny her relationship of 30 years with the same man.

Instant karma.

[ November 18, 2004 10:04 AM: Message edited by: reason ]
November 18th, 2004, 12:12 PM
gae

Reason, you know my vote on this.

Quote:

Do you want to know what the notoriously secret "gay agenda" is? For most, it is simply having the legal safeguards in place such as civil unions or domestic partnerships could provide that would keep a heartbreaking loss from becoming a financial atomic bomb.

I think that middle America might more easily accept "civil union" over "marriage".

But now that Mr. Keller has publicized the "secret" gay agenda, is it still secret?
November 18th, 2004, 12:13 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by gae:
Reason, you know my vote on this.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Do you want to know what the notoriously secret "gay agenda" is? For most, it is simply having the legal safeguards in place such as civil unions or domestic partnerships could provide that would keep a heartbreaking loss from becoming a financial atomic bomb.

I think that middle America might more easily accept "civil union" over "marriage".

But now that Mr. Keller has publicized the "secret" gay agenda, is it still secret?<hr /></blockquote>It never was. Only twisted by the other side.
November 18th, 2004, 12:40 PM
jumper69

A majority of American's are either too stupid or too lazy to investigate any issue beyond the 30 second sound bites they see or hear in the media. Politicans know this and use it to their advantage.

Result: Issue 1 passes.

It's sad really... [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img]
November 18th, 2004, 01:40 PM
LanDroid

Very good article. However, I have three serious questions.

What non-traditional straight arrangements are affected? Common law marriage is still in place because it is still marriage between a man and a woman. I don't see any change there and don't know of any other non-traditional relationships. Well, other than a few common law marriages between humans and animals of the opposite sex. [img]redface.gif[/img]

I don't see how civil unions would do much good. Most insurance contracts, hospital visitation policies, etc. cover the individual and a "spouse". A civil union partner is not a "spouse" therefore no coverage or protection.

Marriage is the only way to have the same, not special rights. I might have this wrong, but I think wills demonstrate this. A will among domestic partners should work 97.3% of the time. However if there is a large amount of money involved, families can and do legally contest these wills, fighting to extract money for themselves. Wills among married couples are not contested. Dunno if I have this right...

In short, you're screwed for about the next 100 years. Perhaps sooner if, like Article XII, Ohioans find there is an economic drain to states that don't have similar laws.
November 18th, 2004, 01:59 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by LanDroid:
Very good article. However, I have three serious questions.

What non-traditional straight arrangements are affected? Common law marriage is still in place because it is still marriage between a man and a woman. I don't see any change there and don't know of any other non-traditional relationships. Well, other than a few common law marriages between humans and animals of the opposite sex. [img]redface.gif[/img]

I don't see how civil unions would do much good. Most insurance contracts, hospital visitation policies, etc. cover the individual and a "spouse". A civil union partner is not a "spouse" therefore no coverage or protection.

Marriage is the only way to have the same, not special rights. I might have this wrong, but I think wills demonstrate this. A will among domestic partners should work 97.3% of the time. However if there is a large amount of money involved, families can and do legally contest these wills, fighting to extract money for themselves. Wills among married couples are not contested. Dunno if I have this right...

In short, you're screwed for about the next 100 years. Perhaps sooner if, like Article XII, Ohioans find there is an economic drain to states that don't have similar laws.

Most states no longer recognize common law marriage, and I believe Ohio was one of them, even before Issue 1 passed. Codifying recognition in the state constitution to only those relationships who are actually married pretty much seals the deal.

There is no such thing as common law marriage in Ohio. It is illegal to recognize such relationships.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is entirely sure how this is going to pan out. A lot of conservative leaders came out against it because it would be economically bad for the state. There is also the concern over the vague language of the amendment and the potential for lots of litigation.

[ November 18, 2004 02:58 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
November 18th, 2004, 06:57 PM
reason

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article about the first wave of lawsuits filed to overturn gay marriage issues passed in 11 states. Kentucky's is already being challenged. No word yet about Ohio.

The article did mention Ohio State University reviewing its benefits package to domestic partners in order to determine if they were still allowed to offer them.
November 18th, 2004, 08:33 PM
Boo Boo

I know Im going to reret this....

Reason, IMO the second line is even more of a reason to vote for this ban. If a straight couple wants the benefits of marriage, there is nothing stopping them.

One of the biggest arguemnt I've heard against gay marriage is it is opening the door to many different things. Now I don't think there is going to be a rash of people marrying their farm animals. BUT what is to prevent, lets say, GL moving in with Jumper/D2 as a domestic partner. Now GL has all the benefits available to him.

My BIL is now living with his girlfriend. They have 6 kids, from previous marriages, between them. Because of school grants, tax reasons, etc... they are not getting married because financially they are better off not to. Give them added benefits to not get married is wrong. Eventually marriage is going to become more of a business decision, how can we work the system to our benefit. In the meantime the family unit will no longer exist and in 20 years we are going to wonder why our kids are so screwed up.
November 19th, 2004, 12:12 PM
reason

Quote:

One of the biggest arguemnt I've heard against gay marriage is it is opening the door to many different things. Now I don't think there is going to be a rash of people marrying their farm animals. BUT what is to prevent, lets say, GL moving in with Jumper/D2 as a domestic partner. Now GL has all the benefits available to him.

I'm going to address your comments, but for the sake of keeping the peace, I'm going to change your scenario from GL moving in with jumper to trav moving in with Jumper. I think that would make more sense in the context of your argument, anyway.

First of all, the farm animal argument doesn't even have a place in this discussion. How interspecies relationships get continually connected with the relationship between two consenting adult humans is beyond me. No one has ever presented any valid argument how the latter leads to the former. Not saying you said this would happen, but since I've repeatedly had to counter this point, why not do it again (just since you mentioned it in passing).

Now to address your main point, if trav and jumper are in a committed relationship but decide not to get married, I don't see any reason why they can't have the same benefits of a heterosexual couple. I'm not sure what your objection is.

Gay people don't have the option to get legally married, yet they have to wrangle around a legal system that keeps them pretty much out in the cold when it comes to "divorce," death in the family, custody, transfer of wealth, visitation rights, etc.

I would argue that heterosexual couples get married for similar reasons, even if they aren't in committed relationships. It's kind of a double standard in that if you're straight you can get married for any reason, but if you're gay your reasons for wanting to get married must be validated, or the true nature of a domestic relationship is automatically called into question.

Quite frankly, it's no one's business. I'm sure you didn't want anyone questioning your motives or second guessing you when you got hitched. You probably don't think about such things because they're handed to you. Take them away, and you might think differently.

[ November 19, 2004 08:13 AM: Message edited by: reason ]
November 19th, 2004, 06:23 PM
reason

Ok...here are some questions I'd like to have answered:

Is Britney Spears in her 24 hour marriage to her high school sweetheart more deserving of marriage benefits than my former neighbors LeAnn and Bobbie - two lesbians raising a child together for the past 5 years?

Why does Michael Jackson get afforded these benefits, while Bret and Sean - together for 4 years - get none?

Why does Drew Barrymore - who stayed with her first husband for a month, and her second husband for 5 months - get afforded the special benefits of marriage when Eddie from softball has to deal with the lack of legal protections now that his 40 something partner of 2 years has died due to a heart attack resulting from chemo?

I attend the wake on Sunday.

[ November 19, 2004 02:25 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
November 19th, 2004, 06:36 PM
reason

And while I'm at it, why does Phil Burress, divorced twice and married THREE times, have the authority much less the moral credibility to tell the rest of us what marriage should be?

And where are the calls for the defense of marriage in the increasingly dirty and nasty feud between Mike Allen and his mistress? Where's the outrage, knowing that Allen was friends of Burress and an instrument of Citizens for Community Values?

[ November 19, 2004 02:39 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
November 19th, 2004, 06:38 PM
reason

On behalf of Phil Burress and Lake, at the wake I'll tell Eddie his relationship wasn't real, therefore he should get over it in a hurry.
November 19th, 2004, 07:00 PM
jumper69

Everybody has dirty laundry. The ones who proclaim moral values the loudest probably have the dirtiest.

As I've gotten older, I've become much more cynical and now firmly believe that nobody is completly clean and therefore able to tell me how I should live my life.
November 20th, 2004, 02:30 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Gunslinger:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by reason:
Eddie from softball has to deal with the lack of legal protections now that his 40 something partner of 2 years has died due to a heart attack resulting from chemo?

I attend the wake on Sunday.

[ November 19, 2004 02:25 PM: Message edited by: reason ]

I am sorry for the loss of your friend reason.<hr /></blockquote>Truth be told, Eddie is more of a friend of friends. I didn't really know the partner, other than meeting him at his Halloween party a year ago. I'm not exactly sure why I've been brought into the fold at this "farewell party" but I got a call and now I feel obligated to go.

Eddie's a good guy. I wondered why he wasn't playing softball this year (He's a very good shortstop and would be welcome on any good team). A number of our mutual friends will be going.

I guess I view Eddie as a "fraternity brother," and his loss is my loss.
November 20th, 2004, 02:35 PM
reason

I want to point out that the wake has been described as more of a party to celebrate the guy's life.

I think this is a good idea. It will be an interesting mix of people as friends and family will all attend.
November 20th, 2004, 04:24 PM
Gunslinger

Quote:

Originally posted by reason:
Eddie from softball has to deal with the lack of legal protections now that his 40 something partner of 2 years has died due to a heart attack resulting from chemo?

I attend the wake on Sunday.

[ November 19, 2004 02:25 PM: Message edited by: reason ]

I am sorry for the loss of your friend reason.
November 21st, 2004, 04:11 AM
Gunslinger

That is what a wake should be for. To celebrate the life that has passed.

When I die, I want a good old fashioned Irish wake, will all the liquor, music and good times that people can have.