?

Log in

No account? Create an account
You know, these rants are becoming all too common for a straight kid raised in Kentucky. - Chronarchy — LiveJournal

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Chronarchy.com

Links
Ár nDraíocht Féin
Three Cranes
MySpace
Chaos Matrix
OSU PSA

August 3rd, 2004


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
09:06 am - You know, these rants are becoming all too common for a straight kid raised in Kentucky.
Reading in the paper today, I got mad. Really mad. There is a note that the opponents of gay marriage in Ohio "have enough signatures" to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

I ask, "Why has the GBLT community not done the same thing!" I offer several wording alternatives that could be put into effect:

First, there is the idea that marriage cannot be defined by the constitution:
'Marriage, as a religious institution, cannot be defined by this constitution.'
===

Second, there is the idea that no one should get married:
'Marriages may no longer be recognized in the State of Ohio. Civil unions may be recognized by government agencies and private companies for the purposes of partner benefits.'
===

But why not put a competing amendment on the ballot? Would that show people how stupid the FMA is?
'Marriage in the State of Ohio shall consist only of the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. This Constitution shall not be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman.'
This wording, of course, is based off of the Federal Marriage Amendment. If one group's sexual choice will be forced onto another's, why don't we go with the group that has never had a divorce? Sounds 'sacred' to me.

===

Of course, maybe people need to see that this whole thing is ridiculous. If that's the case, then perhaps we should try to get this amendment onto the ballot?
'Marriage in the State of Ohio shall consist only of the union of a man and a platypus. This Constitution shall not be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a platypus.'
(Sorry, ladies. No platypi for you!)

===

If it has to be all about the opposite sex, let's make damn sure they really are opposite sex!
'In order to obtain a marriage license, applicants must appear naked and submit to a full body search, gynecological exam, and test of prostate health. Licenses will be granted only to couples of opposite sex.'

(Special thanks to kittenpants for her inspiring fantasy.)

===

Finally, something that will really squick 'em:
'Divorce is hearby made illegal to protect the sanctity of marriage.'
===

Now, seriously, with whom do I speak to get these amendments onto the ballot? Where do I get the petition, and how many signatures do I need?
Current Mood: angryangry
Current Music: "Cowboy in the Jungle", -JB

(18 comments Leave a comment)

Comments:


(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:41 am (UTC)
(Link)
Damn! Perhaps a revision:
'Marriage in the State of Ohio shall consist only of the union of a man and a female platypus. This Constitution shall not be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a female platypus.'
Cuz we can't have none of them gay platypi runnin' around!
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:50 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm all about moral fiber. It's just that too much leads to moral constipation, too.
[User Picture]
From:rfunk
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:49 am (UTC)

How about this one...

(Link)
Marriage in the State of Ohio shall consist only of the union of a fertile man and fertile woman. In order to obtain a marriage license, applicants must submit to a medical fertility test. The marriage shall be nullified if the woman does not give birth to a live child within five (5) years.
[User Picture]
From:agrnmn
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:51 am (UTC)

Darn

(Link)
You were 2 minutes faster than me, but I think 5 years is too lenient.
[User Picture]
From:rfunk
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:57 am (UTC)

Re: Darn

(Link)
You're right, maybe three years is better.

Oh, and we need a paternity test to make sure the child has the right father. Don't want any cheating going on, might destroy the sanctity of marriage.
[User Picture]
From:agrnmn
Date:August 3rd, 2004 07:20 am (UTC)

Re: Darn

(Link)
Absolutely! And if the child doesn't have the right father you divorce the couple and mkae the wife remarry the correct father. In the case where there are multiple children and fathers, the father with the most or oldest children wins the wife and the rest of the children go to work camps and sex salvery, the bastards!
[User Picture]
From:agrnmn
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:49 am (UTC)

Amendent s are Good!

(Link)
Whereas kittenpants fantasy is quite inspiring...quite...it however faces a problem. It defines gender on external genitalia. I say we have DNA testing to determine the sex of the individual based on chromosomes and only XX may marry an XY. Don't want any "females" with testicular feminization (a XY who looks female, tend towards supermodel appearance too.) duping poor guys into marrying them and then not be able to have kids, since that's what marriage is all about. Oh yeah, so we should also require all marriages to produce children with in 3 years or be automatically divorced. At the same time any genetic abnormality can be screened and we can prevent genetic diseases from arising and build our DNA database to help solve crimes. Save family values, improve humanity and lower crime all in one fell swoop.
[User Picture]
From:tosk
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:50 am (UTC)
(Link)
We're a democracy, or at least we still have the trappings of a democracy. As such, the will of the people is the law of the land. Like it or not, we live in a very Christian/Conservative state.

I would never sign the petition, I will vote against it, but those dumb jerks are doing exactly what they should be doing, advancing their political agenda through an organized campaign. If those of us who want to stop it are not equally active politically, then the Will of the people will probably vote to add this admendment. If there is not an organized, reasonable response to the conservative campaign, then apparently the Will of the Liberal side is not as strong as the will of the Conservative side.

Thats how states are supposed to operate.

So, if you don't like it, don't be upset that they're following the political process.... Tell people to vote against it, make good arguments against a constitutional amendment, and go to the polls on Nov 2 and Just Say No.

Tosk
From:tanrinia
Date:August 3rd, 2004 12:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
i've signed many a petition that i actually disagree with and have every intention of voting against should it get on the ballot. our legislators claim to "know" what their consituents want, yet the only way to truly know is to actually ask them...er, us...whatever :)

i think the only petitions i haven't signed are the 'repeal of the sales tax' because their pitch was misleading and downright wrong (and i told them why....nothing like an informed citizen to take the wind out of the sails of zealots). i have not had anyone ask me about this one, but then i've been quite the hermit lately. not sure if i would sign it, but it doesn't sound like they need any more signatures anyway.

[User Picture]
From:rfunk
Date:August 3rd, 2004 01:07 pm (UTC)

Tyranny of the majority

(Link)
Going purely by "majority rule", as you suggest, leads to the "tyranny of the majority", where minorities can be stripped of whatever rights they might have. Thus we have constitutions saying what rights everyone must have, and courts enforcing those against bad laws.... and conservatives calling those judges "activists".

Unfortunately, Ohio's constitutional amendment system is totally broken -- it's too easy to amend the constitution, with a simple majority of the voters. It's turned into our equivalent of a referendum, but with all the force of the state constitution.

This is why I never sign a petition to put an issue on the ballot if I don't want that issue to pass.
[User Picture]
From:tosk
Date:August 3rd, 2004 02:13 pm (UTC)

Re: Tyranny of the majority

(Link)
There are certain rights given by the Federal constitution, beyond those rights (basically Life, Liberty and The Persuit of Happiness), democracy (rule by the people, majority, etc) is how things are done.

Gay marriage, though I'm not against it, is not a guarntee by any constitution we have. It is not a 'right' in our society to marry whoever you choose. That is for the States to define.

For example, in Ohio it is not the right of myself to marry my first cousin.... However, it is my right to go to West Virgina and marry my cousin. Gay Marriage isn't really any different, is it?
From:tanrinia
Date:August 3rd, 2004 05:20 pm (UTC)

Re: Tyranny of the majority

(Link)
the only difference i can see is that ohio would have to recognize said cousin marriage. i can't remember the legal term...some sort of reciprocity.

currently, no one has to recognize a gay marriage in massachusetts, which is why some folks think it should be a federal issue.

i think it should be a non issue, as i don't give a big rat's ass who marries who. as long as no one is trying to marry my husband (unless they're rich or do windows.....)

yes, tyranny of the majority is a concern, but i think certain issues need to be voted by everyone. not necessarily this one, but when one has so many people thinking they 'know' what the population wants, it'd at least be interesting to see which side is right.
From:therubydolphin
Date:August 3rd, 2004 08:29 pm (UTC)

Re: Tyranny of the majority

(Link)
The Constitution does NOT guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, which is more of a manifesto and is not a legal document.

As for it not being listed in the Consitution, lots of things aren't listed. It doesn't give heterosexuals the right to marriage, either. I'll double check, but I don't believe the governance of marriage is delinated as one of the State's reserved rights, either.

If no kind of marriage is officially sanctioned by the Constitution, there is no basis (IMO) for an amendment to restrict it. Every constitutional amendment specifically related to a group of people has been to establish rights, not to remove them. It's a bad precedent to start now. And the one time the US tried to regulate social behavior by Constitutional amendment, Prohbition, was a disaster. And I'll be media coverage of the times, such as it was, put the same warped spin on the issue as they do now.

Of course, there are a number of parts of the Constitution that have become outdated in the past century IMO.
[User Picture]
From:garan_du
Date:August 4th, 2004 06:01 am (UTC)

Re: Tyranny of the majority

(Link)
It doesn't give heterosexuals the right to marriage, either. I'll double check, but I don't believe the governance of marriage is delinated as one of the State's reserved rights, either.

Actually, it is by inference. Those powers which are not reserved for the Republic devolve to the states or to their citizens. As every state has enacted laws governing marriage, it is by definintion one of those devolved powers.
[User Picture]
From:tosk
Date:August 4th, 2004 07:04 am (UTC)

Re: Tyranny of the majority

(Link)
I said "basically" because that is the jist of what the Constitution's framework was. However, please don't misunderstand me, I do not think that there should be a federal amendment to the Constitution about Gay Marriage. I will vote against a State amendment to define Marriage.

However, I will not deride the people who are following the political process to get this issue on the ballot. I disagree with it, but I don't disagree with their right to get it on the ballot. I only hope enough people show up to kick Bush out, that they'll kick this out too.

Marriage is something that must be sanctioned by the state government. That is why you have to get a marriage license. The State is allowed to say who can/cannot get a marriage license. Some states let 16 year olds get marriage licenses (without parental consent), others let cousins get marriage certificates, still others require that you're not blood related and that you are over 18.

State governments have always had the final say about what is considered a legal marriage within their State.

The only real issue that the Gay marriage proponents need to sucessfully pull off is making other states recognize their marriage in a more liberal state. Courts will have to uphold it, if we can get enough people to vote against the state amendments.

From:therubydolphin
Date:August 3rd, 2004 08:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
You know, this kind of thing makes me glad I live in Baltimore.

Here, we're more concerned with keeping people alive by stopping violence and drugs than with the expressions of love between 2 people (or a person and a platypus).

It must be nice to live in a state that is so prosperous and peaceful that folks are bored enough to worry about checking the genitalia of people getting married.

Personally, I think that in order to verify the gender of the couple, the couple should have to flash the person performing the service and all guests/attendants. Or maybe we should take a page from Star Trek, and have everyone at the wedding be naked a la Betazoid tradition. This is after the fertility and DNA tests.

The platypus is the official mascot of St. John's College in Annapolis, btw.
[User Picture]
From:garan_du
Date:August 3rd, 2004 07:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yep, we're so prosperous that every time Dubya comes to town (in a Canadian built bus) another manufacturing plant shuts down and ships the jobs overseas.

Personally, I think we have too many people, and we definitely have too many people who can't seem to mind their own damned business. I think that one solution to the referendum problem would be that you are required to give up a useful piece of your body in order to sign a petition to amend the Constitution ... say, the amputation of the thumb of your dominant hand (don't worry, we'll be fair and wait until after you've signed the petition). Therefore, you'd have to be really committed to the issue in order to get it on the ballot.

Anyone who signs a petition on an issue that they don't agree with just "to be fair" is foolish. You are short-circuiting the hurdle process that was put in place to specifically weed out assinine petitions with little to no support. I agree with their right to try to get it on the ballot. That doesn't mean I have to help them, and I'm more than willing to trip them up if they violate the rules in how they obtain their signatures. That is also part of the process, and for very good reason.
From:tanrinia
Date:August 4th, 2004 06:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
well, i'll change my nick to foolish then. :D

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com