GAMBLING IN OHIO

There are many ways to bring revenue and jobs back to Ohio. Casino Gambling is not one of them.

The previous General Assembly at the urging of the Governor passed the largest single tax increase in state history. Virtually overnight Ohio went from the 11th best state to business in to the 43rd worst state to run a business. Plant closings, business failures and increased unemployment are the result.

33 state agencies and programs should be abolished. Doing this would reduce the state budget by 700 million dollars. Some state legislators call that a drop in the bucket. Ohio taxpayers call it an Olympic swimming pool of relief.

Casino Gambling will not improve the business climate for the businesses that already exist in the communities where gambling is proposed.  Every state where casino gambling has been embraced has a short-term gain with long-term socioeconomic negatives that actually hurt the bottom-line. SHORT-TERM GAIN means LONG-TERM PAIN!

Increasingly, taxpayers and businesses from Alberta, Canada to Illinois are beginning to realize that, state-sponsored gambling "produces no product, no new wealth, and so it makes no genuine contribution to economic development;" 2001 study by the West Virginia University Poly/Sci. Dept., John Warren Kindt Ph.D.

In the national elections held on November 7, 1995, over 75 percent of the communities considering casino style gambling voted against it. Ohioans have consistently voted against casino gambling.  Translation the voters don’t want it. The elected officials of Ohio need to roll up their sleeves and actually make the hard choices, Control spending, cut the budget say no to special interests and say NO to gambling expansion in Ohio.

Ohio Supreme Court Case 2001-0625. In re Bonfield, 2002-Ohio-4182.
Hamilton App. Nos. C-000436 and C-000437.

Custody "Pursuant to its authority under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2), a juvenile court may determine whether a shared custody agreement between partners in a same-sex relationship is in the best interests of the children.

Judgment reversed in part, affirmed in part and cause remanded. How the Justices decided. This is good news for the traditional family.

Moyer, Douglas, Resnick and Sweeney concur. Pfeifer, concurs separately. Cook and Lundberg Stratton, concur in part and dissent in part.

From PlanetOut News a homosexual news source"
Ohio court: Lesbian partner isn't parent Ann Rostow, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Wednesday, August 28, 2002 / 04:52 PM

SUMMARY: In a 5-2 decision announced Wednesday, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a lesbian mother could not be considered a parent to her partner's children. In a 5-2 decision announced Wednesday, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a lesbian mother could not be considered a parent to her partner's children under state law.

The couple in the case, Shelly Zachritz and Teri Bonfield, have been together 14 years and have six children, the Associated Press reports. The court opinion revolved around the relationship between Zachritz and five of the children -- two boys adopted under Bonfield's name, and three other children subsequently born to Bonfield.

Although both mothers have shared equally in raising the kids, a lower court rejected their petition for allocated parental rights and responsibilities, a status that would let two willing parents assume joint legal care of their children. Although the law in question does not define "parent," the lower court determined that the shared parenting status was reserved for biological or adoptive parents only.

In a seven-page ruling, the Ohio majority said that the women could not qualify for shared parenting, but could possibly win joint custody of the children, sending the matter back to lower court for a determination. But although the couple's lawyer had kind words for the opinion, family advocates were not so pleased.

For one thing, the justices took the opportunity to expound on the subject of second-parent adoptions, an issue that was not brought before the court and not briefed. The opinion called second-parent adoptions "an option in other states," that "is not available in Ohio," effectively putting the high court's stamp of disapproval on a major question of same-sex family law that had yet to be presented to the Ohio justices.

According to Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, advocates may ask the court to strike that language from the published opinion.

Second, by relegating the women to joint custody at best, the court left the status of same-sex parents unclear.

"What happens to two partners with joint custody if they separate?" asked Minter. The ruling, he continued, "could have been worse, because the court left open one avenue for people to secure a type of legal relationship," but "it leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and that's not good when children are involved."