Religious right uses "gay marriage bans"...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

So much for their supposed state constitutional amendments to "ban gay marriage." In fact, the religious right is using such amendments to take away health care benefits from gay people. What a surprise. In Ohio, their "ban gay marriage" amendment was used to stop a woman from being able to charge her abusive boyfriend with "domestic violence." And even worse, the religious right groups in Ohio sided with the battering boyfriend in his case against the abused woman. (What possible reason would a self-proclaimed "Christian" find for siding with a man who beats women? Can you feel the love of Jesus?) You see, they weren't married, so under the gay marriage ban it's illegal in Ohio to give the battered woman "special rights." Just as it's about to become illegal in Michigan to give the partner of a gay person health insurance benefits because according the judges, that would make the gay person almost like a married person (yeah, I guess if being healthy makes you like a married person).

And now these amendments are threatening states that want to pass laws outlawing job discrimination against gays. Joe and I have been saying for years that these "marriage" amendments have nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with the religious right's desire to regulate, and ban, everything in the lives of heterosexual and gay America. (Your right to divorce is next on their list.)

The religious right pretty much wants us all dead.

More from the ACLU.

Once again, the Fundies prove what evil, subhuman monsters, devils, and demons they truly are.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Oh, and I dare Falcon or any other fundie insane enough to still be here after all these years to try to defend the aforementioned monsters and their hate.

God shall have mercy on their souls. May the Banhammer not be so kind.

[metavac]

You should note that Celebrezze did grant relief to the plaintiff. His motion ruling attempts to strike down the legal status language of the amendment. I'm extremely skeptical of that reasoning that the domestic violence law in anyway carves a legal status for relationships that 'approximate the design, qualities, significance of effect of marriage' will stand under scrutiny. Either way, Tori Phelps will likely keep her protection order.

[General Zod]

Isn't Ohio the same state that has you register as a sex offender even if you were cleared of a charge and only suspected?

[Stormbringer]

You mean that the anti-gay rights crowd might want to take away marital protections and rights as well?

Color me entirely unsurprised. They've fought such cities, companies, and organizations that have offered benefits. One of the key reasons that they have fought gay marriage tooth and nail was the fact that such benefits were being extended. The gay marriage bans were promoted with the explicit intention of stomping out these progressive policies being one of the main reasons.

As for the abusive boyfriend, these are the Christians that would rather see the woman suffer for "living in sin" than extend legal protection to her.


PS: As shameful as it is, the Michigan cities doing such are likely being bastard not out of a sense of commitment but because of the extreme desperation of their future budgets. Thank the fucking bastards at the state level for that shit.

[Glocksman]

You should note that Celebrezze did grant relief to the plaintiff. His motion ruling attempts to strike down the legal status language of the amendment. I'm extremely skeptical of that reasoning that the domestic violence law in anyway carves a legal status for relationships that 'approximate the design, qualities, significance of effect of marriage' will stand under scrutiny. Either way, Tori Phelps will likely keep her protection order.

My thoughts:

1. IMHO, he ruled the way he did (interpreting the clause as broadly as possible*) in order to force the case to the Ohio and/or US Supreme Court with a sympathetic heterosexual as a plaintiff.

2. Is there anything in the Ohio statutes, precedent, or constitution that would act as a severability clause and let the first sentence stand if the second one is struck down by either court? If there is, getting the second sentence struck down wouldn't be a very big victory for gay marriage advocates.

3. As for the amendment affecting anti-discrimination laws, there are those who say otherwise

From one of the links in the OP:

Lynne Bowman, executive director of the gay rights group Equality Ohio, said marriage and employment are in no way linked in the Ohio Constitution. She said a bill is being prepared that would extend anti-discrimination to the private sector and wants the governor to support it.

"The governor certainly took a step forward today in protecting over 60,000 state workers," she said. "Now we have 11 million other people in Ohio who deserve the same protections."

Strickland's executive order prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all state hirings, firings, transfers, pay adjustments and training opportunities.

The cynical part of me says the Governor is somewhat afraid to take it farther in a state that did pass an anti-gay marriage amendment, but the realist part of me says he's doing the best he can walking the political tightrope.





*From the article:

The ACLU is advocating that judges interpret the amendment narrowly, adhering to the declared intent of its backers, which was to “protect” marriage in the state of Ohio.

“It should be interpreted as narrowly as possible,” Davis stated. “The way statutes and constitutional sections are supposed to be interpreted is as narrowly as possible, and interpreted so that they don’t conflict.”