March 10, 2005

EDITORIAL

Standing against discrimination

Three Village Council members on Monday made a bold statement about this community and their support for diversity and equal rights when they approved a resolution opposing State Issue 1, the discriminatory constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage in Ohio. Issue 1 was a terrible proposal whose passage last November told many Ohioans that they are in effect second-class citizens.

The stand by three Council members — Tony Arnett, the Council president, Jocelyn Hardman and Denise Swinger — is the kind of leadership needed when bad legislation becomes law: by protesting the inequity codified by the constitutional amendment, Council may help chip away at Issue 1’s very flawed purpose. The only unfortunate news surrounding Council’s action is that the resolution was not passed unanimously.

Council’s decision also reinforces a 1979 Village ordinance that prohibits discrimination against sexual orientation as well as race, sex, age, skin color and religion, among other human qualities. That ordinance was the first of its kind in Ohio, so it is appropriate that Council appears to be the first government body in the state to take a stand against Issue 1. Though the resolution Council approved is largely symbolic, it does underscore Yellow Springs’ commitment to tolerance, diversity and support for all families, regardless of makeup. As the Village Human Relations Commission noted, the resolution affirms the community’s “proud tradition of inclusiveness.”

Indeed, while Ohioans approved the amendment by a 62-to-38 margin during the Nov. 2, 2004, election, Yellow Springs voters handily rejected the proposal 85 percent to 15 percent — numbers that help justify Council’s position, since they reflect the popular opinion of the community.

Issue 1 amended the Ohio constitution to declare that only men and women may marry. It also prohibits the state government, its political subdivisions — including the Village, Miami Township and Yellow Springs school district — and public universities from creating or recognizing legally the relationships of unmarried couples that intend to “approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” The amendment bars public agencies from providing benefits to domestic partners of unmarried employees, and could place restrictions on unmarried couples’ parental rights and their ability to jointly own property. The amendment’s passage is already threatening to undermine legal protections of unmarried Ohioans in abusive relationships. That a significant number of Ohioans voted for Issue 1 does not change the fact that is an ill-conceived proposal that will hurt both gay and straight people and their families.

The effects Issue 1 could have on many Yellow Springers was so distressing to some that after the November election a group of local residents joined together to fight for systemic changes for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. These community members then worked with the Village Human Relations Commission to ask that Council adopt the resolution passed on Monday.

The legislation states that Issue 1 is anti-family and threatens the legal, financial and emotional stability of many villagers and their families by “eliminating rights, benefits and protections for all unmarried couples.” It also proclaims that the Yellow Springs police will continue to work with local residents’ “self-recognized family relationships” and support family members’ rights “to protect and care for one another in routine and emergency situations.” The measure further encourages other local institutions to do the same.

The Council members’ stand against Issue 1 is not just limited to opposing discriminatory practices. They are also protesting public policy that is likely to be bad for the economy of Yellow Springs and Ohio. As the resolution states, the amendment “could contribute to the continued decline of the local economy” by making Yellow Springs less attractive to employers and workers. Issue 1 also could hurt the ability of this community’s governments to recruit and hire new workers or retain existing ones.

It’s not everyday that a small village will stand up to the rest of the state to say that something is wrong. That’s why Council’s opposition to the amendment is not only noteworthy, it’s an act of political bravery. And it’s why Yellow Springers should be proud of Tony Arnett, Jocelyn Hardman and Denise Swinger.

—Robert Mihalek