Ohio Legislators Fight for Marriage Equality Act to Protect Same-Sex Marriage Rights
Ohio lawmakers are pushing to repeal the state’s dormant same-sex marriage ban, calling it more urgent than ever to safeguard marriage equality. The push centers around House Bill 636, also known as the “Marriage Equality Act,” which was reintroduced in the Ohio House in June. The bill aims to remove language in the state’s revised code, adopted in 2004, that states that “a marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman.”
Representatives Anita Somani (D-Dublin) and Jodi Whitted (D-Madeira) are championing the bill, expressing their belief that all Ohioans, regardless of who they love, deserve the right to marry. They argue that the threat to same-sex marriage in Ohio has grown since the U.S. Supreme Court signaled it may reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage. In a concurring opinion to the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting past precedents, including Obergefell.
While the bill faces an uphill battle before the end of the year, Somani and Whitted are calling on the House Civil Justice Committee to begin hearings on the bill. Whitted, who is completing the term of the late Rep. Brigid Kelly, plans to continue advocating for the bill even after her term ends. She emphasized the importance of visible, inclusive legislation, especially in light of rising anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment across the country.
The Marriage Equality Act also seeks to protect interracial marriage by explicitly stating that the state “shall not prohibit marriage between individuals of different races.” This bill is seen as a first step toward ensuring that Ohio law aligns with the protections offered by Obergefell. Despite the federal Respect for Marriage Act of 2022, which ensures that states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, it does not offer full protection in Ohio. Without this state-level legislation, Ohio would still have the option to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples if the Supreme Court were to reverse Obergefell.
In addition to the outdated 2004 language in the state’s code, Ohio has a constitutional amendment, passed in 2004, that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Should the Supreme Court overturn Obergefell, this amendment could be reenacted, leaving same-sex couples with limited rights. Even with the Respect for Marriage Act in place, the law would only require Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it is legal.
If H.B. 636 becomes law, the next step would be for Ohio voters to pass a constitutional amendment to override the 2004 ban. Similar efforts in other states, such as California, Colorado, and Hawaii, have already led to ballot measures enshrining protections for same-sex marriage in their state constitutions.
Despite setbacks in advancing same-sex marriage protections, the Ohio legislature has recently focused on bills like Senate Bill 104, which bans transgender students from using school restrooms that align with their gender identity. As such, advocates for LGBTQ+ rights see H.B. 636 as a critical step toward ensuring equality for same-sex couples in Ohio, regardless of what happens at the federal level.
