Shhhh.

Phil Burress, of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, said voters recognized the threat presented by same-sex marriage.




---
Can someone please explain to me exactly what the threat is? Because I honestly do not understand. Do people really think that by allowing two men to get married that the entire world is going to crumble into the sea? That God will finally make an appearance and smite us all? Cuz' God doesn't seem to be all that pissed about what's going on now. Do these people really think God's up in heaven right now wiping the sweat from his brow and saying, "Whew! That was a close one!" ?

I am terrified that I will no longer be able to rent an apartment with Mr. Duffy because we're not married. I want to get married someday, but not because I have to in order to survive.

[quote="corggirl"]Phil Burress, of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, said voters recognized the threat presented by same-sex marriage.


the whole "protection" of marriage and the threat of same-sex marriage thing is a mystery.

what about the middle aged grey haired men that are on their 2nd, 3rd wives. or the staggering percentage of marriages suffering from infidelity.
or television shows titled "who wants to marry a millionaire" "who wants to marry my dad" "my big fat obnixious fiance" and so on.

are all of these heterosexually based items doing a good job of upholding the sanctity of marriage?

What these poor, uneducated fools don't realize is that the rich have once again duped them with rhetoric of fear and hate. The ballot said "union between man and woman," but it was so much more wide sweeping.

"We" just ratified the constitution so that if my sick mother were living with me in my home, as a member of our family, it would be CONSTITUTIONALLY illegal for my employer to extend benefits to her.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it you ignorant fucks.

and by the way, i am discriminating against people that voted yes on 1

There are some seriously distressing features of this issue, even outside of its baldly xenophobic sentiment.

One, as I read the Amendment, you are fine bestowing whatever benefits you want if it is a mistake, or a side-effect, but as soon as it is intended, it is illegal. Hello thoughtcrime. I'll get back to the idea of side-effects in a minute.

Secondly, what may seem like a stupid thing, but presents a serious problem: gender certainty and enforcement. The law acts like it already knows everyone's gender. Legally speaking, it doesn't. Imagine I as a 3rd party contest a couple's marriage. In what way can the state satisfy itself the couple really is "one man and one woman"?? They say they are, and I say they aren't. Who decides? Are we actually talking about some officers of the law coming to non-consentually "make sure" you are a "real woman" (and then having to check that your partner isn't), or my being able to withhold benefits until they do?

And the point here is that the now marriage itself de facto establishes the State's position on the couple's genders: it says the couple is indeed "one man and one woman" (heh, does it say who is which?). So in order not to violate this law, each little Pastor or Justice of the Peace would have to have the same certainty as in the case I contested.

Furthermore let's say you've got that nailed down... Say Ohio figures it out and convinces me they really are "one man and one woman." Now one has a surgical sex change operation, what then? Marriage still valid? What about sex change before marriage? In short, what is the legal basis for establishing gender? Gonads, chromosomes or some other certificate?

The clincher comes in the fact that 11 States amended their Constitutions similarly. Can anybody remember the last time Ohio amended it's Constitution? And what was the last Amendment to sweep through 10+ states like this? I suspect it was to lower the legal voting age to 18 during the war in Vietnam, a generation ago!

Do I need to get into how articulately coordinated these Amendments were at the national level? It wasn't coincidence. Nor was it an explosion of gay couples claiming rights in, say, Oklahoma. "Shares your values" became the Bush campaign mantra in the final weeks. It doesn't take much to see the gameplan.

The calls it "an orchestrated Republican ploy to summon evangelical voters to the polls in greater numbers in swing states such as Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon.... The constitutions of 11 states now bear the writ of discrimination, formalized in parchment, despite the fact that gay marriage was unlikely to be made legal in those states in the foreseeable future." I think that is about right.

National politicians were willing, not only to violate in principle, but to permanently alter State Constitutions, against the unified leadership of the State itself, and the chief local members of their own party: Governor, Atty. General, both Senators.

The Amendment was not a goal, but a byproduct of immediate political convenience... as a "get out the vote" incentive... as a goddamn campaign advertisement. IN THE Constitution, AS THE Constitution! These are our country's best legislators and officials? Just hacking the fundamental structure of your relationship with government to put Texans back in DC. What's the big deal?

ps: Biggups Athens County, the only one of the 88 to vote down "Issue 1".