Offered by Executive Director Lynne Bowman
June 14, 2006

Good afternoon. My name is Lynne Bowman and I am the Executive Director of Equality Ohio. Equality Ohio is Ohio’s statewide organization focusing on issues of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who live in or visit the Buckeye State. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon regarding the resolution being considered regarding the criteria used to select future sites of the convention. I’ve been asked to speak directly about how the implementation of Ohio’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality has impacted domestic partnership benefits in the state.

Before I do that, I want to thank the Episcopal Convention for your previous resolution in 1976 that “Homosexuals deserve Equal Protections” under the civil law, and even more recently, the 1994 resolution that called upon municipal councils, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protections such as: bereavement and family leave policies, health benefits, pension benefits, real-estate transfer tax benefits, and rights to the same kinds of mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples. It is the intersection of these two resolutions with the results of Ohio and other states’ marriage amendments that I believe should lead the committee to be very selective in determining where future conventions are held.

On November 3, 2004 – same sex couples across the state of Ohio had a lot to be upset about. Sixty-three percent of our neighbors, family members and coworkers had just told us that our relationships were not equal to theirs in love or importance, nor worthy of the same civil protections from our government. We were told that we were not welcome here in our home. The emotional impact of that in and of itself was devastating to many, many people. However, due to the way Ohio’s amendment was written, the additional concern about what implementation would look like was present as well. Imagine being told in one fell swoop that not only were you not welcome, but you also now needed to worry about whether you’d be able to continue to take care of your loved ones with your employment benefits, or if you’d be vulnerable should you become a victim of domestic violence. Though we were told the intent of the amendment was simply to protect marriage, it wasn’t long before we started to see both of these concerns materialize as reality. And although the results have been labeled “unintended” consequences by the supporters of the amendment, the press, and others, many people believe there was nothing “unintended” whatsoever.

In Ohio, there are currently multiple findings in court districts across the state that due to the constitutional amendment, unmarried couples who live together are no longer protected by the state’s Domestic Violence statute. The irony in all of this is that it has been opposite sex couples who have been involved in each of these cases.

In this state, government employers are challenged continuously since the implementation of Article 15, Section 11 on December 2nd, 2004 with whether or not they can continue to offer benefits that protect unmarried or same-sex couples. The most prominent of these is Miami University in southwest Ohio which is currently being sued by an Ohio legislator for violating the constitutional amendment by offering domestic partner benefits to their employees in same-sex relationships. There are more than 30 couples at Miami University who now sit and wonder about the stability of their ability to provide for their family. While the suit takes its long time wending its way through our courts to a final outcome… these families are left to wonder what tomorrow will look like for them. Families like Steve and Daniel, Jes and Lisa, Cindy and Gillian, Maria and Christina, Jean and her partner…and many more. Some of these folks together for upwards of 20 years…all of them just wanting to take care of their family, the way we each do.

If the church’s resolution from 1976 declaring homosexuals deserving of equal protections is to be upheld, I believe that the members of this body cannot condone this consequence, nor should they support it by continuing to invest money, significant money, in any state that implements a law which would have, whether intended or not, this type of consequence.

You’ll hear from others about the impact at other government employers. Just yesterday, I was in Cleveland and heard that the City of Cleveland is saying they cannot offer DP benefits to their city employees because of the marriage amendment. And then there’s the private company in the Dayton area supposedly that removed DP benefits from their employee contract stating that it was unconstitutional for them to be offered. These are just some of the examples that we’re aware of.

But really, this isn’t ultimately about domestic partnership benefits, or domestic violence legislation. It’s about a statement of worth to the citizens of Ohio, driven by people who are at their heart, completely the opposite of what this church’s 1976 resolution was all about. As a matter of fact, when told about the families, the real people, who were going to be impacted by his lawsuit, Representative Brinkman stated to the Dayton Daily news that “those who lose benefits should go get a job that gives them benefits. They don’t have a ball and chain around them.” This certainly shows a lack of compassion…and no recognition our shared humanity.

Even more recently than that, when a study was released showing Ohio as the worst state in the nation in terms of legislative equality for LGBT persons, the head of Citizens for Community Values, Phil Burress, the lead promoter of the marriage ban stated to the Agape Press that “They want to have all the things that the people and the governments and the laws have said that they can’t have. They feel like we’re intolerant. So I guess we should wear that as a badge of honor.”

Ladies and Gentlemen of the committee – this church body is not intolerant. This church body recognized in 1976 the worth of all people to equal protection, and in 1994 the necessity of all people to be offered common benefits. Choosing to hold a convention of the church body, one of the largest conventions in the nation, in any state that is clearly intolerant and whose citizens don’t affirm the value of all people that this church has affirmed over and over again seems to me to be a nullification of those previous resolutions.

Whether intended or not, the consequences felt by people in Ohio and other states in the nation where these most restrictive amendments have passed is real. I urge you to implement the first clearly intended consequence of this amendment and resolve not to hold future conventions in states that discriminate in the manner of Ohio.