Ohio sucks! There, I finally admitted it.

Coqui said:
No problem. This is a sarcastic thread about how a certain someone living in Ohio constantly complains about how Ohio is so against gays and that it's the worst place to live because of it.

It is also intended to inform said person that such a regulation exists in the place I've been trying to get said person to move to to understand that not all of Ohio sucks.
Click to expand...

Said person would also like to state that this ruling is unconstitutional according to Ohio Amendment Article XV Section 11:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Ohio_2004_Issue_1_(Gay_Marriage_Amendment)

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
Click to expand...

And given that a state constitution trumps a county bill, I say either this is illegal or should be brought to court.
 
dbzeag said:
Said person would also like to state that this ruling is unconstitutional according to Ohio Amendment Article XV Section 11:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Ohio_2004_Issue_1_(Gay_Marriage_Amendment)



And given that a state constitution trumps a county bill, I say either this is illegal or should be brought to court.
Click to expand...

This isn't an effect of marriage. This is including ones partner as considered a family member. You don't have to marry your son or daughter for them to be covered.
 
Coqui said:
This isn't an effect of marriage. This is including ones partner as considered a family member. You don't have to marry your son or daughter for them to be covered.
Click to expand...

It is a government-sponsered position giving a non-married partner benefits through the government employee. These partnered benefits are automatic for married couples prior to this announcement.

Allowing benefits to partners that are not married that were benefits previously generated and designed FOR married couples is exactly what the amendment is about.

The state is to not accept or acknowledge relationships outside of marriage. To give a non-married partner the same benefits as the partner who is hired means the state has to recognize the partnered relationship. This is explicitly denied in the amendment.

You don't have to marry your son or daughter because they are direct family members, as is your wife or married partner is. The state of Ohio, according to that amendment, only recognizes those types of relationships, family or marriage. Not partnered.
 
dbzeag said:
Said person would also like to state that this ruling is unconstitutional according to Ohio Amendment Article XV Section 11:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Ohio_2004_Issue_1_(Gay_Marriage_Amendment)



And given that a state constitution trumps a county bill, I say either this is illegal or should be brought to court.
Click to expand...

They aren't recognizing a legal status for anyone, simply providing health care. However, if this interrupts how miserable you are there, then we can just pretend that you're right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back