No, we won't let you put this on the ballot

[zsdersw]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...lot-issue.html

State Attorney General Mike DeWine has urged the Ohio Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit against his office by opponents of same-sex marriage, arguing that the court has no jurisdiction in the hot-button dispute.

The Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage sued last month, challenging DeWine’s approval of the wording on a ballot amendment proposed by Freedom to Marry Ohio.

In a response filed Friday, DeWine defended his action and argued that the court has no jurisdiction over what he called a pre-certification process — which the law says is exclusively the domain of the attorney general. DeWine said he certified a “fair and truthful statement of a proposed constitutional amendment.” He also noted that his opinion on the merits of the issue is irrelevant.

“The attorney general believes that marriage is between a man and a woman,” said spokeswoman Lisa Hackley, but was merely performing his statutory duty in verifying signatures certifying the amendment language.

The Campaign to Protect Marriage, affiliated with the Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values, wants the court to invalidate DeWine’s certification of the proposal “because it is not a summary and is not a fair and truthful statement of the proposed constitutional amendment.”

The freedom-to-marry proposal, which was also approved recently by the Ohio Ballot Board, would ask Ohioans to vote to permit marriage between two people regardless of gender. Religious organizations would have the right to refuse to perform and recognize such marriages.

The group has been cleared to begin gathering the necessary 385,253 valid signatures of registered Ohio voters to qualify for the ballot in November 2013.

Even when gay rights groups try to put SSM up to a popular vote, anti-gay groups try to use the courts against it. They only want to put the issue on the ballot when they are comfortable that it will get voted down, and will not hesitate to use the courts to get it off the ballot when there's a reasonable chance it would pass.

[Mursilis]

I just love the titles of these organizations - "The Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage". Wonder if they're going to go after no-fault divorce laws? I'm betting not.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by Mursilis

Wonder if they're going to go after no-fault divorce laws? I'm betting not.

I wish they would.

But if you want to attack groups for having deceptive names

I suggest

the Human Rights Campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Campaign

Which only cares about the rights of 4% of humans.

[EagleKeeper]

To some groups; the KISS is deadly

[her209]

The freedom-to-marry proposal, which was also approved recently by the Ohio Ballot Board, would ask Ohioans to vote to permit marriage between two people regardless of gender. Religious organizations would have the right to refuse to perform and recognize such marriages.

Why don't other organizations get the right to refuse to recognize traditional marriages or all marriages?

[werepossum]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...lot-issue.html



Even when gay rights groups try to put SSM up to a popular vote, anti-gay groups try to use the courts against it. They only want to put the issue on the ballot when they are comfortable that it will get voted down, and will not hesitate to use the courts to get it off the ballot when there's a reasonable chance it would pass.

To be fair, that's characteristic of both sides of the political spectrum.

Personally I think SSM should not be up for popular vote. Government should not be empowered to discriminate against or for anyone without a very compelling public interest that can be filled in no other way.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by werepossum

To be fair, that's characteristic of both sides of the political spectrum.

Yes it is. I'm just sick of hearing about how it's only gay rights groups that do it.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by werepossum

To be fair, that's characteristic of both sides of the political spectrum.

Personally I think SSM should not be up for popular vote. Government should not be empowered to discriminate against or for anyone without a very compelling public interest that can be filled in no other way.

Marriage (civil union) is designed to discriminate. Even if you allow SSM. What about 2 straight people in a completely platonic relationship. Why is their relationship any less valuable?

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Marriage (civil union) is designed to discriminate. Even if you allow SSM. What about 2 straight people in a completely platonic relationship. Why is their relationship any less valuable?

What is the value, in the eyes of government, of relationships like marriage?

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

What is the value, in the eyes of government, of relationships like marriage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_V_Nelson

"This familiar restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage"

Primarily marriage exist for creating and rearing of children.

Secondarily you could make a lesser argument for stable relationships benefiting society. But considering the ease of divorce I dont think that holds much water.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_V_Nelson

"This familiar restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage"

Primarily marriage exist for creating and rearing of children.

Secondarily you could make a lesser argument for stable relationships benefiting society. But considering the ease of divorce I dont think that holds much water.

Yet marriage is not denied to or rescinded from those who don't have children.

Stable relationships do benefit society. The ease of divorce cuts across all relationships; hetero- and homo-sexual.

[ShawnD1]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Marriage (civil union) is designed to discriminate. Even if you allow SSM. What about 2 straight people in a completely platonic relationship. Why is their relationship any less valuable?

Which law would allow gay men to marry but prevent 2 straight men from marrying each other? I want a specific example.

The existing law already allows two gay people to get married, as long as they are different genders. A friend of a friend is pretty much 100% lesbian but she still has a long term boyfriend because she wants a family some day. There's no law stopping her from marrying a dude that she's not attracted to.

[cybrsage]

Does anyone have the actual wording of the Amendment and the actual wording of the summary, so that we can see if their complaint has merit?

[feralkid]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Marriage (civil union) is designed to discriminate. Even if you allow SSM. What about 2 straight people in a completely platonic relationship. Why is their relationship any less valuable?

That would best be described as a same sex marriage, and should be allowed.

What does having sex have to do with marriage?

[Jaskalas]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Secondarily you could make a lesser argument for stable relationships benefiting society. But considering the ease of divorce I dont think that holds much water.

Government recognition is irrelevant, it does not change the nature of a relationship between two people. You can be stable or 'divorced' and there is not a god damn thing the government can say or do to change that.

[ShawnD1]

Originally Posted by Jaskalas

Government recognition is irrelevant, it does not change the nature of a relationship between two people. You can be stable or 'divorced' and there is not a god damn thing the government can say or do to change that.

Marriage sure as shit does change the relationship. As an example of this, my parents have all of the pension income in my dad's name and all of the investment income in my mom's name. Doing that decreases the amount of tax paid.

Right now gay people are getting bent over the barrel. All of the pension and all of investments would be in the same person's name and their taxes would be significantly higher as a result of this.
Married: tax paid as $40,000 per person
Unmarried: tax paid as 1 person making $80,000

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by ShawnD1

Marriage sure as shit does change the relationship. As an example of this, my parents have all of the pension income in my dad's name and all of the investment income in my mom's name. Doing that decreases the amount of tax paid.

Right now gay people are getting bent over the barrel. All of the pension and all of investments would be in the same person's name and their taxes would be significantly higher as a result of this.
Married: tax paid as $40,000 per person
Unmarried: tax paid as 1 person making $80,000

This really only matters if the couple has children (and the wife/husband doesnt work to care for them). Otherwise why would I want to create a special relationship to reduce other people tax burden. This seem detrimental to the government right?

[werepossum]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

Yes it is. I'm just sick of hearing about how it's only gay rights groups that do it.

I wouldn't even say it's predominantly gay rights groups. The left as a whole has a strong record of using the courts to get its way when they could not get it from the popular vote, because there is more about the country that the left hates. As the country moves further left, the right increasingly finds more about the country that it hates and/or that the left has imposed through the courts, and thus the right increasingly uses popular referenda to get its way. Similarly, as the left increasingly gets its way in popular votes, the right is increasingly using the courts to fight back. Both sides, and all special interest groups, will use whichever tools they think will best gain their goals regardless of any other concerns like Constitutionality or the rights of the people.

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Marriage (civil union) is designed to discriminate. Even if you allow SSM. What about 2 straight people in a completely platonic relationship. Why is their relationship any less valuable?

True, and I have absolutely no problem with plutonic marriages or with civil unions to provide two individuals with some of the legal benefits of marriage.

Originally Posted by ShawnD1

Which law would allow gay men to marry but prevent 2 straight men from marrying each other? I want a specific example.

The existing law already allows two gay people to get married, as long as they are different genders. A friend of a friend is pretty much 100% lesbian but she still has a long term boyfriend because she wants a family some day. There's no law stopping her from marrying a dude that she's not attracted to.

Which is a damned lucky thing for old/ugly/fat rich guys.

It's amazing how many times a man can find true love with a woman the age of his daughter or granddaughter if only his bank account is large enough.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

Yet marriage is not denied to or rescinded from those who don't have children.

Stable relationships do benefit society. The ease of divorce cuts across all relationships; hetero- and homo-sexual.

I am saying that the current construction of marriage does not really result in stable relationships (due to the ease of divorce) and creates instability in the break up of said relationships due to the need for government intervention.

Childless marriages are discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_V_Nelson

"The Court was not persuaded that an equal-protection violation was present either. Childless heterosexual marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection, which doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The couple's reliance on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia (striking down an anti-miscegenation law) also failed: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."

And I would agree that if a couple does not intend on having children then they shouldnt get married. But their is no practical way to enforce this with heterosexual couples.

[ShawnD1]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

This really only matters if the couple has children (and the wife/husband doesnt work to care for them). Otherwise why would I want to create a special relationship to reduce other people tax burden. This seem detrimental to the government right?

Me and my gf don't have children and my income is still $20,000 higher than hers. Feel free to start an ATOT thread asking what the income difference is between you and your spouse. You'll get lots of answers exceeding 20k.

I should add that my parents don't care for children anymore either. We're all moved out, yet they still benefit from income splitting.

[Jaskalas]

Originally Posted by ShawnD1

Marriage sure as shit does change the relationship. As an example of this, my parents have all of the pension income in my dad's name and all of the investment income in my mom's name. Doing that decreases the amount of tax paid.

Right now gay people are getting bent over the barrel. All of the pension and all of investments would be in the same person's name and their taxes would be significantly higher as a result of this.
Married: tax paid as $40,000 per person
Unmarried: tax paid as 1 person making $80,000

You're speaking of invasive government regulation, not the nature of a relationship between two people. The obvious solution is to rename the regulation. You change it to 'civil union' and adopt 'marriage' as a type of civil union.

Then they are all equal while preserving the religious word.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by Jaskalas

You're speaking of invasive government regulation, not the nature of a relationship between two people. The obvious solution is to rename the regulation. You change it to 'civil union' and adopt 'marriage' as a type of civil union.

Then they are all equal while preserving the religious word.

That would be acceptable, but then again groups who oppose SSM also oppose civil unions or anything else that recognizes homosexual relationships.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by ShawnD1

Me and my gf don't have children and my income is still $20,000 higher than hers. Feel free to start an ATOT thread asking what the income difference is between you and your spouse. You'll get lots of answers exceeding 20k.

I should add that my parents don't care for children anymore either. We're all moved out, yet they still benefit from income splitting.

And what reason is their for society to allow people without children to benefit from income splitting? Doing so is discriminating against single people for no reason.

The one societal serving reason to allow income splitting is to allow one member of the couple to not work and raise the children. This would apply after the children are grown, because they person who didnt work will have spent years not working and have little/no job skills. It applies before the children are born because there is little reason to devote years/$10000s of dollars to learning a trade/getting an education that will not be used.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

And what reason is their for society to allow people without children to benefit from income splitting? Doing so is discriminating against single people for no reason.

The one societal serving reason to allow income splitting is to allow one member of the couple to not work and raise the children. This would apply after the children are grown, because they person who didnt work will have spent years not working and have little/no job skills. It applies before the children are born because there is little reason to devote years/$10000s of dollars to learning a trade/getting an education that will not be used.

Working under your theory that children are the primary reason for government delineation of what marriage is/should be... homosexual relationships often involve children; one or both of the people involved may either have children already from prior relationships or conceive in an alternative way.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

Working under your theory that children are the primary reason for government delineation of what marriage is/should be... homosexual relationships often involve children; one or both of the people involved may either have children already from prior relationships or conceive in an alternative way.

Im confused now though. How exactly would a homosexual individual have a child from a previous relationship?

And so now you suggesting allowing it to be legal to deny a child either a mother or a father