Move in Ohio to Ban Gay Marriage
By CHRISTINE HAUSER
Senate committee in Ohio today approved a bill that declares that marriage between people of the same gender is "against the strong public policy of the state" and that would keep some state employees from receiving benefits for their domestic partners.
The bill, which is expected to go before the full Senate later today, touches on a polarizing and sensitive issue in the United States, especially as Democrats and Republicans pursue their campaigns in the 2004 election year. It follows a Massachusetts court decision last November that same-sex marriages are permissible under that state's Constitution.
And President Bush waded into the debate on Tuesday night in his State of the Union address, when he said that if "activist judges" sought to redefine marriage as anything but the union of a man and a woman, the nation must defend the "sanctity" of the institution by "the constitutional process."
In Ohio, State Senator Eric D. Fingerhut, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said that the panel sent the bill to the full Senate by a vote of 7 to 5. Of those who voted against it, four were Democrats and one was a Republican, he said. One senator was absent.
"We expect, unfortunately, that it will pass the Senate and I assume be quickly reconciled with the House version," Senator Fingerhut, who opposes the bill, said in a telephone interview. "Then it will go to the governor," who has indicated he supports it.
The bill, as passed by the House, specifically declares that same-sex marriages and the extensions of state benefits to any unmarried, domestic partners are "against the strong public policy of the state." It also says that any marriage between people of the same sex "shall have no legal force or effect" in Ohio.
Senator Fingerhut said the bill was unnecessary because Ohio law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The new bill is being offered as an amendment to existing law.
Senator Fingerhut said the amendment's sponsors argued that they needed the "strong public policy" language to act as a "buffer" against any potential legal action inspired by the Massachusetts court ruling, but that no such action was pending.
The bill has been introduced for the last seven years, and Senator Fingerhut attributed its success in the committee today as politically motivated in an election year.
"Nothing else is happening to lead us to move with this sense of urgency and attempt to appease organizations and activate a constituency," he said. "It's such a terrible statement. It sends the wrong message at a time when we need to attract people to Ohio."
Calls to a primary sponsor of the bill in Ohio, Representative Bill Seitz, a Republican, were not immediately returned. But The Associated Press quoted him today as saying that the Massachusetts ruling could affect Ohio, and that all unmarried people, gay or straight, were treated the same way under the bill.
"My concern is the cost of the courts rewriting statutes in ways we did not intend," he said.
A recent national poll by The New York Times/CBS News found widespread support for an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage, with 55 percent of Americans favoring an amendment that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman, with 40 percent opposing that limitation. It also found unease about homosexual relations in general.
The poll's findings were released after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled, 4 to 3, in November that gay couples have the right to marry under the state's Constitution. That ruling followed a 6-to-3 decision in late June by the United States Supreme Court striking down antisodomy laws.
Many social conservatives have been eager to see the Bush administration weigh in on behalf of traditional marriage after the Massachusetts ruling. Other strategists have suggested that the issue could alienate centrist voters. |
