Issue 1

STATE ISSUE 1 - PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT(Proposed by Initiative Petition)Adopted by the Ohio Ballot Board on Tuesday, August 17, 2004.Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio: That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one 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.A majority yes vote is necessary for passage. (The Secretary of State certified Issue 1 for the November ballot in order to meet the September 8th deadline. At the same time, the Secretary’s office acknowledged that legal challenges to the petitions continue in several counties and that the measure could ultimately be removed from the ballot if insufficient signatures are certified.)

LWVOhio Explanation:  Concerns about a recent court decision in Massachusetts ordering that state to allow civil marriage between same-sex couples prompted this action. Petitioners intend to avoid such a decision in Ohio and prevent gay and lesbian couples from obtaining marriage benefits.            

Issue 1 would amend the Ohio Constitution so that the state recognizes as valid only those marriages between a man and a woman. This definition of marriage would extend to all local government entities, such as municipalities and institutions of higher education. The amendment further states that no legal status, such as a civil union, may be devised by state or local government that would carry the weight of marriage or confer any benefits or obligations of marriage on unmarried individuals. As such, it would revoke actions already taken by some cities and universities, and would test the validity of adoptions, custody orders, wills, powers of attorney, and other legal arrangements between both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples.

PROS

As lawsuits are brought to test the constitutionality of Ohio’s current “Defense of Marriage Act,” which bans civil marriage for same-sex couples, the courts might rule in favor of              recognizing such marriages; therefore, placing the proposed definition in the state Constitution would prevent the judiciary from finding unconstitutional the existing state law.

The definition would ensure that marriage is a fixed—rather than evolving—institution, keeping same-sex couples from attaining the benefits and obligations of civil marriage and            preventing the state from recognizing or condoning any marriage or marriage benefits afforded to same-sex couples.

The amendment would ensure consistency across the state, stopping cities and public institutions from taking independent action to establish civil unions, marriage registries, or         basic benefits for same-sex couples, and ensuring that such recognition is not extended by any governmental entity in Ohio.

CONS

State law already defines marriage in such terms, and so amending the constitution is not only unnecessary and redundant, but would (for the first time) legitimize discrimination in Ohio’s most fundamental legal document; furthermore, it would override the judiciary’s responsibility to check and balance the powers of the legislature.

Marriage has always evolved with the times—for example, giving people of different races the right to marry and affording women rights to equal partnership in marriage—and so limiting marriage in such a way goes against 200 years of state history and raises the specter of racist and sexist laws of the past.