Ohio governor poised to sign "super DOMA"

Taft received more than 10,500 letters, phone calls, e-mails, and faxes from opponents and supporters of the bill. Slightly more opponents, about 5,300, contacted his office. Karen Holbrook, president of Ohio State University, was one of the opponents, writing Taft on Monday to question his support for the bill. She said it could hurt the university's ability to attract and keep employees. "We will lose some of our best and brightest" employees if the bill is enacted, her letter said. Seitz said the bill protects current benefits, such as the ability to challenge a will, provided for spouses only. Rep. Michael Skindell, a Lakewood Democrat opposing the bill, argues the legislation does nothing to protect marriage, which he said more often fall apart because of poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, and unwanted pregnancies. "Marriages fall apart on account of our disrespect of the institution as reflected in the TV reality shows such as Who Wants to Marry My Dad? and permitting an Elvis impersonator to preside over a marriage between two individuals who met the previous evening," Skindell said. The bill "is a message of discrimination against gays and lesbians that is unacceptable and should not be officially sanctioned," he said.

Seitz responded that the law won't remove any existing benefits that same-sex or domestic partners currently have. It also won't stop unionized state employees from negotiating such benefits as part of a contract or prohibit nonunionized employees from receiving the benefits as a condition of being hired, he said. He used the example of a law that allows the paychecks of deceased lawmakers to be collected by their spouses. "We do not want people to come sliding in and redefine the word spouse in that statute to say, 'Well, it should be paid to the deceased member's dependent, live-in lover, same-sex partner, or other persons not a spouse," Seitz said.

The bill's "public policy" language is necessary because of a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that requires states to recognize marriages from other states in most circumstances. The bans have taken on new importance for opponents of gay marriage following the Massachusetts supreme judicial court November ruling that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Seitz said he doesn't want people using Ohio laws governing benefits for spouses "in ways that would redefine spouse beyond the traditional, conventional definition."

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11203&sd=02/04/04