Ohio one step closer to gay marriage ban

[zakur]

Story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-21-ohio-marriage_x.htm) One of the nation's most sweeping measures against gay marriage won approval by the Ohio Legislature on Wednesday. It was the strongest action by a state on the divisive issue since Massachusetts' highest court in November ordered that same-sex marriages be legalized in that state by May. Those how voted for the measure defend their positions (http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0122doma.html):State Sen. Jeff Jacobson, R-Butler Twp., countered that the bill isn't about hate or politics or knee-jerk positions.

"It's about what environment is best for children," Jacobson said.

State Sen. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, agreed, saying traditional marriage is the best arrangement for raising children. Opening marriage to include gays would send society down a "slippery slope on social issues" and may invite polygamists to redefine legal marriage, Jordan said.If traditional marriage is the best arrangement for raising children, will they next outlaw divorce?

[Tony]

A sad day for american freedom.

[zakur]

Commentary (http://www.daytondailynews.com/life/content/epaper/editions/today/lifestyle_0451588d467b11471052.html) Couples in same-sex marriages probably won't be making a lot of kids of their own, so maybe he's talking about the ones they might create through adoption, insemination or surrogation. I can see that. What chance do children have to be loved and cared for if they're brought into a home where two persons went to all that trouble? The only proper environment for children is one in which there is one parent of each gender, even if one or both of those parents beats them, starves them or hasn't been seen around the environment for quite some time.

Or maybe he's not talking about those children at all. Maybe he's talking about my children, even though I thought their mother and I did a pretty good job of raising them without his help. Well, there is that one kid, who slid down the slippery slope of an earlier time in America when society relaxed its vigilance and allowed children of different races to go to the same schools. As a result, I am the grandfather of the most beautiful, bi-racial little girl ever born.

Most likely, though, he's talking about the threat to your kids, who clearly are in danger of being improperly raised without the assistance of the Ohio Senate. Because no matter what you say or do, as soon as your child discovers that Heather has two mommies, bingo, the kid will turn gay.

[Tmy]

On the issue on whats a better situation for a child:

Its generally accepted that its better to have mom n dad than to just have a single parent.

All other factors being equal, wouldnt is also make sense that its better to have a mom n dad parenting figure rather than just a same sex parents. You get the two gender parenting mix that you dont with the same sex.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
On the issue on whats a better situation for a child:

Its generally accepted that its better to have mom n dad than to just have a single parent.

All other factors being equal, wouldnt is also make sense that its better to have a mom n dad parenting figure rather than just a same sex parents. You get the two gender parenting mix that you dont with the same sex.

As long as the child(ren) is in a healthy, loving home, why should it matter?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Tmy
On the issue on whats a better situation for a child:

Its generally accepted that its better to have mom n dad than to just have a single parent.

All other factors being equal, wouldnt is also make sense that its better to have a mom n dad parenting figure rather than just a same sex parents. You get the two gender parenting mix that you dont with the same sex.

Still you don't say what factors improve as a result of the two parent traditional marriage over single parent situation, so saying the gender mix is the crucial part is jumping the gun.

I have no doubt a loving mother and father is beneficial to the child and possibly in ways only one gender cannot be.

However other benefits of two parent marriages include:

Increased income
Increased time spent with the child by one or both parents
More access to after school activities and extra-curricular programs due to schedules.
Child less likely to need third party day-care
Child less likely to be latch-key kid
Etc...

So it could also be perfectly reasonable to believe that a child would be better with two same sex parents than one parent even if it is not as beneficial, statistically, as two differing sex parents.

[Richard G]

"Partisans of same sex marriage demand to know how two 'gay' men pledging themselves to one another can possibly hurt a 'straight' couple. Indirectly. If marriage is to include 'gay' men and women, by what standard can we exclude non-gay threesomes? Nothing in the Supreme Court's or other courts' rulings have provided a principled grounds upon which to forbid adult incest, polygamy or polyandry. Homosexuals bristle at this argument. But they must answer a question: How does a homosexual father convince his daughter that polygamy is out of the question? Marriage must, if the word is to retain its meaning, be only between one man and one woman. For as critics on both sides of the debate acknowledge, we're having a hard time upholding the integrity of marriage among the heterosexual population. At this moment, we ought to be reinvesting marriage with the honor it once commanded, not bleeding it of substance. Such a drastic social experiment should not be undertaken on the strength of a 4-to-3 vote of one state's high court. If a constitutional amendment is required, so be it." --Mona Charen

I'm all for the ban.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Andonyx

Child less likely to be latch-key kid


Just curious, I've heard the term "latch-key kid" before. But what does it refer too?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Richard G
--Mona Charen

I'm all for the ban.

That seems rather hypocritical considering your stance on guns. How can you be in favor of one harmless personal freedom, but against another?

[Tmy]

I remember having this argument over adoption preferences.

I would say that the advantage is that the child gets both gender roles. Thats the kid learns/sees the gender ques from both mom and dad side. Where in a same sex situation they get redundant gender roles.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Tony


Just curious, I've heard the term "latch-key kid" before. But what does it refer too?

Well, the term is probably a media invented term, but basically it refers to kids who have a household in which they return from school at a time when one or both parents are at work.

In other words, they are given a key to the house and excpected to come hom from school let themselves in, and stay unsupervised for 2-4 hours and not get into trouble.

Personally I don't think this it he huge evil that many people made it out to be in the 80's when it was blamed for everything from drug abuse to car jackings.

But I would certainly surmise a young child, and we are talking about youngsters here, not teens who could presuemably be counted on to take care of themselves for a few hours, would benefit from having a parent at home when they arrived to discuss the day, offer homework help, and maybe make a sandwhich.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Tmy
I remember having this argument over adoption preferences.

I would say that the advantage is that the child gets both gender roles. Thats the kid learns/sees the gender ques from both mom and dad side. Where in a same sex situation they get redundant gender roles.

That's true, but just because the gender roles are redundant doesn't mean the two actual parents are redundant. Having more time, more love, and even just more points of view around for a child along with more support is probably almost never a bad thing.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony


Just curious, I've heard the term "latch-key kid" before. But what does it refer too?

Refers to the simple type of lock that used to be the main lock on most front doors (or at least in the UK) - it's the type that has a "latch" that is moved by turning the key in the lock barrel, so no deadlock. Parents who were still working when the kid finished school would give their kid a key to this lock so the kid could let themselves in.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Andonyx


That's true, but just because the gender roles are redundant doesn't mean the two actual parents are redundant. Having more time, more love, and even just more points of view around for a child along with more support is probably almost never a bad thing.

Then should we encourage poligamy? If 2 mommies is good than 5 mommies + 1 daddy is even better!

No. In fact we use the children as a reason to outlaw poligamy.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Tmy


Then should we encourage poligamy? If 2 mommies is good than 5 mommies + 1 daddy is even better!

No. In fact we use the children as a reason to outlaw poligamy.

Then if you want to use the slipery slope argument, by your logic we should outlaw single parents.

In fact if you have determined, as you seem to have, that anything other than traditional mommy-daddy parenting situations is wrong, We cannot have households with more than two adult parenting figures. Uncles, grandparents, etc, are not allowed to live in the house with the child. Likewise if one parent should pass on, or if the couple gets divorced, the child is immediately remanded to child services to become a ward of the state.

Is that the kind of thing you're advocating?

I really don't think you are. But you can take any argument to the ridiculous and pointless extreme.

I'm not advocating polygamy, just like you're not advocating banning single parents.

[Tony]

What's wrong with polygamy (assuming it's voluntary)?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Then if you want to use the slipery slope argument, by your logic we should outlaw single parents.

In fact if you have determined, as you seem to have, that anything other than traditional mommy-daddy parenting situations is wrong, We cannot have households with more than two adult parenting figures. Uncles, grandparents, etc, are not allowed to live in the house with the child. Likewise if one parent should pass on, or if the couple gets divorced, the child is immediately remanded to child services to become a ward of the state.

Is that the kind of thing you're advocating?

I really don't think you are. But you can take any argument to the ridiculous and pointless extreme.

I'm not advocating polygamy, just like you're not advocating banning single parents.

Im not outlawing anything. You can be a single mother, and a gay couple can have and raise kids.

BUT lets say you have legal gay marriage. That would mean that legally you probably couldnt favor a hetero couple vs a gay couple in adoption. When at the same time you can favor couples over a single parent, which no one seems to have a problem with.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony
What's wrong with polygamy (assuming it's voluntary)?

I often wonder why polygamy is illegal. Especially with Freedom of Religion backing up the belief.

Whats the constitutional therory that allows for a ban on polygamy yet would allow for a right to same sex marriage??

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Tmy


Im not outlawing anything. You can be a single mother, and a gay couple can have and raise kids.

BUT lets say you have legal gay marriage. That would mean that legally you probably couldnt favor a hetero couple vs a gay couple in adoption. When at the same time you can favor couples over a single parent, which no one seems to have a problem with.

I'm sorry, I think then I have mis-read the first post of yours that I responded to, and made a false position for you in my head.

In regards to adoption, yes I suppose that is a sticky wicket. But then I would also have to see some pretty convincing studies on the gap between gay parent household children and traditional parent household children before I would even find adoption discrimination to be a good idea.

But as for this being a reason to ban gay marriage, well, it's not nearly good enough of a reason.


We can deal with polygamy as a separate issue, we can also deal with adoption as a separate issue. This should not stand in the way of the individual liberties of the marriage participants.

[Tmy]

Thats why many people favor civil union rather than marraige. True there would be a separte not equal kind of a result, but it would make it easier to deal with the sticky wickets.

Isnt the "ban" more of an end around tactic past the fullfaith n credit towards other states marriage laws. The fear being tha Ohio would have to accept say..Massachusetts gay marraige.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Tmy
Thats why many people favor civil union rather than marraige. True there would be a separte not equal kind of a result, but it would make it easier to deal with the sticky wickets.

But I wonder this: I mean just because the word marriage applies...does that automatically make a gay couple as likely for adoption as a hetero-couple?

I'm just thinking, that we already deny plenty of married couples the adoption, or make them wait until a very thorough background a personality check has been carried out. If this applies equally to gay married couples I don't see why we couldn't insure that children get into solid good homes full of opportunities regardless.

Look the systems isn't perfect we read of children abused in foster homes every day, but that doesn't mean it has to be imperfect skewed against homosexuals.

I'm just saying that it's not like we just hand out orphaned children to anyone with a marriage certificate who asks.



Isnt the "ban" more of an end around tactic past the fullfaith n credit towards other states marriage laws. The fear being tha Ohio would have to accept say..Massachusetts gay marraige.

Hmm, I Imagine that's a huge part of it. I think I recall Michael Redman bringing up just this point. He might shed some light here...it was either him or suddenly.

[zakur]

Well, it's a done deal. Gov. Taft signed Ohio's "Defense of Marriage Act" last Friday. In his statement, Taft said:At a time when parents and families are under constant attack within our social culture, it is important to confirm and protect those environments that offer our children, and ultimately our society, the best opportunity to thrive.

One child welfare organization has concluded that 'research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.'Some adoptive parents are outraged at this language.

Commentary (http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/content/localnews/daily/0211mary.html)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony
What's wrong with polygamy (assuming it's voluntary)? Nothing at all. This isn't an issue oabout children, it is an issue about repressing sex in any way possible. It comes from that whole "my way is the only natural way" attitude, as well.

Polygamy has lots and lots of advantages, you know. Think of the children!!:D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by zakur
In his statement, Taft said:Some adoptive parents are outraged at this language. Adoptive parents, single parents, gay parents. Taft is an equal-opportunity offender.

There couldn't have been a better exemplifier why this is a "law of intolerance".

[Zero]

What's next, a ban on divorce? A Constitutional amendment forcing pregnant women to marry the man who got the pregnant?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Zero
What's next, a ban on divorce? A Constitutional amendment forcing pregnant women to marry the man who got the pregnant?

If you read his statement, it is as much a conclusion as banning gay marriage.

If I were a legislator in Ohio, the first thing I would do would be to create anti-divorce legislation and advertise that it is a natural consequence of the "Defense of marriage" act.

Let's see how much support there is then.