A 30,000-member gay rights group won't support a current ballot initiative aimed at overturning Ohio's ban on same-sex marriages.
Equality Ohio's executive director Ed Mullen tell The Columbus Dispatch he's concerned there may be problems with the language proposed by backers of the constitutional amendment and that more analysis is needed.
Ian James of the Ohio Freedom to Marry coalition that's proposed the amendment says the initiative will continue. He say the drive to overturn the ban needs to begin now.
The ballot issue would ask voters to repeal a 2004 amendment that says Ohio recognizes only a marriage between a man and a woman. Supporters must collect about 385,000 valid voter signatures for the issue to appear on the ballot.
4 Comments
And why do you suppose they won't support it? Because thinking that conservative-leaning voters in a state like Ohio will vote to legalize gay marriage is totally fatuous.
So, it sounds like it's not actually a ban on SSM, so much as an affirmation that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman (their sexual orientation being a legal non-issue, of course).
"he's concerned there may be problems with the language proposed by backers of the constitutional amendment and that more analysis is needed."
Right. He wants to make sure that the language used is ambiguous and confusing enough to those who want to protect marriage.
If you just ask flat out whether people want to change the definition of marriage from a male-female union to the union of any combination of the sexes, to change "husband and wife" to "spouse and spouse," and to expressly separate marriage from procreation, the SSMers would have no chance. That's why they come up with misnomers like "marriage equality," and the oxymoron, "same-sex marriage"
ResistSSA wrote:
"Right. He wants to make sure that the language used is ambiguous and confusing enough to those who want to protect marriage."
You nailed it, Resist. Incidentally, the Ohio amendment passed with 62% of the vote. I doubt the opposition has confused enough voters to overturn it.