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.
Comments on the Saperstein poll article about SSM in The Columbus Dispatch newspaper:
The Columbus Dispatch article contained some comments given by individuals involved in the Saperstein poll about SSM:
- "I’m a Christian [Baptist] and I live by the Bible, and I think it’s woman and man, not two of the same. ...I’ve always grown up with a few people who’ve been that way. It doesn’t make me love them any less or more. I just don’t approve of their ways."
- "I’ve never really believed that just because people were gay that they were really different."
- "If that’s what they want to do, they can do it. I don’t have nothing [sic] against it."
- "I know it’s not right in God’s sight. ... He made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, and not two men." 2
- 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 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.
"KM"is apparently unaware that in Ohio, a store owner can discriminate against customers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity with impunity. The state's human rights law only cover discrimination based on the customer's race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry.
2013-APR-10: Quinnipiac poll shows 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%.
National polls in early 2013 were running about 54% in favor of legalizing SSM. Ohio appears to be slightly more conservative than Americans generally.
2013-JUL-26: U.S. Supreme Court repeals federal Defense of Marriage Act:
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 Section 3 was unconstitutional, and ordered the federal government to start recognizing legally solemnized marriages equally, whether they consisted of one woman and one man, or of two women or of two men, in states where SSMs are recongnized. This ruling is a "game-changer" that will affect marriage equality/inequaity laws across the country in the future.
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/
- Dan Sweell, "John Arthur, Terminally Ill Ohio Man Who Challenged Gay Marriage Ban, Dies," Huffington Post, 2013-OCT-22, at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Copyright © 2013 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Originally written: 2013-JUL-24
Latest update: 2013-DEC-25
Author: B.A. Robinson