Press:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 17, 2004
MCCANN OPPOSES AMENDMENT
Brian McCann, candidate for state representative in the 22nd District,
joined the chorus of candidates and elected officials opposing Ohio's
proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, and challenged his opponent
to do the same. Issue 1 on the November 2nd ballot is a proposed
two-sentence amendment to the Ohio constitution that says: 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. “We can have
an honest debate about whether the first sentence is a good idea or
not,” McCann said. “We would have a prohibition against some
individuals' pursuit of happiness. But that is not what the Ohio
constitution is about. This will invite the courts into endless rounds
of litigation as well as have no constructive dialogue about civil
rights. Whether one agrees with the first sentence or not, the second
sentence will destroy any hope that Ohio can attract quality employers
and workers to the state. This is bad for the economy, bad for Ohio
employees and bad for the reputation of tolerance that we should
nurture.”
The second sentence prohibits any action “that has the design,
qualities, significance or effect of marriage”. McCann said this could
be construed to mean that corporations may not offer benefits to
non-spouse partners, regardless of gender. “It also would prohibit
senior citizens from making any property or inheritance arrangements.
So, if grandparents had chosen to live together in order to be eligible
for benefits, they could be classified as a gay marriage. Major
corporations and institutions like Proctor and Gamble, and the Ohio
State University would be prohibited from extending benefits.”
On the matter of one-party rule, McCann said, “this is another way for
the ruling party in Ohio to exclude people from insurance coverage
instead of broadening coverage to Ohioans.”
While constitutional amendments, especially on the federal level,
usually are designed to expand the rights of citizens, this one is
designed specifically to deny rights to some citizens, McCann said. He
challenged the incumbent, state Rep. Jim Hughes, to oppose Issue 1.
“I ask my opponent to join with me in standing against an amendment that
uses Ohio's constitution to deny rights to - and discriminate against -
some Ohioans, and opens the door to court challenges of a vague and
sweeping ban,” McCann said.
