Home > Bigot, homophobia, LGBT News, Politics > Hidden Attack on LGBT Rights in Ohio SB 5

Hidden Attack on LGBT Rights in Ohio SB 5

February 21, 2011

Hate in OH Legislation

 

Aside from the blatant attacks against public workers in Ohio (we can argue the merits of unions all day long) the Republicans and Tea Party have included in Senate Bill 5 a secret attack on LGBT citizens in Ohio.  In Section 3101.01 part C further strips LGBT citizens of their rights and protections under the law. 

Part C removes any recognition of same-sex marriage performed in any other state from being recognized in Ohio.  In addition it removes the right for same-sex married couples to enjoy any benefits of marriage and prohibits any law (either through legislative or judicial process) to provide marriage benefits to same-sex married couples.

Sec. 3101.01. (A) Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. A minor shall first obtain the consent of the minor’s parents, surviving parent, parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor by a court of competent jurisdiction, guardian, or any one of the following who has been awarded permanent custody of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction:

(1) An adult person;
(2) The department of job and family services or any child welfare organization certified by the department;
(3) A public children services agency.
(B) For the purposes of division (A) of this section, a minor shall not be required to obtain the consent of a parent who resides in a foreign country, has neglected or abandoned the minor for a period of one year or longer immediately preceding the minor’s application for a marriage license, has been adjudged incompetent, is an inmate of a state mental or correctional institution, has been permanently deprived of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor and the right to have the minor live with the parent and to be the legal custodian of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction, or has been deprived of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor and the right to have the minor live with the parent and to be the legal custodian of the minor by the appointment of a guardian of the person of the minor by the probate court or by another court of competent jurisdiction.
 
(C)(1) 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.
(2) Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.
(3) The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital 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 nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio. Nothing in division (C)(3) of this section shall be construed to do either of the following:
(a) Prohibit the extension of specific benefits otherwise enjoyed by all persons, married or unmarried, to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes, including the extension of benefits conferred by any statute that is not expressly limited to married persons, which includes but is not limited to benefits available under Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code;
(b) Affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this state.
(4) Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, country, or other jurisdiction outside this state that extends the specific benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.

via Sub. S. B. No. 5  As Pending in the Senate Insurance, Commerce and Labor Committee.

Advertisements
  1. Nyse
    March 6, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    This is an attack on all public employees and retirees including the pensions of public employee retirees. This is an all out attack against all GLBT persons in Ohio. Defeat SB 5 through calls to your legislators. Or if it passes, be ready to sign petitions to have it repealed in Nov general election.

  2. MC
    March 4, 2011 at 9:34 am

    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

    That particular law has been in effect since 2004.

  3. TheDude
    February 24, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    There is nothing new to this. This is already law. The code cited here is the boilerplate for Ohio revised code that must be in all documents like this. In other words, there’s nothing to see here.

  4. Erica
    February 23, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Paula I am interested in seeing where you got that quote from Kasich…Can you provide a reference? I have a hard time believing that Kasich would say something like that and would like to see it in writing (be it an article or minutes from some meeting). Thanks!!!

  5. Jane Larson
    February 23, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Unbelievable (well, not really, with the intolerant legislature & Governor that we now have in Ohio) that this had been tacked onto this horrible bill.

  6. February 22, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    As a 28 yr sp ed veteran in Columbus, Ohio…who has fought 4 equal rights for 20 years, n with stonewalls help, n mayor coleman n ted strickland, n CEA/OEA, WE WERE GRANTED partner benefits through columbus city schools n columbus ohio..the city..JOHN KASICH N SB 5 HAS NOW IF PASSED, TAKEN MY RIGHTS AWAY AGAIN, AS WELL AS, ALL CITY WORKERS..POLIXE, FIREFIGHTERS, EMS..VOTE NO SB 5…THESE R CIVIL RIGHTS..AND CLEARLY, KNEW WHEN KASICH DENIED AFRICAN AMERICANS ON HIS CABINET N I QUOTE HIM SAYING, “WE DONT NEED THEM,” REFERRING TO AFRICAN BLACK AMERICANS..WHICH INCLUDED CABINET N CITY WORKERS…BACK IN TIME..80 YEARS..NO ON SB5

  1. February 22, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Comments are closed.