The Ohio Senate will probably approve House Bill 234 – a bill to prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex unions – which should not come as a surprise to anyone who has lived in the Midwest for any amount of time. We’re conservative out here in America’s heartland. Some might even call us downright simple-minded. We don’t like to muck up the waters with a lot of disruption and change.

It is because of Ohio, and states like it, that the federal government should legalize same-sex unions. And if the federal government won’t legalize them, then the U.S. Supreme Court needs to

I realize the likelihood of the federal government erasing inequities faced by the gays and lesbians – who make up anywhere from 10 to 25 percent of the national citizenry – is grim. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states to ignore same-sex unions if they want to, essentially.

The politicians in Washington, D.C., and Ohio alike are hung up on little things like popularity ratings, and a lot of those hang-ups stem from a misconception of what a same-sex union is. A same-sex union is not the same thing as a same-sex marriage.

A marriage implies a religious and civic bond between a man and a woman. Most gays and lesbians would agree a marriage is not what they are seeking. They do not wish to mimic a heterosexual couple’s union. They only want to be recognized as a couple who is committed to each other, receiving the same benefits as that of a married couple.

Leave the religion out of it. What they need is equality.

Vermont and Hawaii recognize same-sex unions. There are states which have passed legislation (Georgia has and Ohio is about to) which bars the state from recognizing these civil unions. The legitimate civil union a same-sex couple has in Vermont or Hawaii becomes null and void the minute they cross state lines.

Gay couples should not be forced to flock to and unionize and reside in Vermont and Hawaii to receive equal benefits and tax breaks. That’s discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled whether marriage falls under the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which provides that states must recognize and uphold laws on the books in the other states. They haven’t had to rule on it simply because people do not care. The marriage of a heterosexual couple in Vermont and Hawaii is fully recognized in Ohio and every other state in the union, without needing to call upon the Full Faith and Credit Clause because no one finds the marriage of a man and a woman controversial.

If the Supreme Court did apply the Full Faith and Credit Clause to marriages and unions, it would make DOMA unconstitutional. It would also make HB 234 unconstitutional, should it pass.

HB 234 should not be passed on the grounds that it is discriminatory. Aside from this, it puts Ohio at a disadvantage economically. The bill, if approved, would prohibit state agencies and institutions, like Ohio State, from providing domestic partner benefits. This detracts people – talented, smart people – from working in Ohio, a point consistently made by OSU president William “Brit” Kirwan. I agree with him when he says the approving of HB 234 is not a smart move.

Monica Torline is a senior in journalism and a campus editor at The Lantern. She can be reached for comment at [email protected].