Issue 1 in Ohio Nov. 2

[traderumor]

Here's an editorial from my hometown newspaper as well:

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/news/s...4287.htmlIssue

1 will cause more harm than good


E D I T O R I A L

Today's topic

Issue 1 goes far beyond preventing gay marriage and limits the rights of many other groups.

Issue 1, a proposed amendment to Ohio's Constitution aimed at protecting traditional families by banning gay marriages, will hurt the very groups it's trying to serve.

We don't advocate the legality of gay marriage in Ohio. We believe the historic institution of marriage is still one man and one woman. But we see far too many pitfalls going forward if Issue 1 is approved as it's written.

First, we're fundamentally opposed to changing Ohio's Constitution over the social issue of the day. The constitution establishes how we govern our state, not the laws that dictate how we carry out our lives.

Furthermore, Issue 1 will eliminate rights, benefits and protections for all unmarried couples in Ohio and make our state one of the most restrictive in the nation.

Even many of the people who supported the Defense of Marriage Act -- including top Republicans -- say this amendment, placed on the ballot by initiative petition, is poorly written and too ambiguous.

While claiming to protect Ohio's families, opponents say Issue 1 actually will hurt senior citizens living together to protect pension benefits and unmarried couples seeking to jointly own property. It will also be bad for those who receive health benefits from domestic partner plans, unmarried women seeking maternity leave and adoptive children of unmarried couples.

Even if you don't support an individual's right to choose their own lifestyle, then consider the damage Issue 1 would inflict on the state's economy.

Crain's Cleveland Business publication said, "The ability to offer such (domestic partner benefits) is a critical tool to many companies and universities in Ohio ... Regardless of your feelings about gay marriage, this amendment deserves to be defeated because it is anti-business and anti-competitive."

This is a hot-button issue in Ohio and around the country these days. There is raw emotion on both sides.

But when you get past that emotion and look at the facts surrounding Issue 1, you will see it's not the right time to amend Ohio's Constitution over a social issue.

We urge your "no" vote on Issue 1 Nov. 2.

Email this story

Get home delivery of The Advocate for just $12.35/month.

Originally published Thursday, October 21, 2004

[FrenchD1]

Thanks for posting that editorial. I don't live in Cincinnati so I wont be voting on Article XII, but I do think it's also a very important issue and should be repealed. They were talking about it on CNN last night and they seemed to look down on Cincinnati for being so behind the times.

[RedFanAlways1966]

My freshman year in college... I decide to attend a Young Republicans Club meeting. The first meeting that I attend on campus is about nothing but stopping homosexuals from getting "special privileges". The mood of the meeting was angry and made me uncomfortable.

Instead of blindly following these people, I stopped and thought about it. What have gay people done or what do they get that causes my life to be any different? Well it took less time to think about the answer than it did to ask myself the question... nothing. Needless to say I did not attend another one of these meetings and did not officially join (as they begged me to become a member of their little hate-club).

[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.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Instead of blindly following these people, I stopped and thought about it. What have gay people done or what do they get that causes my life to be any different? Well it took less time to think about the answer than it did to ask myself the question... nothing.

:gac:
:gac:
:gac:

[WVRed]

Sorry to bump this thread back up, but I thought it was better than the Gay Marriage Amendments Expected to Pass thread.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...gay_marriage_5

Ga., Ky., Ohio Vote Against Gay Marriage

2 hours, 16 minutes ago

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

Voters in Georgia, Kentucky and Ohio approved constitutional amendments Tuesday to ban same-sex marriage, with similar results expected in most of the eight other states considering such measures.


AP Photo



Early results made clear the amendments would, as expected, win easy approval. Exit polls showed the ban winning by 3-to-1 in Georgia and 3-to-2 in Ohio, while the Kentucky amendment had 64 percent support in early returns.


The Ohio measure, considered the broadest of the 11 because it barred any legal status that "intends to approximate marriage," gathered equal support from men and women, blacks and whites.


In Georgia, gay-rights activists immediately announced they would mount a court challenge of their state's amendment. But supporters of the ban were jubilant.


"I've said all along that this crossed party lines, color lines and socio-economic lines," said Sadie Fields of the Georgia Christian Coalition. "The people in this state realized that we're talking about the future of our country here."


Conservatives hoped the amendments would prevail in all 11 states, sending a signal that the American public disapproved of gay marriage. National and local gay-rights groups campaigned vigorously in Oregon, where polls showed a close race, and in a few other states to try to prevent a sweep.


None of the 11 states allows gay marriage now, though officials in Portland, Ore., married more than 3,000 same-sex couples last year before a judge halted the practice. Supporters of the amendments contend the measures are needed as an extra guard against state court rulings like the one in Massachusetts a year ago that legalized same-sex marriage there.


The proposed amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marriage, specifying that it should be limited to unions of one man and one woman. The measures in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah would ban civil unions as well.


In most cases, those additional provisions generated extra controversy. Some prominent Republican politicians and GOP-leaning newspapers, while stressing that they opposed gay marriage, spoke out against the amendments on grounds that the measures might prevent the extension of even very limited partnership rights to unmarried gay and straight couples.


In five of the states, legislators placed the proposed amendments on the ballots, while in the six others — Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon — the measures were advanced by conservative, church-backed citizens groups that collected signatures on petitions.


Many gay-rights activists and their allies depicted some of the petition drives as a divisive, GOP-backed tactic to boost conservative turnout on Election Day in crucial battleground states like Ohio and Michigan.


Already this year, voters in Missouri and Louisiana have weighed in on the issue, with gay-marriage-ban amendments winning more than 70 percent of the vote in both states.


Louisiana's amendment was later struck down in state court on the ground that it improperly dealt with more than one subject by banning not only same-sex marriage but also any legal recognition of common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions. The court challenge in Georgia involves a similar argument.


Even if all 11 amendments were approved, the debate would rage on. Conservatives say they will continue to press for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, on the premise that even toughly worded bans in state constitutions could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites).


Gay-rights activists, meanwhile, will continue pressing marriage-rights lawsuits in states like Oregon, California and New Jersey, where they believe the high courts might eventually rule in their favor.

[RosieRed]

Discrimination makes me sad.

[savafan]

Can't the governor repeal this?

[Ravenlord]

Can't the governor repeal this?

i don't think so because it's a voted on issue. the Ohio Supreme Court could over turn.

though i think homosexuality is immoral, this should be repealed (more truthfully, it should be a total non-issue).

[creek14]

Can't the governor repeal this?

Like that guy would repeal anything like this even if he could.

You'd think that by 2004 people wouldn't be so closed-minded (I think I just made up a word).

[GAC]

Can't the governor repeal this?

Maybe. But then he'd be shooting himself in the foot with the majority of Ohians who voted in favor of the issue.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Discrimination makes me sad.

Ditto.

[REDREAD]

The proposed Ohio law doesn't stand a snowballs chance in Hades of staying on the books. Nor should it.

I really don't want to step into this, but how does this apply?

This law is a nonissue. Companies and probably the state of Ohio will still continue to offer benefits for gay couples.

[WVRed]

I give it two years before activist judges rule this unconstitutional.