Ohio Republicans split the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment into two separate ballot issues.
One issue addresses overturning Ohio’s same-sex marriage ban, while the other expands anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
This move requires proponents to collect double the signatures or sue the Ohio Ballot Board.
Ohio Republicans added another hurdle for proponents of a measure to overturn Ohio’s dormant ban on same-sex marriage and expand anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ residents.
In a party-line vote, Ohio Ballot Board divided the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment into two issues: one to overturn a 2004 vote that defined marriage as between one man and one woman and another that would prohibit state and local government from discriminating against more than a dozen protected groups, including transgender Ohioans.
To make the ballot, proponents will either have to collect double the number of signatures to get both proposals approved or sue the Ohio Ballot Board to overturn its decision. Backers are eyeing the 2026 ballot at the earliest, said Lis Regula, a member of Ohio Equal Rights’ leadership committee.
During the July 9 meeting, the ballot campaign’s attorney Corey Colombo argued that the proposed constitutional amendment was one issue because it encompassed equal rights for all Ohioans.
But Republicans contended that transgender issues and marriage equality are two different things with two different levels of support from voters.
While Ohioans might support marriage between any two people in the Ohio Constitution, “they may not want to support creating 12 new protected classes under a bunch of different circumstances,” said Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican who leads the Ohio Ballot Board.
Rep. Terrence Upchurch, D-Cleveland, said Republicans divided the measure because of politics. “It’s one issue. It’s cut and dry.”
“There’s definitely political will for using trans people to divide Ohioans,” Regula said. “The hopeful side of me appreciates that they are recognizing the support for same-sex marriage. That’s great. We’ve made progress. We still have progress to make.”
What is the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment?
If approved by voters, the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment would prohibit state and local government from discriminating based on: “race, color, creed or religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression regardless of sex assigned at birth, pregnancy status, genetic information, disease status, age, disability, recovery status, familial status, ancestry, national origin or military and veteran status.”
The sweeping measure would expand the list of protected individuals far beyond the national Equal Rights Amendment, which aims to prohibit discrimination based on sex. Ohio ratified that amendment in 1974, but it has not been recognized as part of the U.S. Constitution because of missed deadlines and other disputes.
The proposal would also overturn a 2004 vote that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
This language has been dormant since a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision led by Ohioan Jim Obergefell legalized gay marriage in America. As of 2023, Ohio had 22,400 same-sex married couples, according to the most recent federal census data.
“Marriage equality has been going strong now for 10 years, and the sky hasn’t fallen. Society hasn’t collapsed,” said Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood. “What happened is you have families who have standing, whose children can feel good and talk about their families just like every other kid at school, no matter what the configuration of their family is.”
But proponents of marriage equality worry that the Obergefell decision could be overturned by an unfriendly U.S. Supreme Court. “I think it is reasonable to believe that it is under threat,” said Regula, citing the language used in the decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
What are the arguments for and against this measure?
“Those discriminatory laws make Ohio less of a welcoming place and make it a place where fewer people are interested in coming,” Regula said.
Opponents say these are losing issues at the ballot box.
“To bring such an unpopular constitutional amendment like this forward is one, shockingly appalling, but also really dumb after Sherrod Brown just lost his Senate seat over these issues,” said Aaron Baer, president of the Center for Christian Virtues.
Republicans crafted attack ads against Brown for voting against amendments that would have stripped funding from schools and colleges that allowed transgender girls to play in women’s sports.
“I have a hard time seeing them get a lot of traction with this,” Baer said. CCV was a driving force behind the 2004 constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage in Ohio.
What happens next?
The group looking to put the Ohio ERA before voters faces a tall task. If they want voters to approve both measures, they must collect an additional 1,000 valid signatures for each proposal, go before Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost for initial approval and return to the ballot board.
Then, proponents would have to collect at least 413,487 valid signatures, or 10% of votes cast in the most recent governor’s race, for each measure or 826,974 in total. Those signatures must meet a minimum threshold in half of Ohio’s 88 counties.
“While I applaud the spirit of the work that they are trying to do, I just think it’s a real uphill battle that they’re going to be faced with,” said Antonio, the state’s first and currently only openly gay lawmaker.
For more than a decade, Antonio has repeatedly introduced the Ohio Fairness Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The GOP-controlled Legislature has not moved forward on the fairness act.
Antonio said a legislative fix is still the right path for protections against LGBTQ discrimination.
“I struggle with asking the majority of people, the majority of the population, to grant equality by a vote to a marginalized group,” Antonio said. “I will continue to fight for the Ohio Fairness Act, because I think it’s the right thing to do.”
Reporter Laura A. Bischoff contributed to this article.
State government reporter Jessie Balmert can be reached at jbalmert@gannett.com or @jbalmert on X.
It isn’t timidity. It’s a complete reconstruction of what is acceptable rhetoric, and it makes gentler more collegial conversation and work impossible.
Whether it’s bloodshed at Glastonbury or starving people on benefits, their ‘irony poisoning’ seeps obscene ideas into the range of the possible
Illustration: Nate Kitch/The Guardian
Imagine the furore if a Guardian columnist suggested bombing, say, the Conservative party conference and the Tory stronghold of Arundel in Sussex. It would dominate public discussion for weeks. Despite protesting they were “only joking”, that person would never work in journalism again. Their editor would certainly be sacked. The police would probably come knocking. But when the Spectator columnist Rod Liddle speculates about bombing Glastonbury festival and Brighton, complaints are met with, “Calm down dear, can’t you take a joke?” The journalist keeps his job, as does his editor, the former justice secretary Michael Gove. There’s one rule for the left and another for the right.
The same applies to the recent comments on GB News by its regular guest Lewis Schaffer. He proposed that, to reduce the number of disabled people claiming benefits, he would “just starve them. I mean, that’s what people have to do, that’s what you’ve got to do to people, you just can’t give people money … What else can you do? Shoot them? I mean, I suggest that, but I think that’s maybe a bit strong.” The presenter, Patrick Christys replied, “Yeah, it’s just not allowed these days.”
You could call these jokes, if you think killing people is funny. Or you could call them thought experiments. Liddle suggested as much in his column: “I am merely hypothesising, in a slightly wistful kinda way.” This “humour” permits obscene ideas to seep into the range of the possible.
Academic researchers see the use of jokes to break taboos and reduce the thresholds of hate speech as a form of “strategic mainstreaming”. Far-right influencers use humour, irony and memes to inject ideas into public life that would otherwise be unacceptable. In doing so, they desensitise their audience and normalise extremism. A study of German Telegram channels found that far-right content presented seriously achieved limited reach, as did non-political humour. But when far-right extremism was presented humorously, it took off. (snip-MORE)
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island gives 300th climate speech on the US Senate floor
Sheldon Whitehouse at a Senate confirmation hearing on 6 February 2025. Photograph: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images
The Democratic party and the climate movement have been “too cautious and polite” and should instead be denouncing the fossil fuel industry’s “huge denial operation”, the US senator Sheldon Whitehouse said.
“The fossil fuel industry has run the biggest and most malevolent propaganda operation the country has ever seen,” the Rhode Island Democrat said in an interview Monday with the global media collaboration Covering Climate Now. “It is defending a $700-plus billion [annual] subsidy” of not being charged for the health and environmental damages caused by burning fossil fuels. “I think the more people understand that, the more they’ll be irate [that] they’ve been lied to.” But, he added, “Democrats have not done a good job of calling that out.”
Whitehouse is among the most outspoken climate champions on Capitol Hill, and on Wednesday evening, he delivered his 300th Time to Wake Up climate speech on the floor of the Senate.
He began giving these speeches in 2012, when Barack Obama was in his first term, and has consistently criticized both political parties for their lackluster response to the climate emergency. The Obama White House, he complained, for years would not even “use the word ‘climate’ and ‘change’ in the same paragraph”.
While Whitehouse slams his fellow Democrats for timidity, he blasts Republicans for being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, an entity whose behavior “has been downright evil”, he said. “To deliberately ignore [the laws of physics] for short-term profits that set up people for huge, really bad impacts – if that’s not a good definition of evil, I don’t know what is.” (snip-MORE)
News outlets are supposed to expose corruption, not engage in it Read on Substack
The headline at Fox News blasted, “Paramount, CBS forced to pay eight figures, change editorial policy in settlement with President Trump.” Forced? Would Fox News use the word “forced” when they settled a lawsuit with Dominion for over $787 million? You may feel forced, but a settlement is a choice. It’s a choice not to go any further into a trial and shut that shit down, for whatever reasons. And yes, CBS has changed its editorial policy, which is that anytime Trump comes for a bribe, you pay it.
Usually, when someone settles a lawsuit, they’re trying to get off cheaper as they fear the result of the trial will cost them more. In Fox News’ case with Dominion, they were afraid the verdict in a trial would bankrupt them. They were guilty of spreading misinformation that they knew were lies. It’s why Tucker’s no longer on their payroll.
When CNN and the Washington Post settled with teenage Trumper Nicholas Sandmann, one of those smirky, obnoxious, entitled white privileged Catholic Covington kids who was in the center of a viral video controversy with an elderly Native American, they didn’t settle because they were guilty. They settled for what legal experts estimate to be a small portion of the $275 million they were sued for, in order to save on lawyer fees. They weren’t afraid of losing the trial because it had already been dismissed once, but felt they’d pay more to their lawyers than to the little asshole whose feelings got hurt. I hope the ugly little entitled priviliged fuck isn’t feeling too litigious today.
When Disney settled a lawsuit with Trump earlier last December, who sued because ABC news anchor George Stephanopoulos said Trump was “liable for rape,” it wasn’t because they were guilty of anything other than hurting TACO’s feelings because Stephanopoulos was technically correct. Disney, ABC’s parent company, settled because the judge was scary and said in her denial to dismiss that “a reasonable jury could interpret Stephanopoulos’s statements as defamatory,” despite the fact that Donald Trump is a rapist who also liked to pal around with rapists while also endorsing pedophiles for the United States Senate. Also, Trump put Alexander Acosta in his first cabinet. He was the prosecutor who saved Epstein from a criminal trial.
When Meta settled a lawsuit with Trump in January, it was to bribe Trump. Trump sued Meta for banning him from its platforms, Facebook and Instagram, in 2020 after his election denial and white nationalist terrorist insurrection attempt. Trump told Mark Zuckerberg that he would have to settle the lawsuit before he could be “brought into the tent.” I don’t think he’s talking the kind of tent migrants will be forced to sleep in at Alligator Alcatraz, but the MAGA tent. The settlement was for $25 million, and it was a bribe.
Even Elon settled a lawsuit with Trump, and was also to bribe Trump. As if the $275 million Elon paid to elect him wasn’t enough. Like with Meta, Trump sued Twitter for banning him, citing that his First Amendment rights were violated. A federal court in California tossed the case, saying only the government can deny First Amendment rights, not corporations. But Trump’s team took it to an appeals court, which was skeptical. Elon settled with Trump for $10 million. Why would you settle when you already won? Because it’s a bribe.
Also, do you like the irony of Trump claiming his First Amendment rights were violated, and now he’s trying to deport people for protesting? (snip-MORE)
This cartoon was drawn for The Boca Raton Tribune, whose mayor went on Fox News and offered New Yorkers an escape from “socialist” New York City if Zohran Mamdani wins the mayoral race in November.
The mayor, Scott Singer, has aspirations for higher office, and to do that as a Republican, you have to be a vile piece of shit. This is the kind of stuff MAGAts find amusing, like throwing migrants to alligators.
Being the mayor of a city in Florida, Singer should focus on being the mayor of his city in Florida. That’s the job he was elected to do, and not worry about who’s the mayor of New York City. Right now, Republicans are using Mamdani as red meat for their base, without even understanding what they’re talking about.
Sometimes, I think I should move to Florida just for the issues, and syndicate cartoons about them to Florida newspapers. But then, I’d be living in Florida. (snip-MORE)
Trump’s $4 trillion (at least) “big beautiful bill” is giving seniors a tax credit of $6,000, which is great because they’re gonna need it.
The bill makes deep cuts to Medicaid, the government health insurer for the poor, which covers more than 60 percent of the nation’s nursing home residents.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the BBB will cut federal spending on Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits by $1.02 trillion, due in part to eliminating at least 10.5 million people from the programs by 2034.
This will lead to benefit losses, increased paperwork requirements, and rural hospital closures that will hurt Americans, especially those with disabilities. It will also make nursing homes scramble to find resources for services they’re currently providing, or simply eliminate services.
Republicans like to say, or lie, that people who receive Medicaid aren’t going to notice any changes. But you can’t find one of the shitweasels who can explain how you don’t lose any services after cutting out over a trillion dollars. Find me one Republican, just one, who can explain that shit.
This will hit rural communities harder. Do you know which party rural communities mostly vote for? The one that just cut their Medicaid. Republican voters are stupid. Red states need the most federal support. Red states need the most welfare, which they also cut. (snip-MORE)
I have long liked this young YouTuber. I started following him when he was more into debunking stuff while also producing atheist content. I felt he understood what a lot of people were going through in that he was trying hard to hide being an atheist from his parents and family which gave him an idea what many in the LGBTQ+ community were going through with their families. He himself noted that similarity. One of the things I like about him is his calm quiet fact filled delivery. If others have not noticed I don’t like aggressive angry yelling videos, they are too close to what I grew up with and suffered in my childhood. Drew is not a fervent anti-Christian like so many atheists are. Instead he simply is against the bad stuff some people do in the name of religion / Christianity. I like that. At the end of this video he again says if you are getting something good from your faith, don’t leave it, just change it to make it better. I agree. He explains how Christianity was abused by corporations and wealthy people to get people to do things against their own interest they otherwise wouldn’t do. In the name of god work more at a lower cost to make money for your employer type stuff. Hugs
Tomorrow, we’re celebrating the anniversary of our independence from a monarchy. Yet, the guy in the White House envisions himself as a monarch.
He wants to ban protests, which is a First Amendment right. He didn’t send the military to California to stop riots. He sent them to stop the protests. Ice has arrested legal residents, without charges, but citing their protests. The regime is bullying colleges to stop protests against the war in Gaza. This is not freedom. This is not independence.
Trump asked the courts for immunity from criminal charges. Every court said no until it got to the Supreme Court. One man has been ruled to be above the rest of us, and he has immunity.
The Supreme Court allowed Trump to stay on the ballots despite his waging war against this nation.
Trump waged war against this nation to remain in office. He led a white nationalist coup attempt against our country. He attacked Congress to prevent it from doing its constitutional duty of certifying the 2020 election.
Now, Congress is in Trump’s pocket and failing to work as one of the three branches.
The Supreme Court has now ruled that lower courts shouldn’t make rulings against Trump that apply nationally.
The Supreme Court failed to address Birthright Citizenship, allowing Trump to violate a Constitutional amendment. Until SCOTUS acts on this, Trump will go unchallenged.
He is building concentration camps.
He’s ordering the Department of Defense to go after his enemies.
He’s violating the Emoluments Clause, using the White House to enrich himself.
He’s talking about running for a third term, but this would just be another violation of the Constitution. If he’s talking about running for a third term, then he will be running for a third term.
Trump will not allow another election to be fair.
He’s attacking the media, and soon, the only media that will be allowed to continue to exist will be Trump media.
I left a lot out, so go ahead and fill in the blanks in the comments.
(snip-MORE)
In 1776 we rejected a monarchy by Ann Telnaes
You can thank the oath breaking Republicans for where we are Read on Substack
July 2, 1776 New Jersey became the first British colony in America to grant partial women’s suffrage. The new constitution (temporary if there were a reconciliation with Great Britain) granted the vote to all those “of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money,” including non-whites and widows; married women were not able to own property under common law.
July 2, 1777 Vermont became the first of the United States to abolish slavery.
July 2, 1809 Alarmed by the growing encroachment of whites squatting on Native American lands, the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh called on all Indians to unite and resist. By 1810, he had organized the Ohio Valley Confederacy, which united Indians from the Shawnee, Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Winnebago, Menominee, Ottawa, and Wyandotte nations. For several years, Tecumseh’s Indian Confederacy successfully delayed further white settlement in the region. Chief Tecumseh Tecumseh’s efforts
July 2, 1839 Slave ship Early in the morning, captive Africans on the Cuban slave ship Amistad, led by Joseph Cinquè (a Mende from what is now Sierra Leone), mutinied against their captors, killing the captain and the cook, and seized control of the schooner. Jose Ruiz, a Spaniard and planter from Puerto Principe, Cuba, had bought the 49 adult males on the ship, paying $450 each, as slaves for his sugar plantation. More about Amistad Joseph Cinquè
July 2, 1964 Jobs and Freedom march April 28, 1963, Washington DC U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, thus barring discrimination in public accommodations (restaurants, stores, theatres, etc.), employment, and voting. The law had survived an 83-day filibuster in the U.S. Senate by 21 members from southern states. “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come,” said President Johnson to his press secretary, Bill Moyers later that day. He anticipated a shift in white southern voting from the Democratic to the Republican party in response to the law. Massive demonstrations a year earlier ensured passage of the Act.
July 2, 1992 President George H.W. Bush (the elder) announced that the United States had completed the worldwide withdrawals of all its ground- and sea-launched tactical nuclear weapons [see September 27, 1991].
Yes, this passed in the Senate, thanks to the VP’s tiebreaking vote. However, it’s still got rows to hoe in the US House; Spkr. Johnson wants to vote tomorrow. The thing to remember about our US Reps is, they’re up for election each 2 years. So, while firmly directing them in dealing with this dreadful bill, also firmly yet lovingly remind them that the OBBB will be hanging around their necks every step of the way of their campaigns like a bubblegum machine golden giant dollar sign necklace, if they vote in favor.
(Actually, if you didn’t when you contacted your Senators last week, you can still remind them of the same thing, unless they voted against, in which case, Thank Them. It took bravery to vote against, and they need to know we have their backs. And thank you very much. Now call.)
I cannot add up the number of times I’ve been told by good, liberal Dems that these issues won’t float. And that was back in the 1980s and 90s, not to mention the 2000s. Anyway, take a look!
Mamdani And The Left Are Moving The Window – Good by Oliver Willis
What if everything you believed since you have been politically awake is wrong? It isn’t that you have bad intentions or you’re fundamentally stupid, but what if instead you believed for so long that the existing menu of political options was one group of beliefs but in reality, that was a really limited menu that excluded some really tasty items you never considered before?
When a rising progressive figure like Zohran Mamdani makes bold statements about what he wants to achieve, it can make regular old mainstream Democrats/liberals like myself wince. Government supermarkets? We shouldn’t have billionaires? Immediately that kicks in concerns about how Democrats are perceived. It isn’t just Mamdani. Ideas like defunding the police, universal basic income, free health care, etc.? Sure, we say, they may sound good on paper – but they also sound like left wing fantasyland, they’re just not “practical.”
And maybe they are impractical, unworkable, and election losers. But – what if not? We should at least have the conversation, I think.
Because for decades now American political discourse has been operating within the parameters set by the right wing, not the left. Since 1980 we have had 20 years of Democratic presidents and while I think they did a decent job of domestic politics between the three of them (Clinton, Obama, and Biden), much of what they did was within the narrow paradigm of what was acceptable behavior.
Clinton frequently talked about cutting the size of the government, Obama spoke about lowering the deficit, and Biden also used the language of “fiscal responsibility” as the right envisions it. All three men accepted the existence of billionaires and even pushed policies that would theoretically create even more of them. None of them would argue that the police needed to be defunded, and in fact they all oversaw federal spending that sent billions to police departments.
I was among the millions who supported these three presidents, along with other Democrats who ran for office with a similar world view both at the presidential and congressional level to varying degrees of success.
But these people have all been operating within the right’s paradigms. Collectively we never openly debated how we could have it all wrong. Maybe the prison system should be abolished? Maybe billionaires should be taxed out of existence?
Even if we don’t ultimately reach those conclusions, these are debates worth having.
Because while we have been limiting ourselves, the right hasn’t. Since Barry Goldwater in 1964, the right has been shifting the Overton Window – what is considered acceptable public discourse – steadily to the right. We have gone from Republicans like Nixon creating agencies like the EPA to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush cutting funding for vital agencies to Donald Trump trying to completely destroy agencies like the Department of Education.
Things that Trump treats as uncontroversially right-wing today would have been laughed out of the room as the ravings of lunatics in 1958. The right has mounted serial challenges to what was the liberal orthodoxy (not on every issue but most issues) in the 1960s and they have molded public perception of what acceptable dialogue is.
We are worse off for this. One can praise what Democratic leaders have accomplished in a progressive manner (health care, infrastructure, overall policy) and still admit that the thinking has been severely limited and inhibiting.
Voters are making this clear to the party. They keep showing in multiple federal and state elections that they are unhappy with the status quo and in some instances, like with Trump, they are far too eager to flirt with fascism versus maintaining the system as-is.
Think about the world that millennials and Gen-Z have lived in for their entire lives. Not only has it been shaped by Reaganism and Trumpism, but it has also been peppered with Democratic leaders like Obama, Clinton, and Biden who didn’t fundamentally challenge the bedrock of what the right laid but instead focused on (well needed) nibbling at the edges.
It has been a very long time, probably not since the Great Depression, where Democrats articulated the notion that something beyond the acceptable was possible. When Franklin D. Roosevelt first took office, the consensus was that bad stuff just had to happen and that the government had to lie back, helpless. Herbert Hoover couldn’t truly conceive of a universe where the government swooped in and actively combated the forces making things worse for ordinary Americans. Roosevelt shifted the window and set up the infrastructure of the safety net that still exists today (for now). (snip-MORE, + Kal El photo. Click through!)
Jessie Balmert
Cincinnati Enquirer
Scottie's Playtime 