December 2, 2004

EDITORIAL

Hardly a moral victory

The passage of State Issue 1, the constitutional amendment Ohioans approved in the Nov. 2 election, will hurt more than the state’s economy. It will harm real people, people who have families, jobs, responsibilities, people who, like all citizens of the United States and Ohio, want to live in a society where they are respected simply for who they are, without labels.

That’s the message some Yellow Springers are sending, as the News reports in an article this week documenting some of the effects Issue 1 will have on many community members. The passage of Issue 1 has led a group of villagers to organize a response to the constitutional amendment and fight for systemic change for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.

Ohioans approved Issue 1 by a 62-to-38-percent margin, according to unofficial results from the secretary of state’s office. In the Yellow Springs community, however, the measure was overwhelmingly opposed, 78 percent to 22 percent. The vote came nine months after Governor Bob Taft signed into law the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which banned same-sex marriages in Ohio. This legislation was not enough for some conservatives, who in the pursuit of an extreme agenda, got Issue 1 placed on the November ballot.

Issue 1 amends the Ohio Constitution to declare marriage as between a man and a woman. It also prohibits the state government, its political subdivisions — including the Village, Miami Township and the school district — and public universities from providing benefits to the domestic partners of any unmarried employees. It places roadblocks in front of domestic partners who want to jointly own property and limits unmarried couples’ parental and custodial rights.

Leading up to the Nov. 2 election, much of the opposition to Issue 1 revolved around concern for how the amendment would affect Ohio’s economy. Business leaders and politicians, including Governor Taft and Ohio’s U.S. senators, Mike DeWine, who is a native of Yellow Springs, and George Voinovich, argued that Issue 1 was dangerous because it would make Ohio less attractive to businesses and workers. It would place an “unwelcome” mat at the doorway to Ohio, sending a message of intolerance to prospective companies and employees considering coming to this state, or staying here. For instance, the amendment could negatively influence the ability of our community’s three governments to recruit and hire new workers or retain existing employees.

The results of Issue 1, however, run deeper than the economy. The amendment tells a portion of the state’s population that they are second-class citizens undeserving of the full benefits most Ohioans have come to expect and enjoy. Think about how you would feel if a child you helped raise became ill, but because you are not her legal guardian you could be prohibited from determining your child’s medical treatment. Think about how you would feel if you were barred from receiving health or life insurance through your partner.

Much of the analysis on the Nov. 2 election has focused on President Bush’s “moral” victory, which has been linked to gay-marriage proposals being approved by voters in 11 states, including Ohio, on Election Day. But it’s difficult to understand how ratifying discrimination — which is exactly what those 11 states have done — is moral.

—Robert Mihalek