COLUMBUS - Sixteen days after Ohio's Republican attorney general said he would vote no on Issue 1 and six days after Ohio's two GOP U.S. senators took the same stance, Gov. Bob Taft has jumped on the bandwagon.

In a written statement yesterday, Mr. Taft said the Nov. 2 ballot issue to add a ban on same-sex marriage to Ohio's Constitution is "unnecessary and overbroad."

Mr. Taft noted that in February, he signed an anti-same-sex-marriage bill into law. Although Ohio law previously defined marriage as between one man and one woman, the U.S. Constitution says courts are obligated to give "full faith and credit'' to decrees and acts of other states unless they violate a "strong public policy.''

Backers of the bill that Mr. Taft signed into law said without Ohio joining other states in that declaration, gay couples could go to Canada, Vermont, or Massachusetts and then return to Ohio and claim the benefits of marriage.

Yesterday, Mr. Taft repeated the concerns that Sens. Mike DeWine and George Voinovich outlined last week, saying the second sentence of Issue 1 is "ambiguous."

It states: "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage."

"There will be as many interpretations of the words, 'intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage,' as there are judges in the state of Ohio," Mr. Taft wrote.

He also said passage of Issue 1 would make it "more difficult for us to retain and attract the young, talented knowledge workers we need to advance Ohio's prosperity in the 21st century."

In opposing Issue 1 on Sept. 27, Republican Attorney General Jim Petro said the constitutional amendment is "designed to limit the rights of any nonmarried couple and will limit the rights of private companies and public institutions to offer benefits to certain groups of people."

Supporters of Issue 1 have said it will bar governments from providing domestic partner benefits such as health insurance to unmarried couples - heterosexual and homosexual - but it won't affect private companies and is not retroactive.

Phil Burress, spokesman for the pro-Issue 1 group, said he believed Mr. Taft's reference to the effect of Issue 1 on Ohio's economy was the same as saying: "The best and the brightest are homosexuals."

"How dare he say that? That is ridiculous. That is an insult to all Ohioans," Mr. Burress said.

Mr. Burress said he didn't think Mr. Taft's stance would have any effect on the outcome Nov. 2.

"The people will decide this issue," he said.

Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, state Treasurer Joe Deters, and state Auditor Betty Montgomery have said they support Issue 1.

Mr. Taft doesn't have any plans to campaign against Issue 1 or appear in any radio or TV ads, said an aide, Joe Andrews.

"Wherever he goes, he will make his position clear, but he is chairman of the Republican Governors Association and he is working hard on the presidential campaign, and those are his concentrations," Mr. Andrews said.

"The important part is whether it's the governor or the U.S. senators, that the public understands that Issue 1 is bad for the state of Ohio," said Alan Melamed, campaign manager for the group against Issue 1, noting that Nationwide Insurance and the AFL-CIO yesterday also urged a no vote. "We have a coalition of voices across the business and labor spectrum; that collective voice will defeat this issue."

Contact James Drew at:

jdrew@theblade.com

or 614-221-0496.

First Published October 14, 2004, 10:31 a.m.