Comments on: Ohio Supreme Court limits impact of gay marriage ban

By: Kemmran Geeorge

Kemmran Geeorge — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:17:07 +0000

Why the [heck] did they allow it in the first place ?
As a matter of fact someone in Ohio’s constituence must be going crazy.

By: Trouwen

Trouwen — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:21:24 +0000

It’s about time indeed.

By: Eddie

Eddie — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:53:07 +0000

Little Red is right – how many times have we seen this in custody cases where one parent uses the arguements of the homophobe to keep the other parent from the child? Hundreds over the years – hundreds. Gay people who do that are worse than any bible thumping homophobe.

By: Yanz

Yanz — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:43:10 +0000

Oh, so mature, Little Red. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s the straight people that are involved in the majority of child abuse, neglect and abandonment cases. I work in the field and if breeders like you continue to spawn more of your kind, no wonder our states and our federal government can’t balance their budgets. Straight people need to close their legs so that the rest of us don’t pick after the pieces of your discarded children. And this is about two people who are went through divorce and need to sort things out. Have a little empathy for the kid. But your sterling contribution to this thread is typical of ignorant buffoons like you who resort to name calling when it is undeserved. In this case, my implying you’re a buffoon & ignorant is well deserved.

By: Yanz

Yanz — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:39:10 +0000

By: Little Red

Little Red — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:59:43 +0000

“It is shocking that a lesbian, Ms. Fairchild was willing to use a bigoted amendment to further her own selfish goals instead of thinking what would be best for the child.”

Yes it’s only one of the many examples of the stupidity that’s prevalent out there amongst gays and lesbians.

By: Z

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:30:55 +0000

Technically, as far as I can understand from reading it, this amendment does NOT limit marriage to “one man, one woman” as so many others do. It merely says that UNmarried couples don’t get the same legal recognition as married couples. That said, somebody may want to, you know, file suit to “inform” the courts about this little detail.

By: Yanz

Yanz — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:18:08 +0000

It is shocking that a lesbian, Ms. Fairchild was willing to use a bigoted amendment to further her own selfish goals instead of thinking what would be best for the child. It is sad that a acrimonous ending to a domestic partnership could’ve led to more disastrous setbacks for LGBT folks in Ohio had the ruling been otherwise. Luckily, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on the right side of the argument.

By: dbzeag

dbzeag — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:58:03 +0000

To play Devil’s Advocate here, isn’t adoption a “marriage quality”? Isn’t one of the features “built” into marriage the rights of adoption by both would-be parents?

Is this the first test of that Amendment in the courts? I know a lot of groups were interested with how the courts were going to deal with an amendment so generic and widespread.

By: MNBear

MNBear — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:33:44 +0000

“…Approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage”, read the language on which the fundies were pinning their desperate hopes.

Well… this amendment failed because of straightforward constitutional interpretation. In Ohio, one is not required to be married in order to serve as an adoptive parent – therefore, the ability to raise an adopted child simply is not a “design, quality, significance or effect” OF MARRIAGE.

If the fundies think their crusade entitles them to circumvent the plain language of the law… well, then they’re even crazier than we thought, aren’t they.