Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

[FrenchD1]

[This post is merely informational and my opinion, it's not designed to make anybody mad at me b/c I know this is a touchy subject]

For those living in Ohio, on November 2, we will be voting on something very important and a lot of people are unaware of it because it's getting overshadowed by the Presidential race.

Issue 1 is for a proposed amendment to the state constitution which reads like this:
"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

Passage of this amendment would take Ohio down the wrong road. Not only would it ban marriages, but also civil unions, and any priveliges for homosexual couples. Besides my own personal view that I have no problems with gay marriage, you can't legislate discrimination and this amendment would be doing that as well as hurting Ohio's economy which is something that doesn't really need to happen.

The passage of the amendment would kill years of social progress. Whether you're for or against gay marriage, I don't think Ohio can afford to let this pass.

Sorry I don't usually post things like this but I think it's important and needs to be talked about.

[Chip R]

You are going to owe TeamCasey a lot of M&Ms.

[letsgojunior]

I think I am going to go hide in Fantasy Island until Election Day.

[RBA]

I think even the Cincinnati Enquirer said to vote this down.

[WVRed]

Besides my own personal view that I have no problems with gay marriage, you can't legislate discrimination and this amendment would be doing that as well as hurting Ohio's economy which is something that doesn't really need to happen.

I've heard the opposite of gay marriage effecting the economy. Just curious how it would hurt the economy if homosexuals were not allowed to marry.

In a divided state like Ohio, who knows whether this will pass or not. It would be twice as likely to pass in West Virginia and practically a lock to pass in Kentucky.

[RBA]

Sunday, October 17, 2004
Why we are opposed to Ohio Issue 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial


Ohio state Issue 1 is an unnecessary attempt to use the state constitution to ban something already prohibited by law. It would restrict the state's ability to attract new business and new employees and could interfere with the benefits employers offer employees. We oppose its passage.

Billed as an amendment to protect the concept that marriage is between one man and one woman, Issue 1 is poorly written and overly broad. It would go far beyond prohibiting same-sex marriage, opening a Pandora's box of potential litigation over the legal status of all sorts of relationships.

The ballot language forbids the state or any of its political subdivisions from recognizing unmarried relationships that intend "to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." Gov. Bob Taft, who came out against the amendment Tuesday, said that ambiguous sentence could have as many interpretations "as there are judges in the state of Ohio." He's right. If passed, the amendment could have consequences for any two people living together, no matter what their relationship might be.

Sens. Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, and Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro join Taft in opposing the amendment. Several of the state's largest employers have come out against it, including Nationwide Insurance and The Limited Group. AARP is opposed, as is Ohio State University, the League of Women Voters and the AFL-CIO.

Ohio already has a law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed last February.

The real impact of Issue 1 would be on people in relationships that are legal under DOMA. This includes people who live together, but choose not to marry for any number of reasons. Issue 1 could prevent them from being able to give each other legal control over their health care, pension benefits or other assets. Public employers could not offer family health insurance benefits to those who are not in traditional families.

Ohio should be working to develop a reputation that is open and welcoming. We want to be able to attract as diverse and talented a work force as possible. Issue 1 closes a door on those efforts.

[RosieRed]

This is an important issue. Thanks for posting about it FrenchD1.

For those of us in Cincinnati, another item on the ballot will be voting for or against the repeal of Article XII -- the city charter amendment that bans any laws that would protect gays and lesbians.

[TeamCasey]

To me it's a no-brainer. No to issue 1, Yes to the repeal of Article XII.

Legitimizing discrimination is wrong. You'd think as a nation we'd have gotten that by now. We can't seem to learn from our own history.

M&Ms from FrenchD1 too? I'll be rolling in those bad boys.

[zombie-a-go-go]

To me it's a no-brainer. No to issue 1, Yes to the repeal of Article XII.

Legitimizing discrimination is wrong. You'd think as a nation we'd have gotten that by now. We can't seem to learn from our own history.

Some people are too dumb to learn.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Some people are too dumb to learn.

Your words or Teresa Heinz-Kerry's? :mhcky21:

[GAC]

According to most polls taken here in Ohio (one from the Columbus Dispatch, which I read this past weekend), this issue will pass.

[RBA]

Looks like it's one of those issues put on the ballot to bring out Bush's base.

[WVRed]

Looks like it's one of those issues put on the ballot to bring out Bush's base.

[GAC]

Looks like it's one of those issues put on the ballot to bring out Bush's base.

Looking at the numbers so far, it's not just Bush's base that are voting for it, and supporting it.

[BuckeyeRed27]

This is one of those things that I completely fail to understand. Why can't gay people get married? Are they hurting anyone?

I'm on the crew team at Ohio State and one of my teammates (and one of our team elected captains this year) is gay. We were talking about this issue the other night and he told me that the only thing he cares about is if his boyfriend was dying in the hospital that he could be there with him. I think its completely ridiculous that would be withheld from someone because of their sexual orientation.