I have some questions about the Marriage Amendments

[ck4829]

Even though all of the Marriage Amedments read something like "Marriage shall be between a man and a woman.", where and what is the definition of a man and a woman?

Also:

Can a castrated person get married?

Can a hermaprodite get married? If no, then this is outright discrimination.

[archineas]

1. In Ohio

the amendment is very broad. it's composed of two parts. The first part formally defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. The second part is rather vague, and states something to the effect of "the state, nor any agent of the state may act in any way to confer legal status to any relationship which is not a formal marriage under the law".

i'm obviously paraphrasing that part, but it's the second statement that frightens many of us in ohio, as we see it as a very broadly worded affirmation of widespread anti-gay discrimination.

j

[phantom power]

2. I'd like to know if they are referring to 'marriage' as a religeous

sacrament, or in the sense of 'civil union'. Because if they mean religeous sacrament, then these amendments are unarguably a violation of church/state separation.

For example, if a recognized religeon chooses to allow marriage between gays, as a sacrament, do these amendments prohibit that? If I were to establish a religeon, and make gay marriage part of its principles, would this amendment forbid me?

[Lisaben2619]

3. Good questions

Castrated people can get married, I would assume, as can people who choose not to or unable to have children despite what they spout about marriage being for procreation.

I don't know about hermaprodites and what litmus test they would have to pass.

Here in Wisconsin, the proposed state amendment is : "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Obviously, the amendment would ban marriage equality and civil unions which is bad enough, but what really frightens me is the "substantially similar" wording. Some are suggesting that the courts will be deciding who will still be able to offer domestic partner benefits to employees and which ones.

Legal quagmire.