Support 2004 Ohio House Bill 272 which
declares Marriage is between one man and one womanFrom Melanie Elsey of the Ohio Eagle Forum
Subject Legislative Alert Ohio's Defense of Marriage Act -- action needed
January 17, 2004
Legislative Alert Defense of Marriage Act
Ohio House Bill 272 [Defense of Marriage Act, a.k.a. DOMA] was approved by the Ohio House on December 10, 2003, with a vote of 73-23. It is currently on a fast track in the Ohio Senate and it is critical that Ohioans get involved to impact the outcome of this vote!
HB272 has been assigned to the Senate Finance Committee. There will be only one hearing, scheduled for this Tuesday, January 20, at 1 p.m.
The Finance Committee will receive testimony from the sponsor, proponents, opponents, and interested parties - all in one afternoon. The Finance Committee will reconvene Wednesday at 9 am and is expected to vote on this important legislation. If approved, a full Senate floor vote is expected the same afternoon.
Action
1. Please take the time to contact the members of the Senate Finance Committee PLUS your own state senator [for the floor vote]. In your own words, ask for their support of House Bill 272. A brief background on the issue and summary of the bill are included below for your review. If you are not sure who represents you, visit the following website or contact your county board of elections http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/index.html
REMEMBER Monday is a holiday and the state offices will be closed. You may want to call over the weekend and leave a voice mail message, before the voice mailboxes fill up on Monday! If the mailbox is full, try again on Tuesday morning.
2. Please try to attend the hearing! The homosexual lobbying groups are encouraging their activists to fill the hearing room. Legislators need to see a strong representation of citizens who support protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage!
[Tuesday, 1 pm Senate Finance Hearing Room, 1st floor, Senate Office Building]
Senate Finance & Financial Institutions Committee
Chairman Bill Harris (R) 614-466-8086
SD19@mailr.sen.state.oh.usVice-Chairman John Carey (R) 614-466-8156
sd17@mailr.sen.state.oh.usRon Amstutz (R) 614-466-7505
SD22@mailr.sen.state.oh.usJoy Padgett (R) 614-466-8076
Note: Senator Padgett was appointed this month to fill the seat vacated by Senator Carnes resignation. You may wish to congratulate her on her appointment. sd20@mailr.sen.state.oh.usSteve Austria (R) 614-466-3780
sd10@mailr.sen.state.oh.usLouis Blessing (R) 614-466-8068
lblessin@mailr.sen.state.oh.usRandy Gardner (R) 614-466-8060
ra_gard@mailr.sen.state.oh.usJay Hottinger (R) 614-466-5838
SD31@mailr.sen.state.oh.usSteve Stivers (R) 614-466-5981
Note Senator Stivers has been quoted in the media as being uncomfortable with the bill. sd16@mailr.sen.state.oh.usEric Fingerhut (D) 614-466-4583
senatorfingerhut@hotmail.comMark Mallory (D) 614-466-5980
SenatorMallory@maild.sen.state.oh.usRay Miller (D) 614-466-5131
rmiller@maild.sen.state.oh.usC.J. Prentiss (D) 614-466-4857
gboas@maild.sen.state.oh.usNote: Senators Wachtmann, Jordan, Carey*, Mumper, Amstutz*, Hottinger* co-sponsored SB65, similar DOMA legislation that has been set aside to accommodate HB272.
*member of the Finance Committee
Background
The purpose of DOMA laws is to establish clear state policy to define marriage according to the common law definition [between one man and one woman]. 37 states have enacted DOMA laws and in 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act was codified into federal law.
On Nov. 18, 2003 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts stepped over the line of "separation of powers" and ordered the Massachusetts legislature to rewrite state law [within 180 days] to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.
[Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health]
Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall honestly stated, "Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries." She also stated, "WE CONSTRUE civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses to the exclusion of all others." In other words the Massachusetts legislature was trumped by the political views of the judiciary.
In his dissenting opinion, Massachusetts Associate Justice Francis Spina stated, "Courts have the authority to recognize rights that are supported by the Constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative process."
In his dissenting opinion, Massachusetts Associate Justice Robert Cordy stated, "In reaching this result the court has transmuted the 'right' to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself." He further argued against the majority's reasoning, "While the institution of marriage is deeply rooted in the history and traditions of our country and our State, the right to marry someone of the same sex is not."
Article IV, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Ohio must recognize legally binding marriages entered into in other state jurisdictions, unless there is a conflict with the strong public policy of our state.
Current Ohio law and HB 272
Ohio Revised Code 3101.01(A) states, "Male persons of the age of eighteen years and female persons of the age of sixteen years...may be joined in marriage. It gives age restrictions, but technically doesn't state that they have to be joined to each other.
The Dayton Daily News article incorrectly stated that Ohio law already states that marriage is between one man and one woman. Current law does not use that language. It is the proposed change to this section which states, "A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman."
Key provisions of HB272
1. Establishes - as a clear and strong public policy - the definition of marriage as being entered into by one man and one woman.
2. Establishes - as a clear and strong public policy - any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state.
3. Establishes - as a clear and strong public policy - marriages between persons of the same sex entered into any other jurisdictions [e.g. Massachusetts] shall have no legal force or effect in this state.
4. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same or different sexes is void.
5. Clarifies that this law is not intended to prohibit private companies from making their own decision regarding the extension of benefits to homosexuals or other unmarried people.
Text of H.B. 272 http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=125_HB_272
As always, please remember to be courteous.
Respectfully submitted,
Melanie Elsey