In Ohio, where Gov. Bob Taft just signed what many regard as the most aggressive anti-gay marriage law in the nation, there's talk about rewriting the state constitution to defend the institution of heterosexual marriage from homosexuals who might try to use the courts to demand equal treatment
Defend us from hysteria
The war in Iraq is going badly. The economy is wobbly. The nation's retirement security system is even shakier. Despite these and other problems -- or perhaps because of them -- social conservatives are working overtime to make "The Defense of Marriage'' a dominant 2004 campaign issue.
Never mind that a 1996 federal law already defines marriage as being solely between one man and one woman, and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. President Bush, with plenty of Republican company, is pushing to have a gay marriage ban written into the U.S. Constitution.
The same thing is happening in many states in the wake of a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that gay couples there have a right to be legally married.
In Kentucky, a legislature that hasn't been able to fulfill its constitutional duty to craft an operating budget has seen fit to present voters with a constitutional amendment to do what state law already does, ban gay marriage.
Even in Ohio, where Gov. Bob Taft just signed what many regard as the most aggressive anti-gay marriage law in the nation, there's talk about rewriting the state constitution to defend the institution of heterosexual marriage from homosexuals who might try to use the courts to demand equal treatment.
At least in the statehouses and Congress the debate is being conducted by legislators who have standing to act.
That cannot be said of the Hamilton County commissioners, who were to vote today on a resolution encouraging Congress to pursue a constitutional ban against gay marriage. The resolution was sponsored by outgoing commissioner John Dowlin, a Republican heretofore known as a generally level-headed moderate, and endorsed by his fellow Republican commissioner, Phil Heimlich.
Dowlin and Heimlich know full well that local units of government have better things to do than advise Congress on how to do its job. In most instances, and we believe this is one of them, an advisory resolution about a national issue amounts to grandstanding.
To be sure, Dowlin told reporters he's concerned about the potential cost if the county were forced to extend health care coverage and other benefits to same-sex employee couples. But given Ohio's new law, that's a fig leaf. Besides, gay or not, we should treat employees the same -- a principle that many of the leading corporations in Greater Cincinnati have embraced (without discernable harm to their profitability).
Dowlin also says he's concerned about the potential cost of defending against lawsuits from same-sex couples demanding that their out-of-state marriages be recognized here. But it would take just one test case to decide that matter. And given the millions of dollars that Dowlin and his colleagues have spent on lawyers in the course of the Bengals stadium debacle, it's more than a little hypocritical for him now to start voicing fears about potential costs from such an obscure, theoretical litigation threat.
Our own hope is that Congress, and the states, will take a cautious approach to the question of writing such onerous restrictions into their constitutions. Beyond that, we trust that voters will see past the election-year hysteria over gay marriage -- and insist that their legislators focus on issues that really matter.
Publication Date: 05-26-2004
