Backdoor Bigotry-SB 5: Ohio Repukes 'balance budget' by banning legal protections for gay couples!!!

[kpete]

Ohio: SB 5 Includes Anti-Gay Marriage Language
By: David Dayen Thursday March 3, 2011 6:14 am

As I noted yesterday, the Ohio Senate passed SB 5, a bill that would strictly limit collective bargaining for all public employees, give local officials the final word in arbitration and ban strikes under penalty of law, by a single vote, despite having a 23-10 partisan advantage in the chamber. Six Republicans voted no, and two of them had to be yanked off committees in order to smooth the bill’s passage. Those who voted yes, along with Gov. John Kasich, claimed that the state of the economy demanded that they get more control over the collective bargaining system.

The economic benefits of SB 5 can be proven by the fact that it includes this language (h/t Barbara Morrill):

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.

So along with union-busting, Ohio Republicans are saving money (and no doubt creating jobs) by stripping any kind of legal protections for gay couples. Fiscal responsibility, Republican-style. Otherwise known as bigotry.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/02/951921/-Ohio-Republicans-balance-budget-by-banning-legal-protections-for-gay-couples-
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/03/ohio-sb-5-includes-anti-gay-marriage-language/

[annabanana]

1. WHY didn't the Ohio Dems hightail it to Chicago?

Would it have made any difference?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

3. I think because they could form a quorum in OH, they couldn't in WI

[xchrom]

2. ...

:mad:

[liberal N proud]

4. How in the hell does that help balance the budget?

:wtf:

[MECO]

5. better check snopes

Not true

This is not new code. It already exists under Ohio law.

The 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.