Ohio Close to Passing Gay Marriage Ban

Lasza · 01-21-2004, 11:38 AM

Ohio Close to Passing Gay Marriage Ban

COLUMBUS, Ohio - After seven years of debate, lawmakers moved closer Wednesday to passing a law that would bar Ohio from recognizing same-sex marriages and keep some state employees from getting benefits for their domestic partners.

A Senate committee approved the measure Wednesday morning, and it was likely to go before the full Senate as early as Wednesday afternoon. If a version that passed the House last month is not amended, the legislation would go to Gov. Bob Taft, who has indicated he supports it.

The bill, considered one of the most far-reaching in the nation, puts into law that same-sex marriages would be "against the strong public policy of the state." That language is necessary because of a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruling that requires states to recognize marriages from other states in most circumstances.

Ohio may be only the second state, besides Nebraska, that would prohibit benefits for state employees' unmarried partners, said lawyer Michael Adams of Lambda Legal Defense.

The Legislature has struggled with the issue since then-Rep. Jay Hottinger introduced a bill in the House seven years ago.

Similar bills have been introduced in each legislative session since then, but former Senate President Richard Finan, a Republican, blocked its passage. He said state law already took care of the matter.

After Finan left the Senate in 2003 because of term limits, Republican Rep. Bill Seitz sponsored the current bill and told the committee that a ruling in Massachusetts that declared the state's gay marriage ban unconstitutional could affect Ohio.

"My concern is the cost of the courts rewriting statutes in ways we did not intend," Seitz told the committee.

Although the bill would prohibit unmarried partners of state employees from receiving benefits received by married partners, it would allow exceptions, including employees who gain such rights in negotiating under collective bargaining, he said. It would not apply to local governments or private companies.

Adams, of Lambda Legal Defense, said the legislation is not needed and places burdens on the partners of gays that are not found in other states that have banned same-sex marriages.

"There is no evidence that any couples besides man-woman couples are trying to get married. It seems to be unnecessary," Adams said.

Seitz denied that the bill targets gays and lesbians.

"All unmarried people — gay or straight — are treated the same under this bill," Seitz said.

Sen. Eric Fingerhut, the ranking Democrat on the committee, questioned the need to push the bill through the Senate in two days, but Republican Senate President Doug White said he is moving the bill because it has been debated for years and the Legislature has other things to do.

"With the limited number of (session) dates that we have, we could continue to beat this issue around, but basically its form and function are sound and we're moving with it," White said.

Taft has said he will sign the bill as long as it does not stop private companies from offering domestic partner benefits. His spokesman said Tuesday that Taft will do a legal review of the bill before making a final decision.

Attorney General Jim Petro said he opposes the bill.

"I don't think it should be against the strong public policy of the state to show respect and a little bit of tolerance for all people, and that may include people who make a strong commitment to one another and who happen to be of the same gender," Petro, a Republican planning a run for governor in 2006, told The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer.

Fly Free · 01-21-2004, 12:06 PM

this sounds like an outright discrimination -- this is so STUPID!!!!!!!!!

we all gotta unite!!!!!!!!! and FIGHT dammit!!!!!!!

javapride · 01-21-2004, 03:50 PM

fly I SO agree this is SOO STUPID and this putting down and limiting us is like telling us we're not free Dammit!

STOP LIMITING THE POEPLE FROM MAKING FREEDOM OF CHOICE

***VamPyroX*** · 01-21-2004, 04:00 PM

If people don't want it, then we have to respect their wishes. You all didn't want :mynigga: so we respected your wishes and are in the process of having it removed.

javapride · 01-21-2004, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VamPyroX

If people don't want it, then we have to respect their wishes. You all didn't want :mynigga: so we respected your wishes and are in the process of having it removed.

VAMP the icon isn't the point, the discrimiation is, as to the fact, thier trying to stop us from being married from being part of who we are, this is our lives that thier trying to control. So don t bring that icon up just to say this is the reason, cuz we wanted it, the attorney general doesn't want it but they are trying to put it in lesisgation. We're trying to be FREE to BE who we are! not for them to slam the door on our faces!

sablescort · 01-21-2004, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by javapride

VAMP the icon isn't the point, the discrimiation is, as to the fact, thier trying to stop us from being married from being part of who we are, this is our lives that thier trying to control. So don t bring that icon up just to say this is the reason, cuz we wanted it, the attorney general doesn't want it but they are trying to put it in lesisgation. We're trying to be FREE to BE who we are! not for them to slam the door on our faces!

But we have to remember, as we fight the Ohio proposal, that the Repigs control the damned Ohio legislature.

If enough Dems controlled the legislature the ban would have failed surely, but it's time to get the damned Repigs out of the Ohio legislature by the voting booth and then getting the Dems to overturn that idiotic legislation.

Shit, George Orwell is rolling in his grave as our cherished liberties are slowly taken away piece by piece.

LovelyBlkGal · 01-21-2004, 07:09 PM

that not RIGHT it's Gay/lesb's decision if they want married as long FREEDOM it's theirs RIGHTS

Kai Onca · 01-22-2004, 09:30 AM

I dont think its taking anyones rights at all... I think its just a measure to perserve the marriage thing.... This country has enough problems with divorces and its a sociological problem. To allow more and more people to get married, anyone can easily abuse the marriage system for various of reasons.

I do believe that if they came up with another different term for a union between the same gender and what defines a union, everything will be so much more smoother and less complicated on both parties

01-21-2004, 11:38 AM	#1 (permalink)
Lasza Premium Lurker Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mile High State Posts: 2,510	Ohio Close to Passing Gay Marriage Ban Ohio Close to Passing Gay Marriage Ban COLUMBUS, Ohio - After seven years of debate, lawmakers moved closer Wednesday to passing a law that would bar Ohio from recognizing same-sex marriages and keep some state employees from getting benefits for their domestic partners. A Senate committee approved the measure Wednesday morning, and it was likely to go before the full Senate as early as Wednesday afternoon. If a version that passed the House last month is not amended, the legislation would go to Gov. Bob Taft, who has indicated he supports it. The bill, considered one of the most far-reaching in the nation, puts into law that same-sex marriages would be "against the strong public policy of the state." That language is necessary because of a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruling that requires states to recognize marriages from other states in most circumstances. Ohio may be only the second state, besides Nebraska, that would prohibit benefits for state employees' unmarried partners, said lawyer Michael Adams of Lambda Legal Defense. The Legislature has struggled with the issue since then-Rep. Jay Hottinger introduced a bill in the House seven years ago. Similar bills have been introduced in each legislative session since then, but former Senate President Richard Finan, a Republican, blocked its passage. He said state law already took care of the matter. After Finan left the Senate in 2003 because of term limits, Republican Rep. Bill Seitz sponsored the current bill and told the committee that a ruling in Massachusetts that declared the state's gay marriage ban unconstitutional could affect Ohio. "My concern is the cost of the courts rewriting statutes in ways we did not intend," Seitz told the committee. Although the bill would prohibit unmarried partners of state employees from receiving benefits received by married partners, it would allow exceptions, including employees who gain such rights in negotiating under collective bargaining, he said. It would not apply to local governments or private companies. Adams, of Lambda Legal Defense, said the legislation is not needed and places burdens on the partners of gays that are not found in other states that have banned same-sex marriages. "There is no evidence that any couples besides man-woman couples are trying to get married. It seems to be unnecessary," Adams said. Seitz denied that the bill targets gays and lesbians. "All unmarried people — gay or straight — are treated the same under this bill," Seitz said. Sen. Eric Fingerhut, the ranking Democrat on the committee, questioned the need to push the bill through the Senate in two days, but Republican Senate President Doug White said he is moving the bill because it has been debated for years and the Legislature has other things to do. "With the limited number of (session) dates that we have, we could continue to beat this issue around, but basically its form and function are sound and we're moving with it," White said. Taft has said he will sign the bill as long as it does not stop private companies from offering domestic partner benefits. His spokesman said Tuesday that Taft will do a legal review of the bill before making a final decision. Attorney General Jim Petro said he opposes the bill. "I don't think it should be against the strong public policy of the state to show respect and a little bit of tolerance for all people, and that may include people who make a strong commitment to one another and who happen to be of the same gender," Petro, a Republican planning a run for governor in 2006, told The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer.

01-21-2004, 04:00 PM	#4 (permalink)
*VamPyroX* bloody phreak from hell Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Hell Posts: 27,042	If people don't want it, then we have to respect their wishes. You all didn't want :mynigga: so we respected your wishes and are in the process of having it removed. __________________ Check out my city... CLICK HERE! (If you already visited yesterday, visit again today!)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

01-21-2004, 12:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
Fly Free Just me Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Wherever i want to be LOL Posts: 9,101	this sounds like an outright discrimination -- this is so STUPID!!!!!!!!! we all gotta unite!!!!!!!!! and FIGHT dammit!!!!!!!

01-21-2004, 03:50 PM	#3 (permalink)
javapride Java's Big Island Life! Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: hawaii Posts: 6,509	fly I SO agree this is SOO STUPID and this putting down and limiting us is like telling us we're not free Dammit! STOP LIMITING THE POEPLE FROM MAKING FREEDOM OF CHOICE

01-21-2004, 07:09 PM	#7 (permalink)
LovelyBlkGal Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Somewhere in OHIO Posts: 3,954	that not RIGHT it's Gay/lesb's decision if they want married as long FREEDOM it's theirs RIGHTS

01-22-2004, 09:30 AM	#8 (permalink)
Kai Onca Save the RAINFOREST Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Wandering through the Mist of Time Posts: 900	I dont think its taking anyones rights at all... I think its just a measure to perserve the marriage thing.... This country has enough problems with divorces and its a sociological problem. To allow more and more people to get married, anyone can easily abuse the marriage system for various of reasons. I do believe that if they came up with another different term for a union between the same gender and what defines a union, everything will be so much more smoother and less complicated on both parties