Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Ohio’s same-sex marriage backers work against election deadline

Voters quick to choose sides

March 28, 2013

It’s not even on the ballot yet, but people are already lining up in support of and opposition to a proposed Ohio constitutional amendment that would legalize same-sex marriage....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-28-13 6:36 AM

Government needs to stay out of my life. Don't tell me what gun I should own or who I can marry - it goes both ways. Allow marriage equality... who cares. Be done with it and move on to important things like the budget and getting healthcare to our veterans.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 7:23 AM

Although I do not agree with the marriage of two people from the same sex, I won’t lose any sleep over its legalization. I don’t think it has a chance of being legalized, but I have been wrong before.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 9:44 AM

Here is a novel idea, give them civil unions. This solves the problem without having to re-define a word.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 11:39 AM

Good thing our moms didnt marry a mom ??

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 11:40 AM

Civil unions does not solve the problem. No legal rights with the federal government. That is the heart of it all with the case brought before the supreme court yesterday.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 12:16 PM

Like I said before, if federal benefits were not involved gay marriage wouldn't even be an issue.

Civil unions are fine. But I'm against them using the term marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and woman from the beginning of time. And Its an encroachment upon the sanctitiy of marriage and I don't agree with calling it marriage. Just my opionion.

This issue should never be compared to the civil rights movement of the 60's either. Its just another attempt by people of the lib persuasion to tear down another American tradition. Much in the same way they are trying to dismantle Christianity.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 12:20 PM

truthandbelieve, the case has nothing to do with civil unions, it is about the Defense of Marriage act, made law by Clinton. I am quite sure that something can be passed to make the benefits the same. I could care less if these people want to be legally joined together, but it is not a marriage. Having to re-define a word is just stupid.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 1:57 PM

asknot, I do not believe that the Constitution says anything at all about that. I mean murder is against the law as well as one of the ten commandments. Should we abolish murder as a crime? A very good argument can be made that much of our early laws have a basis in the 10 commandments.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 2:10 PM

Everyone should have the right to make a contract with the government that is fair for all not just some. Marriage is a matter of faith not of the government and should be decided by the church.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 2:33 PM

asknot I disagree with you when you compare peoples civil rights in the 60's to gay marriage. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I know some are beaten and discriminated because they are gay or lez and its not right. Whats gets me is the parents of some of these gay or lesbian kids who literally throw their kids out on the street because they are gay. Then of course we the taxpayers pay for them.

Realistically people are discriminated against for a lot of things like tatoos, beards, overweight people, skinny people, people who have been in prison and served their time, their age, their looks, political views, and so on.

Like Harley said, they can do something about the benefits so they can recieve them. I just don't agree with them calling it a "marriage".

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 2:36 PM

And here is the part that upsets me the most. We can give them civil unions and they will not be happy until we are forced to re-define a word. It does not matter that they will be the same exact thing, they will not be happy until it is called the same thing. Is this nothing more than a ploy to make them feel good about their difference at the expense of all others?

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 2:46 PM

If the concern is equal benefits under the law, why doesn't Congress merely redefine the rights of those married to include those covered by civil unions? The definition of Marriage remains the same and gays get their "equal benefits."

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 3:06 PM

asknot, I've got a question for you: where does it say... exactly... that government and religion need to be separated?

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 3:40 PM

asknot, should polygamy be made legal too?

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 4:25 PM

asknot, I am not judging anyone. I was just curious if you were going to be a hypocrite. You passed the test and at least make sense. Congrats! I still think everyone could be made happy with civil unions.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 4:32 PM

ask not: if gay marriage and polygamy are all ok how about marriage between brothers and sisters? between fathers and their adult daughters? how about marrying your favorite pet like Fred and his sheep? all involve consenting adult / adults????

4 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 4:56 PM

pretty quiet all of a sudden arent we ask not (and know less) ... your distored world views and inconsistently applied moral judgements are obvious ....

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 6:26 PM

asknot: Exactly where is the "separation of church and state" written and what's the quote... specifically. You quote it so you must know where it is.

And I happen to support gay marriage, by the way. Some say it's a "lifestyle" but I think they're just wired differently than I am. If it's a lifestyle then Down's Syndrome is a lifestyle, etc.

But... back to the "separation of church and state."... please tell me specifically where that is found.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 6:27 PM

@ Rolling stone, from the article...

marriage shall be a union of two consenting adults not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, and no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage.

And just when did sheep become able to consent to anything??...

Marriage is a civil union any way you look at it; no god, church or religion is needed...

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 9:17 PM

Separation of church and state. No religion can make the laws! It shouldn't matter if you're gay or straight. Every American should have equal rights!

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 10:05 PM

Burress described marriage as "the cornerstone of America" and said that "if you destroy marriage, you destroy America."

...yeah. So let's give more people access to marriage.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-28-13 11:53 PM

That "cornerstone" of America currently only has a 50/50 chance of not crumbling.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 12:51 AM

asknot... as I thought: you don't even know where the supposed "separation of church and state" clause comes from. Again, I ask YOU (because I already know)to explain with a specific reference where it is.

Thank you for skipping the personal attack and moving right on to obfuscation. You use the phrase "separation of church and state" and I'm asking you directly, specifically: where is it in the Founding Documents?

Seriously, you've got a belief and you surely can back it up, right? Or are you just towing the party line?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 9:59 AM

Why not give Civil Unions the same legal status as Marriage in those “1,100 statutes in which marital status is relevant” and leave Marriage alone. This would take care of the Social Security issue, benefits issue, custody issues, estate issues, inheritance issues etc etc etc. This would seem a lot easier.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-29-13 10:29 AM

ask not said the criteria for marriage is only consenting adults. so why not marriages of three or four people? why not incest? Or (for those of you who cant see the hyperbole) why not marry your favorite farm animal? Afterall sheep cant vote so their consent is not necessary...

The larger point is that it's hypocritical to cast this argument as a sacred matter of Civil Rights without logically extending the same criteria to these other situations involving consenting adults.

i know the proposed law doesnt include these situations but that's really irrelevant to the larger discussion. Afterall, it was only a few years ago that the current proposal would be found as repulsive as you all find the above examples involving consenting adults.

if you think this 'lowers' the discussion i suggest you spend less time on the computer and join ask not on her next fishing trip.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 38 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web