Sec. 3101.01 of S.B. 5: … A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state. The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void.
Remember, that's in an anti-union budget bill.
These people are full-blown batshit crazy. They will not address the issues that have our economy in crisis, but they will take time out to create a law almost certain to be ruled unconstitutional eventually because it outlaws gay marriage. They're absolutely fucking nuts, I tell you, and mean-spirited as well!
" anti-union budget bill." One has to admit the irony of the semantics.
ReplyDeletemandt, good catch... I must admit that the play on the word "union" utterly passed me by. I guess it truly is an anti-union bill in at least two senses of the word.
ReplyDeleteThis is not new code. It already exists under Ohio law.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that people are misreading the bill. Here’s a quick primer:
* Any underlined text is new language that would be added to existing law.
* Any Strike-through text is language that would be removed from existing law.
* Any regular text (not underlined or strike-through) is existing law.
So, Nonny... how 'bout a citation of the law in which this text already occurs? A link would also help. A REAL blogger would provide both without being prompted.
ReplyDeleteOld law or new law, the problem is most certainly NOT that people are misreading the bill. The problem is the content. It is a deliberate deprivation of people identified as a class of one of their basic civil and human rights.
Why do I get the feeling you are googling for "Ohio SB 5" and, coward that you are, posting a self-serving "comment" with neither identification nor references? At best... at best... that is sloppy work. At worst... you are a coward not willing to stand behind your opinion. My bet is on the latter.