DOMA and your state

sorabji.com: What does it look like where you are?: DOMA and your state
By semillama on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 11:41 am:

    So, I'm curious. What are the DOMA laws like in your state?

    Here in Ohio, we have some of the most oppresive DOMA statutes on the books. Not only did they pass a redundant law banning gays from getting married (already a law on the books defining marraige as between men and women), but they've outlawed any type of civil union between people of the same sex, and outlawed extending benefits to couples of the same sex in pretty much any arena.

    Basically, what we have in the Defense of Marriage movement is a return to "Jim Crow" except this time, it's "Jim Queer" we're dealing with.

    I'd really like to know - just how exactly does two people of the same sex getting married or having the same benefits threaten the institute of marriage? Seriously, I haven't heard anything but unsubstantiated rhetoric. How does that affect any heterosexual marriage at all? The state of heterosexual marriages don't really affect each other, so why would gay marriage be any different?

    Just asking.

By dave. on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:27 pm:

    the people who oppose it believe that god hates gay people. they either hate gays themselves or they're like, "well god says i have to love everyone so i'll tolerate them and leave it to god to punish them. but no way can they get married".

By dave. on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:28 pm:

    these people also vote.

By kazu on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:30 pm:

    in the local paper here in Lowell, Homochusetts there is a huge advertisement from the Marriage Preservation group urging people take action so that "the people" can vote and not let four unelected indviduals decide to ruin America's sacred institution.

By patrick on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 12:55 pm:

    the problem with that, similar to what happened here in CA, a ballot measure was put to the voters a couple of years ago. Some prop. I forget all the details, but it was some sort of Defense of Marriage act sanctity crap, basically ensuring gays can't marry in CA. Propelled by this one backwoods, ultra conservative wack job that represents the hicks out in San Bernadino county or somewhere like that. The deal was, he played heavily to the catholic latino vote, had a huge well of money to create misleading advertisements. We all know the power of advertising, factual or not. Unfortunately the papers, and respectable press dont do their job to INFORM the public, so we're left with the rest of the media to SWAY the public on misinformation.


    Let the people vote. But keep the paid advertisements off the air and stick to professional and informative debates of the issue.


    In fact, thats one of my major problems with politics and policy all together.

    The elections and measures go to the people with the most money and best ad campaigns not necessarily the most qualified.

    Go Mass.!

By kazu on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 01:16 pm:

    There are some things that I don't think that the public should vote on. Even if you limited media to only professional and informative debates (all of which are still susceptible to bad politics) they are still going to be swayed by other sources, such as their churches and community organizations.

    So, let's say that the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage and vote accordingly, that doesn't make it okay. It's a cliched example, but many voters in Southern states supported segregation. What happens when the majority is willing to withhold rights from a minorty? That's tyranny of the majority and even the founding fathers wanted to protect against that.

By kazu on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 01:28 pm:

    Of course, that is why we have the electoral college and that's another discussion entirely.


    I still don't like the idea of eliminating paid adverts, even if I agree that those with the most money and slickest ad campaigns get in based on that, rather than real qualifications. That wouldn't prevent the circulation of bad ideas.

    "We all know the power of advertising, factual or not. Unfortunately the papers, and respectable press dont do their job to INFORM the public, so we're left with the rest of the media to SWAY the public on misinformation.."

    How respectable are they, if they don't do their job? I mean, how much of bad political reporting and commentating is the result of advertising and how much is the result of just the media in general.

    That solution would preclude subversive advertising as well.

By kazu on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 01:40 pm:

    I think everyone should be required to read and summarize John Locke's, A Letter Concerning Toleration, and then try to explain why it is okay to use religious beliefs to support legislation.


    That's what I think.

By wisper on Friday, February 6, 2004 - 08:23 pm:

    I said all i wanted before


    "That is the saddest idea of all, having a vote on a flat-out human rights issue. I would see that as a point of national shame. It doesn't matter if half the population think it's wrong, it doesn't matter if 99.9% of the country thinks it's wrong. You don't vote on basic rights and freedoms. They must simply exist.
    Should we have a vote about women being allowed the same jobs as men? Should we vote for or against slavery?
    Of course not. Oppressive laws or behaviour must be corrected on sight. Decent people and governments will do this without waiting for anything.


    They do this to hide the fact that they truly hate gay people and can't admit it. I wish they'd just admit it. I find it impossible to believe someone could be against this and claim to not be a big huge cowardly homophobe."

By semillama on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 01:42 pm: