Ohio Republicans split the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment into two separate ballot issues.
One issue addresses overturning Ohio’s same-sex marriage ban, while the other expands anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
This move requires proponents to collect double the signatures or sue the Ohio Ballot Board.
Ohio Republicans added another hurdle for proponents of a measure to overturn Ohio’s dormant ban on same-sex marriage and expand anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ residents.
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.”
What is the Ohio Equal Rights Amendment?
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.
What are the arguments for and against this measure?
“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.
What happens next?
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.
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.
I have long liked this young YouTuber. I started following him when he was more into debunking stuff while also producing atheist content. I felt he understood what a lot of people were going through in that he was trying hard to hide being an atheist from his parents and family which gave him an idea what many in the LGBTQ+ community were going through with their families. He himself noted that similarity. One of the things I like about him is his calm quiet fact filled delivery. If others have not noticed I don’t like aggressive angry yelling videos, they are too close to what I grew up with and suffered in my childhood. Drew is not a fervent anti-Christian like so many atheists are. Instead he simply is against the bad stuff some people do in the name of religion / Christianity. I like that. At the end of this video he again says if you are getting something good from your faith, don’t leave it, just change it to make it better. I agree. He explains how Christianity was abused by corporations and wealthy people to get people to do things against their own interest they otherwise wouldn’t do. In the name of god work more at a lower cost to make money for your employer type stuff. Hugs
Tomorrow, we’re celebrating the anniversary of our independence from a monarchy. Yet, the guy in the White House envisions himself as a monarch.
He wants to ban protests, which is a First Amendment right. He didn’t send the military to California to stop riots. He sent them to stop the protests. Ice has arrested legal residents, without charges, but citing their protests. The regime is bullying colleges to stop protests against the war in Gaza. This is not freedom. This is not independence.
Trump asked the courts for immunity from criminal charges. Every court said no until it got to the Supreme Court. One man has been ruled to be above the rest of us, and he has immunity.
The Supreme Court allowed Trump to stay on the ballots despite his waging war against this nation.
Trump waged war against this nation to remain in office. He led a white nationalist coup attempt against our country. He attacked Congress to prevent it from doing its constitutional duty of certifying the 2020 election.
Now, Congress is in Trump’s pocket and failing to work as one of the three branches.
The Supreme Court has now ruled that lower courts shouldn’t make rulings against Trump that apply nationally.
The Supreme Court failed to address Birthright Citizenship, allowing Trump to violate a Constitutional amendment. Until SCOTUS acts on this, Trump will go unchallenged.
He is building concentration camps.
He’s ordering the Department of Defense to go after his enemies.
He’s violating the Emoluments Clause, using the White House to enrich himself.
He’s talking about running for a third term, but this would just be another violation of the Constitution. If he’s talking about running for a third term, then he will be running for a third term.
Trump will not allow another election to be fair.
He’s attacking the media, and soon, the only media that will be allowed to continue to exist will be Trump media.
I left a lot out, so go ahead and fill in the blanks in the comments.
(snip-MORE)
In 1776 we rejected a monarchy by Ann Telnaes
You can thank the oath breaking Republicans for where we are Read on Substack
July 2, 1776 New Jersey became the first British colony in America to grant partial women’s suffrage. The new constitution (temporary if there were a reconciliation with Great Britain) granted the vote to all those “of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money,” including non-whites and widows; married women were not able to own property under common law.
July 2, 1777 Vermont became the first of the United States to abolish slavery.
July 2, 1809 Alarmed by the growing encroachment of whites squatting on Native American lands, the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh called on all Indians to unite and resist. By 1810, he had organized the Ohio Valley Confederacy, which united Indians from the Shawnee, Potawatomi, Kickapoo, Winnebago, Menominee, Ottawa, and Wyandotte nations. For several years, Tecumseh’s Indian Confederacy successfully delayed further white settlement in the region. Chief Tecumseh Tecumseh’s efforts
July 2, 1839 Slave ship Early in the morning, captive Africans on the Cuban slave ship Amistad, led by Joseph Cinquè (a Mende from what is now Sierra Leone), mutinied against their captors, killing the captain and the cook, and seized control of the schooner. Jose Ruiz, a Spaniard and planter from Puerto Principe, Cuba, had bought the 49 adult males on the ship, paying $450 each, as slaves for his sugar plantation. More about Amistad Joseph Cinquè
July 2, 1964 Jobs and Freedom march April 28, 1963, Washington DC U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, thus barring discrimination in public accommodations (restaurants, stores, theatres, etc.), employment, and voting. The law had survived an 83-day filibuster in the U.S. Senate by 21 members from southern states. “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come,” said President Johnson to his press secretary, Bill Moyers later that day. He anticipated a shift in white southern voting from the Democratic to the Republican party in response to the law. Massive demonstrations a year earlier ensured passage of the Act.
July 2, 1992 President George H.W. Bush (the elder) announced that the United States had completed the worldwide withdrawals of all its ground- and sea-launched tactical nuclear weapons [see September 27, 1991].
Yes, this passed in the Senate, thanks to the VP’s tiebreaking vote. However, it’s still got rows to hoe in the US House; Spkr. Johnson wants to vote tomorrow. The thing to remember about our US Reps is, they’re up for election each 2 years. So, while firmly directing them in dealing with this dreadful bill, also firmly yet lovingly remind them that the OBBB will be hanging around their necks every step of the way of their campaigns like a bubblegum machine golden giant dollar sign necklace, if they vote in favor.
(Actually, if you didn’t when you contacted your Senators last week, you can still remind them of the same thing, unless they voted against, in which case, Thank Them. It took bravery to vote against, and they need to know we have their backs. And thank you very much. Now call.)
I cannot add up the number of times I’ve been told by good, liberal Dems that these issues won’t float. And that was back in the 1980s and 90s, not to mention the 2000s. Anyway, take a look!
Mamdani And The Left Are Moving The Window – Good by Oliver Willis
What if everything you believed since you have been politically awake is wrong? It isn’t that you have bad intentions or you’re fundamentally stupid, but what if instead you believed for so long that the existing menu of political options was one group of beliefs but in reality, that was a really limited menu that excluded some really tasty items you never considered before?
When a rising progressive figure like Zohran Mamdani makes bold statements about what he wants to achieve, it can make regular old mainstream Democrats/liberals like myself wince. Government supermarkets? We shouldn’t have billionaires? Immediately that kicks in concerns about how Democrats are perceived. It isn’t just Mamdani. Ideas like defunding the police, universal basic income, free health care, etc.? Sure, we say, they may sound good on paper – but they also sound like left wing fantasyland, they’re just not “practical.”
And maybe they are impractical, unworkable, and election losers. But – what if not? We should at least have the conversation, I think.
Because for decades now American political discourse has been operating within the parameters set by the right wing, not the left. Since 1980 we have had 20 years of Democratic presidents and while I think they did a decent job of domestic politics between the three of them (Clinton, Obama, and Biden), much of what they did was within the narrow paradigm of what was acceptable behavior.
Clinton frequently talked about cutting the size of the government, Obama spoke about lowering the deficit, and Biden also used the language of “fiscal responsibility” as the right envisions it. All three men accepted the existence of billionaires and even pushed policies that would theoretically create even more of them. None of them would argue that the police needed to be defunded, and in fact they all oversaw federal spending that sent billions to police departments.
I was among the millions who supported these three presidents, along with other Democrats who ran for office with a similar world view both at the presidential and congressional level to varying degrees of success.
But these people have all been operating within the right’s paradigms. Collectively we never openly debated how we could have it all wrong. Maybe the prison system should be abolished? Maybe billionaires should be taxed out of existence?
Even if we don’t ultimately reach those conclusions, these are debates worth having.
Because while we have been limiting ourselves, the right hasn’t. Since Barry Goldwater in 1964, the right has been shifting the Overton Window – what is considered acceptable public discourse – steadily to the right. We have gone from Republicans like Nixon creating agencies like the EPA to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush cutting funding for vital agencies to Donald Trump trying to completely destroy agencies like the Department of Education.
Things that Trump treats as uncontroversially right-wing today would have been laughed out of the room as the ravings of lunatics in 1958. The right has mounted serial challenges to what was the liberal orthodoxy (not on every issue but most issues) in the 1960s and they have molded public perception of what acceptable dialogue is.
We are worse off for this. One can praise what Democratic leaders have accomplished in a progressive manner (health care, infrastructure, overall policy) and still admit that the thinking has been severely limited and inhibiting.
Voters are making this clear to the party. They keep showing in multiple federal and state elections that they are unhappy with the status quo and in some instances, like with Trump, they are far too eager to flirt with fascism versus maintaining the system as-is.
Think about the world that millennials and Gen-Z have lived in for their entire lives. Not only has it been shaped by Reaganism and Trumpism, but it has also been peppered with Democratic leaders like Obama, Clinton, and Biden who didn’t fundamentally challenge the bedrock of what the right laid but instead focused on (well needed) nibbling at the edges.
It has been a very long time, probably not since the Great Depression, where Democrats articulated the notion that something beyond the acceptable was possible. When Franklin D. Roosevelt first took office, the consensus was that bad stuff just had to happen and that the government had to lie back, helpless. Herbert Hoover couldn’t truly conceive of a universe where the government swooped in and actively combated the forces making things worse for ordinary Americans. Roosevelt shifted the window and set up the infrastructure of the safety net that still exists today (for now). (snip-MORE, + Kal El photo. Click through!)
Also, to commemorate the final day of PRIDE month 2025, here’s an historic dance music video to celebrate. No matter what, we should never not dance again! 🎶 🌈 🎶 🫶
June 30, 1966 The first GIs—known as the Fort Hood Three, U.S. Army Privates James Johnson, Dennis Mora and David Samas—refused to be sent to Vietnam. All were members of the 142nd Signal Battalion, 2nd Armored Division stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. The three were from working-class families, and had denounced the war as “immoral, illegal and unjust.” They were arrested, court-martialed and imprisoned. The Pentagon reported 503,926 “incidents of desertion” between 1966 and 1971. 1961-1973: GI resistance in the Vietnam War View their pamphlet Ballad of The Fort Hood Three Pete Seeger
June 30, 1971 The 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, lowering the minimum voting age to 18 in all elections, was ratified after ¾ of the 50 state legislatures had agreed to it, a mere 100 days after its passage by Congress.
June 30, 1974 The Selective Service law, authorizing the draft, expired, marking the official end of conscription in the U.S. and the beginning of the all-volunteer armed forces.
June 30, 2005 Spain legalized same-sex marriage by a vote of 187-147 in parliament. Such couples were also granted the right to adopt and receive inheritances. Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero spoke in support of the bill, “We are expanding the opportunities for happiness of our neighbors, our colleagues, our friends and our relatives. At the same time, we are building a more decent society. Read more
It happened just a few weeks ago: Jim Obergefell was moving things in his office when he came across the ashes of his late husband, John Arthur, now 12 years gone. Arthur had last wishes for his ashes. Obergefell had yet to fulfill them.
“And it struck me that, oh, I am actually now mentally, emotionally ready to take care of John’s ashes,” Obergefell told The 19th. “It was the first time that I had that feeling so clearly and so strongly.”
Obergefell, 58, is ready to move on. Not exactly from the love of his life or the history-making Supreme Court decision that came after Arthur died. But certainly from the insecurities straight America was grappling with a decade ago about same-sex unions.
Obergefell is that Obergefell: the named plaintiff in the landmark lawsuit that extended marriage equality to every state in the nation in 2015. Ten years later, he celebrates that win and the many ways it rewrote his life. And in a time when LGBTQ+ rights are again under assault, he is looking to the future — of the queer rights movement and also his own.
A journey to the Supreme Court
Obergefell’s journey to the Supreme Court was hardly destined. It began 12 years ago, on June 26, 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that prohibited the government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
Obergefell and Arthur had been together for 21 years at the time. The two had discussed getting married before. But they wanted it to be legal, and their home state of Ohio didn’t offer same-sex marriages.
Arthur was gravely ill with ALS, a progressive neurodegenerative disease, and he barely left his home hospice bed.
After the ruling, Obergefell leaned over to Arthur, hugged, then kissed him.
“Let’s get married,” he said.
Arthur agreed.
The logistics were not easy. Arthur was in no shape to travel, and the couple could not wed in Ohio. Obergefell researched and found that Maryland would let him get a marriage license even with only one of them present. But both would need to arrive in the state for the ceremony.
When friends and family learned about their predicament, they pooled together money to charter a medical jet for Arthur. The two flew to Baltimore. Over the course of 45 minutes, they exchanged vows on the tarmac before flying home.
“In the days that followed, we said the word ‘husband’ hundreds of times a day,” Obergefell said on the Decidedly Podcast in 2023.
But just five days later, their joy was muted when civil rights attorney Al Gerhardstein informed them that because of Ohio’s ban on same-sex marriage, Arthur would be listed as single in death.
Arthur and Obergefell were angry. The couple sued the state of Ohio in federal district court and won. Three months later, Arthur died.
The following year, Obergefell, still in mourning, lost on appeal. But he refused to believe he might lose altogether.
“I just kept going,” Obergefell said. “It was the right thing to do.”
On June 26, 2015, he won. For the country, the win was immensely practical. Many told Obergefell it gave them so much hope it saved their lives. For Obergefell, it meant a legacy for the man he loved.
“I made promises to John to love, honor and protect him, and I was going to keep doing that,” he said.
In the decade since Jim Obergefell won his Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage federally legal, hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples have married in the U.S. (Eric Gay/AP Photo)
Changing history
It’s difficult to overstate the impact of Obergefell’s case on the nation or the world. Since the 2015 ruling, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates, 591,000 queer couples have wed, generating an estimated $5.9 billion in wedding spending for state and local economies.
It has also radically transformed Obergefell’s life. Introverted and unassuming, he has spent the last decade campaigning for LGBTQ+ rights. He helms Equality Vines, a wine company that donates its proceeds to advancing civil rights causes.
It’s a position that makes him deeply proud if not a little fatigued.
“I’m not tired of talking about it,” he said of the 10-year anniversary of the ruling. “I’m just physically tired from all of the interviews and the photographers and the speaking gigs and the events. Yes, I’m exhausted.”
For 12 years, Obergefell has kept Arthur alive through retelling their story countless times in courtrooms and for the media. That exercise, of telling and retelling, helped Obergefell process his profound loss.
But he has never recoupled. It wasn’t that Arthur didn’t want him to. In fact, Arthur told him regularly that he wanted him to find love again. He asked his friends and family to tell Obergefell that he wanted him to find love after he was gone.
“I know it was sincere, because he told me that he had other people tell me that,” Obergefell said.
It isn’t about the pressure he feels as the face of marriage equality, he said, though part of him wonders what it would be like to date after making history.
“I don’t know how to date,” he confessed. “I’m clueless when people flirt with me, and as much as I hate it, and I don’t go into any conversation or anything like this, but you know, there’s that part of me that sometimes wonders, you know, are they interested in me as a person, or are they interested in me as Jim Obergefell, named plaintiff?”
Obergefell’s name has become synonymous with marriage equality in the United States, an issue that has not always united the LGBTQ+ community. Some queer activists have argued that same-sex marriage was a misguided goal for the movement as queer youth continue to face high rates of homelessness and transgender people grapple with police violence and incarceration, among other issues.
More work to do
Obergefell, too, is worried that the needs of the community’s most vulnerable have gone unmet. He has watched horror-struck over the last five years as state legislatures have moved to restrict transgender rights.
“We need to fight for every marginalized community, because the queer community includes every marginalized community, and equality for one is pointless without equality for all,” he said. “I didn’t go to the Supreme Court just so White, cisgender, gay men like me could get married.”
Despite all of the setbacks in LGBTQ+ rights, and even threats to Obergefell’s game-changing victory, he is hopeful — and feels stronger than ever. People assume his case was difficult for him. It was, but the path was also obvious, to him and to Arthur. They loved each other.
“If we weren’t willing to fight for each other and for what was right, then what’s the point?”
Jessie Balmert
Cincinnati Enquirer
Scottie's Playtime 