Here comes the devil's advocate. I am not gay, not a Democrate, not a homosexual, I do not live on a farm but rather in a liberal City- Cleveland. I will say I am against gays adopting children. As for people being gay, I don't care. But just like telemarketers and religious fanatics, don't push your lifestyle on me. Whatever you do in your own life (within reason) is your business and not mine. But, when a child is added to the equasion, that in my opinion is different. Now, I am not going to argue if a gay couple is capable of raising a child. Yes, as long as they are good individules, they are capable. But, along with the slew of problems kids face these days, being raised by a gay couple just throws fuel on the fire. This is not LaLa land and I beg to differ with anyone who thinks the child will not be relentlessly ridiculed. That is just reality. Why would you  willingly subject any child to that. 

    Now another issue that is just my opinion------- absolutely no scientific "back up". I think that a person is born with thier sexual oriantation. Why? I'll use myself as an example. Nobody ever told me to be attracted to females. I just am. Nobody told me to be attracted to brunetts. I just am. The list goes on. I assume it would be the same for a gay person. A child may be born one way but would learn, by watching gay parents, something different. It would be similar to a child who grows up watching his dad beat his mom-- the child may follow that behavior as an adult. Children who watch thier parents smoke/drink may do the same. Not that being gay is anywhere near the equivalent, but why confuse a child? Parents have the most influence on thier children. I learned to be a good father to my kids and a honorable husband to my wife by the example my dad set with my mom, myself, and my brothers. A parents influence is very powerful. I think parents are 1 male and 1 female. I think parents of the same gender may just add confusion to a child.

     

I don't disagree that it might confuse a child.  But I disagree that confusion is necessarily a bad thing.  Any and all learning is accompanied by confusion.  Would you suggest that parents of a different culture from a child shouldn't be allowed to adopt that child?  Certainly that could cause identity confusion for the child (not to mention ridicule-as if the parents should be punished for that).  Do you think there could be long term benefits to the child to understanding people that are different from him or her?  Do you think the kids life will be better bouncing from one foster family to another?  Will he/she be less confused by of that?

It isn't that Husted is any less conservative than his GOP brethren.  The fact that he is in a leadership position has him realizing that the reputation of the Republican Party in Ohio is on a very steep and slippery slope. Unfortunately (for him) that realization is coming a bit late.

As for people being gay, I don't care. But just like telemarketers and religious fanatics, don't push your lifestyle on me.

How is adopting a child pushing my "lifestyle" on you?

 

This is not LaLa land and I beg to differ with anyone who thinks the child will not be relentlessly ridiculed. That is just reality. Why would you willingly subject any child to that.

Yes, children can ridicule and tease and I hate for any child to endure that. However, do we ban Ronald McDonald because he promotes obesity, thus causing a child ridicule? Do we not send learning disabled children to school because they may be teased? Do we force our child to squint and not be able see well because of teasing they may face because of wearing glasses? Children will always find ways to ridicule others about anything and everything. It is an unfortunate part of growing up, but the most important thing is how it is handled. I didn't like being picked on for wearing glasses, being short in elementary school, etc., but my parents used it as an opportunity to have conversations with me that helped me grow. I think it helped strengthen my relationship with my parents, made me more likely to stand up for others, and helped make me learn that differences are part of life.

 

A child may be born one way but would learn, by watching gay parents, something different.

I was raised by a mom and dad. I am gay. While I didn't go to them for dating advise, they taught me how to be a good person. They were loving. Growing up gay with straight parents didn't cause me nearly as much confusion and anxiety as a bigoted and unaccepting society did, but hiding or ignoring the issue does nothing but perpetuate the problem. In fact, I think it is more harmful for a child to grow up closeted with any type of parents than it would be for a child to grow up with gay parents.

 

It would be similar to a child who grows up watching his dad beat his mom-- the child may follow that behavior as an adult.

I thought you said that a child is born gay or straight. What behaviors are a straight(as I assume you were inferring) child going to follow as an adult if they were raised by gay parents?

 

Parents have the most influence on their children. I learned to be a good father to my kids and a honorable husband to my wife by the example my dad set with my mom, myself, and my brothers. A parents influence is very powerful.

I agree, but see no reason why two parents of the same sex can't do the same.

 

I think parents are 1 male and 1 female.

We have foster parents--1 male and 1 female--locking children in cages. On tv the other day, there was a young women talking about having to grow up in 40 foster homes before she turned 18. I think this illustrates the importance of providing children with caring and loving parents, and see no reason why two parents of the same sex cannot do this.

 

 

Personally, I think these statistics show that our lawmakers should be focusing their efforts elsewhere and let--in fact, encourage--loving parents to adopt children, especially children in our foster care system.

 

• A child in Ohio is abused or neglected every 10 minutes
  
• A child in Ohio is born into poverty every 21 minutes
  
• A child in Ohio dies before his or her first birthday every 8 hours
  
• A child or teen in Ohio is killed by gunfire every 4 days
  
• Number of poor children 475,207
  
• Percent of children who are poor 16.8%
  
• Number of children who were victims of abuse and neglect 50,141
  
• Number of children in foster care 21,012
  
• Number of children without health insurance 270,000
  
• Percent of two-year-olds who are not fully immunized25.0%
  

KTP, I'd just say that the important thing for a child is growing up with discipline, love, and his or her material needs being met.  Everything other than that is secondary.  Lots of single parents do a great job; lots of straight couples do a poor job.  Being ridiculed for being fat or ugly or thin or tall or short or speaking weird or anything else, that's going to happen.  Being confused because you lose your grandparents young or your parents are dorks or weird or into square dancing or anything else is unavoidable, but also secondary.  Yes, having gay parents would be different from other kids - but they're different from each other as well.  If a gay couple can provide love, discipline, food and shelter, I can't imagine their kid will end up any more unique than any other kid.  God bless them all...

It's amazing how people will either "get up and leave" or "secede" when they feel something isn't right. 

While I see your point, ColDayMan, how long do my partner and I have to wait until we can get married or, hell, even a "civil union"?   How long do we have to wait to have child if this passes (which I don't think it will, but nonetheless)?  It's not realistic for us to wait 30 years to have a child.  When we decide to start our family, that will be much more important to me than any loyalty to a state.  I do nearly everything I possibly can to promote change for the better in Ohio.  I vote in every election.  I try to educate those who have different opinions when I can.  I encourage others to vote.  I write and call my elected officials.  I donate to causes that support my point of view.  I volunteer for these causes when I can.  I work on committees promoting these causes.  I attend pride events--not so much because I enjoy them, but I feel the more people there, the better.  I do and will continue doing these things, but there will be a point in my life where if who I am has been completely condemned by the state of Ohio government, I will look elsewhere.  Until that day though, I will continue to fight the fight.

 

I think you answered my inquiry.  You are doing exactly what you should be doing.  Now, the key is to get OTHERS to do the same.  Grassroots start small but can blossom into a whole forest if kept nurtured.  Keep doing what you are doing and keep encouraging people to do the same.  You might even get a plaque, one day...behind a BP gas station...

We all fear what we don't understand. But while some of us try to understand to eliminate that fear, others try to eliminate the presence of the unknown so that they won't have to understand.

I think you answered my inquiry.  You are doing exactly what you should be doing.  Now, the key is to get OTHERS to do the same.  Grassroots start small but can blossom into a whole forest if kept nurtured.  Keep doing what you are doing and keep encouraging people to do the same.  You might even get a plaque, one day...behind a BP gas station...

 

I wasn't advocating giving up the fight. However, there's a limit to how much fighting we can expect the average citizen -- even the average concerned citizen -- to do. In the case of gays, I think many in Ohio are tired of fighting and losing. And while it's not the path I'd advocate, I can understand why some, after years of struggle, would decide it's easier just to move a couple states away, where they don't have to deal with these venomous (and opportunistic) attacks on their character every time an election is coming up.

 

Even more of a concern are the prospective *new* residents, gay and otherwise, we're scaring off with this crap.

^My comments were directed towards dfly.

 

In the case of gays, I think many in Ohio are tired of fighting and losing. And while it's not the path I'd advocate, I can understand why some, after years of struggle, would decide it's easier just to move a couple states away, where they don't have to deal with these venomous (and opportunistic) attacks on their character every time an election is coming up.

 

Even more of a concern are the prospective *new* residents, gay and otherwise, we're scaring off with this crap.

 

So you would continue the cycle of gays/lesbians being scared off by Ohio's seeminly backwards politics?  I suppose Atlanta would still be a Lynchland for blacks if they were "scared off" and stayed in Ohio or Michigan.  I'm sorry, but if you have a certain cause, you fight tooth and nail for it (and you encourage others doing so).  Dfly is doing what he can and that is noble; but others need to be like him.  Politics and history change; the current generation going through college are much more "tolerant" overall in today's decisive issues.  You bet your bottom dollar Ohio's politics (and other states) will change in 20 years. 

 

History is never boring.

History is never boring.

 

Unless it keeps being repeated

So you would continue the cycle of gays/lesbians being scared off by Ohio's seeminly backwards politics?

 

Considering I said nothing to that effect, I guess my answer would be... no.

This bill is likely dead:  :clap:

 

 

Gay adoption ban doomed

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

COLUMBUS - A proposal to ban gay adoption is likely to die as legislative leaders focus on Ohio's lagging economy, a top House aide said. A group of the most socially conservative House members introduced the bill Thursday to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.Scott Borgemenke, chief of staff to House Speaker Jon Husted, dismissed the bill on Friday as discriminatory and said Husted, a Dayton-area Republican, has other priorities.

 

"There's a growing concern within the Republican party of continuing to introduce this divisive legislation," he said. "We don't think there's some cottage industry of homosexual adoptions. We do believe people are losing their jobs."

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060212/NEWS01/602120352/1056/rss02

 

So you would continue the cycle of gays/lesbians being scared off by Ohio's seeminly backwards politics?

 

Considering I said nothing to that effect, I guess my answer would be... no.

 

It was hypothetical.

Keep in mind people... this law was proposed, not executed...

 

Great News! Thanks Grasscat!

I find it hard to believe that Ohio, the nation's 7th most populous state would let this law be established.

^What does population have to do with letting a law like this being established?

 

And BTW, I am against the legislation, I can't see the connection between parenting and sexuality, and most of the other reasons posted here I'd have to agree with.

^What does population have to do with letting a law like this being established?

 

Regions that are mostly populated are usually made up of dense urban areas, dense urban areas are usually more liberal than rural areas. I would assume this is especially true with Ohio considering our neighbor to the north is Canada and our neighbor to the right is the entrance to the northeast. And yes, I am fully aware of exception with Ohio in certain areas.

 

This is my way of thinking, could be wrong.

^That's right on. Look at the posts here and the poll on this issue, not to mention what site this is. This is Urban Ohio. If this were "Rural Ohio" I'm sure it'd be different and I'm sure any one who has been through there and seen all of the billboards saying you better love Jesus or else know what we're talking about.

I, like many of you am straight and very offended by this law.  This is outrageous.  When will our elected officials actually pay attention to the REAL issues?  Why is it that the state of Ohio pays more attention to a person's sexual orientation than to the state of the economy and unconstitutional school funding?  GET THESE DUMMIES OUT OF OFFICE, PEOPLE!!!!!  DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMIT!!!!

"As for people being gay, I don't care. But just like telemarketers and religious fanatics, don't push your lifestyle on me. Whatever you do in your own life (within reason) is your business and not mine."

 

You have your wires crossed. You're suggesting that I'm gay by birth, and on that - we're on the same page as far as I'm concerned.

 

But then you compare my orientation to "telemarketers and religious fanatics", who are that way by choice. The term "lifestyle" suggests that I have a choice, which is why I find the term "alternative lifestyle" offensive. That term suggests that I have a choice in my orientation, which I can assure you, I don't. Asking for basic civil rights is not pushing a lifestyle, it's asking to be treated equally. Bullying you into decorating your home with recessed lighting and earth-tones, forcing you to eat artisan crafted foods from foo-foo bistros, and wearing clothes from Nordstrom and Banana Republic? Now THAT is pushing my lifestyle on you. See the difference?

 

Having said that, I don't think you're well informed as to why us gay people are so cranky and demanding our rights. We aren't protesting because golly gosh our cities won't fly rainbow flags everywhere, or we can't deep-kiss our partners in public or wear harnesses and chaps down the middle of the street without fear of assault.

 

We're pissed because our basic civil rights in the State of Ohio are being systematically stripped away - rights that you have as a heterosexual. Rights that you probably take for granted.

 

As it stands, if I want to visit my significant other in the hospital, I have to have a signed power of attorney in hand to gain access as a "family member". Imagine having to have that with you EVERY time you leave the house. If my significant other wants to leave his assets to me in his will, well thanks to Issue 1, it's doubtful that I'd ever see anything because that resembles "marriage". There are over 1,000 other rights along those lines that I and others in the gay community are deprived of.

 

I'll repeat what dfly posted - if the heteros in Ohio were doing their part, gay people wouldn't NEED to adopt. But since they can't get it right, I think a healthy environment of two loving parents, same-sex or otherwise is better than this:

 

* A child in Ohio is abused or neglected every 10 minutes

* A child in Ohio is born into poverty every 21 minutes

* A child in Ohio dies before his or her first birthday every 8 hours

* A child or teen in Ohio is killed by gunfire every 4 days

* Number of poor children 475,207

* Percent of children who are poor 16.8%

* Number of children who were victims of abuse and neglect 50,141

* Number of children in foster care 21,012

* Number of children without health insurance 270,000

* Percent of two-year-olds who are not fully immunized25.0%

The lucky break here was that Hustead was adopted himself, so this is probably a personal issue with him, hence his opposition.

 

I wonder if this is really a dead issue.  I wonder where Blackwell stands on this, and also if a referendum could be in the works if the Legislature won't act.

 

 

 

I knew someone raised by two lesbians and I can confirm that there is an increased risk of emotional and physical "problem" to the child. What they don't mention is that the problem is from all the other kids harassing and attacking him and his lesbian parents.

 

His home life was perfectly happy. Normal. Even boring. His family existed as any other family in the world. When he had to exist in the outside world with all its preconceptions and biases and outright intolerance, that's where he encountered the only real problems he had growing up.

 

I always thought this was the best argument against gay adoption or foster care; not the home situation but the hostile social context the kid would experience.

So are you suggesting we deny people their rights because other people's children are cruel little monsters?

So are you suggesting we deny people their rights because other people's children are cruel little monsters?

 

I see it as a "whats best for the kid" issue not a rights issue.

 

Is it better for the kid to keep bouncing through the foster care system?  There aren't enough adopters out there for all of the kids needing adoptions.

It's a situation of being between a rock and sorta hard place.  You don't want the kid to be shuffled all over to different families and towns but the social part of living with gay parents is not ideal at this point either.  Sometimes there are those that have to be a sacrifice to the cause.  If we see more gay couples raising children it becomes more of a non-issue.  The same way with inter-racial/inter cultural adoption.  Here's to the future.  :drunk:

Very disheartening.  That's really all I can say to describe the whole situation.

This is brilliant... Gimmicky, yes, but brilliant.

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

 

Thursday, February 23, 2006               

 

Senator issues statement on proposed GOP adoption ban

 

(Columbus)- Yesterday State Senator Robert F. Hagan (D-Youngstown) issued a co-sponsorship request to all members of the Ohio Senate for proposed legislation to ban Republicans from adopting children in Ohio. The measure was in response to the recent controversial measure- House Bill 515- formally proposed in the Ohio House by Republican State Rep. Ron Hood and several other co-sponsors that would ban any individual(s) who are homosexual, bisexual or transgender from adopting children in this state.

 

Recently, The Columbus Dispatch reported as of December 31, 2005-  2,784 Ohio children were awaiting adoption and 19,430 children are in foster care. Senator Hagan issued the following response to his co-sponsorship request:

 

“HB 515 unfairly, and without any justification whatsoever, targets homosexual, bisexual and transgender people and bans them from forever adopting children or serving as foster parents. I do not intent to introduce the Republican Adoption Ban of 2006.  The co-sponsorship request distributed yesterday was in jest, but to demonstrate a serious point.

 

The point is this:

 

Is a bill that calls to ban Republicans from adopting children or serving as foster parents any less irrational than one that bans homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender Ohioans from the same?  Is my legislative proposal any less lacking in sound reason and scientific credibility than HB 515?  Is my motive for offering this legislation driven any less by ill-will or animus towards a particular group of Ohioans than Rep. Hood’s motive?  The answer to each, of course, is no. 

 

House Speaker Jon Husted has stated publicly that HB 515 will not pass in the 126th General Assembly.  I agree with the Speaker that the General Assembly has much more important and pressing issues to deal with at this time which I believe should be affordable healthcare, job creation, and accessible and affordable education at every level.

 

 

 

Yet, in 2004 this General Assembly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, ostensibly for the purpose of preserving our notion of marriage as being the sacred union of one man and one woman. Though it took many years to pass, the Defense of Marriage Act did indeed become law and later blossomed into a constitutional amendment.  The General Assembly was facing the same array of problems then as we do today, but that didn’t stop us from passing this mean-spirited piece of legislation targeted solely at Ohio’s gay and transgender population. The question then is not if legislation like HB 515 will pass, but when. 

 

If conservative Republicans in the Ohio Legislature are serious about protecting adoptive and foster care children, I welcome the opportunity to discuss and debate this very important issue.  Currently, more than 20,000 kids in Ohio are waiting for a loving, permanent home.  They deserve our full attention and undivided support.  Unfortunately, HB 515 and any future bill like it takes a very big step in the wrong direction.

 

For those political naysayers that claim my GOP adoption ban is absurd and the best Democrats can do to provide legislation for families, I beg them to take look at the record. To date- in this year alone- Senate Democrats have introduced dozens of bills, but nearly every bill has been ignored by the Republican majority.

 

###

 

^Do you have a link for that?

^ Well, here's a copy of the memorandum:

 

Memorandum

Friday, February 24, 2006

 

To: All Senate Members

From: Senator Robert Hagan

Re: Co-Sponsorship Request

Date: February 22, 2006

 

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I intend to introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents. Policy-makers in Columbus have ignored this growing threat to our communities for far too long. My legislation is modeled after a bill recently introduced in the Ohio House by Rep. Ron Hood (R-Ashville via Carrollton), which would prohibit homosexual, bisexual and transgender people from adopting children. It is unclear at this point whether Rep. Hood supports my legislation though I remain hopeful.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/business-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/02/24/memo.html

 

 

That's beautiful...

From the 2/24/06 Enquirer:

 

 

Board tosses complaint against pro-family group

BY JON CRAIG | ENQUIRER COLUMBUS BUREAU

 

COLUMBUS - The Ohio Elections Commission on Thursday dismissed a complaint against groups that supported a state ban on same-sex marriage and an ordinance restricting gay rights in Cincinnati.

 

The elections commission, in a 3-2 vote, found no probable cause that Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values and its president, Phil Burress, violated any law when it failed to identify most of its campaign contributors. The groups spent more than $2 million supporting the ban and ordinance.

 

It agreed with attorneys for Burress, Focus on the Family of Colorado and Equal Rights, No Special Rights that, as nonprofit corporations, the groups could legally conceal the identity of contributors to ballot initiatives.

 

...

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060224/NEWS01/602240406/1056

 

From the AP, 3/27/06:

 

 

Gay marriage ban guides appeals court ruling

Dismissal of domestic violence charge upheld

Associated Press

 

DAYTON - A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage bars prosecutors from charging some unmarried people under the state's domestic violence law, a state appeals court ruled.

 

Friday's decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeals is the first from Ohio's 12 appellate courts to rule that the Defense of Marriage amendment, passed by voters in 2004, means that the domestic violence law does not apply to unmarried people.

 

The appeals court upheld the dismissal of a domestic violence charge against Karen Ward of Fairborn, charged with assaulting her live-in boyfriend in Greene County.

 

...

 

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/state/14195921.htm

 

Alright, who are the four idiots that voted for/were undecided on the gay marriage ban?  :whip:

^ I could probably guess at least one of them.  :|

Alright, who are the four idiots that voted for/were undecided on the gay marriage ban?   :whip:

 

you're joking right?  I voted no, but I am just making aure you are kidding?  Afterall, a close minded approach no matter what side of the opinion youre on is never the way to go, is it?

^ I could probably guess at least one of them.  :|

 

Did you vote 'for it'?

Alright, who are the four idiots that voted for/were undecided on the gay marriage ban?  :whip:

 

you're joking right?  I voted no, but I am just making aure you are kidding?  Afterall, a close minded approach no matter what side of the opinion youre on is never the way to go, is it?

 

Nothing close-minded about it. What is just is just. They can hate gay marriage with all their heart but they have no right to ban it. We have a Constitution and it's about time we take it seriously. I would be just as upset if it were a ban on interracial marriage or interfaith marriage, for example. If someone were for that should I just say, "Well, I'm not close-minded so if someone wants to ban it I shouldn't have anything against them."? I mean, if they want to be stupid, fine. But when it comes to actually legislating their bigotry I'll have none of it.

^ I could probably guess at least one of them.  :|

 

Did you vote 'for it'?

 

No, I think gays should be able to marry and have the same rights as straight couples.  I was speculating about other members...

Time for a good old fashioned witch hunt!

DeWine to co-sponsor measure against gay marriage

 

Friday, March 31, 2006

 

Stephen Koff

Plain Dealer Bureau Chief

 

Washington- U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine will co-sponsor a bill that, if successful, could lead to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

 

...

 

http://www.cleveland.com

From the 6/25/06 Wooster Daily Record:

 

 

Visibility Ohioans for Marriage

Equality display continues to spark debate, and discussion

By LINDA HALL

Staff Writer

 

WOOSTER - A member of Ohioans for Marriage Equality said the debate over the library display case is giving her organization visibility.

 

“In a way I’m glad for the debate,” said Mady Noble, of Wooster, a presenter for the Marriage Equality group, referring to her organization’s recent display in the main foyer of the Wayne County Public Library in Wooster.

 

It has generated much public discussion over library displays, their subject matter and placement within the library.

 

...

 

Reporter Linda Hall can be reached at [email protected], or (330) 264-1125, Ext. 2230.

 

http://www.the-daily-record.com/article.php?pathToFile=/archive/06252006/news/&file=_news2.txt&article=1&tD=06252006

 

This is f$&ked up.

 

 

Mother can’t use gay marriage ban in custody fight

Friday, June 30, 2006

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A mother plans to appeal a magistrate’s decision that she cannot use the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage to take away her former partner’s visitation rights, the mother’s lawyer said Thursday.

 

Family courts often settle custody disputes between unmarried people and even people of the same sex, such as a grandmother and aunt or an adult sibling and a parent, according to the ruling by Magistrate Darrolyn Krippel of Franklin County’s domestic relations court.

 

“Granting custody of a minor child to a nonparent is done every day,” Krippel wrote in the June 22 opinion. “The granting of custody to these nonparents is not against public policy.”

 

———

 

On the Net:

Lambda Legal: http://www.lambdalegal.org/

 

http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=294361

 

I'm not opposed to gay marriage. Since gay people unite the way men and women do then they should be offered the same benefits. Ohio would benefit from embracing the gay community. If you look at neighborhoods and cities that are vibrant it's no coincidence that they also have a profuse gay population. People act like this is 1920. Let's allow gay marriage so we can move onto more important things like the possible future war with North Korea and Venezuela.

This was written in the Miami Student by a good friend of mine. He is extremely conservative and I was very surprised to read it in the paper.

 

Constitution must not be warped to stop gay marriage

Brain Graney

Miami Student

9/26/06

 

When State Representative Tom Brinkman traveled to Miami last semester to discuss his lawsuit against the university, a questioner out of the crowd asked the politician to explain his opposition to a bill in the Ohio legislature that would have recognized the Fourth Amendment as a guarantee of legal rights. Brinkman explained that his opposition to the Fourth Amendment rested on a judicial interpretation of the amendment that led to a safeguard of abortion rights and a trampling of states' rights in the matter; a philosophy eventually summarized in Roe v. Wade. Yet while many conservatives criticize Roe v. Wade endlessly and articulate a position of states having the natural power to regulate a social matter like abortion, the inverse stance is taken on gay marriage.

 

Social conservatives in Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment to nationally define marriage as only between a man and a woman. No legal precedent exists to support this amendment or any reasoning as to why it should be adopted. For a party so devoted to prevent federal encroachment on states' power, it is disappointing to see the Republican Party endorse a constitutional amendment that is not only unnecessary, but also targeted to prevent states from reaching their own legal conclusions on the matter.

 

Opposition to gay marriage rests primarily on moral and religious grounds. As much respect as can be paid to the long tradition of marriage, secular law cannot properly evaluate such arguments. Proponents of same-sex marriage are not asking churches and specific religions to endorse or even recognize their legal union. Opponents of gay marriage can still refuse to accept its validity in their religions. But the Constitution should not be used as an obstacle to equal rights. Vice President Dick Cheney recognized the significance of equal legal access when he said, "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to." Gays and lesbians are productive members of society with long and meaningful relationships with their partners and it is unclear how same-sex marriage would lead to moral deviance, societal chaos or even Armageddon as some ridiculously claim.

 

...

 

http://www.miamistudent.net/

And they're at it again ... Personally, I could not care less about gay marriage, even as a gay man. But the fact that these imbeciles keep trying to distract the electorate from issues of education, workforce development, poverty, abandoned housing, etc., has got me riled up!

 

Republican governors turn to gay issue

Mark Naymik

(Cleveland) Plain Dealer

September 29, 2006

 

The Republican Governors Association wants Ohio voters to think less about taxes and more about homosexuals.

 

While Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell has spent much of his campaign defining Democratic rival Ted Strickland as a tax-and-spend liberal, the RGA is re-introducing the social wedge issue of gay marriage into the campaign ...

 

... More athttp://www.cleveland.com/weblogs/openers/index.ssf?/mtlogs/cleve_openers/archives/2006_09.html#189666

Yeah, this is what will close that huge gap between him and Strickland. I hope this backfires and helps those who are undecided make an easy decision; anyone but Blackwell.

This is sort of a dead issue at the state level here in Ohio, as the constitutional amendment cant be repealed by the lege, or the governor.

 

Blackwell could put Strickland on the spot with a "what if" question, asking if he would have opposed the ban back when it was being voted on.  I dont know if Strickland took a position on the state referendum or not.  His no vote on the Federal ban should turn off some values voters, though (whether or not this really is that salient of an issue anymore is a good question, though).

 

 

 

 

Theres fucking genocide going on in the world right now and people care about gay marriage? Jesus, even if you're opposed to it, who cares, really? It doesn't affect you personally if two gay people are married.

^AMEN