Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[53] [54] In 2009, constitutional law scholar Tiffany G. Graham noted there was "inherent ambiguity...built into the amendment", [55] and the executive director of Equality Ohio, Sue Doerfer, stated in 2017 that the amendment "legitimized discrimination" against same-sex couples in the state and "adversely" affected gay people.
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case that re-examined the Batson Challenge. [1] Established by Batson v.Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Batson Challenge [2] prohibits jury selectors from using peremptory challenges on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and sex.
Malby Law (1895) [9] Ives-Quinn Act; Marriage Equality Act (2011) Dignity for All Students Act (2010) New York Human Rights Law (1945) Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (2019) Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (2002) CROWN Act (2019) Oregon Oregon Constitution, Article I, §46 (2014) CROWN Act (2021) Pennsylvania
Brent said Wednesday's vote was like chipping away at an iceberg. Passing House Bill 178 won't solve hair discrimination in Ohio, but it's an important first step. "All Ohioans should be able to ...
At issue is a Jan. 25 finding by Yost that the proposed constitutional amendment's title — “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights” — was “highly misleading and misrepresentative” of the measur
A supporter of Issue 1, the Right to Reproductive Freedom amendment, attends a rally held by Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio, on Oct. 8, 2023.
Prior to May 7, 2004, same-sex marriage was neither recognized nor prohibited in Ohio. On December 10, 2003, the Ohio House of Representatives, by a 73–23 vote, passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned same-sex marriage and "statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships", along with prohibiting state recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.
Section 15.11 is a provision in the Ohio Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. [2] Approved as a constitutional amendment in 2004 under the name of "Issue One", it received support from 61.7% of voters.