|
The
Facts About Issue 1
Q.
Why is Issue 1 on our ballot?
A.
The answer is very simple. Right now there are legal actions in 11 states to
change or undermine the definition of marriage. In Massachusetts, those who wish
to change the definition of marriage were successful in convincing four out of
seven judges
to create same-sex “marriage” for that state. Other officials have defiantly
refused to apply the well established definition of marriage in their states, a
defiance which threatens to result in legal chaos. The actions of these
officials are being defended in some courts even as you read this sentence.
Right
here in Ohio, the main opponents of Issue 1, many of whom already live in
unmarried sexual relationships, believe that Ohio needs to change our definition
of marriage, either now, or in the future. But do you hear the opponents of
Issue 1 stating their goal to the public? The silence is deafening.
This
is because they know that the people of Ohio would reject the goal of
undermining or redefining marriage in our state.
That’s
one reason why over 550,000 Ohioans signed petitions to allow a vote on a
Marriage Protection Amendment. Since judges are bound by the state constitution
in a way that they are not bound by statutes, passage of Issue 1 would first and
foremost insulate our definition of marriage from judicial re-interpretation,
undermining or being overturned outright.
Q.
Is the Marriage Protection Amendment a reasonable response to the problem of
judicial activism and the ongoing efforts all across America to change our
definition of marriage?
A.
Issue 1 is a very reasonable response. The passage of Issue 1 would represent
great progress in protecting the institution of marriage for the citizens of
Ohio, both for ourselves and for our children. The passage of Issue 1 would
place Ohio right in the mainstream company of 213 million Americans whose states
have already moved to recommit themselves to the American definition of marriage
through the passage of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) statutes, and the total of
17 states that are expected to have Marriage Protection Amendments in place
after the November 2nd election.
Nothing could be more reasonable than Ohio
joining 37 other states in their effort to re-affirm our definition of marriage,
either thorough DOMA laws or through constitutional amendments. This bill
ensures that activist judges from far away places will not undermine the unique
place we have given marriage for generations.
Q:
What do homosexual activists and revisionists really want and where can marriage
redefinition lead our society?
A:
One revisionist recently chastised the OCPM saying, "It is shameful to put
up barriers to love, no matter whom the love is between."
Surely,
we thought, no one means ALL barriers. She just thinks the proper gender
requirement is wrong. So we asked if she was suggesting we eliminate other
"discriminatory" state laws that limit how old someone must be before
they can get married or the ones that say you can't get married if you are
already married to someone else or the ones that limit the kinship of the ones
you can marry.
To
our shock, she actually said YES! "I do think we should eliminate state
laws that say you can't get married to more than one person, or the [ones] that
limit the kinship of those being married, as long as all the parties are adults
capable of giving their full consent...If both people are adults who love each
other, and their lives will be more fulfilling because of the marriage, it's up
to them. Incestous [sp] relationships are not a new thing, they're even
chronicled in the Bible."
To
her credit, age limits are still OK. "I don't support the elimination of
age of consent laws, as a child is not yet
experienced enough to understand the decision they are making, and it is very
easy for an adult to influence and coerce a child into something they don't
understand." [signed: Carin]
Q:
Why are both parts of the amendment needed in order to protect marriage in Ohio?
A:
Most of the opposition to Issue 1 is targeted at the second sentence of the
amendment. The problem with their position is that they are attempting to
separate the two sentences when they are actually one in the same. The first
defines marriage and the second identifies marriage as having a unique place in
our society and protects it from any counterfeits.
There
are many who would like to change the definition of marriage today. Without the
second sentence, the door is left open to anyone - be it by judicial,
legislative or executive means - creating any marital-type relationship that has
all the qualities of marriage and just calling it something else such as a
"civil union" or "domestic partnership." If someone wants
to undermine or redefine marriage, then the door must be left open to other
names. Otherwise, both parts are needed.
For
example, the State of Ohio reserves the right to issue drivers licenses. No
political subdivision within the state is allowed to create their own with other
rules, such as allowing 12 year olds to drive, and then call it something
different like a vehicular operators permit. This amendment prohibits the same
circumvention with marriage.
Q.
Will Issue 1 keep Ohio companies from hiring the people of their choice and
make Ohio less attractive to new families and employees?
A.
There is nothing in Issue 1 that would keep a state institution in Ohio from
offering an attractive employment package to prospective employees. Furthermore, Issue 1
does not apply to private employers. The Federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 protects the right of private companies to provide
employee benefits to whomever they wish. And NO Ohio laws or amendments can
override it. It's deceitful to say so.
It is true that some government
employees live in unmarried sexual relationships. But should the state allow or
promote official creation of “imitation marriage” employee categories or
legal status just for those few? No. Prospective employees can be offered other
inducements, such as higher pay or other benefits not related to their choice of
an unmarried sexual partner(s) if their talents or abilities are critical to an
employer.
Some
state institutions, such as universities, may wish to grant “domestic partner
benefits,” that is to give the same kind of benefits that a husband or wife
might receive to unmarried individuals in a live-in sexual relationship. But a
large majority of Ohioans believe this is wrong and that state approval or tax
dollars should not be used in this way.
Issue 1 would further protect the unique
place of marriage, strictly limiting the benefits of marriage to those who are
married and keep them from being given to unmarried heterosexual or homosexual
individuals, if the intent was to copy the design of marriage, thereby
circumventing marriage laws and accessing its benefits through a back door.
Sound reasonable? Sure, but not to some.
In
a recent editorial board meeting with the Dayton Daily News, one hostile
questioner actually blurted out, "Do you realize that if Issue 1 passes,
individuals who are not married will not be able to obtain marital
benefits?" Incredibly astute, wouldn't you say? But that fact is what incensed
the individual.
Sometimes
when public officials and institutions move to offer marriage-like benefits to
employees in unmarried sexual relationships, they will do it secretly or with
little public notice. Ohio State University trustees were sadly representative of this fact this
summer when, in apparent violation of Ohio’s “Sunshine Laws” they, with no
public notice or debate, voted to offer “domestic partner” benefits to their
employees. Ohio
newspapers and even Attorney General Jim Petro harshly criticized the university for
its lack of openness in taking such a controversial and divisive step. For
details see http://gopusa.com/ohio/news/osutrustees0801.shtml
Furthermore,
the question must be asked whether Issue 1 opponents truly believe that the best way for
Ohio to grow economically is to offer special state recognition and tax dollar
subsidies to people who are just shacking up. If
so, they should state it openly.
The
fact is that most Ohioans realize that if we want to attract folks to come to
Ohio to make their living and raise their families here, then Issue 1 makes
perfect sense. By not changing our definition of marriage, we send a message of
stability and commitment to the values that most Americans hold dear. That is perhaps one reason why economic powerhouses like Nevada have passed a
Marriage Protection Amendment and why other states like Utah, Michigan, Georgia,
Kentucky and six others are on the verge of protecting marriage in their
states.
The
Bottom Line
One
Ohio executive recently wrote the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, “The
bottom line is this: Marriage is good for the citizens of Ohio and Ohio
employers. In fact, as you can read in the White Paper, Why Supporting
Marriage Makes Business Sense, "Since married employees are generally
happier, healthier, and more dependable than single or cohabiting employees,
employers should adopt policies that promote stable marriages for their
employees.’ Here is a copy for you.”
The
OCPM would like to share this with those who are interested in promoting and
protecting marriage. See http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers.html
Q:
Will Issue 1 take away any benefits currently afforded to state or government
employees?
A:
Any
legal contracts in force at the time of passage remain legal until the contract
expires, as with any other legal contract in the state regardless of the
parties. Legally binding contracts cannot be nullified by the passage of any
law. So since most of the state universities contract their employment through
union negotiations, those union contracts remain valid until expiration, thereby
allowing any domestic partner benefits to continue. If passed, the amendment
will prohibit the state or political subdivisions from subsequently attempting
to change or recognize a change in the definition of marriage. Because state
universities are considered state institutions, they would not be allowed to
create their own definition of marriage or attempt to approximate it after
the passage of the amendment.
Q:
Does Issue 1 prohibit individuals from bequeathing their property through a will
to whomever they wish?
A:
Absolutely not. The second part has absolutely nothing to
say about the right of anyone to bequeath whatever he/she wants to another
individual. All these matters are the subjects of legal instruments, which have
their operation completely independent of the nature of the relationship of the
affected parties. A judge asked to enforce any of these contracts or legal
instruments need not give the first moment's consideration to what kind of
personal relationship the parties have. The question won't be asked if they are
married or not, if there is a will involved. If there is no will, then the state
legislature has already dictated in state law how the estate will be
distributed.
Many,
many Ohioans have worked hard for six months to place on our ballot an amendment
that will confirm the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman
and that will take that truth out of the reach of activist judges or any other
force that would seek to destroy it. We
are almost there!
The
same-sex activists who are opposing us know that the overwhelming majority of
Ohioans want to protect the truth of marriage as understood by every major world
religion and confirmed by every enduring society in the history of civilization.
They therefore have stopped talking about marriage, and have turned to
distortions and outright lies to scare people into not voting to approve this
amendment that will protect marriage.
We
must expose their lies so that you can help others discern the truth.
Lie
#1: Issue 1 will prevent private
companies from offering health care benefits to their employees.
Answer:
The proposed amendment pertains to the “state and its political
subdivisions” only. There is no
mention of private companies, and there is no reasonable way to construe that
the language would affect private companies.
Further, federal law (the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act
[ERISA]) specifically protects the rights of private companies to offer benefits
to whomever they wish and prohibits States from interfering with that
right. It's a nothing but a scare tactic to say otherwise.
Lie
#2: Issue 1 will prevent senior
citizens from executing contracts such as wills, powers of attorney and
mortgages.
Answer:
All these matters are subjects of legal contracts, the enforcement of
which is completely independent of the marital relationship of the parties of
the contracts. A judge asked to enforce
any of these contracts would give no consideration at all to the relationship
between them. This is an
unconscionable attempt to scare our senior citizens.
Lie
#3: Issue 1 will interfere with the
right of single persons and unmarried couples to adopt children.
Answer:
Ludicrous! The proposed
amendment in no way pertains to, affects or changes Ohio’s existing adoption
laws.
Lie
#4: Issue 1 will prevent unmarried
young people from entering into a mortgage together and purchasing a home.
Answer:
The same as Lie #2, but in this case they are targeting younger couples.
A mortgage is a contract, and mortgagers (lending institutions) are not
allowed to consider the relationship of the mortgagees when qualifying them for
a loan.
Lie
#5: Issue 1 threatens maternity
benefits for unmarried parents.
Answer:
In matters of health benefits, including maternity benefits, private
companies and governments are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of
marital status. Clearly, then,
the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment has no bearing on maternity benefits
for anyone, married nor not married!
So
what does Issue 1 do? The first sentence simply and clearly takes the truth of
marriage, as the union of one man and one woman only – a truth already written
into Ohio law – and embeds it in our constitution, thereby protecting it from
judges or any other force that would seek to distort that truth.
The second sentence simply guarantees that the state and its political
subdivisions will not circumvent the intention of the first sentence by creating
“civil unions” or some other relationship that imitates marriage in all but
name.
That’s
all. That’s common sense.
And history proves that’s absolutely necessary for the
preservation of our society.
|
