so i was avoiding studying last night, and decided to write a note to some ohio teabagger committee folks, seeing how much they are for the rights of every man and woman in ohio , and ask for their help to repeal ohio's “defense” of marriage act.   guess they are only for rights of , um, themselves.

——
I read your platform and assume you will work with me to appeal the
discriminatory Ohio DOMA law, and allow for the fundamental rights of every
man and woman in Ohio are Life, Liberty, Property, the Pursuit of Happiness,
and other Protections secured by this Constitution, which are common to all,
absolute and necessary in the ordinary course of life and shall not be
deprived, abrogated, or encumbered through any form of licensure, taxation,
event, conduct, or legislation by the state or its political subdivisions.
Nor shall such Rights be subject to or deprived by waiver. All fundamental
Rights shall be equally administered and enforced, without prejudice or
favoritism or regard to civic class or status.
Always looking for new allies in the fight for lgbt rights.   We'll count on
your help to get signatures for the repeal effort.

Sue,

response below the fold…. 

Because there are others who may have concern about this sensitive issue, I
will ask our webmaster to post my response to your inquiry in our FAQ's
section of our website.  I have removed your personal information to
eliminate unsolicited rebuttals that could cause you any personal distress.

Your comments are pretty vague, but I will try to respond, intelligently,
based on what I perceive you may be asking.

The “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) is federal and has two effects:

1.  No state is mandated to recognize same-sex marriage, even when it is
recognized in another state; and
2.  The federal government has, like many of the states, defined marriage to
be exclusively a relationship between one man and one woman.

The Ohio Constitution already addresses this issue at Section 11 of Article
XV.  This law is predicated upon thousands of years of human culture
throughout the world and is within the proper definition of the principles
and values upon which our system of government was founded.  Marriage is
what it is – a consummated union between a man and a woman under a vow of
faithfulness and service to one another, which is recognized by nature and
nature's God.

Now, there are some who do not subscribe to these principles or values.
They have the same rights to life, liberty, property and pursuit of
happiness as anyone else.  However, the relationship of two people of the
same sex can never be consummated in a manner that creates a marriage
relationship.  And, even though our society does not absolutely prohibit
such behavior, it is a matter of choice for such people to exercise their
relationship according to their own conscience so long as they do not abuse
the right or invade or trespass upon others.

I, personally, have had “gay” friends and acquaintances.  Though I do not
subscribe to that behavior, I did accept their friendship so long as they
did not push their beliefs upon me, just as I would over any religious
convictions.

I believe the solution to the same-sex relationship challenge is to call the
relationship something else other than “marriage”.  Marriage has a specific
meaning with enormous cultural significance.  Whether familial benefits can
be enjoyed for same-sex relationships is completely a private matter between
the relevant individuals and the entity providing the benefits.  To receive
such benefits from government would require a substantial change in the
foundational principles upon which the government operates.  To require
government, which has been established upon a specific set of principles, to
pervert those principles in favor of an isolated ideology, is unreasonable,
and that is why our system specifically prohibits laws respecting any
religion.  The same-sex ideology is no different.

PCCOH is all about equal rights and liberties.  However, marriage is an
institution that lies within the sole authority of God, not man.  We believe
that any interference by government restricting the people's right of
marriage, as defined, would be facially unconstitutional.  There is nothing
within our laws to prevent a proper marital relationship between consenting
adults.  We at PCCOH are in alignment with this belief system.

…..
he then goes on to try to sell me on supporting their “states rights” amendment for ohio
………
Respectfully,

www.pccoh.com

my reply——–

It is sad that your tea party members would personally harass people for being in favor of equality.   Or for being gay.  I imagine you would find it as ridiculous for someone to assume you could choose to become a gay man and live happily in that role and honestly lust after other men, as your gay neighbors find it to have folks assume they have chosen to be gay and put up with hateful behavior and comments from homophobic people.
You are incorrect about marriage being “from god”, and not the government.  god does not issue you a marriage certificate, and those who go to the justice of the peace are just as married as those who go to a religious entity – who is given the privilege – by the government – to perform a ceremony.  the minister cannot issue a marriage certificate – it is a civil matter in the united states.  perhaps in theocracies in the middle east your assertion may be true, but not here.
I am confused by your assertion that because the government prohibits laws respecting any religion to bolster an argument that simply because your specific interpretation of the christian religion thinks of lgbt people such as myself and your “gay” “friends” to be a perversion,  the law must be based on your interpretation of christianity.  your gay neighbors and fellow tax paying citizens should not be denied the same rights as you enjoy, simply because you happen to have been born straight, and choose to be homophobic.  being gay is no more an ideology than being heterosexual.

that any interference by government restricting the people's right of marriage, as defined, would be facially unconstitutional.  There is nothing
within our laws to prevent a proper marital relationship between consenting adults.

I am sorry, these sentences made absolutely no sense to me in the context of arguing against marriage equality.  allowing full access to rights and privileges granted by the government to tax paying gay citizens that are now enjoyed by heterosexual couples would not restrict anyone's right to marriage, and trust me there is no “gay agenda” to force all the straight folks to divorce their spouses and get “gay married”. it is too bad that your love of freedom only extends to those who you deem worthy.

and just a note, those you referred to as your “gay” friends – were not.  just as you would not count someone as a friend who labeled you as their “insert your biological characteristic of choice here” friend, and personally felt that who you were was repulsive.   just as the sum total of your existence as a straight man is not defined by what happens in your bedroom, your lbgt neighbors are not defined by their bedroom either.

Eventually, the courts will correctly find that you are right, any interference by government restricting the people's right of marriage is facially unconstitutional.  But don't worry, that won't mean the gays will come and marry you.

sue

suejeffers

suejeffers

4 Comments

Leave a reply