Who's reading loushusjacob (7):

 

Saw this and just had to post it, its getting worse every day,

by makeprofilelink("John Aravosis (DC)"); John Aravosis (DC) ยท 6/05/2007

So much for their supposed state constitutional amendments to "ban gay marriage." In fact, the religious right is using such amendments to take away health care benefits from gay people. What a surprise. In Ohio, their "ban gay marriage" amendment was used to stop a woman from being able to charge her abusive boyfriend with "domestic violence." And even worse, the religious right groups in Ohio sided with the battering boyfriend in his case against the abused woman. (What possible reason would a self-proclaimed "Christian" find for siding with a man who beats women? Can you feel the love of Jesus?) You see, they weren't married, so under the gay marriage ban it's illegal in Ohio to give the battered woman "special rights." Just as it's about to become illegal in Michigan to give the partner of a gay person health insurance benefits because according the judges, that would make the gay person almost like a married person (yeah, I guess if being healthy makes you like a married person).

And now these amendments are threatening states that want to pass laws outlawing job discrimination against gays. Joe and I have been saying for years that these "marriage" amendments have nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with the religious right's desire to regulate, and ban, everything in the lives of heterosexual and gay America. (Your right to divorce is next on their list.)

The religious right pretty much wants us all dead.



del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • silverwhisper said on Jun 05, 2007....
    good blog entry and a very scary reality. i knew there were issues with the fallout on straights but not that there were more recent cases. thank you.

    ed
  • Eilan said on Jun 05, 2007....
    I'm in Ohio, and I know that there's at least one case out there in which the "marriage amendment" has impacted unmarried hetero couples.  The proponents of the amendment insist that was never the intent, and maybe not, but some crafy attorneys are definitely taking advantage of the situation.

    The problem with someone being charged with assault, as opposed to domestic violence, is that if there's a need for a protection order, it might not be granted as quickly.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Ohio Supreme Court has to tackle one of these cases in the future.
  • starryn said on Jun 06, 2007....
    There is going to come a time in which either Americans Stand Up
    not just for their own cause but all human causes or turn their backs
    and pretend that nothing is happening. 
    If the latter happens eventually there wont be the Land Of The Free
    but The Land of The Righteous according to ones that see no differently
    than the ones they think are terrorists now. 
    Honestly, it wasnt against the law to live together once upon a time, ok, it
    was not condoned in the fifties and then sixties came along and changed the world ,The Peoples Revolution.
    Well there needs to be another pretty soon if want to stay free from
    Socialist Behavior. 
    Shouldnt have to fight for right to marry, right to be insured
    if you are common law married,  rights if you didnt get married in a church,
    rights for same sex to marry and on and on. 
    and soon it will be rights to keep your children if not married????
    what are we coming to, seems to be we are going backwards.
    Is this the good ole boys, wanting to put women back into the kitchen,
    and make the world like the stepford wives??? 
    Are these the values that truly make us happy? 
    i mean, ok nice to be perfect, have man & woman, with morals and values
    raising their children to be perfect. 
    But no one sees that man beats wife behind close doors and no one sees
    that woman drinks all day, and the list can go on and on,.
    but hey they go to church and are law abbiding citizens
    and are gender correct ie, male female.
    Corruption happens in every culture in every race in every lifestyle.
    Sorry for rambling on and on.
    Just frustrates me to no end.
    S
  • lfbno7 said on Jun 09, 2007....
    I bet Mick Jagger could seduce Bush.
  • darkpearl said on Jun 10, 2007....
    Ifbno7: with Jagger's lips anything is possible.
    The states are nortorious for sticking their nose in people's bedrooms, certain sexual acts between hetero's is still illegal so what chance does a gay couple have? We had something similar in Canada over gov't pensions. The "legal" gay couple paid into it but if one passed away the other partner wouldn't recieve the benefits whereas a hetro couple would. That has now change as far as I know.
    here everyone has their own medical card even the kids so sexual pref is not an issue.
    But if this North American Union goes through canada will be in the same boat as the states. and folks like Moore can't hold us up as a shining example of free medical care. One step forward, two steps back.

Comment on "Religious right using "gay marriage bans" to take health care benefits away from"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously


The people have spoken ... again.

...
And they are not happy.......