I just read Carla Napolitano’s article on Monday (“Issue 1 continues to divide Ohio voters”) and I have to say that it left a lot of the argument out. At its heart Issue 1 may be about gay marriage and stupid attempts to define marriage between a man and a woman, but if it passes the issue will have consequences reaching far beyond gay marriage.
Where is the analysis of the second sentence? It is written so broadly that it is bound to have an effect on opposite-sex couples that live together but are not married. If voters are actually going to make an informed decision in the voting booth, they need to hear all of the consequences of a particular issue. The story should have dug a little deeper and covered all of the problems associated with Issue 1.
Todd LaPlaceClass of 2004
