Same-sex marriage (SSM) In Ohio.
Part 2: 2013-MAR: Readers' comments on poll article.
APR: Quinnipiac poll. JUL: Obergefell v. Kasich case.
On this web site:
"SSM" refers to same-sex marriage.
"LGBT" refers to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Transsexual community.
Readers' comments on the The Columbus Dispatch article concerning the Saperstein SSM poll:
Some of the comments posted by readers were:
- Buford Liberty posted:
"You can think what you want to, believe what you want to, and do what you want to do. But, the bottom line is that you cannot change what God has said. It is settled for all eternity and God, who "changes not" and who "cannot lie" has said that homosexual behavior is an abomination to Him. The problem is that man continues to substitute his own notions and opinions for the Word of God. There is an awful consequence for this."
- Joe Sommer posted:
"In reading the article's quotes from people using the Bible and church teachings to oppose equal rights and fair treatment for gays, I was reminded of an observation made by Bertrand Russell many years ago. He said:
'You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, . . . every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.'
As long as the churches continue to base their beliefs on a flawed book written many centuries ago in a pre-scientific and ignorant era, and as long as they continue to support using the law to force their beliefs on others, Russell's observation will remain true."
- Thomas Rees posted:
"Volatile issues where public opinion may sway from one side to another have no business being turned into a Constitutional Amendment. Pass a law if you wish -- it will be much easier to change if opinions change. Since man first walked on the face of the Earth, some have chosen to follow the teachings of their religion while others have not. As long as people have a choice in their behavior, they will ultimately be held responsible for those choices. The fate of one who chooses poorly doesn't affect the fate of one who chooses wisely."
- Dan Sikorski posted:
"No one's forcing religions that don't want to, to perform same-gender marriages. If they decide it's against their doctrine, that's entirely up to them. And the exchange for the government not meddling in church doctrine is that they don't get to impose their canon law on people who aren't adherents of their religion. In the eyes of the state, which licenses both civil authorities as well as religious officers to perform legally binding marriages, a marriage is legally a contract between two people. It has no inherent sacramental value--that's only applied within church walls and church doctrine, and has nothing to do with the state and the law. Simply put: if you're against gay marriage, then don't marry someone of your own gender. Outside of that, it's none of your business."
- Terry Reeves posted:
"Regardless of what the Bible says, the U.S. does not base it's laws on that. We've got to keep the distinction between right and wrong before God and legal or illegal before the state. Jesus said the highest law was to love the Lord God. It is the the first and greatest commandment, he said. Would you have the US make a law requiring that? It would clearly be both unconstitutional and useless resulting only in hypocrisy. It is the same here.
Jesus also said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" We must let others practice their beliefs or lack of them as we want them to let us. That's why the constitution has freedom of religion. We cannot stamp out sin with the power of the sword, and it is wrong to try. God does not force morality on us. Let's imitate him."
- KM (The Grovelander) posted:
"This proposed amendment 'would allow religious institutions to determine who they will or won't marry, and protect such institutions that refuse to perform a marriage.' But it would FAIL to protect the individuals who ascribe to the beliefs of those institutions. Just one more liberal/progressive policy that will violate the religious freedom of Americans. If I run a party center, I should not be forced to facilitate a celebration that goes against my religion. If I own a bakery, I should not be forced to enhance the celebration of something that is against my religious beliefs. Gay marriage advocates want to fight perceived discrimination with ACTUAL discrimination. They are on the wrong side of history." 1
Minor spelling, punctuation, and grammatical changes were made to the readers' comments.
2013-APR-10: Quinnipiac poll shows support for registered voters support same-sex marriage and a repeal of Ohio "Issue 1:"
The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute conducted a poll of 1,138 registered Ohio voters from 2013-APR-10 to 15. 2 The margin of error is ±2.9 percentage points. Results showed that:
- 48% voters support same-sex marriage (SSM)
- 44% voters oppose it,
- Women support SSM by a margin of 52% to 40%
- Men oppose SSM by a margin of 49% to 43%.
2013-JUL-23: Same-sex marriage recognized in Ohio -- but only temporarily and for one couple, so far:
In 2013-JUN-26, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the famous lawsuit Windsor v. United States. That case was one of many federal lawsuits involving the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but was the only one that had made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The law had prohibited the federal government from making any of its 1,138 marriage benefits and protections available to those legally married couples who were of the same sex. The Court found that DOMA's main section was unconstitutional, and ordered the federal government to start recognizing all legally solemnized marriages equally, whether they consisted of one woman and one man, or of two women or of two men.
That ruling was of immense benefit to many same-sex married couples. For example, Edith Wilson who launched that lawsuit received a refund of over a third of a million dollars in federal and state inheritance taxes because her marriage had become recognized.
Many commentators recognized that the ruling in Windsor contained many arguments that could be used directly in lawsuits that seek to legalize same-sex marriages in the 37 states which currently forbid them. They expected a flood of lawsuits would be eventually launched in federal District Courts, and perhaps make their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. But it is unlikely that any commentators expected a positive District Court ruling in such a case within a month of the Windsor ruling. Exactly that has happened in Ohio!
John Arthur, 47 and Jim Obergefell, 47 have been in a same-sex relationship for over twenty years. They live in Cincinnati OH. Arthur has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (a.k.a. ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease). He is bedridden, and is expected to die shortly. His dying wish is that they be married. 3
Since they were prohibited from marrying in Ohio, they chartered a medically-equipped plane to fly on 2013-JUL-11 from Cincinnati to Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport in Glen Burnie, MD. They were married in the plane as it sat on the airport tarmac. A friend of the couple, Paulette Roberts, officiated. Later that day, they flew back to Ohio.
On JUL-19, they filed a lawsuit in federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. It is Obergefell v. Kasich. It names John Kasich (R) in his capacity of Governor of Ohio as a defendant. It sought a temporary restraining order requiring the Ohio Registrar of Death Certificates to register Arthur's marital status as "married" and list Obergefell as "surviving spouse." 4 A main reason for their decision was to allow them to be buried in the Arthur family plot together. Obergefell's grandfather had stipulated that only direct descendants and their spouses can be buried there. 5
According to BuzzFeed:
"Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine’s office defended the state’s laws in filings with the court on Monday [JUL-22], but Cincinnati city lawyers representing Dr. Camille Jones, the vital statistics registrar for the city, declined to defend the law, telling the court that the City will not defend Ohio’s discriminatory ban on same-sex marriages, but the City’s vital statistics registrar is bound to follow Ohio law until that law is changed or overturned'." 6
District Judge Timothy Black issued the temporary injunction. basing his decision largely on two rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court:
The text of the original complaint, of the temporary restraining order, of the response from the Attorney General's office, and of the City of Cincinnati's response are available online. 6
Robert Higgs of The Plain Dealer wrote:
"Black’s ruling came as a temporary restraining order that now would expire Aug. 5. What remains to be seen is whether the court grants a permanent injunction in the case and if so, whether such a ruling would bar application of the Ohio laws broadly or be restrained to this case." 8
On JUL-26, "kathymorganm" posted her comment to the BuzzFeed article that was judged to be the winning comment by the editors:
"No matter what gender or race if you love someone you love them and if you want to get married you should be allowed and and should be recognized in the eyes of the law just as it does for a man and woman."
To which "bruce8" who bears a strong resemblance to the webmaster of this web site responded with his own personal opinion:
"I expect that a generation from now, students in high school will be absolutely astounded to learn that, prior to about 2018. there were actually states in the U.S. where loving, committed couples were unable to marry because they were of the same sex, and that prior to 1967, couples were unable to marry in some states because they were of different races, and that prior to the early 20th century, couples were unable to marry in some states because they were both deaf, and that prior to 1865, couples had been unable to freely marry because they had been slaves. They will simply be unable to understand the level of hatred and cruelty that caused such fundamental miscarriages of justice and violations of Christian love and morality to occur."
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
- Darrel Rowland, "Poll: Ohio marriage views shift," The Columbus Dispatch, 2013-MAR-24, at: http://www.dispatch.com/
- Joe Vardon, "Quinnipiac poll: Ohioans support gay marriage," Columbus Dispatch, 2013-JUL-25, at: http://www.dispatch.com/
- Mark Guario, "Same-sex marriage: Ohio judge opens new frontier for gay activists," Christian Science Monitor, 2013-JUL-23, at: http://www.csmonitor.com/
- Text of the ruling: "United States District Court ... Case No. 13-cv-501," Scribd, 2013-JUL-19, at: http://www.scribd.com/
- Kimball Perry, "Judge rules for Ohio same-sex couple," Cincinnati Enquirer, 2013-JUL-23, at: http://www.usatoday.com/
- Chris Geidner, "Ohio Officials Ordered To Recognize Gay Couple’s Marriage," BuzzFeed, 2013-JUL-22, at: http://www.buzzfeed.com/
- Wyatt Fore, "Federal Judge in Ohio Orders State to Recognize a Same-Sex Marriage," HRC Blog, 2013-JUL-23, at: http://www.hrc.org/
- Robert Higgs, "Judge's order in same-sex marriage case could put validity of Ohio's laws in question," Plain Dealer, 2013-JUL-23, at: http://www.cleveland.com/
Copyright © 2013 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Originally written: 2013-JUL-24
Latest update: 2013-JUL-25
Author: B.A. Robinson