In Ohio we had Issue One on our ballot. Much to my dismay it passed. Not only does this have a direct effect on Gay/Lesbian couples it also has a direct effect on any hetero couples living together. Not all the clergy/churchs are against a marriage of the same sex. I can post some of the comments here....

*IT VIOLATES RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Rabbi Bernard Barsky, Beth Abraham Synagogue, Dayton

I have been asked to address the question of how Issue one is offensive to religious liberty. This is a subtle question, and difficult to address easily in the allotted few minutes. Those who have initiated this measure surely understand that the question of what constitutes a marriage has always been defined by a community's religious context. But in the pre-modern world, no distinction existed between a community's religious organization and its political structures. Certainly this was the case in the religion of ancient Israel, whose catalogue of religious law included its incest prohibitions, its rules for who may marry whom -- or more accurately, who may not marry whom. That ancient law also permitted a man to have many wives.

Despite their biblical authority, these marriage rules have evolved over time, and continue to evolve. In ancient Israel, for instance, it was expected that a man would marry his deceased brother's widow, if he died childless. But rabbinic law discouraged the practice, and eventually it disappeared. Polygamy continued to be permissable among Jews, though it was rarely practiced, until it was prohibited by rabbinic decree in the year 1000. Divorce was and is permitted by Israelite and Jewish law, but the Catholic Church prohibited it. The Episcopalians among my colleagues will recall that the Anglican confession had its origins in a dispute about whether Henry VIII was legitimately married to his dead brother's widow. Out of that divorce came the English Church's separation from Rome.

In our pluralistic community -- a community of many religious traditions living side-by-side in harmony -- many of our faith traditions continue to evolve, and are currently engaged in passionate discussion about some of our marriage rules, and in particular whether homosexual marriages may be consecrated. And so it is offensive to religious liberty in our country and community when adherents of a particular belief attempt to short-circuit and cut off that solemn and serious discussion by using the heavy-handed power of the state to enforce its own will. One group tells us, in effect: "Don't bother even talking about this, we have made up your minds for you. What we call marriage has to be what the state will call marriage."

If I may draw an obvious parallel between "pro-choicers" and "pro-lifers" in the abortion debate. Judaism has its own three thousand year old history of sensitive and careful discussion about abortion -- we were engaged in this debate before Christianity or Islam were even born -- and it has continued to evolve into our own time. It has of course at all times given careful weight to the teachings and values of scripture, to the values of human life, to the God's providence over the life of the child in the womb. So, frankly, it is repugnant to the spiritual liberty of Judaism to have the law of the land made so fixed and rigid that our own teachings are made irrelevant in one fell swoop.

A nation that is serious about its religious liberty and its pluralism, and which takes seriously the notion that the marriage relationship is a sacred bond, will let our various and varied religious traditions work out these questions according to their own spiritual lights. What does the power of the state have to do with telling us which relationships are sacred before God? "My Father's house has many mansions," taught the prophet. But some would rather cram us all into a one-room efficiency apartment and insist that we call that our Father's house. Where will this intolerance and religious repression end? *

I found this very interesting...and this was just one of the folks who responded to this issue.....

I can state that I am glad I have a family who loves all of us...my sister is in a same sex relationship, and she and her partner are the proud parents of a beautiful baby girl. My sister gave birth to her, but her partner is just as much a parent as my sister is. Now with Issue One passing, if my sister passes on - one of the family in fact could take that baby from her other mother. And my family could take my house away from my partner in the same manner.