Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Impact Cincinnati to Launch Three Month Awareness Campaign about Equal Marriage in Ohio

Posted by Media Release

Cincinnati, Ohio—IMPACT Cincinnati, the activist network that organized the equal marriage protest at City Hall on November 15th, will be holding a candlelight vigil on Thursday December 4 at The Gathering Church (1431 Main Street, Cincinnati, http://www.thegathering-church.org) at 7:00 p.m. The event will be dedicated to those who are still denied equality under current Ohio statute, and those who have been negatively impacted by discriminatory laws. 

The event is set to kick off three months of activism and awareness building, marking the passage of Ohio’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) between December 2003 and February 2004. The act, sponsored by Cincinnati state representative Bill Seitz, was passed in the state House of Representatives by a margin of 73-24 and would later be signed into law by then-Governor Bob Taft. The state statute was later reinforced by a state constitutional amendment, approved by voters in 2006. IMPACT Cincinnati believes that public perception has changed dramatically since 2003 regarding LGBTQ persons and that there is a growing consensus amongst Ohioans to grant equal protection for same-sex couples in the state, and that continued visibility, dialogue and education is the only way to continue that trend. 

The vigil on December 4 will be the debut the local WhiteKnot campaign. Gaining national prominence immediately following the JoinTheImpact.com protests on November 15, WhiteKnot.org has spearheaded a movement for people to wear a white ribbon tied in a knot as a show of support for equal marriage. From their website, “The White Knot is the symbol for marriage equality. It takes two traditional symbols of marriage—white and tying the knot—and combines them in a simple way to show support for the right of gays and lesbians to marry.”

Local organizers for IMPACT Cincinnati are optimistic about future events after the tremendous success of their City Hall protest. Aside from the vigil, plans are in the works to preview the movie MILK, set to be released in Cincinnati on December 12th, travel to Washington DC to be visible Midwest activists at the Obama inauguration, participate in several local and regional LGBTQ conferences, and take a regional leadership role in a national protest planned for June of 2009. 

IMPACT Cincinnati believes that true LGBTQ equality will only be achieved when every interested person has the opportunity to engage and participate in their wider movement and community. IMPACT Cincinnati, a grassroots network of community activists, strives to energize LGBTQ and allied people in Greater Cincinnati, link dedicated volunteers to a wide range of opportunities to generate change, and supports the efforts of local organizations working for equality. All are welcome.

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

says:
02 Dec 2008  at  06:02 pm | #

Republicans, as usual, make a big mistake.

The issue is not about what the state should sanction as a marriage, but whether marriage should be sanctioned at all by the state.

I hope everyone had a happy thanksgiving.

says:
02 Dec 2008  at  06:27 pm | #

C’mon, Scott—marriage is just like those other things that require a license.  You know, like owning a dog, or hunting for wild meat.  Maybe exercising patience in hopes of catching a great big fish.

And driving.

says:
02 Dec 2008  at  06:39 pm | #

I can address those other issues if you wish, but let us stick to marriage for now.

Why does the state need to certify marriages?

says:
02 Dec 2008  at  07:20 pm | #

Marriage licenses were invented to prevent miscegeny.  It is about control.

says:
03 Dec 2008  at  05:31 am | #

Of course miscegeny is no longer illegal.  I am quite certain you know that better than most people.

I thought you were going to give me a “greater good” justification for the state to be in the marriage liscence business.

Are you willing to concede that they should not even be in the business?

says:
03 Dec 2008  at  05:35 am | #

Of course they should not be in the business.  Putting marriage in the same category as owning dogs or hunting is absurd.

Certification?  Perhaps.  Like a birth certificate.  If you are born, you get one, for the record books.

says:
03 Dec 2008  at  05:37 am | #

I am also willing to concede that “civil unions” should refer to anyone who gets married at the courthouse, and “marriage” anyone who gets married by an ordained minister.  Let the respective religious congregations decide what their rules are.

I’m an ordained minister.  I’d solemnize marriage for gay people, if I were allowed.

says:
03 Dec 2008  at  05:57 am | #

My apologies, I mistook your humor as being serious.

By the way ... The state should not be in the business of civil unions as well.

says:
04 Dec 2008  at  02:47 pm | #

What happened earlier today?

Was it my computer or was there an issue on your side?

says:
04 Dec 2008  at  02:49 pm | #

With regards to birth certificates ...

Why would the state need to be in business of birth certificates?

says:
04 Dec 2008  at  03:20 pm | #

Scott Ryan, would you like to write a column about what exactly you think government should be in the business of doing?

says:
04 Dec 2008  at  07:17 pm | #

Mr. Jeffre:

Four words:

As little as possible.

But if you would like me to write a column, I may be able to explain further.

I have add my emails returned to sender lately with regards to Mr. Dean and yourself.  Is there a good way to send it?

NtotheC says:
05 Dec 2008  at  12:49 pm | #

Mr. Scott Ryan,

If the government does not certify births, how do you establish citizenship rights on infants?

I am a believer that marriage should be left to the church and that the state should only issue some sort of certificate for what would then be called “civil unions.” Marriage is a religious thing and churches should be allowed to regulate it however they want.  The government should be able to certify anyone that does not want to be joined in a church through civil unions.

This would be used for tax purposes, etc...and to ensure that both partners are willing and over the established ages, and so forth.

says:
05 Dec 2008  at  01:32 pm | #

And what rights would those be?

says:
05 Dec 2008  at  02:00 pm | #

As little as possible.

That means nothing. Please write what exactly government should and shouldn’t do. You can send it to my name at gmail. Please try not to be general like freedom is the message, not power. That doesn’t really mean anything to me. Thanks.

NtotheC says:
05 Dec 2008  at  03:27 pm | #

Mr. Scott Ryan,

What rights are afforded to citizens?  the right to vote would be a big one.  the right to social security.  The right to a US Passport (i assume).  The right to not be kicked out of the country.  the right to equal protection under the law.

Do you not think that citizens of the US have any rights?

says:
05 Dec 2008  at  04:30 pm | #

While we will all find out soon that we have no right to social security, all the other rights are rights of citizens not rights of natural born citizens.

If you do not have a visa, you are either a citizen or an illegal alien.  Why should we be required by the state to obtain any papers what so ever?  Is it because of the governments ineptitude in one of the very few clearly defined obligations of the federal government as spelled out by the constitution?  Becuase if it is, then I would argue that that would violate a pronged test that the Supreme Court enjoys using, that of least intrusive.  The least intrusive measure to the citizens would to simply police the borders.

Having said that, the state recognizes marriages performed by a minister.  Why could they not simply recognize a birth certificate issued by a plethora of potential witnesses to birth?  Doctors, nurses, midwives, husbands, etc. etc.  Other than leaving this country and therefore needing to obtain a passport, I see no reason why the state should inquire about a birth certificate.

And, ultimately, and hopefully eventually (not in my lifetime of course), anyone here or anywhere in the world would be considered a citizen while within a geographic boundry and therefore must live by the the law of the land.  It will be the only way to reach equity in this world.

says:
05 Dec 2008  at  04:35 pm | #

One other thing ...

Even an illegal alien is afforded constitutional protections.

says:
05 Dec 2008  at  04:37 pm | #

One other thing ...

The government is permitted to grant citizenship but it can not take it away.

says:
05 Dec 2008  at  04:47 pm | #

As far as voting ...

Here in Ohio ...

All you need is proof of address and a drivers liscence.

But of course that brings us to another area in which the state should have no business.

says:
06 Dec 2008  at  07:11 am | #

One last thing ...

Watch this short video here ...

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2008/11/most-dangerous-video-on-internet.html

It seems to explain a lot in easily understandable terms, a gift I do not have.