By Jim Siegel
Enquirer Columbus Bureau

AMENDMENT

Text of the amendment: "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." Rejected alternative: "To prohibit the state (the general assembly, state executive offices and departments, state universities and colleges, the state's courts, and all other state institutions) and its political subdivisions (counties, cities, villages, townships, school districts, and all special purpose districts) from creating or recognizing a legal status (rights, protections, benefits, duties or obligations) of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage; to provide that the state and its political subdivisions may only recognize as valid marriage a union between one man and one woman."

COLUMBUS - The Ohio Ballot Board on Tuesday rejected an attempt to alter ballot wording of a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

The board, led by Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, voted 5-0 to place the two-sentence amendment on the November ballot as written, over objections from opponents who said impact of the language is unclear.

"The language as it's proposed, at best, is so ambiguous and so unclear that proponents have offered four or five explanations of what it means," said Alan Melamed, chairman of Ohioans Protecting the Constitution.

"We have to put before the citizens of this state an amendment with language they can understand."

While the first sentence of the amendment is clear - that Ohio will recognize marriage only between a man and a woman - opponents have expressed concern about the second sentence.

It forbids a legal status for unmarried individuals "that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

Melamed argues that wording doesn't tell the public that the amendment would end domestic partner benefits offered by four state universities.

There also is dispute about whether it could affect private contracts between unmarried couples.

Blackwell said the board could accept an alternative only if it was condensed from the 55 words in the actual amendment.

Melamed submitted a 92-word, one-sentence alternative that specified which governmental entities could no longer recognize unmarried individuals. He said his proposal still didn't go far enough, but "at least puts it in a proper context."

But board member Sen. Jay Hottinger, R-Newark, said the opponent's language was more difficult to understand than the amendment.

"While I agree the initial ballot language that's before us could be more clearly written, unfortunately I don't think your ballot language does that," he said. "In fact, I think it becomes about as clear as mud."

An author of past defense-of-marriage acts, which do not allow the state to recognize gay marriages or civil unions, Hottinger has been one of the legislature's most outspoken opponents of gay marriage.

David Langdon, a Cincinnati-area lawyer who wrote the amendment and represents the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, said the board made the right decision.

"Voters will be presented with the exact language we seek to amend the constitution with, therefore no one can claim to be misled by that language," he said.

To get the issue on the ballot, the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage submitted 391,000 signatures to Blackwell's office on Aug. 3. If at least 323,000 are certified, and if those signatures withstand legal challenges from opponents, Ohio will be one of at least 10 states with gay marriage amendments on the November ballot.

E-mail jsiegel@enquirer.com