Obama player joins Ohio same-sex marriage effort

A key player in President Barack Obama's re-election campaign in Ohio has joined the effort to overturn the state's 2004 ban on same-sex marriage.
Associated Press
Feb 19, 2013

The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer (http://bit.ly/XJriGb ) reports that Greg Schulz has joined the executive committee of FreedomOhio, a group seeking a reversal of the ban.

Schulz previously served as state director of Obama for America in Ohio.

He told the newspaper a petition drive that began last year could place a constitutional amendment on the ballot later this year or in 2014. The measure seeks to overturn the 2004 constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage. It was supported by 62 percent of Ohio voters at the time.

The FreedomOhio amendment would not require churches and other religious institutions to perform or recognize a marriage.

 

Comments

PaulYall

It has nothing to do about religion or state, society dictates what society wants!

John Harville

Society dictates?
Society dictated that the races should not intermarry.
Society dictated that certain sex acts should not be allowed even between spouses in the privacy of their bedrooms.
Society dictated that women should not vote.
Society dictated that married women could not teach.
Society dictated that pregnant women should not go out in public.
Society dictated that 'colored' and 'white' should not use the same restrooms, drink from the same fountains, sit at the same lunch counters, ride in the front of the bus.
Society dictated that people could be branded 'Communist'.
Society dictated that Japanese Americans should be confined to camps.
Society dictated that hatred and bigotry and racism are acceptable.
God save us from 'society'.

coasterfan

The score: John Harville 1, PaulYall 0

KnuckleDragger

Just about right...Substitute the word government for society, then it will be factually correct.

Contango

@ Harville:

In addition to the fact that only white males could vote, much of what you write was the law of the land in 19th Century and early 20th Century Ohio.

Marry, don't marry - don't care.

Thank you John Kasich for helping to end OH's "discriminatory" death tax.

Swamp Fox

John Harville, review history many of your "society dictates" were results of democratic politics. Laws that restricted blacks after the Civil War, southern democratic up through the 60's including Senator Al Gore Sr, Robert Byrd (famous for his Grand Knight KKK background), George Wallace. Women's suffrage starting in 1915 every effort to pass the 19th Amendment was supported by the Repubicans and opposed by the Democratic majority in congress until finally public opinion turned against them and they were force to support the womens right to vote. The first U.S. President who championed civil rights, and sent Federal troops to force complainance was Republican Dwight Eisenhower. Who confined Japanese-Americans, FDR and the Democratic controlled congress.

The Big Dog's back

And which party do these southerners belong to now swampy? Why of course, the Rethuglican party.

Swamp Fox

bfrutie better than the far left coasters and wackos that the democrappers depend on. The south where the Republican now control has the lowest unemployment of any region and largest increase in population. The public has spoken on this in 2004 by an overwhelming margin.

The Big Dog's back

So when are the Repubs going to listen to public opinion?

goofus

I see you use the past tense maroon!!!!

Mime Bloggling's picture
Mime Bloggling

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news...

Two women are behind legalized abortion in America: now both of them want it reversed

"Both of the women were young, uneducated, poor, and ripe for exploitation at the time they became the center of a national firestorm. And both of them say that their cases were based upon outright lies: in Norma's case, the lie that she had been raped, and in Sandra's case, that she ever wanted an abortion in the first place. These are facts that are best kept quiet if Roe v. Wade is to stand."

Sometimes when a law has been based on fraud and lies it must be overturned.

luvblues2

And some people think "reality TV" is real. :)

wiredmama222

LOL

The Big Dog's back

Good one.

Cityslicker

Let's see. Favors same sex marraige, favors abortion, does not favor the 2nd amendment, and is leading the country into a finacial disaster. And his 2nd in command says just buy a shotgun, and fire warning blasts out the back for protection. What goes up, must come down. And besides, with the price of ammunition, I can't afford to fire a warning shot.

totallyamazed

.
.
I think I saw a bumper sticker that read: Intruders beware! Due to the increase in ammunition prices NO WARNING SHOTS WILL BE FIRED!

LOL. Gotta love it.
.
.

wiredmama222

@totally amazed....now that's funny.,

KURTje

Who cares how ya slice it? Let the people speak with their vote. THAT's what matters regardless the subject.

Fromthe419

I'm a Libertarian/conservative, my view is if it passes let them marry. I do not think they should be able to get death benefits (SSI) though. Since a same sex marriage can not produce offspring, they both would be able to work and have their own health insurance. If a same sex couple would choose to adopt then that is a personal choice, that would allow that individual to buy their own health insurance, we do have this thing called Obamacare. Let them marry if the choose, but giving them death benefits is not fiscally responsible.

Bluto

So , If a straight couple gets married and can't produce an offspring then they shouldn't be entitled to death benefits either , according to your thinking . See how wrong that sounds .

Fromthe419

You do have a point, but if the gay/lesbian community are going to get this passed there will be some give and take. If you take the benefits out of the equation, maybe some will say it is ok. As I said as long as no one pushes their lifestyle on my I don't care, isn't the point of their movement to get it legalized? I don't have answers, I'm just trying to put options out there.

Bluto

That is the point . If two people of the same sex are legally bound in marriage to one another then they should have the same rights as straight couples . Anything less , and you might as well start picking the whole institution of marriage apart . Race , sexual orientation , financial status .... Where does it stop ?

thinkagain

” Anything less , and you might as well start picking the whole institution of marriage apart”

That just what you and your ilk are trying to do.

Bluto

I am speaking of the legal aspect of marriage , not the religious aspect . I for one don't believe in marriage . Been there done that . I find that there are plenty of ladies out there who feel as I do , and are happy to be friends with benefits . Besides Thinkagain , When you look as good as I do , it would be a sin not to share all this with the ladies . Like the old James Taylor song says " I'll be your handyman " ; ))))

wiredmama222

@fromthe419...in the beginnig the gay/lesbian movements first reason for wanting to get married was medical insurance. Then it was the right to adopt a child. It keeps changing as the list of "demands" gets met. So what is the real reason? I wish someone would explain it to me as well.

Other than being "married", which is what they want, then that is fine for them, but that isn't what it started out as. Taking everything else out of the equation as you state it, then I guess you are left with just "marriage".

goofus

Want do you want from Obozo now that he has Reggie Love back!!!!!

meowmix

Fromthe419 " Since a same sex marriage can not produce offspring, they both would be able to work and have their own health insurance."

Seriously???? Well then, what do you think about hetero couples who lived their lives childless but she didn't ever work? The husband keels over and since she could have worked, forget getting any widow benefits. Sorry about your luck.

Contango

@ meowmix:

Survivor and retiree medical benefits are almost non-existent in the private sector. Better be a public employee if ya want the rich taxpayer "guaranteed" health and welfare benefits.

Spouse "keels over?" Life insurance.

BTW: Public employees in Greece are finding out how "guaranteed" their benefits are.

wiredmama222

@meowmix...may I ask, are you saying the wife does not get the husband's social security if he dies first and she never worked? I think you are wrong about that. My friend never worked a day in her life and collected his social security after his passing.

meowmix

Uh sorry Contango but Social Security widow/widower benefits are quite prolific!! In fact, if my husband and I were both age 65 and he retired- I would be able to draw a monthly spousal payment from Social Security even with me still working! As far as medical benefits go, I certainly will have to pay towards my medical coverage after I retire--I can also cover my spouse also but it would cost more than what my pension will be. I do have enough quarters under SS to be medicare eligible when I reach 65. Most private sector companies used to offer medical coverage upon retirement. I know of a few that have stopped this benefit but there are quite a few that still do offer a medical benefit that the retiree must also have a co-pay for (just like we public employees!!) Imagine that!

Pages