October 14, 2004

EDITORIAL

Oppose State Issue 1

The ballot language for State Issue 1, the proposed constitutional amendment, contains just two sentences: “Only a union between a 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.”

For such a short proposal, however, Issue 1 could cause a ton of harm.

Read the proposal’s second sentence again. Issue 1, which will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot, would prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from providing benefits to any unmarried individuals, regardless of whether they are gay or straight. It also would prohibit ordinary Ohioans from taking advantage of basic rights they already have. Most important, Issue 1 would deny health insurance benefits for family members, co-workers and domestic partners. This prohibition would apply to public university and state, county and local governmental agencies, including all three governments in the Yellow Springs and Miami Township communities: the Village, the school district and the Township.

Issue 1 is a hurtful, discriminatory proposal that would punish thousands of Ohioans and codify discrimination in the state Constitution. It would say that gays and lesbians as well as unmarried but committed couples are second-class citizens of Ohio. No one who supports the fair and equitable treatment of people should stand for this kind of prejudice.

In addition, Issue 1 is being criticized in many circles for the negative effect it would likely have on Ohio’s economy. Opponents of the measure say the amendment would hurt the economy because it would make the state less attractive to business and workers. This is another a good reason to vote against Issue 1.

Representatives of the three local governing bodies said that the amendment would have an effect in Yellow Springs. It would prohibit our local governments from ever providing health insurance benefits to domestic partners of their employees, and could have a negative influence on the governments’ ability to recruit and hire new employees. Village Manager Rob Hillard said that the proposal would “water down” the Village’s rights as a home rule community by limiting “local control” of the governing processes. School superintendent Tony Armocida said that the amendment would “definitely affect” the district’s effort to gain health insurance benefits for domestic partners of school employees. Just last week, Dr. Armocida said, he asked the co-op through which the school system purchases health insurance to allow the district to include insurance coverage for domestic partners in its benefit package. He said Issue 1 conflicts with the values of the community and the school district.

Numerous groups and people have come out in opposition of Issue 1, including Ohio Senators Mike DeWine, who is from Yellow Springs, and George Voinovich; Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro; Ohio State University; the Ohio League of Women Voters; and the Ohio AARP. Village Council, the Yellow Springs school board and the Miami Township trustees should add their names to this list before Nov. 2.

Proponents of Issue 1 are pursuing an extreme, religiously fundamental agenda. Their official statement about the ballot issue refers to “homosexual and other deviant relationships.” They say the constitutional amendment is needed to prevent so-called activist judges from overturning an existing misguided state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

But backers of Issue 1 overlook the fact that over time marriage has evolved. One day the definition of marriage will include same-sex couples. Keeping it out of the Ohio Constitution will not change that. Dr. Armocida may have been speaking for most Yellow Springers when he said, “Our definition of family is a little broader than most places in the country.”

Issue 1 is an ill-conceived proposal that promotes intolerance toward a large number of Ohioans. It also could severely hinder Ohio’s attempts to improve its economy. Voters should reject Issue 1 on Nov. 2.

—Robert Mihalek