 |
| |
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
ASSOCIATED PRESS
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Feb. 6 — Gov. Bob Taft approved one of the country's most-far reaching gay-marriage bans on Friday, saying its adoption was urgent because the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings could take place as early as this spring in Massachusetts.
The bill, which Taft signed in private, also prohibits state employees from getting marital benefits for their unmarried partners, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
Approving the bill to make gay marriages ''against the strong public policy of the state'' became more pressing after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled 4-3 this week that denial of marriage to same-sex couples as unconstitutional, Taft said.
''It is necessary for us to act now to safeguard Ohio's marriage laws,'' Taft said. ''Ohio could have same-sex couples who were 'married' in Massachusetts taking legal action in Ohio to recognize that marriage and to obtain the resulting benefits.''
When the law takes effect in 90 days, Ohio will become the 38th state to adopt a ''defense of marriage act'' and the second to deny benefits to some employees' partners.
Taft, a Republican, denied assertions that the law promotes intolerance. He said the new law would send a strong positive message to children and families.
''Marriage is an essential building block of our society, an institution we must reaffirm,'' he said.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
weeeeeeeeeeee!
so just to check why do gay ppl want to marry again?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yavoon
to be fair. marriage does provide a lot of changes in legal status and tax benefits, health care benefits. provides court services for divorces, alimony, child support.
so if they dont belong in delegating their own services! |
Marriage is a contract, yes. Taxes are a legislative matter, and frankly, they should be neutral as to marital status. For decades, the tax brackets in the IRC have been punitive to married couples in comparison with two "single" people shacking up.
Health benefits are a matter of contract between employer and employee.
As for family court services, those aren't free, and gays pay taxes to support them the same as heteros, so what's the difference?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Marriage is a contract, yes. Taxes are a legislative matter, and frankly, they should be neutral as to marital status. For decades, the tax brackets in the IRC have been punitive to married couples in comparison with two "single" people shacking up.
Health benefits are a matter of contract between employer and employee.
As for family court services, those aren't free, and gays pay taxes to support them the same as heteros, so what's the difference? |
the point wasn't "gay ppl shouldn't have access to these things"
if u remember u said "somethings gov't shouldn't be involved in" but its pretty hard to not be involved in marriage when so much law surrounds the institution. as I gave a few examples of.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In matters which are properly subject to government regulation, then state's rights and sovereignty should (and by the Constitution, do) supersede Federal powers except in cases where the Constitution makes a grant of Federal power.
However, IMO, there are extensive realms of private, non-commercial conduct between consenting individuals for which I believe no level of government has proper regulatory authority.
Personal liberty should trump state's rights and sovereignty unless the state can display a compelling public interest for the extension of it's regulatory authority. |
I dont see how personal liberty is infringed by denying someone the legal rammifications of "marriage"
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yavoon
I dont see how personal liberty is infringed by denying someone the legal rammifications of "marriage" |
Well then, why not deny it to miscegenators, niggers, spics, anyone else we don't want to "reward?" Simple fact, if the state chooses to make marriage available to two consenting adults, why in hell should the state care what gender they are?
If you make something available to one person or class of persons, and make it unavailable to another, you are by definition infringing the liberty of that person.
The hypocrisy in this law is that Ohio and these other states are saying "marry someone of the opposite gender who you can't stand, who you will never live with or do anything else with, and who you will never raise a child with, and we'll give you all these benefits, because that's the "sanctity" of marriage. But if you want to 'marry' an individual of the same gender who you love and intend to spend the rest of your life with, then it's our policy to deny that to you."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This is not good. Thirty-eight is the magic number for a Constitutional Amendment. |
Yeah, but support for state bans doesn't equal the same amount of support for a constitutional amendment, thankfully.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-02-2004 04:12
|