Issue 1 is not worthy of being part of Ohio Constitution

The beauty and genius of the U.S. Constitution is that it was written to protect the basic rights of individuals to live their lives with dignity and respect, free from the tyranny of government or oppression from the majority.
The Ohio Constitution was grounded on the same solid base. Though over the years amendments have added to its bulk, making it a more unwieldy document than the U.S. Constitution, on the whole it remains true to its original intent.
There is now an effort to turn the Ohio Constitution on its head, to use the Constitution not to protect the rights of a minority, but to inscribe in the state's pre-eminent legal document the concept that some people are less worthy or respect and equal protection under the law than others.
This effort will appear on the ballot Tuesday as Issue 1, and it should be soundly defeated by Ohio voters.
Defining marriage
Issue 1 is commonly referred to as the marriage amendment or defense of marriage amendment. It states that "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivision shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
It is aimed, as are similar issues in 16 other states this election season, at denying homosexual couples the right to marry, or to enter into any legal contract that approximates marriage.
It is not the first sentence of the amendment, but the second, that has caused even conservative politicians to join the effort to defeat Issue 1.
At a time when Ohio is attempting to attract biotechnical and high-tech jobs to the state, this amendment would erect a huge Keep Out sign for any company that values diversity or provides employee benefits to anything but traditional married couples. It would hamper state government and state universities from recruiting the best and the brightest to the state regardless of how they live their personal lives.
The wording of this amendment is so broad that it has even gotten the attention of the AARP, which says it could be used to discriminate against senior citizens who are living together without being married.
On this page yesterday we ran a letter from Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of the Youngstown Catholic Diocese in support of the amendment. The letter stated, "As designed by God, marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman." That is a belief to which the Catholic Church or any other church is entitled. It is not a belief that is universally accepted by other churches or faiths. As such, inscribing that belief in the Ohio Constitution is inappropriate.
A changing society
We recognize that the question of same sex unions is a complicated on, one that our society has only recently begun to acknowledge publicly.
People are still sorting out how they feel about the rights of homosexuals as individuals and as couples. Our society is a work in progress, and that is exactly why this amendment should fail.
A narrow concept of what is appropriate behavior by individuals or what relationships the state's courts or individual employers chose to recognize should not be inscribed in the constitution.
The Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage says the issue "restricts governmental bodies in Ohio from using your tax dollars to give official status, recognition and benefits to homosexual and other deviant relationships that seek to imitate marriage."
The opponents, Ohioans Protecting the Constitution, point out that the issue would affect senior citizens living together to protect pension benefits, unmarried couples seeking to jointly own property, people who receive health benefits from domestic partner plans, unmarried women seeking maternity leave and the adopted children of unmarried couples.
Regardless of the intentions of its sponsors, Issue 1 would represent bad law and bad policy. Ohioans should feel confident that they are doing the right thing when they vote no on Issue 1.