Marriage issue hurts state; ‘no’ on Ohio Issue 1

State Issue 1 will amend the state constitution to limit marriage between one man and one women, repeatingtwo laws already on the books in Ohio.

The backers of Issue 1 believe another law is needed to protect their definition of marriagefrom activist judges.

Their solution? Create a poorly writtenamendment that is absolutely sure to bring lawsuits and court action.

The problem comes fromthe second line of the amendment which goes far beyond the issue of marriage. In a code that only a lawyer might understand, the second line of the amendment outlaws recognition of any rights between unmarried couples, straight or gay.

At risk are an unmarried couples’ ability to jointly own, inherit, or give property; hospital visitation rights, family leave, maternity leave andeducational and retirement benefits. Even the ability for unmarried partners and their children to receive healthcare benefits. Gone would be domestic partnerships for both private and public institutionsincluding universities.

If this amendment were to pass,Ohio will be find it even harder to attractand retain businesses to our state.

That is why Republican and Democratic leaders, businesses and evenreligious communities and familiesare lining up against this issue. I urge all Ohioans to understand Issue 1 for what it really is, a divisive, uncompassionate act that is bad for Ohio families and bad for Ohio jobs and businesses.

Join me, Governor Taft, George Voinovich, Mayor Ford, the League of Women Voters, Ohioans Protecting the Constitution, National Organization of Women, and the American Association of Retired Persons who all recommend aNO vote on Issue 1.

KEN DYMOND

ALUMNUS

Draft talk only scares youths to vote Kerry

This letter is in response to a letter on Monday titled “Draft would include all, even rich citizens.”

First, I think it is ignorant to label everyone who serves in our armed services as poor and the only reason they joined is to receive money.

There are many jobs in this country in which people can work to receive money to use towards school or to make a living.

Whatever happened to doing a service for our country because you agree with the freedoms our country provides and want to protect those freedoms.?

In a recent survey by USA Today, four out of five service men and women in Iraq stated that they agree with the Iraq war and what our president is trying to accomplish.

Before you speak on behalf of the men and women fighting for our safety and freedoms, study the facts and don’t put words in their mouths.

Second, in response to the recent talk of a draft into our armed services, there is not one administration official or Republican figure that has come out and said that we will be forced to use a draft in the future.

In fact the only public figures to mention a military draft is the Kerry/Edwards campaign trying to scare the younger generation of voters, and a Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel who recently authored a bill that would reinstate the draft for military services, in which it received two votes in Congress, both by Democrats.

To get all the facts on the draft scare being pushed around, FactCheck.org made a special column with interviews and commentary, refuting that President Bush is trying to secretly push a draft through Congress.

I agree with the president that an army of volunteers who believe in what they are fighting for is a lot more effective then an army of drafted soldiers who don’t realize that it is necessary to stop evil before it reaches our shores.

MIKE GALLAGHER

STUDENT

Coverage of third party Libertarians helps democracy

I wanted to thank you for your recent coverage of Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik.

Where most other publications and broadcasts failed to reveal a real choice for the upcoming elections, you gave Michael Badnarik and the Libertarians satisfactory coverage.

I am pleased that your paper demonstrated the true meaning of free press, and unbiased coverage.

Placing Michael Badnarik on the front page with Kerry and Bush in this recent issue was a welcome change from being ignored that we typically encounter with other papers. It gives Michael the legitimacy that he certainly deserves, and provides a real service to the young voters, as they struggle to find their voice in a complicated world.

You have done a service to the democratic ideals that made this country great, and I hope that you will continue to cover the Libertarians in the future.

J. SCOTT LEWIS

GRADUATE ASSISTANT