Ohio AG certifies petition for Freedom to Marry and Religious Freedom Amendment

The Ohio AG has approved the petition
filed by Freedom to Marry Ohio. The
next step is the Ohio Ballot Board.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine has certified the petition for the Freedom to Marry and Religious Freedom Amendment.

This means that it will be sent to the Ohio Ballot Board to ensure the amendment contains a single issue and, if so, petitioners can begin to gather the signatures necessary to put the measure on the ballot.

Interestingly, today a federal judge is expected to issue a ruling on whether or not Ohio must recognize the marriages of gay couples who marry in other states.

Ohio voters approved a state-wide gay marriage ban in 2004.

According to the summary, the amendment would repeal and replace Section 11 to Article XV of the Ohio Constitution to:

• Allow two consenting adults not nearer of kin than second cousin, and not having a husband or wife living, the freedom to enter into a marriage regardless of gender.
• Define religious house of worship as one where the primary activity is religious worship and provides that no house of worship or its clergy shall be required to perform a marriage.
• Provide that all legally valid marriages shall be treated equally under the law.

Here is the press release with a link to the petition:

(COLUMBUS, Ohio)—Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine today determined that the proposed Freedom to Marry and Religious Freedom Amendment seeking to amend Article XV, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution submitted the required 1000 valid signatures of Ohio electors and a summary of the amendment that is a "fair and truthful "statement of the proposed law.

Attorney General DeWine has sent letters to both the committee that represents the petitioners and Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted.

"Without passing on the advisability of the approval or rejection of the measure to be referred but pursuant to the duties imposed on the Attorney General's Office under Section 3519.01(A) of the Ohio Revised Code, I hereby certify that the summary is a fair and truthful statement of the proposed constitutional amendment," Attorney General DeWine stated in a letter to the petitioners.

Once the summary language and initial signatures are certified, the Ohio Ballot Board must determine if the amendment contains a single or multiple issues. The petitioners must then collect signatures in 44 of Ohio's 88 counties, equal to 5 percent of the total vote cast in the county for the office of governor at the last gubernatorial election. Total signatures collected statewide must also equal 10 percent of the vote cast for the office of governor in the last gubernatorial election

The full text of today's letter and of the amendment petition may be found at www.OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov/BallotInitiatives.

Opinion vs. discrimination at Chick-fil-A

A graduate student at North Carolina State wants to ban Chick-fil-A from his campus, based upon the comments the owner made about being a family-oriented company and his belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman

In a news article from WTVR in North Carolina, the student, Jose Chavira, says the following:

“There’s quite a large LGBT community on campus and it’s almost offensive in a sense that our university is willing to maintain this relationship with an organization that blatantly discriminates against a portion of our student body,”

"Almost offensive in a sense"? Either it is or it isn't offensive; how can it be offensive "in a sense"? And this is a graduate student? In what?

But here's the kicker: he characterizes Chick-Fil-A as an "organization that blatantly discriminates" against a portion of the student body at the campus.

If the owner believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman - so what? Is the owner not as entitled to that position as someone who believes differently?

Discrimination, on the other hand, is illegal under certain circumstances, like in employment and in service to clients and customers.

There is no evidence anywhere that Chick-fil-A or its franchises discriminates in hiring, service or other business practices. There is nothing to indicate the company "blatantly discriminates" against anyone.

You are not discriminated against simply because somebody believes something that you don't. There is a significant difference between opinion and discrimination. Apparently, being educated by an institution of higher learning has not helped Chavira understand this basic concept.

And yes, in case you were wondering, Chavira's action does qualify as 'stuck on stupid.'

(H/T Fresh Brewed Conservative)

Evolving or flip-flopping?

Think about it: if a Republican had a position, then backtracked on the position, then modified the position, then claimed to be 'thinking' about the position and then, just before an election came back around to the original position, do you think the media - or anyone, for that matter - would be praising that?

But that's exactly what has happened with President Barack Obama's flip-flopping on gay marriage.

As the Weekly Standard's Elliott Abrams writes (emphasis added):

In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.

So he was for it, then he supported civil unions, then he opposed it, then he was 'evolving' and now he's for it again.

Really?

Do you actually believe he's suddenly seen the light? Or has he stuck his finger in the air to find out which way the wind is blowing?

And if he originally supported gay marriage, then said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman and now says he supports gay marriage again, did he ever truly believe marriage was between a man and a woman in the middle?

If you supported him because he supported traditional marriage, did you not look at his record previously?

If you support him now because he supports gay marriage, do you think he will change his mind yet again?

Had this been a true change of heart, he wouldn't be full circle back to what he believed in 1996.

We all need to be honest with ourselves and call this what it is, regardless of our political parties, position on the issue, political philosophy or who we plan to vote for in November.

This is not 'evolving.' This is flip-flopping. To call it anything else is hypocrisy.

Gay marriage and smoking - what the two have in common

The other day I heard a newscast referring to the passage of the gay marriage ban in California and the protests by those who opposed the ban and support gay marriage.

Now, this is not a post about the pros and cons of such a proposal, nor about gay marriage itself. It is, however, a post about the comment I heard referencing 'the tyranny of the majority to deny rights to the minority.'

Yes, that's what a gay marriage proponent said.

And then I thought about the smoking bans, because that's exactly what opponents of smoking bans said.

And they are right. The United States is not a democracy - we're a Republic, specifically because our founding fathers did NOT want the majority to be able to take away the rights of the minority by virtue of a vote.

You've heard the old joke about a democracy being two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? The punch line is that a republic is when the sheep has a gun...

The problem comes in when the same people who think it's okay to ban smoking due to a majority vote oppose other bans via the same method - in this case, gay marriage.

Now some will argue that gay marriage doesn't impact anyone except the two individuals, so it's not the same as smoking. I disagree. If a bar/restaurant allows smoking, you do not have to go in if you don't want to be exposed to the smoke. It's the choice of the individual, so you are not impacted by someone else's decision to smoke. Likewise, gay marriage opponents will say it can impact others if such couples want to adopt a child. There are arguments on both sides of both issues that can be used as examples to indicate why these two issues are the same.

But the hypocrisy of saying one is a tyranny of the majority and cannot be allowed, while defending the tyranny of the majority on another issue needs to be pointed out and condemned.

You cannot have it both ways.

So if the vote for a smoking ban must be allowed, so must the vote for a gay marriage ban. And if the gay marriage ban is wrong, so is the smoking ban.

I don't care what your opinion on either issue is, but be consistent in the principle.