Too scared to ever go back...
Oct. 18th, 2004 05:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
judecorpAs much as the affordability and the good friends draw me back to Columbus, it's things like THIS ARTICLE that really scare me into even considering it. There's so much at stake in my life, so much Jennifer and I want to accomplish, and I just can't run the risk of having anything screw that up.
It just makes my heart hurt to think about it.
On Nov. 2, Ohio will vote on Issue 1, a state constitutional amendment that purports to simply ban same-sex marriage but actually goes much further. Ten other states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah -- are also voting on anti-gay marriage amendments. They're all expected to pass, most by wide margins. Eight of the state amendments prohibit domestic partnerships or any other public benefits or recognition for gay couples. But as a headline on the front page of Columbus Dispatch recently said, "Issue 1 wording makes it the strictest." Polls show support for it hovering above 60 percent.
Issue 1 is only two sentences long, but there's a world of uncertainty in it. While the first sentence simply decrees that marriage is between a man and a woman, the second says, "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."
It just makes my heart hurt to think about it.
On Nov. 2, Ohio will vote on Issue 1, a state constitutional amendment that purports to simply ban same-sex marriage but actually goes much further. Ten other states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah -- are also voting on anti-gay marriage amendments. They're all expected to pass, most by wide margins. Eight of the state amendments prohibit domestic partnerships or any other public benefits or recognition for gay couples. But as a headline on the front page of Columbus Dispatch recently said, "Issue 1 wording makes it the strictest." Polls show support for it hovering above 60 percent.
Issue 1 is only two sentences long, but there's a world of uncertainty in it. While the first sentence simply decrees that marriage is between a man and a woman, the second says, "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."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Fucking Midwest.
Date: 2004-10-18 09:51 pm (UTC)Re: Fucking Midwest.
Date: 2004-10-18 10:14 pm (UTC)Re: Fucking Midwest.
Date: 2004-10-19 04:11 pm (UTC)At the end of the day, the most offensive thing about the whole "marriage is exclusive" idea is that to limit it is to limit the pursuit of happiness WITHOUT infringing on other's right to do the same. That's it.
If people don't want to know about how same-sex couples behave on television, change the damn channel. If you prefer to raise your children in a way that limits their exposure to the "corrupting values" of whatever-it-is-this-month-you-think-is-evil, you're free to do so. (I would go into a rant about participation parenting here, but I won't.)
But don't relegate those outside your sphere of influence to second rate citizens. That's wrong. That's why you have a broad section of African American legislators and community leaders speaking out against these movements -- they've been there, and won't condone another system like that again.
There, I'm done.
Re: Fucking Midwest.
Date: 2004-10-24 09:38 pm (UTC)I am always amazed at the number of people who want to dictate the activities of people that they will probably never know and never see.