By Amy McCullough
Enquirer Columbus Bureau

COLUMBUS - Gay-rights opponents want to amend the Ohio Constitution to ban same-sex marriages because they say a new state law prohibiting them might not be strong enough.

David R. Langdon, a Cincinnati attorney for the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, said Friday the group is preparing to put a constitutional amendment before voters in November.

"I do consider amending the constitution extreme, but we are forced to do that by a judicial branch that has gone completely haywire," Langdon said. "Amending the constitution would keep it in the hands of the people, where it belongs, and out of the hands of the tyrannical judiciary that we have today."

Ohio is one of 13 states considering amending their constitutions to ban same-sex marriages. Four states have already amended their constitutions and five more, including Kentucky, are putting the ban on the ballot this November. Congress is considering a federal constitutional amendment.

Ohio Gov. Bob Taft signed the Defense of Marriage Act on Feb. 6, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the state of Ohio. The bill came in response to a court decision in Massachusetts that forced legal recognition of gay marriages.

The proposed Ohio amendment says that only a union between a man and a woman can constitute a valid marriage. It also says the state shall not recognize a relationship of "unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Green Township,, the chief sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, said the wording should more directly oppose both same-sex marriages and civil unions.

"Why don't you just say what you mean?" he said.

Opponents of the constitutional amendment make the same arguments against it that they made against the state law banning same-sex marriage. They said the amendment is unnecessary and could hurt the state's ability to attract new businesses because Ohio will be seen as intolerant.

"It essentially stands as a symbol that could be harmful to institutions in Ohio to attract the best and the brightest to come to the state," said John Forren, a political science professor at Miami University. .

He and others also warned that the proposed amendment is so broad it could take away government aid to seniors who live together but don't marry because they don't want to lose Social Security benefits.

"What I find most frightening is that this legislation just doesn't stop with gays and lesbians. It will discriminate against straight people, too, because it doesn't recognize any relationship other than that between one man and one woman," said Kate Anderson, executive director of Stonewall in Columbus, a group that provides programs and services to gays and lesbians.

The timing of the proposed amendment also raises questions by some who say anti-gay activists have a hidden agenda meant to motivate conservative voters to turn out in November to vote for President Bush.

"It's an election year and a way for conservatives to energize their political base," Forren said. "The voters who feel very passionate about this are likely to show up in larger numbers as a result."

Phil Burress, chairman of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriages, said that contention is "absurd."

"We have no control over this timing. It could have happened last year or two years from now. Our primary objective is to protect the institution of marriage," he said.

The group, which represents about 50,000 people in Ohio, sent a petition with 218 signatures to Attorney Genetral Jim Petro's office early this week. Approval of the sample petition is the first of many hurdles the group must overcome to get the issue on the ballot.

If the signatures are verified, the group can start trying to get about 315,000 more registered Ohio voters to sign a petition by Aug. 4.

Burress said getting enough signatures won't be a problem. He said his group is only asking for the chance to let the people vote.

Email amccullough@enquirer.com