Saturday, October 9, 2004

Wording of Ohio's gay-marriage ban called sweeping

By Jim Siegel
Enquirer Columbus Bureau

Election 2004 page
COLUMBUS - Ohio's proposed amendment banning gay marriage is a little broader in scope than most proposals in 12 other states, according to several legal experts.

"We're not alone in going this far," said Marc Spindelman, assistant law professor at the Ohio State University. "But I don't think that should be reassuring to anybody."

Three legal experts said the language of Issue 1 is broad and vague. And although the language refers only to "state and political subdivisions," they believe it could reach beyond a governmental impact.

"This has the potential to be extremely broad, but we don't know how it will be interpreted until it is challenged," said Mark Strasser, law professor at Capital University.

He and others noted some potential legal ramifications:

• Ending domestic partnership benefits offered by private companies. Attorney General Jim Petro believes that if Issue 1 passes, the threat of lawsuits could pressure companies into ending benefits for unmarried couples.

Spindelman also wonders if a company can offer domestic partner benefits if it is contracted by the state. "Can the state hire them without sanctioning that company's policy?"

Chris Bryant, associate law professor at the University of Cincinnati, called it a "gray area." He said the amendment also leaves the door open for the state to require that anyone doing business with Ohio not offer domestic partner benefits.

Strasser also noted that even if companies keep offering domestic partner benefits, courts cannot grant any legal status to anything that "approximates" marriage.

The benefits "might not be an enticing offer because they may not be enforceable in court," he said.

• Loss of certain rights for unmarried couples, such as property rights, power of attorney, hospital visitation and inheritance.

These have been a particular concerns raised by the AARP, and Bryant called them "very legitimate concerns."

"It's not clear, say, if power of attorney will be invalidated under this, but it seems to me to at least be plausible," he said. Questions over visitation rights could be raised, particularly in state-run hospitals, he said.

Not everyone agrees.

George Dent, law professor at Case Western Reserve University, doesn't see Ohio's proposal as going further than most other states, nor does he believe it will impact private businesses.

"If an employer wants to include same-sex benefits under its health plan, there's nothing here that stops it," he said.


County will wall off Powers' courtroom
Drug case proceeds; judge had testified
West Nile became man's Twilight Zone
Four arrested in teen's death

Bush, Kerry clash in heated rematch
In their own words
Clooney called '60s liberal
Senate races rake in bucks
Greenhills voters can beef up home fund
Partner benefits could be curtailed
Wording of Ohio's gay-marriage ban called sweeping
Same goals but different paths
Election board vote tied on registration residency

Withrow remembered
Cincinnati's 'brownouts' coming to an end Sunday
U.S. citizenship grows by 70
Drake Center flier called 'outrageous'
Findlay Market to be open Sundays in '05
Frailey may get 3.9% raise
Schools cope with crowds
Local news briefs
3 more Mason students charged in stolen gun
Bond $600K in Miami rape case
Neighborhood briefs
State sues over fitness funds
Big weekend may boost science museum
Public safety briefs
Eighth-graders in Madeira gather items for troops

CSO program luminous
Ballet opens exuberantly

Good Things Happening
It's Saturday evening, time to go to church

Bernard Roeckers, XU athlete

Police seek assailant in store robbery
Trial date reset in abuse suit against diocese
Track upgrade ahead of plan
Family battles Bellevue for a handicapped spot
Lawmakers examine two health options
Keeneland dares to mix history, hi tech
N. Ky. news briefs
Federal legislation would aid speedway
Covington man died before fire at his apartment