Paging Bill Ritter (audio)

The term "gay marriage" is killing the cause. "Domestic partnership" would be more descriptive, would not discriminate against heterosexual couples, and sound less offensive. Bill Ritter realizes that. I wish many others would too.

Uh... nevermind the whole "separation of church and state" thing...?! Any politician discussing how churches will be affected should be removed from the ballot. Or at least sent back to sit through high school government class again.

How the hell do you actually justify such an argument in a POLITICAL CONTEXT?

Polo,

Congrats. You just got nominated for idiotic post of the year! I did not know there was such an organization as "church as a whole". Very interesting. Where does the International CAAW meet? I'd like to attend.

In case you didn't know, the state makes marriages legally binding. You can't separate the two. The argument that all churches would have to condone gay marriages is complete bull. It's an excuse the likes of Bill Ritter use to oppose gay marriage while claiming to not be against it.

There is absolutely no imposition of gay marriage on churches that do not condone it. There will be plenty that will (UU and such) and it is highly reasonable to expect the government can sanction those that do without requiring all churches to perform them.

It's really a stupid argument. Can I now sue to have a Buddhist wedding ceremony performed by Southern Baptists? Of course I can't.

The term marriage has to do with the church. The church as a whole last time i checked did not agree with gay marriage. Now this is not to say gays shouldnt have rights. All of the legal benefits should be given to gays as legal married couples in terms of the government. But when it comes to 'marriage' it sounds like you are dealing with the church and its not the place for that. The government shouldnt be involved in the church at all. If gays want rights, they should have rights so far as the government should give them what legal married couples have. As far as married, i wouldnt call it married, then you are going on moral grounds which is what I disagree with. If gays want to get married, make a church in which that is THEIR belief, not imposing it on churches to where it is not. So give gay people their rights and benefits, but don't impose their beliefs with people who dont agree. It is such a broad topic, i can see how people misunderstood Bill, and he not a gay basher, you are Bill-bashers, even more guilty of what you think he said.

Polo Man,

You are kidding right? Brave? He's a complete pandering coward without the guts to stand up and stand for the right thing. He's a gutless un-Amerian swine and if you think gays should be discriminated against, then so are you! Sorry to go all Russell on you, but I'm tired and not willing to let this shit slide!

i dont understand why everyone thinks that just because you are under a certain party, why you must follow EVERY PARTY ISSUE, to me it seems like people who do that are just yes-men. i think Ritter is brave for standing up for himself. Good Job Bill!!!

Thanks to all for the props! Funny how a spur of the moment decision blows up. I love me some Gizmo!

O, please, someone find Ritter's email addy for us. I hunted but couldn't locate one, even tho' he comes up on the Caucus list.

I loved this explanation from Ritter: "My lack of support for gay marriage is simply this: I'm trying to also be fair to another segment of our populace who think this may not be religiously proper."

Ah. Well, that explains it. he obviously feels, as a DEMOCRATIC candidate, that it's his job, if elected, to determine what might be fair to a certain religious segment of our population, and to act accordingly. Sooo...does that mean that this former history teacher will decide that Creationism belongs in History classes?

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

You sir, are a rock star!

Excellent work. I'm taking notes and gonna use them in Texas!

Thank you, Eric. Nice work.
It's interesting to note in the phone conversation, Mr. Ritter said that "if (gay marriage) is legal, then in anybody's church it would be legal" and that would result in lawsuits. He apparently thinks that marriage in this country is a religious right. It is not. Marriage is a civil, legal matter. No religious insitution is required to sanctify a marriage or perform a religious ceremony.

Excellent!

As a founding member of my local Stonewall Democrat chapter, I thank you for your efforts! WE are all in the same boat and whomever doesn't GET IT is going to GET IT at the polls!

Well Done!

Could you transcribe the call for those of us with shitty connections? Thanks, and good job!

Good work - I notice he repeated the right wing talking point that if gays were legally allowed to marry, then churches would be sued to force them to perform weddings - which is total nonsense but it seems to make sense to these bigots.

As if a divorved person could sue the Catholic church because they wouldn't perform a wedding.

I don't know if they actually believe that crap or if it is just talking points for them

Rad job calling the douche bag out!

Check out Dan Dodd from New Lexington, Ohio. He is running on the democratic ticket but is really a Repugnican. He is running on th eFamily Value ticket.

This is from his web site in 2004. He running again.

Dodd Better 91st District Candidate

An Editorial Published Just Before The 2004 Election

Dan Dodd's experience with school funding issues and ability to compromise makes him the hands-down favorite for Ohio's 91st district.

Voters in the 91st Ohio House District face an interesting challenge as they replace controversial House Speaker Larry Householder.

Term limits prevent the Glenford Republican from seeking office once again, leaving the door open for Democrat Dan Dodd, an attorney, and Republican Ron Hood of Ashville.

Dodd grew up in Perry County, the home of the infamous DeRolph school funding case and leaves no illusion about where he stands on this critical issue.

Dodd says Republicans have bungled education funding so badly that he left the GOP to become a Democrat, albeit a conservative one. Dodd's undergraduate thesis focused on school funding and he remains frustrated by the Legislature's failure to end Ohio's over reliance on property taxes despite four Supreme Court rulings.

Hood is a former three-term state representative from a Democratic-leaning district in the Youngstown area. He apparently moved to the area largely to seek this Statehouse seat.

Hood is well spoken on all key issues, but offers some of the most extreme conservative rhetoric possible. And he's well known in the Statehouse for upsetting Republicans with his uncompromising positions.

Hood opposes any tax increase for any reason and views the new concealed carry legislation as too restrictive, even advocating the ridiculous position that criminals would target certain people if concealed-carry permit records are released.

For the record, both candidates actually offer similar positions on gay marriage and oppose extending Ohio's temporary sales tax.

We believe Dodd will best represent the residents of this district thanks to his homegrown roots, conservative viewpoints on many issues and strong support for school funding reform.

The latter remains a critical issue in the 91st District.

We urge voters to support Dodd.

Originally Published: 10/18/2004 At The Newark Advocate Website

This guy Hood spnsored a bill to ban GBLT from adopting and would prevent a family with a GBLT person in it from adopting.

Great work, Eric. wtg

excellent work, Eric.

Kudos

Nice turnaround!

yes, mike foley...can't say it enough. mike foley, mike foley, mike foley!

Mike Foley is the House candidate that is the target of Mr. Ritter's attack. It's Mike Foley that is endorsed by Stonewall Democrats, and it's Mike Foley that took a principled stand on marital rights for LGBT people that made him the target of Mr. Ritter's gay-bashing.

Nicely done Eric.

:-)