Have you ever flunked a test because you didn’t read the directions?

You feel like somebody really pulled one over on you. You realize you missed half the questions because you neglected to read some crucial instruction.

Doesn’t the professor know that nobody reads directions on a multiple choice test?

Your professors aren’t the only ones who can bank on your failure to read thoroughly. Politicians do it, too.

In Ohio, they plan to take full advantage of the general population’s unwillingness to read between the lines (or, in this case, to read at all) by trying to pass an amendment to the state constitution, better known for now as Issue 1.

When you ask the average Ohio voter what Issue 1 is, their first response is usually something like, “oh, that’s that gay marriage thing, right?”

Wrong.

Issue 1 is one of the shadiest propositions to amend our constitution in recent memory. The saddest part about it, though, is that a lot of you are going to end up voting in favor of it, just because you don’t know any better.

If you actually take the time to read what it proposes, you can see that Issue 1 has less to do with banning gay marriage and more to do with discriminating against all unmarried couples.

Issue 1 states: “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.”

The first sentence is straightforward. Ohio will only recognize a marriage as a legal one if it is between a male and a female. This is not a new idea though, because this definition of marriage is already protected throughout the state by the Defense of Marriage Act. Why do we need to pass this amendment if such a law already exists?

The second sentence is the clincher. Not only will Ohio refuse to recognize gay marriage, but in addition, it will deny an extensive list of other partnership rights to those couples.

Please understand — it is not just same-sex couples which will be affected if Issue 1 passes. All couples, gay or straight, which, for whatever reason, have not obtained marriage licenses, will be stripped of rights considered very basic for two adults in a committed relationship.

Issue 1 denies unmarried couples the right to own, inherit, or give property in Ohio. It allows employers to kick a person’s partner off of his or her health care plan and deny them other benefits. It can refuse maternity leave to either parent. It could also deny couples educational and retirement opportunities.

If Issue 1 passes, a gay couple will never have the opportunity to win those rights back, because they will never be allowed to do what is necessary to re-attain them, which is to marry. This is the obvious consequence.

What many don’t consider is that today’s straight couples are waiting longer than ever before to get married, and some are perfectly satisfied with never marrying at all. Should they too be deprived of their rights simply because they are not following tradition? Of course not.

It’s ridiculous that the bigger agenda of this amendment is to deny rights of a minority group than it is to protect the rights of the general population. Especially when it is so clear that this amendment will harm more than just that minority. Just another fine example of how prejudice and narrow-mindedness ultimately hurt everybody, not just the target of the discrimination.

Of course, some argue that Issue 1 is so poorly and broadly written that even if it does pass, Ohioans will disagree upon its intended meanings. This will inevitably lead to decades of dispute, court battles, and overall, a gigantic, complicated mess.

The people who drafted Issue 1 already know this, though. The aggravating part is that they are willing to try to pass it despite the problems they know it will cause.

Then again, the people who drafted Issue 1 also must also know how unfair it is to propose such separate and unequal treatment in the first place.

I’m confident that a day will come when we wonder why we worked so feverishly to make it difficult for people to want to love each other. In the meantime, though, we must combat ignorant proposals such as Issue 1. It’s disheartening, but it is the reality which we face.

So please be aware of the full ramifications of Issue 1 before you decide how to vote on it on November 2nd. Like those underemployed exam directions, it just may end up being something you wish you had paid closer attention to.

You can E-mail Megan at [email protected].