1/30/2004

DOMA deserved more attention

I’m writing in response to two issues: First, the anti-gay bill which recently passed the State Senate. Secondly, the poor coverage of this issue by the Daily Kent Stater.

The coverage provided by the Stater was disappointing both in its lack of depth, but also in its lateness. This Ohio bill was passed by the Senate last week, and while time spent on a more in-depth article could have excused this, a superficial reaction piece does not.

Monday’s article featured a number of student reactions, without fully explaining what was being reacted to, or why this bill matters. The bill is described by the Stater as banning same-sex marriage, but marriage has been previously limited to different-sex couples under Ohio law. This bill would expressly "prohibit specific statutory benefits of marriage." This vague clause, which is the point of the bill and the most contentiously debated, could have the potential to prohibit everything from hospital visitation of same-sex partners, to Ohio universities offering competitive domestic partnership policies to desirable applicants. Four Republican senators voted against this bill precisely because the vague wording was indicative of a further anti-gay agenda. There, a reason that the LGBT community is upset by this bigoted proposal, and it makes no sense to report on Pride!Kent‚ president crying over the decision when the real hatred of this bill is not discussed. None of this information could be gleaned from the Stater coverage, which omits so much information it is best described as inaccurate, and not simply insufficient.

Similarly, the Stater does not go out of its way to seek the opinions of Klansmen or neo-Nazi groups when discussing civil rights issues pertinent to ethnic minority students. It is both offensive to the sexual minority community harmed by this bill as well as poor journalism to interview students on the religious motivations for their bigotry. This may have been a topic appropriate for a second article, or for another day, but when the Stater has already demonstrated an unwillingness to cover this topic, it is a further sleight against the gay and lesbian community.

While a response from a campus Republican was merited, students would have been better informed to read that the majority of Republicans in committee who voted for this bill did not stay to listen to citizen testimony on how this would affect individuals. This bill was prioritized and rushed through the Senate in order to limit debate, as well as to send a strong message of the antipathy and hostility Ohio conservatives feel toward sexual minorities. Republican senators have stated that this is only to protect the institution of marriage and will not lead to legal challenges on current rights, but Cincinnati attorney, David Langdon, has already filed suit against Cleveland Heights attacking their domestic partner registry program. The GOP is sending an overt message of prejudice in promoting this bill. Through inaccurate reporting, the Stater is sending a covert, but equally hateful message.

Emotional response pieces are fine, and are not intrinsically superficial. Insensitive treatment is avoidable, however. Same-sex couples in Ohio soon may lose the limited, hard-earned rights that have been won in terms of work benefits, hospital visitation and decision making for one another, or basic legal recognition. The first and only domestic partnership policy in the country to be won in an open community referendum is being legally challenged, as a result. Only ignorance or passive insensitivity on the part of the Stater staff can account for the mistaken belief that this human misery should be glossed over to give voice to the bigots that are working to make Ohio the most legislatively bigoted state in the Union

Matthew Skinta is a clinical psychology graduate student and a guest columnist for the Daily Kent Stater.