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

Yellow Snow

When voters say no, why do they continue to put it back on the ballot, again and again. No means no. They're counting on the "new" generation, the ones they easily bend their minds.

myname

Ask Gunner and the Perkins school board.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Possibly still considering myself as a part of the new generation and certainly many that come to my store, I think I can honestly respond here (though I can only speak of my own opinions). If all the financial benefits were stripped out of marriage this would be much less of an issue as it is seen by many to be a squabbling over supposed resources that detracts from those who see it as a significant religious act or just something you "should" do in life (a shallow thought and perhaps a contributor to so many divorces especially in the younger population). Why is it that some people get benefits over others? This isn't even a gay vs. straight issue!

Whichever religious (if any) context you wish to hold it in, that is your choice. At the heart of a marriage isn't it effectively making someone your "legal" best friend? A representative of yours, a partner in business lingo? If the current benefits are supposedly to encourage social responsibility then why are you not required to submit proof of a will, DNR choice, organ donation, power of attorney, etc. to prepare you for a life of responsibility?

As it is, you get something just for paying a license fee and even then only some people are allowed to pay a fee for the privileged of a costly divorce afterward! So yes, the younger generation can see marriage as a meaningless institution because it is treated with such broadly-meaningless ceremony, contradiction, law, benefits, and responsibilities. I don't need to point to divorce rates, domestic violence, or Family Service/family law records to show just how successful marriage is at creating responsibility.

That bit of cynicism/realism said, I will say that I believe in marriage as a cultural practice and am not an atheist. But marriage to me is on a personal, not social, level. It should be no business of yours or anyone else's what colors I use, the food I serve, which church/location/denomination I use, or who it is I marry. My legal fee should do nothing more than officially register my best friend so that s/he gets to be first in line to see me at the hospital, can make decisions for/with me, and acts in a personal fashion the same way a business partner can (which last I looked actually can be any gender, religion, etc. ...odd that there is a difference between personal and business). That official best friend also gets to be held accountable with me.

It is fair to all because it gives everyone a choice and confers no special benefits on one group or another. It allows an unquestioning reason for two people to marry as it is actually out of affection and responsibility because there are no monetary benefits that preference some over others. On that note, I do believe that other legal paperwork outlining and discussing responsibility should be filed in order to get the marriage license.

luvblues2

HZ. Dude...are you trying to be a lawyer? Are you tryin' to pass a 500 lb. ream of paper in a bill in congress? Speak normal. This is a comment section in a local newspaper. Not a freakin' dissertation for your PHD. I get what you're sayin' but damn...take it e-z on the verbiage. Know your audience.

wiredmama222

@the hero zone...if what you say is true about some of the young with whom you speak (and I don't doubt you), then I feel really badly about the future of this country. Perhaps what we see now is that "living together" is more of what the future holds than an actual marriage. And why not. Look at what examples they have!

But you seem to see marriage as a contract, a business agreement only. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Marriage is so much more than just an agreement between two parties. It is also so much more than a blending of two people for the access of getting insurance, banking, and "being first in line at the hospital" (I believe you said). I won't go into details here, you will just have to take my word for that. When it is with the right person, it is definitely so much more.

Yes, gay and lesbians want the right to get married for the reasons that you stated, that is true. They have been denied that right to be included on each other's insurance and all the other legal things you mentioned. But they can also maintain their OWN insurance and other legal entities just like many married couples do now days. As for being first in line at any hospital, just put your name on the list.

Marriage seems to be going by the wayside for many people, so I don't see what the fuss is about anyway. I am sorry, but not long ago, I was in favor of anyone being allowed to marry who they wanted including same sex marriages. That was until I read a few accuarial charts from insurance companies and had a long talk with a friend of mine who is a minister. I don't feel that way any more.

While the rest of the world is not particularly delighted with marriage for various reasons, neither should the gay and lesbian community. Not when they can maintain the same rights without marriage that many all do anyway. How many of them want to do so for a statement more than for the sanctity of marriage itself?

John Harville

...because they don't have legislative power to find a way around 'no'. Voters vehemently said 'no' on SB5... so the legislature found other ways to implement it.
The 2004 amendment was engineered by Karl Rove to get out the vote for Bush. He knew Bush was in trouble in Ohio... but if there was a way to bring out the evangelicals and Biblethumpers, they also would vote for Bush.

goofus

And your source is???????

John Harville

Because it was wrong!

coasterfan

Yellow Snow: Probably for the exact same reason civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King didn't give up easily after early defeats. Discrimination in any form is just plain wrong.

Today, we ALL realize just how wrong discrimination against minorities was in the 1950's and 60's. Thirty years from now, that's exactly how your viewpoint will come across. To many, you ALREADY sound horribly dated and out of touch.

The Big Dog's back

The SCOTUS ruled on Roe vs Wade, why do they keep trying to reverse it?

puddin95

Because it is wrong!

John Harville

puiddinhead... Constitutionally-protected personal choice is 'wrong'? The Fourth Amendment is 'wrong'? That's the one about the right to be secure in one's person.

totallyamazed

.
.
I'd say because no matter what your party affiliation, killing human life outside of necessity is wrong.
.
.

wiredmama222

@totallyamazed.....what???????

totallyamazed

.
.
@wiremama222

I responded to "The Dog" saying that they continue to try and overturn Roe vs Wade, I made the comment that the killing of human life (especially abortion in my book) is wrong unless it is a necessity (self defense, in case of war, that kind of necessity).

Since "The Dog" appears to lean left of center with his political views and directed his comment toward an issue that most Republicans have been outspoken on (legalized abortion) I thought it would be fitting to throw "no matter what your party affiliation is" into my statement concerning killing of human life.

This post script is not directed at you:
The constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage was passed because of a majority vote by the citizens of Ohio. The Roe vs Wade case was passed into law by the Supreme Court. Someone correct me on this if I'm wrong. Not sure about the whole process working up to the Supreme Courts decision back in the 70's. It would be interesting to see how a popular vote would fair concerning Roe vs Wade today.
.
.

wiredmama222

so sorry. This board gets so confusing sometimes.

happyfeet64

Re: Yellow Snow- you are right, it shouldn't be put back on the ballot. Actually, in my opinion it never should have been put the voters at all because it is a discriminatory law that NEVER should been implemented in the first place. And I'm not a member of the new generation. I am heterosexual that doesn't believe in racist, bigoted backward thinking. If a homosexual couple want to be married to each other, why is that anyone's business? And don't get me started on separation on church vs. state. Why should anyone's religious views dictate laws that invade my private choices? I have rights same as anyone else- and I'm NOT a christian. I am a highly intelligent woman who pays taxes, am very outspoken and I VOTE! Beware small minded hate filled humans!!!!

coasterfan

Agree 100% with Happy Feet!

wiredmama222

@happyfeet....do you know why this is such an issue with the government? Because of the insurance companies. They are the ones who are complaining so badly. Take a look at some of their accuarial tables online once for homosexuals and payouts for HIV, etc. It is very clear why they don't want to cover them. Having to cover them twice is even worse to them.

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

No sign of intelligence, just a typical liberal that can’t debate without using the words hate, bigot and racist.

John Harville

So you love homosexuals?

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

Of course I do.

The Big Dog's back

Hate, bigot, racist. The question is, what is the definition of a tea partier.

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

I rest my case.

coasterfan

Big dog rests his. He makes a good point. Those 3 words DO sum up tea partiers rather well. And to be sure, the flurry of posts here began after a conservative blogger posted some old-fashioned bigoted viewpoints.

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

Thanks for yet another example!

Swamp Fox

"Hate, bigot, racist" you are correct it you guessed far left wacko.

goofus

Is she the pollworker that voted for Obozo 6 times in the last election

http://www.nationalreview.com/co...

John Harville

"she' who?

Jmschmidt812

Ask the local school districts and some of the local government agencies the same question when their levies keep getting voted down. When voters say no that's what it means, in what state, because it sure isn't Ohio. So better luck next time with that lame argument.

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's picture
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!

Contango

@ meowmix:

SS? LMAO!!!

"If" he were 65????

Lotta "ifs."

"If" he ain't, you get $255.00 to help bury his butt until you become eligible. Nice Ponzi scheme eh?

Buy some life ins. for the donut hole. Only a fool depends on "ifs."

The last I read, only 22% of Fortune 500 cos. offer retiree health ins. Most sm. employers can't afford it.

http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspd...

whocares

I don't care if a person is gay, its their choice. I just don't want to have to explain it to my kids when their sucking face in public.