A Western PA newspaper has done a real service by doing an
in-depth report on the legal mess created by the "marriage amendment" that was added to Ohio's constitution in 2004. The wording is so sweeping that it even blocks prosecution of domestic violence that involves unmarried couples --
straight as well as gay.
By the way, the federal constitutional amendment that the U.S. Senate is supposed to vote on the week of June 5 -- it would probably do the same thing -- its wording is equally sweeping. More on the flip...
As the
Beaver County (PA) Times reports:
<<Much like Pennsylvania's proposed (amendment), Ohio's amendment - Issue 1 - was sold overwhelmingly to voters as pertaining only to same-sex marriage. As Ohio has quickly learned, however, bans that are meant for limiting one specific act can have spillover effects that reach far beyond the intended target. </p>
Ohio's ban went on to forbid government bodies from recognizing the legal status of any unmarried couples living together, which has caused a sticky quagmire for judges trying domestic abuse cases.>>
Amendments this sweeping have already affected or are also likely to affect domestic-partner benefits, inheritance rights and medical-decision-making rights -- and this applies equally for straight unmarried couples, including many seniors who can't remarry without losing Social Security or pension benefits. And of course they ban the possibility of civil unions.
(Back to the medical-decision-making rights for a moment: If you liked the ugly Terri Schiavo battle, these amendments will mean even more like it.)
And if you live in a liberal state, you should still be concerned about the Frist-Santorum "Marriage Protection Amendment" (S.J.Res.1)-- the key wording is "the legal incidents thereof":
<<Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.>>
By the way, if you've heard the meme that the Ohio amendment and others like it gave Bush the winning edge in 2004, that ain't so, according to MIT social scientists who did a detailed analysis last year. It's in plain English, short, and well worth a read. (Their conclusion on what did help Bush in 2004? Scaring people about terrorism. This would be the same guy who is putting the UAE in charge of our ports!)
Last but not least, if you want to help defeat the proposed amendment in PA, check out www.capitalstonewall.org/amendnew.html or www.center4civilrights.org.
Citizen action is having an effect here in Santorum's "home" state -- since the PA House version was introduced, FOUR cosponsors have dropped off and only one has come on.
P.S. Please Recommend This Diary! :-)