Bill Ritter of Ohio

Posted on by

Bravo to Brian, whose blog post about an anti-gay-marriage mailing sent out by Bill Ritter, a Democratic primary candidate for the Ohio House, resulted in that candidate losing a United Auto Workers group’s endorsement. Two other groups who have endorsed him, the Cleveland Teacher’s Union and the Ohio Federation of Teachers, have expressed dismay at the mailing. (Ritter is a history teacher.)

Ritter’s mailing said the following:

Also, during this same interview at the Sun News one of my other opponents Mike Foley was asked if he was “For Gay Marriage?” Mike said “Yes” he supports gay marriage. “UNLIKE MIKE” this concerns me since I DO NOT want this to become a state law. I feel a Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. That is the WAY I WILL VOTE in Columbus!

In FACT Mike Foley has been ENDORSED by the STONEWALL DEMOCRATS, who are a GAY/LESBIAN political action committee. His endorsement is largely because of His Support of Gay Marriage.

Leave aside the awful punctuation and capitalization. (This guy is a teacher?) A blogger called up Ritter (whose phone number is printed on the mailing) and recorded their phone conversation.

What really gets my goat is when Ritter says the following about gay marriage:

“If it’s legal, then in anybody’s church, it would be legal, which could cause, at that point, litigation to say that it has to be done in a place where other people don’t believe in it.”

Is he kidding?

Despite its religious connotations, marriage is a civil act. A governmental act. You don’t have to go to a church to get married. You don’t even have to be religious to get married. All you need to get legally married is a marriage license from the appropriate state government.

If same-sex marriage becomes legal in a particular state, no church will be required to perform same-sex marriage. In fact, based on the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion, it would be unconstitutional to force any church or religious organization to perform or recognize such a marriage. A lawsuit to force a church to recognize such a marriage would have no chance of success.

Unfortunately, there are so many anti-gay-marriage people who believe Ritter’s fallacy.

As Ritter later told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer: “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.” But again, whether or not same-sex marriage is “religiously proper” isn’t something a government official, federal or state, should be concerned with. It’s a civil rights issue. Speaking of civil rights, how about “being fair” to “another segment of [y]our populace” that wants the right to marry a person of one’s choosing, and all the societal benefits this will bring?

I can’t believe this guy is a teacher. Let alone a history teacher. I hope he doesn’t specialize in American history.

5 thoughts on “Bill Ritter of Ohio”

  1. Jeez louise. How ignorant does one have to be to believe that the government even HAS the power to regulate which relationships religious organizations can sanction? He should read the amicus brief filed in the New Jersey marriage case by the coalition of clergy and religious organizations, which argued that the free exercise of religion is actually enhanced by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Though in his case it might not help, as he’s clearly a moron. Good thing this is just a primary.

  2. Based on his logic, people should be allowed to discriminate against anyone based on their religious beliefs. Since religious beliefs are invisible and can change, this would make the whole issue mighty difficult to legislate.

  3. Bill Ritter did not say he was against gay marriage in general. If you were to pay attention to the WHOLE statement and letter, he said he believes gay people should have rights to be together and the benefits that may entail. He does not believe that this should take place in a church. Theres quite a difference in this and what you are arguing. If gay marriage were to be allowed in a church, and some people did not believe in this, people would then sue the church and law suits would blow up. Finally, kudos to the leader who illegally taped Bill Ritter in an interview in which he had no idea he was being taped, hats off to that illegal move. Have fun with the results. Think first before you pull a stunt like that. Peace out.

  4. One: in the mailing, Ritter clearly states that he opposes gay marriage. He says, “I feel a Marriage [sic] is between a MAN and a WOMAN.” It says nothing about churches. Nor must a gay marriage, or any marriage, involve a church. As I stated above, marriage is a civil act, a governmental act.

    You write, “If gay marriage were to be allowed in a church, and some people did not believe in this, people would then sue the church and law suits would blow up.” First, no court of law would have jurisdiction over an intra-religious matter, so such a lawsuit would be dismissed. But even were that not the case, fear of inconvenience caused by numerous lawsuits is no reason to block people’s desires to share in the rights and the responsibilities that flow from full membership in society. Civil rights need not be convenient.

    Two: while I don’t know Ohio law, generally it’s not illegal for one person to secretly record a conversation with someone else. It’s illegal for a third party to tape a conversation between two unsuspecting people, but if one party is doing the taping, it’s legal, counterintuitive as that may sound.

    Three: “leader”?

    Four: why did you leave your comment anonymously, Mr. Baldwin-Wallace College person?

Comments are closed.