Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

Excerpts from this article.

Rep. Tom Brinkman (R-Cincinnati) filed suit Tuesday in the Court of Common Pleas in Columbus, claiming that the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage nullifies such benefits from publicly funded institutions.

(The university in question is Miami University of Ohio)

The suit says that he "desires that his tax dollars and tuition payments be utilized lawfully, and not applied by the University to finance the constitutional violation challenged herein."

The program has been offered since June 2004. People who sign up for it must be in a long-term monogamous relationship, be of the same sex and share a residence as well as financial obligations.

Brinkman said that he has no sympathy for the partners of gay and lesbian employees of the university.

"[They should] go get a job that gives them benefits. They don’t have a ball and chain around them,” Brinkman said.

“A large measure of the top universities in the country do offer these types of benefits and these are the universities we compete with to get good faculty,” said Richard Little, a spokesperson for Miami.

Someone tell me again how friendly the Republicans are to gay men & lesbians....'cuz I still don't believe it - not when I keep seeing stuff like this.

Here's the strategy being employed: Mislead the voters into believing that the constitutional amendments are only about 'protecting marriage'. When questioned, lie through your teeth that you're not going to use it as a tool to take away the existing benefits enjoyed by some gay couples. Then once the amendment passes, sue all the public employers that offer them to do just that.

This is the strategy they used in Michigan and we're seeing an attempt to repeat it in Florida. And now they're following suit in Ohio.

Make no mistake - these marriage amendments are all about hurting gay families, not about preserving marriage.

[John Galt]

When did anyone say specifically that it would not be used as a tool to take away existing benefits? I don't think anyone was misled.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: When did anyone say specifically that it would not be used as a tool to take away existing benefits? I don't think anyone was misled.
Did you miss this thread, Mr. Galt?

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39647&highlight=

I'll cut and past the relevant portion below:

Liberty Counsel, said: "By casting their ballot in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, voters are not being asked to reject rights and protections for same-sex or unmarried couples."

In its brief, Liberty Counsel claimed that that the amendment would not disturb domestic partner health benefits offered by several municipalities in Florida because they are not the "substantial equivalent" of marriage.

However, Liberty Counsel took the opposite position when it challenged the City of Gainesville's policy of providing domestic partner health benefits to its lesbian and gay employees.

So proponents are going around saying that the benefits won't be endangered, then helping to create that very endangerment themselves by supporting lawsuits once the amendments pass.

[John Galt]

I guess I missed the memo where Miami OH became part of Miami FL.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: I guess I missed the memo where Miami OH became part of Miami FL.
In other words, you aren't interested in a real debate or discussion of the issue. First you claim no one has been misled by the proponents of these amendments, then when I present you evidence of what the Liberty Counsel has been up to in Florida, you offer us distraction, trying to confuse the issue by focusing on the name coincidence of 'Miami' and implying that the actions of proponents in the two states are unrelated.

You're not fooling anyone. It's no secret that these amendments aren't grass roots movements - they're carefully orchestrated by anti-gay groups cooperating on a national level with each other and sharing strategies. The strategy is the same in Florida and Ohio as it was in Michigan, just as I detailed it above.

So spare us the BS because it's obvious what's going on here. And don't try to claim you missed the connection between Florida and Ohio because I made it very clear in this statement:

Skeptical Mystic wrote: This is the strategy they used in Michigan and we're seeing an attempt to repeat it in Florida. And now they're following suit in Ohio.

[John Galt]

I knew what they were doing, I thought it waspretty obvious. And just because some people in FL said they weren't planning on doing X and when ahead and tried to do X it says nothing as to whether or not anyone in OH did the same. The issue here is you think people are so stupid that they can't see the obvious. I thought that was a main, shall we say, selling point for these amendments. And most people like that.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: I knew what they were doing, I thought it waspretty obvious. And just because some people in FL said they weren't planning on doing X and when ahead and tried to do X it says nothing as to whether or not anyone in OH did the same. The issue here is you think people are so stupid that they can't see the obvious. I thought that was a main, shall we say, selling point for these amendments. And most people like that.
This isn't an issue of what I think - it's an issue of what sort of strategy those putting forth anti-gay amendments are using to try to fool a public that is largely uninformed regarding the possible effects of these amendments and are therefore more easily misinformed and misled by those who ago around trying to say it's 'only about marriage'. It's clear to me what a bunch of liars they've been - one need only compare their actions and speeches before amendment passage with what they've said and done afterwards.

It may not be so clear to a public that they've managed to fire up with rhetoric about 'protecting heterosexual marriage', one that hasn't stopped to think about the greater agenda of amendment proponents - to not only prevent gay couples from getting married but to also take away their employment benefits and use these amendments any way they can to make the lives of gay men and lesbians more difficult. The motivation of the amendment proponents is hatred and their method of operation is to use fear - two things that are rarely positive influences on a society.

There is a connection between the Michigan, Ohio and Florida amendment seekers and those in other states. The tactics are too similar for there not to be one.

We're not as stupid as you apparently think we are. The American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Liberty Counsel, etc. - they're all connected and working together. We know who the hate groups are and what they're up to. The challenge is in getting the American public to see it for themselves and stop funding the hatemongers.

[connermt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Excerpts from this article.

Rep. Tom Brinkman (R-Cincinnati) filed suit Tuesday in the Court of Common Pleas in Columbus, claiming that the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage nullifies such benefits from publicly funded institutions.

(The university in question is Miami University of Ohio)

The suit says that he "desires that his tax dollars and tuition payments be utilized lawfully, and not applied by the University to finance the constitutional violation challenged herein."

The program has been offered since June 2004. People who sign up for it must be in a long-term monogamous relationship, be of the same sex and share a residence as well as financial obligations.

Brinkman said that he has no sympathy for the partners of gay and lesbian employees of the university.

"[They should] go get a job that gives them benefits. They don’t have a ball and chain around them," Brinkman said.

“A large measure of the top universities in the country do offer these types of benefits and these are the universities we compete with to get good faculty," said Richard Little, a spokesperson for Miami.

Someone tell me again how friendly the Republicans are to gay men & lesbians....'cuz I still don't believe it - not when I keep seeing stuff like this.

Here's the strategy being employed: Mislead the voters into believing that the constitutional amendments are only about 'protecting marriage'. When questioned, lie through your teeth that you're not going to use it as a tool to take away the existing benefits enjoyed by some gay couples. Then once the amendment passes, sue all the public employers that offer them to do just that.

This is the strategy they used in Michigan and we're seeing an attempt to repeat it in Florida. And now they're following suit in Ohio.

Make no mistake - these marriage amendments are all about hurting gay families, not about preserving marriage.

I work with a woman (use the term loosely) that voted for the ban to partner benefits while living with her boyfriend. After it passed, she was upset because of the effect it has on her 7 the b/f. After hearing her complain, I wonder how many other people voted for it as a stand against 'gays' only to find out the media & politicians mis-led they & now they are screwed as well....

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Well, it's quite clear that the religious right isn't content on living based on the principle of "live and let live". I bet if they could make a constitutional ammendment that could strip the gay people of their citizenship entirely, they would go ahead and implement it.