Overturning gay marriage ban and adding LGBTQ protections just got harder. Find out why.
In a party-line vote, Ohio Ballot Board divided the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment into two issues: one to overturn a 2004 vote that defined marriage as between one man and one woman and another that would prohibit state and local government from discriminating against more than a dozen protected groups, including transgender Ohioans.
To make the ballot, proponents will either have to collect double the number of signatures to get both proposals approved or sue the Ohio Ballot Board to overturn its decision. Backers are eyeing the 2026 ballot at the earliest, said Lis Regula, a member of Ohio Equal Rights' leadership committee.
During the July 9 meeting, the ballot campaign's attorney Corey Colombo argued that the proposed constitutional amendment was one issue because it encompassed equal rights for all Ohioans.
But Republicans contended that transgender issues and marriage equality are two different things with two different levels of support from voters.
While Ohioans might support marriage between any two people in the Ohio Constitution, "they may not want to support creating 12 new protected classes under a bunch of different circumstances," said Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican who leads the Ohio Ballot Board.
Rep. Terrence Upchurch, D-Cleveland, said Republicans divided the measure because of politics. "It's one issue. It's cut and dry."
"There's definitely political will for using trans people to divide Ohioans," Regula said. "The hopeful side of me appreciates that they are recognizing the support for same-sex marriage. That's great. We've made progress. We still have progress to make."
If approved by voters, the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment would prohibit state and local government from discriminating based on: "race, color, creed or religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression regardless of sex assigned at birth, pregnancy status, genetic information, disease status, age, disability, recovery status, familial status, ancestry, national origin or military and veteran status."
The sweeping measure would expand the list of protected individuals far beyond the national Equal Rights Amendment, which aims to prohibit discrimination based on sex. Ohio ratified that amendment in 1974, but it has not been recognized as part of the U.S. Constitution because of missed deadlines and other disputes.
The proposal would also overturn a 2004 vote that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
This language has been dormant since a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision led by Ohioan Jim Obergefell legalized gay marriage in America. As of 2023, Ohio had 22,400 same-sex married couples, according to the most recent federal census data.
"Marriage equality has been going strong now for 10 years, and the sky hasn't fallen. Society hasn't collapsed," said Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood. "What happened is you have families who have standing, whose children can feel good and talk about their families just like every other kid at school, no matter what the configuration of their family is."
But proponents of marriage equality worry that the Obergefell decision could be overturned by an unfriendly U.S. Supreme Court. "I think it is reasonable to believe that it is under threat," said Regula, citing the language used in the decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment want to overturn Ohio laws that penalize people with HIV for donating blood or having sex without disclosing their HIV status. More recently, Republican lawmakers banned transgender students from using school bathrooms that match their gender identity and banned gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
"Those discriminatory laws make Ohio less of a welcoming place and make it a place where fewer people are interested in coming," Regula said.
Opponents say these are losing issues at the ballot box.
"To bring such an unpopular constitutional amendment like this forward is one, shockingly appalling, but also really dumb after Sherrod Brown just lost his Senate seat over these issues," said Aaron Baer, president of the Center for Christian Virtues.
Republicans crafted attack ads against Brown for voting against amendments that would have stripped funding from schools and colleges that allowed transgender girls to play in women's sports.
"I have a hard time seeing them get a lot of traction with this," Baer said. CCV was a driving force behind the 2004 constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage in Ohio.
The group looking to put the Ohio ERA before voters faces a tall task. If they want voters to approve both measures, they must collect an additional 1,000 valid signatures for each proposal, go before Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost for initial approval and return to the ballot board.
Then, proponents would have to collect at least 413,487 valid signatures, or 10% of votes cast in the most recent governor's race, for each measure or 826,974 in total. Those signatures must meet a minimum threshold in half of Ohio's 88 counties.
"While I applaud the spirit of the work that they are trying to do, I just think it's a real uphill battle that they're going to be faced with," said Antonio, the state's first and currently only openly gay lawmaker.
For more than a decade, Antonio has repeatedly introduced the Ohio Fairness Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The GOP-controlled Legislature has not moved forward on the fairness act.
More: After 775K gay marriages, Americans are still fighting for rights 10 years later
Antonio said a legislative fix is still the right path for protections against LGBTQ discrimination.
"I struggle with asking the majority of people, the majority of the population, to grant equality by a vote to a marginalized group," Antonio said. "I will continue to fight for the Ohio Fairness Act, because I think it's the right thing to do."
Reporter Laura A. Bischoff contributed to this article.
State government reporter Jessie Balmert can be reached at jbalmert@gannett.com or @jbalmert on X.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: GOP move to ax Ohio same-sex marriage ban, add LGBTQ protections
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Redistricting battles in Texas and elsewhere: Will courts play a role?: ANALYSIS
As Democrats search for ways to delay, if not defeat, Republican efforts to redraw election maps for political gain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they say, they may not find much help from federal courts. A landmark 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Rucho v. Common Cause -- removed federal judges almost entirely from the business of mediating disputes over partisan gerrymandering. "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling effectively shut the courthouse door on legal challenges to creatively-drawn electoral maps that dilute the influence of certain voters based on party affiliation. MORE: How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts concluded in the opinion. Race, however, is a different matter -- and one that the Supreme Court has recognized a limited role for judges in examining under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, which has historically been interpreted to include the drawing of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color in order to limit their influence. As recently as 2023, the high court said lower courts could intervene in "instances of intensive racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate." MORE: Abbott threatens to oust Democrats who fled Texas over redistricting Some Democrats have begun alleging that the Texas GOP effort (and those in other states) is racially motivated. "They're coming in and cracking up parts of Austin voters and then merging my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett's district, all with the intended effect of making it so that voters of color have less of a say in their elections, and so that Donald Trump gets his preferred member of Congress," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC's Selina Wang on Sunday. Former Obama attorney general turned voting rights advocate Eric Holder told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday he is contemplating the possibility of new litigation under the Voting Rights Act. "This really exacerbates that which they've already done and strengthens the case that we have brought," Holder said of Texas' Republicans' redistricting efforts. A race-based challenge to any new Texas congressional map would get through the courthouse door, but it could ultimately face a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly looked to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution. The justices are already considering a case from Louisiana involving the competing interests of the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act when it comes to race. Plaintiffs allege race was impermissibly used to create a discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents argue that requiring a creation of new map that explicitly accounts for race is itself a violation of colorblind equal protection. When the court hears arguments this fall, there are signs several of the justices could seek to have Section 2 strictly limited or struck down entirely. "For over three decades, I have called for a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in June. "I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore." Ultimately, despite widespread public complaints about gerrymandering and the challenges it creates, the most likely and lasting solution may lie in legislatures and Congress. "The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Rucho. Proposals for fair districting criteria and independent commissions have circulated in statehouses and Congress for years. On Monday, one Republican lawmaker — Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps nationwide. Such a proposal could halt the state redistricting "arms race" now underway if it was adopted, though that looks highly unlikely.
Fox News
23 minutes ago
- Fox News
Charlamagne responds to Trump's social media attack after Fox interview
"Breakfast Club" host Charlamagne tha God doubled down on his criticism of President Donald Trump's policies and second term record after Trump lashes out at radio host on social media.
New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
FEMA will deny funding grants to states and cities that boycott Israeli firms.
States and cities that boycott Israeli companies will be denied grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, according to grant notices posted by the agency in recent days. The new eligibility criteria could restrict access to at least $1.9 billion earmarked for search-and-rescue equipment, emergency manager salaries and backup power systems used during blackouts, Reuters reported. To be eligible for federal funds, the grant notices say that states and cities must follow the 'terms and conditions' set forth by the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of FEMA. Since April, D.H.S. has prohibited grantees from 'limiting commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies.' The policy underscores how the Trump administration has linked its stance on Israel to unrelated federal funding, including billions of dollars in research grants for colleges and universities. But the move to restrict FEMA grants may be largely symbolic, because no states — and only a handful of cities — have enacted laws or policies that prohibit state agencies from doing business with Israeli firms. Still, the policy could prevent wildfire response funding from flowing to cities like Richmond, Calif., where the city council voted last year to divest from companies doing business in Israel. It also comes as the Atlantic hurricane season heats up, with Tropical Storm Dexter forming in the western Atlantic late Sunday but not forecast to be a threat anywhere on the East Coast.
