March 10, 2005

Council votes to oppose gay-marriage ban in Ohio

By Diane Chiddister

In a close vote Monday night before a large audience, Village Council approved a resolution opposing State Issue 1, the constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Council is believed to be the first governmental body in Ohio to take a stand against Issue 1.

In addition to banning same-sex marriage, the amendment also prohibited state and local governments and public universities from recognizing or providing benefits to unmarried couples.

“Our goal in writing this is for the Village to go on record saying that with our hearts and our minds we do not want discrimination,” said Karen Swinger, a member of Solidarity Ohio, which proposed the resolution to Council. More than 20 Yellow Springers filled the room in support of the resolution.

Council voted 3–2 to pass the resolution, which states that Issue 1 “is against the Village practices and policies of inclusiveness and nondiscrimination.”

Council president Tony Arnett and members Jocelyn Hardman and Denise Swinger voted in favor of the measure; George Pitstick and Mary Alexander voted against it.

When Swinger cast the deciding vote in favor of the resolution, the room erupted in applause.

Issue 1 was approved by nearly 62 percent of Ohio voters in the November 2004 election. In Yellow Springs, however, 85 percent of voters rejected the constitutional amendment.

The resolution approved by Council notes that the issue was “overwhelmingly voted down by a local majority.”

It says that the amendment “infringes upon the separation of church and state by imposing moralistic beliefs on civil liberties.”

The resolution asks that local law enforcement officials continue to work “within residents’ self-recognized family relationships and to support family members’ rights to protect and care for one another in routine and emergency situations.” It also requests that local institutions, such as schools, banks, businesses and churches, do the same.

Supporters of the resolution acknowledged that it is largely symbolic.

Hardman, who introduced the resolution to Council, said that local members of Solidarity Ohio, a statewide group that opposes Issue 1, had brought the resolution to the Village Human Relations Commission, where she serves as Council’s representative. Hardman said that some state universities, such as Ohio State, have already opposed Issue 1.

“Yellow Springs is one of the few areas of Ohio that overwhelmingly voted it down,” Hardman said. “We felt Yellow Springs should show leadership in this area as well.”

While stating that he values diversity and “pro-family values,” Pitstick said he would vote against the resolution.

“We live in a democracy,” he said. “In November voters in Ohio overwhelmingly voted for Issue 1. It would be inappropriate for Council to vote on this because we would be disenfranchising those who voted for it.”

Alexander said that she opposed the resolution because it was unnecessary.

“The bottom line for me is we’re making a mountain out of a molehill,” she said, stating that Yellow Springers’ vote in November against Issue 1 already puts the village on record as opposing the amendment.

Since that time, she said, “there hasn’t been a problem as far as Yellow Springs is concerned. There’s no problem.”

Speaking in favor of the resolution, Charlie Peters questioned Pitstick’s definition of democracy.

“The way democracy works, as I understand it, is that you represent the people, and that you go on record to reflect how we’ve gone on record,” he said, adding, “It’s immoral to discriminate against minorities even if majorities vote for it. It’s wrong regardless of the political whims of the time.”

Deb Zendlovitz, who is a member of Solidarity Ohio, said that Issue 1 does have an impact on her family. For instance, she said, if she or her partner or their children were hospitalized, the amendment could prevent them from being able to even visit each other, if their family ties are not considered legitimate under state standards.

The resolution reflects local values such as the antibullying program at Mills Lawn School, Zendlovitz said. “If you see people being bullied, you stand up for them,” she said.

Representing the Yellow Springs Society of Friends, Dale Blanchard said that group confirmed the value of same-sex marriage in June 2003. She also read from a statement approved by 19 area Quaker meetings, which stated, “Friends affirm there is that of God in each person” regardless of race or sexual preference and that “discriminating laws are contrary to our understanding of the spirit of God’s love.”

Bruce Rickenbach, a former Village manager who now serves on the Planning Commission, encouraged Council to approve the resolution, stating that 20 years ago the Village adopted an ordinance against discriminatory practices.

“You’re being asked to reaffirm a statute that is already on the books,” he said.