Ohio Issue 1, Definition of Marriage Initiative (2004)

Voting on Marriage and Family Ballot Measures By state By year Not on ballot Ohio Constitution Preamble Articles I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII • XVIII • XIX • Schedule

The Ohio Definition of Marriage Amendment, also known as Amendment 1, was on the November 2, 2004 ballot in Ohio as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure mandated that only a marriage between one man and one woman may be valid in or recognized by the state.

Aftermath

U.S. Supreme Court

See also: Obergefell v. Hodges

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. The ruling overturned bans on same-sex marriage.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each authored a dissent.

Election results

Ohio Amendment 1 (2004)
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		3,329,335	61.71%
No		2,065,462	38.29%

Election results via: Ohio Secretary of State

Text of measure

See also: Ohio Constitution, Article XV, Section 11

The language appeared on the ballot as:

“

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (Proposed by Initiative Petition) Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio: That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows: Article XV Section 11. 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 subdivisions 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. A majority yes vote is necessary for passage Shall the proposed amendment be adopted?

”

Support

Arguments in favor

The following reasons were given in support of Amendment 1 by the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage:

“

Vote YES on Issue 1 to preserve in Ohio law the universal, historic institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and to protect marriage against those who would alter and undermine it. WHAT ISSUE 1 DOES: Issue 1 establishes in the Ohio Constitution the historic definition of marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Issue 1 excludes from the definition of marriage homosexual relationships and relationships of three or more persons. Issue 1 prohibits judges in Ohio from anti-democratic efforts to redefine marriage, such as was done by a bare majority of the judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which ordered that same-sex “marriage” be recognized in that state. Issue 1 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. WHAT ISSUE 1 DOES NOT DO: Issue 1 does not interfere in any way with the individual choices of citizens as to the private relationships they desire to enter and maintain. Issue 1 does not interfere in any way with government benefits granted to persons in non-marital homosexual relationships, so long as the government does not grant those benefits to such persons specifically for the reason that the relationship is one that seeks to imitate marriage. The wisdom of the ages tells us that marriage between one man and one woman is critical to the well being of our children and to the maintenance of the fundamental social institution of the family. Please vote to preserve marriage on November 2, 2004.

”

The official ballot book arguments in favor of Amendment 1 were signed by Reverend K.Z. Smith, Lori Viars, and Phil Burress.

Campaign contributions

Two committees supported the amendment, the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage and the Traditional Marriage Crusade. The first committee spent $1,194,808, while the latter spent less than $10,000.

The principal donors to the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage was a group called "Citizens for Community Values," which gave $1.182 million. The size of the next largest contribution was $2,000.

Opposition

Arguments against

The following reasons were given in opposition of Amendment 1 by Ohioans Protecting the Constitution:

“

It Hurts Families. If passed, Issue 1 will eliminate rights, benefits and protections for all unmarried couples in Ohio. Claims that it merely restates Ohio’s long-standing definition of marriage are untrue. Even Defense of Marriage Act author State Representative Bill Seitz said the amendment is poorly written and too ambiguous. Governor Taft and Attorney General Petro say it goes too far. While claiming to protect Ohio families, Issue 1 actually punishes: Seniors 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 Adopted children of unmarried couples If this amendment passes, even an unmarried person’s right to leave property to a partner could not be recognized by Ohio courts. Referring to leaders behind the amendment, The Canton Repository said... "They make no bones about wanting to make life as difficult as possible for all couples, gay or straight, who don’t toe their moral line." It Hurts Ohio’s Economy. Leading economic and legal experts agree that Issue 1 would have a negative impact on our struggling economy. The editorial page editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer stated in a recent editorial that this amendment would cost the state thousands of jobs, and help perpetuate Ohio’s "long and relentless dive to the bottom." Crain’s Cleveland Business summed up the economic impact by stating, "The ability to offer such benefits [domestic partner benefits] is a critical tool to many companies and universities in Ohio." The article concluded the editorial by saying... Regardless of your feelings about gay marriage, this amendment deserves to be defeated because it is anti-business and anticompetitive."

”

The ballot book arguments opposing Amendment 2 were written by Alan Melamed and Mary Jo Hudson.

Campaign contributions

The committee opposing the amendment was called Ohioans Protecting the Constitution, or Ohioans for Fairness. The largest donors to this committee, which spent $942,421 altogether, were:

• Human Rights Campaign, $384,145.
• David Maltz, $101,383.
• Bruce Bastian, $25,000.
• Nationwide Mutual Insurance, $20,000.
• Gerald Springer, $20,000.

Related measures

See also: History of same-sex marriage ballot measures

Between 1998 and 2012, voters in 30 states approved ballot measures that defined marriage as between one male and one female or otherwise prohibited same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated bans on same-sex marriage in the case Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

• 1998: Alaska
• 2000: Nebraska
• 2002: Nevada
• 2004: Arkansas
• 2004: Georgia
• 2004: Kentucky
• 2004: Louisiana
• 2004: Michigan
• 2004: Mississippi
• 2004: Missouri
• 2004: Montana
• 2004: North Dakota
• 2004: Ohio
• 2004: Oklahoma
• 2004: Oregon
• 2004: Utah
• 2005: Kansas
• 2005: Texas
• 2006: Alabama
• 2006: Colorado
• 2006: Idaho
• 2006: South Carolina
• 2006: South Dakota
• 2006: Tennessee
• 2006: Virginia
• 2006: Wisconsin
• 2008: Arizona
• 2008: California
• 2008: Florida
• 2012: North Carolina

See also

Suggest a link

• Ohio 2004 ballot measures
• 2004 ballot measures
• List of Ohio ballot measures
• History of Initiative & Referendum in Ohio

External links

• Ohio Secretary of State