Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JAMES OBERGEFELL and JOHN ARTHUR, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. THEODORE E. WYMYSLO, et al, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:13-cv-501 Judge Timothy S. Black NOTICE OF FILING EXPERT REPORT

Plaintiffs give notice that they are filing the expert report of Susan J. Becker.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jacklyn Gonzales Martin Alphonse A. Gerhardstein # 0032053 Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs Jennifer L. Branch #0038893 Jacklyn Gonzales Martin #0090242 Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA Attorneys for Plaintiffs 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 621-9100 (513) 345-5543 fax agerhardstein@gbfirm.com jbranch@gbfirm.com jgmartin@gbfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Lisa T. Meeks (0062074) Newman & Meeks Co., LPA 215 E. Ninth Street, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 phone: 513-639-7000 fax: 513-639-7011 lisameeks@newman-meeks.com Attorney for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 11, 2013, a copy of the foregoing pleading was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the Courts electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Courts system. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading and the Notice of Electronic Filing has been served by ordinary U.S. mail upon all parties for whom counsel has not yet entered an appearance electronically. /s/ Jacklyn Gonzales Martin Jacklyn Gonzales Martin # 0090242

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-1

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al. Plaintiffs, v. THEODORE E. WYMYSLO, et. al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-501 Judge Timothy S. Black

EXPERT DECLARATION OF SUSAN J. BECKER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

I, Susan J. Becker, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the following are my true and correct opinions : Introduction to Expert Opinions Offered 1. The expert opinions offered in this declaration document the historic and continuing animus directed toward lesbian and gay Ohioans. 2. Among other pernicious consequences, animus directed at gay and lesbian Ohioans resulted in Ohio legislators making substantial amendments to Ohio Revised Code 3101.01 and 3101.05 in January 2004. Animus also motivated the 2004 ballot initiative that added Article XV, 11 to Ohios constitution. The 2004 statutory and constitutional amendments prohibit marriages of same-sex couples from occurring in this state and prohibit Ohio from recognizing marriages validly entered in other states by same-sex couples. 3. Ohio Con. Article XV, 11 further prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that
1

intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage. This prohibits same-sex couples from petitioning any level of government in Ohio for other types of relationship recognition - including civil unions and domestic partnerships - that would allow same-sex couples some of the legal rights and obligations automatically bestowed on heterosexual married couples. Expert Background and Qualifications 4. I have actual knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration, and could testify to these matters if called as a witness. 5. My background, experience, and publications are provided in detail in my curriculum vitae attached as Exhibit A to this declaration. A brief summary is provided here. 6. Upon completion of my judicial clerkship with the Honorable Robert B. Krupansky of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 1985, I became an associate at the law firm then known as Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue (now Jones, Day). During five years as a Jones, Day associate I litigated cases pending before administrative agencies, state and federal trial and appellate courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court. I was invited to join the faculty of Cleveland State Universitys Cleveland-Marshall of Law in 1990 and since that time have been a full-time professor of law. 7. I regularly teach Civil Procedure, Legal Profession (ethics), Remedies, and other practice-oriented courses. Over the past 13 years I have taught a course titled Sexual Orientation and the Law eight times. I designed this course to provide students with an inter-disciplinary lens (i.e. history, medical and social sciences, political science, religion, popular culture, etc.) through which they explore the evolution of law as it has disadvantaged and continues to disadvantage lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. I have collected and created all of the materials for the course and
2

have substantially revised and updated the materials each time I teach the course. My course materials include Ohio developments as well as national and international matters. 8. Much of my scholarship addresses the animus historically directed at the LGBT population as well as the historic and continuing rationales for that discrimination. Examples include The Politicization of Judicial Elections and its Effect on Judicial Independence and LGBT Rights: An Overview of LGBT Equality and Judicial Independence, 60 CLEVELAND STATE LAW REVIEW 466 (2012); Many are Chilled but Few are Frozen: How Transformative Learning in Popular Culture, Christianity, and Science will Lead to the Eventual Demise of Legally Sanctioned Discrimination Against Sexual Minorities in the United States, 14 AM.U. J. GENDER & LAW 177-252 (2006) Tumbling Towers as Turning Points: Will 9/11 Usher in a New Civil Rights Era for Gay Men and Lesbians in the United States?; 9 WILLIAM & MARY JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND
THE LAW

207 (2003); Constitutional Classifications and the Search for the Gay Gene,

Symposium: Is There a Pink Slip In Your Genes? 16 CLEVE. ST. JOU. LAW & HEALTH 27 (2001-2002); Second Parent Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples in Ohio: An Unsettled and Unsettling Area of Law, 48 CLEVE. ST. L. REV. 101 (2001); Court-Created Boundaries Between a Visible Lesbian Mother and Her Children, XII WISCONSIN WOMENS L. J. 331 (1997); and Child Sexual Abuse Allegations Against a Lesbian or Gay Parent in a Custody or Visitation Dispute: Battling the Overt and Insidious Bias of the Experts and Judges, 74 DENVER UNIVERSITY L. REV. 75 (1996). 9. In addition to teaching and scholarship, I have also maintained a modest pro bono practice since joining the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law faculty in 1990. The majority of my pro bono work consists of providing legal advice to same-sex couples and

gay and lesbian individuals about their rights or as more appropriately their lack of rights - under Ohio law. 10. The statements set forth in this declaration are based on my own research, more than two decades as a practicing lawyer advising lesbian and gay individuals and couples in Ohio, and the work of other attorneys, scholars, and authors, including those cited in the bibliography attached as Exhibit B. 11. I have been retained by counsel for Plaintiffs in this litigation on a pro-bono basis. Summary of Opinions 12. It is my opinion that animus directed at lesbians and gay Ohioans served as the primary motivating force for Ohios ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships. Animus is also the motivating factor for Ohios refusal to recognize samesex marriages legally entered in other states, while at the same time recognizing marriages from other states that would be void if entered in Ohio, such as marriage between first cousins, marriages between spouses younger than Ohios age of consent, and common-law marriages. 13. As used here, animus has the meaning attributed to it by the United States Supreme Court, to wit, discriminations of an unusual character motivated by hostile intent or improper purpose and directed at a historically disfavored minority. Windsor v. United States, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013), Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 633 (1996). 14. The Bibliography attached as Exhibit B and additional Exhibits referenced throughout this declaration support the expert opinions offered.

History of Discrimination in Ohio against Lesbian and Gay Citizens 15. Lesbian and gay Ohioans have suffered from the same modes and severity of government-sanctioned and government-ignored discrimination that are documented on a national level by Professor George Chauncey. The examples of Ohio discrimination provided below are illustrative rather than exhaustive. The specific issue of marriage discrimination is discussed in the section immediately following this one. 16. Neither Ohios primary anti-discrimination law, R.C. 4112.02, nor any other statute provides protection or recourse for gay and lesbian Ohioans discriminated against in employment, housing, or public accommodation. Some Ohio counties and municipalities have enacted employment discrimination provisions that cover private employers. Only about 20 percent of Ohioans live within these jurisdictions, and the remedies provided are extremely limited. Ohio courts do not recognize a common law public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine for gay and lesbian workers terminated due to their sexual orientation. Ohio courts do not recognize a cause of action based on sexual harassment when the harassing behavior is due to the plaintiff-victims sexual orientation. 17. Ohio courts allow an individual gay man or lesbian to adopt a child, but only recognize one legal parent of a child being raised by a same-sex couple. Ohio courts have rejected models embraced by other states to recognize both members of a same-sex couple as parents of the children they are jointly raising. Such models include de facto and psychological parental status, and second-parent adoptions. 18. Instead, if both members of a same-sex couple are jointly parenting a child who is the biological or adopted child of one member of the couple, Ohio courts have, somewhat bizarrely, interpreted the step-parent provisions of Ohios adoption statutes as permitting

the other member of the couple to adopt the child only if the biological or adoptive parent terminates his or her parental rights to the child. See In re Adoption of Jane Doe, 130 Ohio App.3d 288, 719 N.E.2d 1071 (Ohio App. 9th Ninth Dist. 1998), appeal denied 85 Ohio St. 3d 1467, 709 N.E.2d 173 (1999). Termination of the existing parents legal relationship with the child allows the partner to establish a legally recognized parentchild relationship in the child, but still leaves the child with only one legally recognized parent. 19. In another unique interpretation of Ohio statutes governing parental rights, the Supreme Court of Ohio decreed in In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St.3d 387, 2002-Ohio-6660, 780 N.E.2d 241(2002), that same-sex partners may enter into a co-custody agreement. The partners must jointly submit the proposed agreement to a juvenile court and convince the court cocustody serves the best interest of the child. As a co-custodian, the non-legally recognized parent has the limited rights articulated in the custody agreement, such as signing field trip forms for school, making certain medical decisions, and possessing the standing necessary to seek visitation with the child if the couple separates. Co-custody does not, however, create the full rights and responsibilities of a legally recognized childparent relationship. In addition, a same-sex couples status as co-custodians does not create any legally-recognized relationship for the couple that provides the benefits or responsibilities of a legally recognized marriage. 20. Existing Ohio law does not recognize any status that confers rights, benefits or obligations on same-sex couples. Equality advocates are forbidden by Ohio Con. Art. XV, 11 from petitioning the Ohio legislature for the creation of any such status. Domestic partner registries in Athens, Toledo, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland, and

Cleveland Heights confer absolutely no rights or benefits on couples who register. Registration may be deemed by some private employers as evidence of a domestic partnership for the purpose of providing health or other benefits to an employees samesex partner, but the decision to offer benefits are and the type of proof necessary to establish domestic partner status remains entirely with the employer and is in no way mandated or controlled by the city ordinances that establish each registry. Ohio courts have upheld the registries against claims that they violate Ohios Constitutional ban on recognition of same-sex marriage precisely because the registries confer no legal status or benefits to same-sex couples. 21. Ohio R.C. 3313.666 requires school districts to develop policies to prevent harassment, intimidation, or bullying, but despite multiple, severe attacks on gay students in recent years, the law does not require districts to enact specific policies to protect lesbian or gay students. 22. Ohio R.C. 2927.12 does not include gay men or lesbians in its hate crime legislation. 23. In sum, Ohio law historically has, and continues to, subject gay and lesbian Ohioans and their children to these and other inequities and indignities without legal protection or recourse: Denied access to or evicted from housing; Denied service in a restaurant, hotel, or other place of public accommodation; Denied recognition as victims of hate-motivated crimes; Denied adequate protection in public schools that fail to create or to enforce sufficient anti-gay bullying policies, resulting in the infliction of serious physical and emotional injuries;

Denied employment regardless of qualifications for the job sought; Terminated from employment without cause and without substantive law or general due process protections afforded other minorities; Required to repeatedly advocate for very limited legal protections and recognition (e.g. the domestic partnership registry in Cleveland, employment protections in Cincinnati), and then required to defend such legislation against repeated legal and political attacks including ballot initiatives campaigns; Denied the opportunity to adopt their partners children, thus leaving their families exposed to legal and other financial disadvantages not experienced by their heterosexual counterparts; Forced to rely on co-custodial status when raising children together rather than a legally recognized familial status; Precluded from jointly adopting a child unrelated to either same-sex partner regardless of the childs need for a stable, permanent home and the ability of the couple to provide that home; Denied local and state tax benefits available to heterosexual married couples; Denied access to entitlement programs (welfare benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) available to heterosexual married couples and their families; Barred by hospital staff and/or relatives from their long-time partners bedsides during serious and final illnesses due to lack of legally-recognized relationship status; Denied the remedy of loss of consortium when a partner is seriously injured through the acts of another;

Denied the remedy of a wrongful death claim when a partner is fatally injured through the wrongful acts of another; Excluded from inheriting a partners possessions through Ohios intestate succession laws; and Evicted from their homes following a partners death because same-sex partners are in Ohio considered complete strangers to each other in the eyes of the law. 24. Despite the extensive nature of this list, the disadvantages, disenfranchisements and penalties outlined above are illustrative rather than exhaustive. As is obvious from this summary, many of these legally sanctioned inequities are grounded in Ohios refusal to recognize same-sex marriages validly entered in other states. 25. The injuries Ohio inflicts on same-sex couples are significantly compounded by the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Windsor v. United States, __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 2675, (2013), requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage for federal benefits. Some of these federal benefits will be realized by same-sex couples only if they live in a state that recognizes their marriages. Ohio law denying recognition of same-sex couples thus withholds both state and federal benefits from same-sex couples. 26. As explained below, changes to Ohios statutory scheme in 2004 and the state constitutional amendment enacted through the 2004 ballot initiative campaign continue to perpetuate these disadvantages, disenfranchisements and penalties at the state and federal level. Both changes to Ohio law resulted from, and continue to foster, animus directed at gay and lesbian Ohioans.

Animus Leading to Legislative Amendments to Ohio R.C. 3101 Denying Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages and Other Forms of Relationship Recognition 27. In 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in Baehr v. Lewin that a ban on same-sex marriage violated Hawaiis equal rights amendment. This decision shocked individuals and groups whose members opposed marriage equality primarily on moral and religious grounds. 28. By 1996, these individuals and organizations successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by arguing that same-sex marriage posed an immediate threat to traditional marriage and traditional family values. DOMA banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and declared that states did not have to give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages licensed by other states. 29. The 1999 decision by Vermonts highest court which resulted in creation of civil unions in that state (Baker v. State) and the 2003 Massachusettss decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that commonwealth (Goodridge v. Dept. of Health) threw more fuel on the anti-equality marriage fire. 30. Prior to 2004, Ohio law limited marriage to opposite sex couples. R.C. 3101.01(A) provided that marriage was reserved for [m]ale persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years . In addition, the Ohio constitution contained no broad equality provisions similar to those which supported the same-sex marriage decisions in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts. There was no evidence that the justices then serving on the Supreme Court of Ohio would vote in favor of same-sex marriage or any other form of relationship recognition should the marriage equality issue come before Ohios highest court.
10

31. Legislative amendments introduced in the Ohio General Assembly in 1997, 1999 and 2001 proposed to more explicitly deny same-sex couples the opportunity to marry or to obtain recognition of their marriages performed in other states. (Exhibit C: Unsuccessful Ohio DOMAs 1997, 1999, 2001). Both the 1997 proposals in H.B. 160 and the 1999 version in S.B. 240 and H.B. 547 recognized the unwavering stance Ohio courts had taken against same-sex marriage. S.B. 240, for example, listed the holdings of the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Gans (1958), 168 Ohio St. 174, 177-178, the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in Liston v. Pyles (1997), 1997 Ohio App. Lexis 3627, the Court of Appeals for Summit County in Dial v. Dial (1993), 92 Ohio App. 3d 513, 515, and in Gajovski v. Gajovski (1991), 81 Ohio App. 3d 11, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in Irwin v. Lupardus (1980), No. 41379, and the Stark County Probate Court in In re Ladrach (1987), 32 Ohio Misc. 2d 6 as confirming that the law of this state does not permit persons of the same sex to marry. 32. In 2001, the Ohio House passed H.B. 234 by a vote of 67 to 29. That legislation proposed to more explicitly limit marriages performed or recognized in Ohio to those entered by opposite sex couples and to place additional restrictions on any type of relationship recognition for same-sex couples in Ohio. Unlike the 1997 and 1999 versions of the proposed legislation, H.B. 234 omitted any reference to the substantial body of existing Ohio case law restricting marriage to opposite sex couples. The Ohio Senate did not take up H.B. 234. 33. In 2002, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed that same-sex marriages are illegal in Ohio. In re Bicknell, 96 Ohio St. 3d 76, 2002 Ohio 3615, 14.

11

34. In September 2003, Ohio Representatives Bill Seitz, Thomas Brinkman and 41 of their colleagues co-sponsored H.B. 272. (Exhibit D). H.B. 272 mirrored failed H.B. 234. The Preamble to H.B. 272 identified the drafters intent to specifically declare that same-sex marriages are against the strong public policy of the state and to declare that the recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships is against the public policy of the state. 35. Section 1 of H.B. 272 proposed to achieve these objectives by adding the following language to the Ohio Revised Code: a. 3101.01(A) providing that a marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman; b. 3101.01(C)(1) providing that [a]ny marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state and shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state; c. 3101.01(C)(2) providing that [a]ny marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state; and d. 3101.01(C)(3) providing that recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state and that [a]ny public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory

12

benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio. 36. Section 3(B) of H.B. 272 further articulated the General Assemblys intent to clarify that relationships that are intended as substitutes for marriage, including but not limited to civil unions as provided for in [Vermont], will not be recognized in this state. 37. H.B. 272 is a class of legislation commonly known as a Super Defense of Marriage Act, or Super DOMA. H.B. 272 fits that classification because it far exceeded limiting marriage to same-sex couples by further outlawing recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states and depriving gay and lesbian individuals and couples the right to petition the government for any alternative form of comprehensive, state-wide relationship recognition such as civil unions or domestic partnerships. 38. The Ohio House of Representatives considered H.B. 272 on December 10, 2003. (Exhibit E: H.B. 272 House of Representatives Consideration Transcript of Dec. 10, 2003. Cites to the transcript of the House deliberation are designated as House TR.) 39. In introducing the legislation, primary sponsor Representative Bill Sietz acknowledged that Ohio law already limits marriage to a man and a woman. House TR, p. 2. Rep. Seitz argued, however, that the legislation was necessary to prevent the Supreme Court of Ohio from rendering a decision similar to the Massachusetts decision of Goodridge v. Dept. of Health, or from holding that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages that are valid in other states and countries. House TR, pp. 3-6. 40. Co-sponsor Representative Ron Young stated that the legislation was critically important because were talking about a divine institution thats been given to us by God, and that

13

males and females coming together in traditional marriage create the basic unit, the building blocks of our society. House TR, p. 28-29. 41. Representative Young claimed that scientific evidence showed that children of married partners tend to be healthier, are more creative, do better in school, and are less involved in crime. House TR, p. 29. Young further claimed that [m]arried spouses tend to be happier, healthier, wealthier than their counterparts. House TR, p. 29. 42. A number of members of the House Representatives spoke against H.B. 272 during the December 10, 2013 floor debate. They presented arguments that Ohio should respect marriage as a fundamental right for all as established in cases like Loving v. Virginia, that the concept of opposite sex marriage preserved primarily to protect procreation was an outdated view, that children of same-gender parents should not be treated disadvantageously compared to their peers being raised by heterosexual due to the states failure to recognize their parents relationship, that the possibilities of allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples should be further explored and not excluded by this bill. 43. Representative Chris Redfern observed, for example, that [g]ays and lesbians are a part of every Ohio family, and that [t]hey should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and their communities. House TR, p. 42. Representative Redfern reported that as he discussed the bill in committee with colleagues, topics such as the potential impact of recognizing same-sex marriages on Ohios pension funds were certainly not a question of dollars and cents, but rather a question of casting judgment upon others, criticizing ones life and livelihood and the waythey raise their children. House TR, p. 42.

14

44. Representative Peter Ujvagi confirmed that anyone who attended any of the hearings knows the level of intolerance that was presented to support this legislation. House TR, p. 52. (As is typical of Ohio legislative history, no official records exist of the Ohio House committee meetings in which H.B. 272 was discussed). 45. Representative Dale Miller agreed with Representative Ujvagis observation that the legislation was not about the defense of marriage, because a homosexual couple is in no way a threat to my marriage, nor a threat to anybody elses marriage. House TR, p. 49 (Miller); pp. 51-52 (Ujvagi). Representative Miller also rejected the contention that sexual orientation is a matter a choice, and urged that to pretend that these people dont exist or should be treated as second-class citizens is plain wrong. House TR, p. 51. 46. Representative Joyce Beatty discussed how the tradition of marriage had changed from the time when women had to give up their teaching jobs and other professional activities to get married, and from when interracial marriage was outlawed. House TR, p. 55. She also pointed out that same-sex partners arent asking for a free ride but rather equal treatment for doing the same things we do, and further noting that passage of HB 272 would immediately adversely affect over a quarter of a million gay and lesbian Ohioans. House TR, p. 56. 47. Following the floor discussion Ohios House of Representatives approved Ohios Super DOMA by a vote of 69-23. 48. Prior to the Ohio Senates consideration of H.B. 272, another Ohio court confirmed that Ohio had always restricted marriages to opposite sex couples, and provided further evidence that Ohioans need not fear a different interpretation of Ohio law by activist judges. In re Application for Marriage License for Nash and Barr, 11th Dist. Nos. 2002-

15

T-0149 and 2002-T-0179, 2003-Ohio-7221 (Dec. 21, 2003), 30 (holding that Ohio has a clear public policy that authorizes and recognizes marriages only between members of the opposite sex.). 49. Senators Bill Harris, Louis W. Blessing, Ronald Amstutz, John Carey, Jim Jordan, Lynn Wachtmann, Lynn Padgett and Jay Hottinger served as the sponsors of H.B. 272 in the Ohio Senate. For reasons questioned by other senators (see, e.g., House TR, p. 58), H.B. 272 was referred to the Senate Finance and Financial Institutions Committee rather than the Judiciary-Civil Justice Committee,1 the Committee to which previous efforts to amend Ohios marriage statutes, including S.B. 240, had been referred. 50. The 13-member Senate Finance Committee was heavily populated by H.B. 272 sponsors. Senator Harris chaired the Committee. Senator Carey was vice chair. Senators Blessing, Amstutz, Padgett and Hottinger were also members of the committee. 51. Senator Bill Harris, chair of the Finance Committee, issued a notice on Thursday, January 15, 2004 that the committee would hold a hearing on the legislation on Tuesday, January 20. The 5-day notice period included a three-day weekend due to the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. 52. During a marathon hearing that started at 1:10 p.m. and concluded at 9:57 p.m. on January 20, 2004, committee members heard from 30 witnesses. Senator Eric Fingerhut estimated that maybe three members of the majority [Republican Senators] and three members of the minority [Democratic Senators] heard most of the testimony. 53. The short notice and format of the hearing were unusual as Senate committees commonly hear the testimony from the legislations sponsors, proponents and opponents on separate days. See Statement of Senator Eric Fingerhut in Exhibit F: House Bill 272 Senate
1

This Committee is now known as the Civil Justice Committee.

16

Amendments and Consideration Transcript January 21, 2004, at p. 60. (Subsequent cites to the deliberation by the full Senate are designated as Senate TR.) 54. As previously noted, Ohio does not retain an official legislative history of House or Senate committee hearings. News reports, however, indicate that the testimony was at times contentious, and featured claims from proponents that the bill was necessary to prevent Ohio from being an enabler of homosexuality and to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex marriages. 55. The Senate Finance Committee approved Ohios Super DOMA in the morning of January 21, 2004, recommending two amendments. The first added language that the bills limitations on the extension of statutory benefits of legal marriage to non-marital benefits were inapplicable if those benefits were part of a collective bargaining agreement. The second clarified that a common law marriage from another state or nation would continue to be recognized as valid only if it were otherwise valid under the bill that is, only common marriages of opposite sex couples would be recognized. (Both prior to and after enactment of Ohios Super DOMA, Ohio only recognized common law marriages that were formed in this state prior to October 1991 and those recognized as valid in other states and countries.) 56. The Ohio Senate debated and passed Sub. H.B. 272 on the same day that its Finance Committee approved the legislation. 57. During the January 21, 2004 debate, Senator Harris argued for the need for the legislation on the grounds used by Representative Seitz in the House, i.e., that same-sex relationship recognition would be forced on Ohio if it did not amend its statutory language to more clearly limit marriage to one man and one woman and reject the

17

possibility of other forms of relationship recognition such as civil unions. Senate TR, pp. 2-3. 58. Other senators urging passage of the Super DOMA warned that the specter of same-sex marriage was inevitably intertwined with the recognition of polygamy, that churches shared responsibility with the government to regulate marriage, and that heterosexual marriages provide a superior environment for raising children. See, e.g., Senator Jordan Senate TR pp. 78-82; Senator Jacobson Senate TR pp. 137-38. 59. Senator Jacobson took a leading role in defending the proposed legislation. He explained that proponents of Ohios super DOMA viewed the legislation as a recognition that marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship in which children can be created, and, if theyre faithful to it, no other children can be created outside of that marriage . Senate TR p. 138. Senator Jacobson stated that the legislation would not interfere with the way adults choose to order their lives because [a]dults can form household relationships after the legislation passed even though those relationships dont have all the bells and whistles, [p]erhaps dont have all the opportunities, and do not appear equal to everyone elses. Senate TR p. 137. Senator Jacobson further opined that children deserve that best opportunity and we are going to help children in whatever situation they are raised in, but that does not mean to say that because two people would like to order their lives in a certain way we have to change the institution of marriage just to make them feel better about their choices. Senate TR p. 139. While some people he knew had made choices to form households in which they are working very hard to raise loving children in a loving environment, Senator Jacobson stated that the existence of such households does not mean to those of us who are voting yes [on

18

H.B. 272] that we have to do something to marriage to make marriage less in order to let those people do the best they can. Senate TR p. 139. 60. Other Senators questioned the need for the legislation and its true purpose, especially in light of its Super DOMA status. In rejecting the need to defend marriage argument, Senator Goodman urged that we dont really need to defend ourselves from people who are different than us. Senate TR p. 3. By passing this legislation, Senator Goodman said, were pointing fingers at others, and thats not what we ought to be doing. We ought to be looking at ourselves and trying to be better parents and better husbands and better wives. And that is the way you defend marriage. Senate TR p. 41. 61. Senator Brady cautioned that whether you intended it or not, this is bigoted legislation. and that is the way it will be seen in history. Senate TR p. 57. 62. Noting that Ohio law already restricted marriage to opposite sex couples, Senator Dann stated that the only possible reason for passing this bill, and doing it so quickly today, in light of the state of the union and in light of the political statements that have been made around this country, is politics. Dann predicted that the vote would perhaps win the bills proponents another election or two, [b]ut the price for that victory is going to be the extension of hate throughout the state of Ohio. And everybody who reads this bill and people affected by it are going to suffer from that hate. Senate TR p. 74-75. 63. Senator Fedor cautioned that the legislation would result in some of Ohios children growing up and being labeled and judged, and that some of us legislators may be sending [the message] that our priorities are hate, exclusion, and discrimination. Senate TR p. 77.

19

64. Senator Zurz observed that Ohios existing marriage law restricted marriage to a man and a woman, and that legislators should be more concerned about the law allowing a 16-year old girl to marry rather than prohibiting same-sex marriage. Senate TR p. 83. Senator Zurz characterized the legislation as motivated by politics rather than being a valid step to protect marriage, further stating that the legislation hasnt been given enough time, it hasnt been given the thoughtfulness that it should have been given, and we are discriminating against people, and I really dont think thats what we came here to do. Senate TR p. 85. 65. Senator Prentiss urged her colleagues to vote against H.B. 272, stating that [t]his bill is not progress; its discrimination, good old fashioned discrimination. Senate TR p. 90. She further argued: This bill is about the lack of acceptance of some by others. It embodies a mean spirit, nonpluralism, nonpluralistic attitude that says, my way or no way, This bill imposes one set of values not held by all [in] Ohio without regard to diversity and without regard, even, to the U.S. Constitution which requires equal treatment for all. Senate TR p. 94. 66. Senator DiDonato, who supported limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, opined that H.B. 272 had crossed a line by denying benefits and hurting others, as well as fast tracking the bill through the legislative process without providing full opportunities for hearings and debate. Senate TR p. 105. Its a shame [this bill] ... came to the floor, DiDonato said. Its really a shame. It should never have come to this level, not in the style it did. Senate TR p. 111. 67. Attempts by Senators Fingerhut and Dann to limit the reach of H.R. 272 proved unsuccessful. Senator Eric Fingerhut argued that if the legislations sole purpose was to

20

protect marriage, then additional language prohibiting the extension of any of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples was unnecessary and would cause significant confusion on the legal consequences of private employers seeking to extend benefits to same-sex couples. Senate TR p. 12-18. His amendment to remove the extraneous language failed by a vote of 18 to 15. Senate TR p. 122. The Senate also rejected by an 18-15 vote the amendment proposed by Senator Dann to allow unmarried public employees to take bereavement leave following the loss of a partner, a benefit that was (and is) granted to married employees. Senate TR p. 43. 68. The Ohio Senate passed H.B. 272 by a vote of 18-15 and returned the legislation to the House with the two amendments recommended by the Senate Finance Committee. As noted previously one amendment clarified that any common law marriages recognized in Ohio must be between one man and one woman, and the other stated that the legislation would not affect the rights of public sector employees to bargain over the terms and conditions of their employment. 69. On February 3, 2004, the House approved Substitute H.B. 272 by a vote of 72-22. 70. Ohios Super DOMA was signed into law by Governor Bob Taft on February 6, 2004, and became effective on May 7, 2004. 71. Despite the laws denial not only of marriage to Ohios same-sex couples but of all forms of legal relationship recognition including civil unions and domestic partnerships, Governor Taft denied any exclusionary impact or discriminatory intent of the legislation. In a statement released when he signed the bill into law, Taft said that [f]irst and foremost, this is not a law of intolerance. I do not endorse, nor does this law provide for, discrimination against any Ohio citizen. Rather, Governor Taft claimed that the

21

legislation was necessary to reaffirm existing Ohio law with respect to our most basic, rooted, and time-honored institution: marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is an essential building block of our society, an institution we must reaffirm. At a time when parents and families are under constant attack within our social culture, it is important to confirm and protect those environments that offer our children, and ultimately our society, the best opportunity to thrive." (Exhibit G: Gov Taft Statement on Signing Ohio DOMA on February 6, 2004.) 72. For obvious reasons, many people in Ohio and elsewhere and certainly gay and lesbian Ohioans - vehemently disagreed with the claims asserted by Governor Taft and other Ohio super DOMA supporters that the changes to Ohio law were not discriminatory in intent or in operation. The exact opposite conclusion is supported by the unequivocal nature of existing Ohio law limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, the legislations sweeping prohibitions against any meaningful form of relationship recognition for samesex couples, the negative comments about the allegedly disastrous impact on society if gay and lesbian couples were allowed the civil rights accompanying marital status, the refusal of legislators to consider the compelling statements made by fellow legislators about the impact of this legislation on gay and lesbian Ohioans, and the manner in which Ohios super DOMA was fast-tracked through the Ohio General Assembly. Ohios super DOMA was intended to, and does, disenfranchise gay and lesbian individuals and couples due to the animus of the Ohio legislators who voted for the legislation and the governor who signed the bill into law.

22

73. The animus that fueled the fast-track passage of Ohios super DOMA intensified rather dissipated following enactment of the legislation, resulting in passage of the Ohio constitutional amendment discussed below. Animus Resulting in Passage of Ohio Constitutional Amendments Denying Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages 74. In theory, the ballot initiative process gives all citizens an equal opportunity to shape the laws that govern their lives and that of their fellow citizens. In reality, ballot initiatives have become a favorite tool of special interest groups who seek to disenfranchise minorities. This type of direct democracy readily lends itself to abuse because the language and impact of the legislation and constitutional amendments submitted by special interest groups to voters are often ambiguous and designed to exploit the majoritys ignorance about and fear of minorities. 75. Anti-equality advocates utilized Ohios ballot initiative process to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian couples in Ohios constitution in 2004. Throughout their constitutional amendment campaign, proponents grossly misrepresented the lives of lesbian and gay couples and their children and the impact of the proposed amendment on those families. Proponents also understated their intention to use the amended constitution (a) to dismantle the modest existing benefits and rights lesbian and gay individuals and couples have worked for many years to obtain in Ohio, and (b) to prevent members of this minority group from achieving any form of relationship recognition in this state. 76. The proposed Ohio constitutional amendment set forth as Issue 1 on the November 2004 ballot read: Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. The state and its political
23

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. 77. As is clear from the expansive text, the amendment not only forbids same-sex couples from marrying, but also prohibits them from seeking comprehensive forms of relationship recognition such as civil unions or domestic partnerships at a local, regional or statewide level. 78. Citizens for Community Values (CCV), a not-for-profit corporation based in Cincinnati, Ohio, was the primary sponsor of Issue 1. Phil Burress was president of CCV and served as chairman of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage (OCPM), the political action committee controlled by CCV. CCVs attorney David R. Langdon is credited with authoring the text of the amendment. 79. CCVs campaign to communicate misinformation about gay and lesbian individuals and couples found nationwide support from other anti-equality groups including Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, American Values, and the Liberty Counsel. (See, e.g., Exhibit H: Burress 2-2604 Memo re CCV and Coalition backing federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.) 80. CCVs publications on its web site and its extensive advertising campaign urging voters to support Issue 1 left no doubt as to its hostility toward homosexuals. In a four-page document titled The Homosexual Issue Where do we Stand? And Why?, CCV proclaimed that the organization opposed the inherent dangers of the homosexual

24

activists agendadangers both to society and to the individual. (Exhibit I: CCV, The Homosexual Issue Where do we Stand? And Why? from CCV website Aug. 8, 2004.) 81. The Homosexual Issue articulates CCVs core principle that homosexual identity must be based exclusively on sexual behavior, referring to oral and/or anal sodomy practiced with members of the same sex because It is that specific behavior which they claim qualifies homosexuals for special rights and minority status. 82. The Homosexual Issue further identified the inherent dangers of the homosexual activists agenda as: a. Violating the Judeo-Christian teaching that the marriage defined as one woman and one man living together in a lifelong, monogamous, covenantal relationship, a teaching [that] is grounded in Scripture, and the truths of Scripture are absolute and are not subject to change; b. Departing from Gods intention for human sexuality, including not only homosexual behavior, but also rape, incest, pedophilia, premarital sex, adultery, bestiality, pornography and any other sexual expression outside this Scriptural norm; c. Ignoring natures confirming of the Scriptural sexual ethic, i.e. that only [o]ne man and one woman have the ability to express their love in a true, complete physical union, resulting in life-giving procreation; d. Recruiting men, women and children into this destructive lifestyle; e. Causing destructive outcomes associated with homosexual behavior including AIDS, a much higher incidence and risk of sexually transmitted diseases,

25

approximately three times the risk of alcoholism and drug abuse, a significantly higher rate of domestic violence and promiscuity, and a shortened life span; f. Rejecting conversion therapy as a viable alternative when thousands of people have overcome this desire, have withdrawn from homosexual behavior and have gone on to enjoy fulfilling heterosexual relationships; g. Establishing gay and lesbian organizations in our schools, with the purpose being to train gay and lesbian students for activism and to encourage straight students to experiment with homosexual behavior as defined above, and often resulting in homosexual role playing; and h. Seeking special rights for homosexuals in an effort to attain complete social acceptance of homosexual behavior. 83. CCV concludes its The Homosexual Issue by denying that gay and lesbian individuals and couples suffer any legal, economic or social disadvantages. It states: Persons who practice homosexual sodomy do not demonstrate any of the characteristics that identify disenfranchised classes. They are not discriminated against in any of the ways considered essential by the courtseconomic status, educational opportunity or political representation. In fact, the level of education and the average income of homosexuals are considerably above the average education and income for the population in general. A study of their movement shows that they clearly enjoy all the legal rights and privileges of other citizens. 84. CCV also shipped its misinformation about homosexuality to public school boards and superintendents in Ohio, advising them incorrectly - that by adopting policies aimed at protecting lesbian and gay students from harassment and physical attacks, school officials

26

put themselves and their school districts at risk of criminal and daunting civil liability. In a letter to the superintendent of Cincinnati City School District, for example, CCV President Phil Burress warned that by allowing access by homosexual activist organizations, and by establishing policies that have the effect of normalizing homosexual behavior, schools and/or their employees may be liable for physical, emotional, or criminal harm to the students entrusted to their care. Burress claimed that the efforts of national and local groups advocating for safe schools policies is nothing more than a deceptive ploy to encourage sexual behaviors that are always unsafe, and sometimes illegal. Burress also falsely reported that these groups endorsed and encouraged adult-child sexual relationships and same-sex sexual behavior among students, resulting in numerous negative physical and emotional consequences directly related to same-sex behavior. (Exhibit J - CCVs Legal Liability Letter to Schools May 2003). 85. In its Facts About Issue 1 publication, CCV continued to mislead Ohio voters about the need for Issue 1. It stated falsely - that marriage equality advocates sought to eliminate age requirements for marriage, advocated polygamy, and sought elimination of kinship limitations so that incestuous marriages could occur. 86. CCVs Facts About Issue 1 also drew readers attention to a White Paper authored by the Corporate Resource Council claiming - again falsely - that employers who have non-discrimination policies for gay and lesbian employees expose themselves to significant legal problems including failing to conform to federal law requiring employers to protect against a sexually hostile work environment and failing to accommodate religious beliefs. This paper also falsely reported that health benefits for

27

same-sex couples are much more expensive than for heterosexual couples that [s]exual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. (Exhibit L: Corporate Resource Council White Paper on costs of domestic partner benefits). 87. In addition to the vituperative anti-gay rhetoric distributed through its webpage and direct mail, CCV (through its political action committee OCPM with support from allies including Focus on the Family) spent more than $1.1 million conveying their distorted messages about the lives of gay and lesbian Ohioans and their children. Then Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell Ohios chief election officer and honorary cochair of President George Bushs Ohio re-election campaign - lent his support to the anti-equality crusade by doing radio and television advertisement urging voters to amend Ohios constitution to deny marriage and all other forms of relationship recognition to same-sex couples in Ohio. (Exhibit M: Media Blitz Begins for Ohio Issue 1 (10-26-04)). 88. OCPMs television and media campaign supporting passage of Issue 1 included misleading statements from Mr. Blackwell such as [w]e won't have a future unless [heterosexual] moms and dads have children, and that [e]very major social science study tells us time and again: families are stronger with a wife and a husband; children do better with a mother and a father. (Exhibit N: Transcripts of Radio and TV advertisements supporting Issue 1). 89. OCPM reportedly placed phone calls to 3.3 million Ohio households in which a recording of Secretary of State Ken Blackwell urged voters to approve the amendment. (Exhibit M: Media blitz begins for Ohio's Issue 1).

28

90. Multiple misrepresentations contained in OCPMs print advertisements supporting Issue 1s passage bear evidence of animus toward gay and lesbian Ohioans. In print advertisements titled CommonSense and PrivateLife, OCPM misrepresented social science findings about the mental and emotional health of same-sex couples and their children, ignoring the substantial science then available. The advertisements also stated falsely that passage of Issue 1 would have no impact on benefits unmarried couples received from employers, even though the backers of Issue 1 had publicly stated that the amendment would prevent public employers from continuing to offer such benefits and had pledged to challenge domestic partner benefits offered by Ohio State University and other public entities as soon as the amendment passed a promise they made good on. The Common Sense advertisement also suggested that polygamous marriage would inevitably follow recognition of marriage by same-sex couples. (Exhibit O: Common Sense Advertisement; Exhibit P: Private Life Advertisement). 91. Misleading arguments on the necessity of the amendment are also found in Issue 1 supporters explanation of the amendment contained in the official Ohio Issues Report for Issue 1 published by the Ohio Ballot Board, a Board chaired by Secretary of State Blackwell. This language explains that the amendment excludes from the definition of marriage homosexual relationships and relationships of three or more persons, thus breathing more life into the nonexistent threat of polygamy. (Exhibit Q: Ohio Issues Report for Issue 1). 92. The misinformation CCV and its allies communicated to the public to ensure passage of Issue 1 were grounded in stereotypes of gay men and lesbians that had long been disproven by medicine, science, other disciplines, and common experience.

29

93. By 2004, numerous studies by social scientists, medical and mental health professionals, economists, and other credible experts in various disciplines documented that gay and lesbian people were, just as their heterosexual counterparts, multi-faceted individuals who could not be defined based upon sexual behaviors in which they may or may not engage. 94. By 2004, credible sources confirmed that gay and lesbian couples were procreating and raising children who were as healthy and well-adjusted as heterosexual couples. 95. By 2004, credible economic analyses repeatedly confirmed that neither same-sex couples nor gay and lesbian individuals were economically advantaged. 96. By 2004, credible legal scholars and practitioners documented that local, state and federal laws and policies bestowed no special rights on gay men and lesbians and their children. Rather, the laws continuously placed gay and lesbian couples and their children at a substantial disadvantage compared to heterosexuals. 97. By 2004, characterizations of lesbians and gay men as mentally or emotionally unbalanced or as sexual predators who recruited children and others into their lifestyle had been soundly disproven by credible science and common experience. 98. By 2004, all credible studies of gay men and lesbians concerning the depression or anxiety experienced within this population traced the cause of their emotional distress to the hostility and hatred of groups like CCV and its affiliates directed at homosexuals, rather than any innate condition related to sexual orientation. 99. By 2004, conversion therapy had been rejected by the esteemed American Psychiatric Association (APA) and all other credible medical professionals due to its ineffectiveness

30

in changing a persons sexual orientation and the significant harms imposed on those subjected to it. 100. By 2004, public schools were beginning to enact antidiscrimination policies, but

not to privilege gay and lesbian students or to promote any type of sexual behavior. Rather, schools were begrudgingly enacting these policies in reaction to increased and often brutal attacks on non-gender conforming students and to lawsuits in which victims proved that the indifference or hostility of school officials toward gay and lesbian students encouraged the attacks. 101. By 2004, bullying of school-age children and brutal physical assaults on gay and

lesbian adults were (and continue to be) inspired by the continuous recitation of false and distorted information about gay men and lesbians by organizations like CCV and the individuals and other groups associated with CCV. 102. In sum, the proponents of Issue 1 successfully portrayed gay and lesbian

individuals and couples in Ohio as an evil dragon poised to destroy all that is good and decent in society, and then promoted Issue 1 as the only appropriate weapon for slaying that dragon. But as the case with all dragons, the one created by CCV and its allies was then and remains today - a mythical creature. The degree of animus displayed by CCV and other Issue 1 backers in perpetuating this myth is strikingly similar to the animus employed to secure the passage of Colorados Amendment 2, the state constitutional amendment that the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). Unlike Amendment 2, however, Article XV, 11 of the Ohio constitution continues to inflict significant injury, as it is routinely invoked by CCV and

31

like-minded individuals and organizations to try to reduce even further the few legal rights and benefits that gay and lesbian Ohioans enjoy Conclusion 103. Ohio law banning the recognition of same-sex marriages celebrated in other states

creates two distinct and inherently unequal Ohios. Opposite-sex married couples and their children live in the Ohio that automatically bestows more than one thousand state and federal rights, benefits and privileges on them. Same-sex married couples and their children live in the Ohio that automatically denies most state and federal rights, benefits and privileges to them. Since 2004, the inequality enshrined in Ohio law extends far beyond the denial of marriage per se, as Ohio statutory and constitutional provisions deny same-sex couples even the opportunity of seeking any type of relationship recognition that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage. This leaves gay and lesbian couples who wish to formalize their commitment to each other with a single option: be married in another state. Ohios refusal to recognize the out-of-state marriages of its gay and lesbian citizens, especially when the state provides no other form of relationship recognition, is firmly grounded in the historic and contemporary animus directed at gay and lesbian Ohioans.

Signed under penalty of perjury this 10th day of October, 2013.

32

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-2

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 11

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-3

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 7

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-4

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 6

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-5

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 6

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-6

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S: SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Chair recognizes Representative Sietz. REPRESENTATIVE SIETZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak to the bill? SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE SIETZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago, in October 2001, we passed this same bill, this on a vote of 67 to 29. Ohio was thus poised to join what was then 36 other states and the federal government in passing defense of marriage legislation. Since that time, another state, Texas, has joined the group, so we now have 37 states and the federal government that have passed defense of marriage legislation. Two years ago, the Ohio Senate did not take us up on that bill. And for those of you that have been around a while, you know that the Senate president was not particularly enamored with that bill, because he didn't think it was necessary. And for those of you that follow clips

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Supreme Court will be imported into Ohio because we failed to declare what our strong public policy is in this state. Ohio law already limits marriage to a man and a woman, but we have never said that that represents strong public policy of this state. What has happened in the intervening two years is not limited to Massachusetts. The courts of Canada have found a constitutional right under Canadian law for same-sex couples to be married. When we considered this bill two years ago, only Vermont, through their civil union statute, had legitimized relationships between homosexual couples and extended the benefits of marriage to them through the euphemism of the word civil union, and only Belgium and the Netherlands have legitimized same-sex marriages outright. So my good friend, the former Senate president, may well have been right that the problem was largely hypothetical two years ago and is much less so today by reason of the intervening developments in Canada and Massachusetts. 4
I am not willing to leave it to our courts to define what Ohio's public policy might be. They have a track record both here and in other states of finding things that the legislature never intended. Indeed, I dare say that until about one month ago, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court, 4 to 3, found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the Massachusetts constitution, I very much doubt that Myles Standish and Daniel Webster and John Hancock and Samuel Adams and John Adams and Paul Revere ever thought that that is what their constitution provided, but there you have it. I want to focus on why this threat is a real threat. In the 1950s, our Supreme Court considered a case called Mazzolini versus Mazzolini. At issue in that case was whether a marriage between first cousins that was legal in, ironically enough, Massachusetts, would be recognized in Ohio, even though Ohio did not recognize marriages between people that closely related. And the Ohio Supreme Court, in that case, said, well, we know what Ohio law says, but we 5

religiously, as I do, I hope you saw the article in clips from December 7th in which our former Senate president, who bottled this bill up for two years out of his conviction that it wasn't necessary, said the developments on Massachusetts have changed his mind and he now supports the legislation. Those of you who know our esteemed former president know that his is a mind not lightly changed. What this bill does is to strengthen Ohio's current marriage law by providing an express declaration of state public policy that same-sex marriages and civil unions are against the strong public policy of this state. The reason why that is important is that under the constitutional Full Faith and Credit Clause a court is normally obligated to defer to the validity of acts and decrees in other states unless doing so would violate a strong public policy of the forum state. Stated simply, if we do not pass this bill, we are at risk that the recently legitimized same-sex marriage provisions found by a 4 to 3 majority of the Massachusetts 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

don't see any strong public policy reason why Ohio would decline to recognize a first-cousin marriage that was valid in the law of the state where the marriage was contracted, Massachusetts. I believe that if you change the word first-cousin to same-sex marriage, you have the exact same problem, by coincidence, involving the exact same state, Massachusetts. But you don't have to believe me. In May 2000, the Legislative Service Commission stated in memo that we've all seen -- those of us that have worked on this -- the language of Ohio's marriage law might be considered by some courts to be inadequate to constitute a declaration that homosexual marriages are void in this state. And, therefore, without explicitly declaring same-sex marriages void, Ohio may have to recognize such marriages. That's what LSC said three years ago, before the Massachusetts decision. Now, with that as background, what this bill does is, mainly, three things: it clarifies that Ohio's current prohibition on same-sex marriages in this state is a strong 6
public policy, it prohibits the recognition in Ohio of same-sex marriages or civil unions entered into in other states or foreign countries, and it prohibits the state of Ohio from providing the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to unmarried persons, whether they are of the same or different sexes. There's a lot of myths about this bill. I've heard that this bill will prevent persons involved in a homosexual relationship from bequeathing property, giving healthcare powers of attorney, or enjoying other's right not specific to a marital relationship. It's not true. Read the bill. Nothing in this bill prohibits the extension of specific benefits otherwise enjoyed by all persons, married or unmarried, to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes. Under Ohio law, you don't have to be married to adopt a child. You don't have to be married to give a power of attorney, you don't have to be married to adopt a child. You don't have to be married to get a power of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

attorney. You don't have to be married to inherit property by will. You don't have to be married to ach -- achie -- assume child custody or guardianship. You don't have to be married to visit somebody in the hospital. This bill will have no effect in those issues. Next thing I've heard, this bill will prohibit private companies, cities, and other units of local government in Ohio from extending the benefits of legal marriage or domestic partner benefits to homosexual or other unmarried people. It's not true. The bill is expressly limited to public acts, records, or judicial proceedings of this state, as defined in 9.82 of the revised code. And if you read that definition, it says, state means state, not the inferior units of local government. This bill says nothing about precluding private entities and local governments in this from doing what they please. That's up to them. It imposes no prohibitions on any governmental entity in this state, other than the state itself. And if there was any doubt about that, 8
under the good work of the chairman from Findlay, the bill was amended. It said all that before. They amended it yesterday, and they added another sentence saying, hey, folks, nothing in this bill affects private agreements and nothing in this bill prevents people from using whatever statute they want to get whatever benefits they're entitled to, just you can't use the statute that says, this is a benefit of marriage and have that statute somehow redefined to include same-sex couples. Here's the example I've been using with anybody that'll listen, just so we all get it. There's a statute in Ohio, 3307.79, that says school boards will make health insurance available to married teachers. So I heard the argument, well, because that's a benefit of legal marriage, I guess that means no school board can make health insurance available to unmarried teachers or same-sex relationships. All we're saying is that unless you're legally married, you can't use 3307.79 to get those benefits, because that section says, married teachers get health insurance. But there's other statutes, like the collective 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

bargaining statutes, that say, a school district shall collectively bargain terms and conditions of employment with its employees. And nothing in there says, only for the married, so you can use collective bargaining to try to get those kind of benefits if the local school board wants to give them to you. And there's probably another section somewhere in that education code that the gentleman from Mansfield and the lady from the Dayton area are so familiar with that says, a school district may employ whomsoever it wants on reasonable terms and conditions. So you could use that statute to try to get health insurance benefits. People say that this bill is somehow discriminatory. Well, folks, there isn't any court anywhere that has stricken down any defense of marriage legislation anywhere. And these bills have been passed in 37 states and at the federal level. People say, this is unprecedented, this denial of benefits. Well, I don't buy that either. Because when Congress passed their defense of marriage bill in one United States 10
code, Section 7, they dealt with the benefits problem this way. They said, in determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various agencies of the United States, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Why didn't Congress list all the benefits? Because there were so many, they were afraid of missing some. So they chose to deal with it much like we're dealing with it, by saying the specific statutory benefits of marriage mean married in the conventional sense and spouse in the conventional sense, and that bill was signed by President Bill Clinton. Kentucky's law on the defense of marriage says, any rights granted by virtue of a same-sex marriage are unenforceable in Kentucky courts. Georgia has declared void not only same-sex marriages, but any contractual rights granted by virtue of such a marriage.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Florida has prohibited all of its political subdivisions from giving effect to any same-sex marriage or any relationships stemming from that relationship. So this is not true that we are going farther than anybody else. We are simply saying -- we're clarifying our marriage law. And we're saying wherever else in those 57 volumes of code we use the word married or spouse, we mean married as we have heretofore defined it and spouse as we have heretofore defined it, just like the feds did. That's what we're doing. So you say, well, why don't you just stop with declaring same-sex marriage to be a strong -- against the strong public policy of that state. Well, that would fix the problem under our marriage provisions in 3101; wouldn't do a dern thing about all these other statutes that talk about marital benefits. You'd have people taking advantage of our five state pension funds and coming in and saying, well, I'm the surviving spouse, pay me my pension. Now, do you think when we set up the 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11

actuarial calculations for PERS and STRS and all them, that they were really figuring that surviving spouses would include Fred claiming to be John's surviving spouse? I don't think so. And we all know those pension funds aren't exactly flushed with money today. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I've tried to take some time explaining this bill, because there's a lot of myths and there are some facts that everybody needs to know. I understand there may be a number of amendments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I applaud some of those amendments for at least being honest. If people want to redefine marriage and say the benefits of marriage should be available to same-sex people, then bring in a bill, take it through committee, see if you get the fifty votes here and the however-many votes over there. But at least they're being honest about what their intentions are. Bring it in. We want to require domestic partner benefits for unmarried people, bring in the bill, and we'll deal with it, and we'll see it if that agrees 13

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

with what the majority here wants to do. But I urge your support for this bill. We're behind the curve, not ahead of the curve. 37 states and the federal government have done this already. The committee passed this unanimously yesterday. Let's get with the program. When the president of the Senate can change his mind because of this, it's time that the rest of us get with the program. Thank you. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: The question is, should the bill pass? The chair recognizes Representative Skindell. REPRESENTATIVE SKINDELL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, move to amend. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman moves to amend. Amendment has been distributed to all members. It's 5090. It is in order. The gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE SKINDELL: Thank you, Mr. S -- thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak to the amendment? SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE SKINDELL: Thank you.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

take the roll. THE CLERK: 51 affirmative votes, 37 negative votes; therefore, the motion is laid upon the table and does not become a part of the bill. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: The question is, shall the bill pass? The chair recognizes Representative Harwood. REPRESENTATIVE HARWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Move to amend. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Lady moves to amend. The amendment is 5087. It has been distributed to all members. It is in order. Lady may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE HARWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak to the amendment? SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Lady may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE HARWOOD: What this amendment would do is totally delete any reference to the marital benefit sections of the bill. After speaking with the Council of State Governments, it's become clear to me that the 37 other states who do offer this, none are as broad as Ohio in dealing with the

14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this amendment is a clarification of the law regarding the benefits section, not the marriage section of this legislation. Under the benefits section, it talks about marital benefits. That can be construed by some folks to include bereavement leave. I do not believe that it's the intent of this legislature to deny the ability of a significant other to attend the funeral of their significant other, should there be a passing. This is a clarification of law so that there's -- this does not include bereavement leave. Thank you. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: The question is, shall the motion be agreed to? The chair recognizes Representative Sietz. REPRESENTATIVE SIETZ: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the amendment on the table. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman moves to lay the motion upon the table. The House will prepare to receive the vote on that motion. Have all members now voted? Clerk will

15

marital benefits section. If this bill truly is what it's purported to be, simply to make clear in writing, codified that it is the strong public policy of this state that marriage is between a man and a woman, that would take care of the full faith and credit issues and prevent us from having to recognize civil unions from other states. This bill goes far beyond that and is meant, I think, to hurt people. It prohibits the state from offering benefits to people who are living together, whether they are of the same sex or opposite sex. What that means is, it treats people who are employed by the state differently. It means that many people -it's an argument whether or not that would cover university employees. How far does state go? Is this going to take people off of healthcare plans? Which we have all fought so hard to get as many Ohioans insured as possible, and where are those people going to end up? We sat here during the budget talking about how much it costs on Medicaid, and it's 17

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

one of the costs that's rising. Are we going to purposely knock people off of benefits and put them on Medicaid? The ramifications of adding this in the bill -- we don't need to be the leader of one of the states. This will open us up to litigation. We stand here and talk about how reports are clogged. Let's simply make this bill what it's intended to be, make it clear what the strong public policy in this state is: marriage is between a man and a woman. It really does not need to go any further than that. Thank you. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: The question is, shall the motion be agreed to? The chair recognizes Representative Sietz. REPRESENTATIVE SIETZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I respect what the gentlewoman said. The amendment that she's offering was offered in committee yesterday and defeated. The amendment deserves to be defeated or tabled because, number 1, if we stop with the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

prohibit the extension of specific benefits otherwise enjoyed by all persons, married or unmarried, to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes, including the extension of benefits conferred by any statute that is not expressly limited to married persons, or affect the validity of any private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this state. I don't know how much farther you can go than that to be clear -- and it's also in the uncodified law section of the bill -- to say, we're not here to interfere with private employers in what they do. So then the argument is, well, are we throwing people off the rolls of state health plan benefits; and, gee, isn't that just going to put more people on Medicaid? Well, now, that's really funny. Because if the state is providing those benefits under a health insurance contract, who's paying for that? The state. This is not going to have any impact on that. If the state quits paying for it in the health insurance contract, and the state has 20
to pay for it on the Medicaid side, you could make the argument that at least the feds pay 58 percent of Medicaid. So, therefore, we are not putting anybody in jeopardy here of being thrown off the roles of whatever they're entitled to. Because our state university employees have the right to collectively bargain, too. And they can use those statutory rights and say, hey, Mr. OSU or Mr. Akron and Mr. Miami, we want same-sex healthcare benefits for our employees. And if the university says okay, nothing in this bill is going to stop them from saying okay. They can say okay. And if they have said okay, that's perfectly okay in this bill. What the state university employees cannot do, though, under this bill is come in and say, well, now I'm in the -- we're all in STRS or SERES or whatever the university people are in, and say, you got this statute here that says surviving spouses get a pension when we croak. And what this bill will say, is, oh, no, you're not going to come in here as unmarried persons -- whether homosexual or 21

declaration of public policy in our marriage law, we will only fix the problem of recognition of marriage in the marriage law section of the code. Without the benefits language, we will have a multiplicity of lawsuits in which people say, well, the legislature said we can't be married under the marriage law, but over here, I've got this statute that says spouse, and they didn't say anything about what spouse means for purposes of this other statute outside 3101, so I'm going to come in and say spouse should be redefined in this evolving framework of our law to encompass same-sex relationships. So we need to do it because we have to take care of all the other places strewn throughout the 57 volumes of code that use the word marriage or spouse. That's why we need to do it. Now, the argument is that we're somehow denying benefits or throwing people off the rolls. Again, I say, read the bill. Nothing in the benefits section, division C3, shall be construed to do either of the following: 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

heterosexual -- and contort those pension fund benefits that are conferred by the state to state employees and say, well, I -- I should be treated like a spouse. So it will have that consequence. And, in my opinion, it should. Because nobody now, nobody now, is collecting a surviving spouse benefit, under any of our five pension funds by reason of a same-sex relationship. We're not taking any benefits away from them. We're just making sure they're not going to get those kind of benefits through some avant-garde redefinition of the word spouse in our pension laws, because that exposes the pension funds to greater obligations. So it is not going to affect this health insurance business in any way, shape or form. I don't know how we could have been any clearer in here than saying it four times and limiting it to the state. And the only thing it is going to do is provide a little belt-and-suspenders protection for our beleaguered pensions funds against having additional claims put on them by people coming in and saying, well, I know 22
I'm not married under the laws of your state, but, by the way, I'm the surviving spouse anyway, so pay me my pension benefit. It will do that. (Inaudible.) SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: The question is, will the motion be agreed to? The chair recognizes representative Grendell. REPRESENTATIVE GRENDELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Move to lay the amendment on the table. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman me -la -- moves to lay the amendment upon the table. The House can prepare to proceed to vote upon that motion. Have all members now voted? Clerk will take the roll. 57 affirmative votes, 37 negative votes. Therefore the motion is laid upon the table and does not become a part of the bill. The question is, shall the bill pass? The chair recognizes Representative Yates. REPRESENTATIVE YATES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Move to amend 5100. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman moves to amend. The amendment is number 5100. It has

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

been distributed to all members, and it is in order. The gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE YATES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, also, a request to speak both to the amendment and the bill. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE YATES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: I think I got 2512. REPRESENTATIVE YATES: Mr. Speaker and members of the house, I rise tonight reluctantly to speak conscientiously in opposition to the proposed bill from my very dear friend and eloquent colleague from Hamilton County. I would be remiss in addressing the amendment and the bill if I did not refer to his earlier referral to some of the founding fathers, suggesting in some way that 2003 was a -- similar to the Massachusetts colony of 1774 in which, at that time, even, you had to be a member of the Anglican church to settle in the colony or to even be able to vote. The

24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

23

point being that the world and the country, the United States, was a great deal different than what was described by my friend. This is a very vexing bill. And I, for one, wish it were not here tonight. But it is here. My colleague from Hamilton County has said on this floor that sometimes he reflects the spirit of John C. Calhoun. And I hope tonight to reflect, in contrast to that, the western democratic spirit of Andrew Jackson and speak for a small step forward on behalf of what I would term, generally, as human rights. I think that if the bill passes tonight, that perhaps not today or next year, but within ten years, we will look back and, constitutionally, this will be considered very much an error. In 100 years -- as we approached, recently, the 14th amendment -when we look back, this vote tonight may even shame our state. This bill has -- whether we like it or not -- vast state and certainly important federal constitution implications around both 25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the 1st and 14th Amendments. Our own constitutional law, in the case of Loving versus Virginia, declares marriage as a fundamental right. The Massachusetts court decision has similar language and goes on to state that for those of us who believe that, or who have believed that marriage is in place principally for the procreation of children, is not correct either, in and of itself. What my colleague from Hamilton County knows is what Oliver Wendell Holmes knew, who said, the life of the law of our country has not been logic, it has been our experience. And the world today is so very different. I liken this situation to the battle of the suffragettes in the early 20th century, women who fought 75 years for basic rights to vote and other rights in this country. And the human rights community of our gay and lesbian citizens -- we may as well say it. All we are doing tonight is a refight of the Battle of New Orleans when he should know that the war of human rights has morally already been won in decisions every day in small ways

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: The question is, should the motion be agreed to? The chair recognizes Representative Young. REPRESENTATIVE YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm here concerned this evening that a lot of us here are against House Bill Number 2 because they'd like to see a number -certainly one of the basic tenets of western civilization simply reengineered. To those in that camp, I would say that you should stop and consider what we're talking about here this evening. You know, we're not really dealing with lowering the driving age from 16 to 15. We're not talking about changing the ways in which you can obtain a fishing license or a hunting license. We're talking about one of the pillars of our society that's traditional marriage. In fact, we're talking about a divine institution that's been given to us by God. Just consider a few facts. Consider the human condition. We're made up of males and females. It's fairly obvious we're designed for one another. The males and females coming

26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and big ways across this country, and continues to do so, witnessed principally by Ohio's, and this nation's, largest corporations providing domestic-partner benefits to same-sex situations. My amendment, in speaking directly to it, agrees with the restatement that the sponsor suggests before this time removes all language relating to either civil unions or domestic partner benefits as issued by the state. If we do that, we meet the sponsor's goal, and we also give Ohioans and the country a chance to continue to discuss this issue. For no matter how far we are settled, I can't possibly believe that this issue has been discussed broadly in town meetings, in churches, in temples, in synagogues, and even in own homes, families, and workplaces. And let us leave those additional questions of civil unions and domestic-partner benefits to a more thoughtful claimant, not rushed in the haste of the Massachusetts decision or in our strong feelings. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a roll call vote. 27

together in traditional marriage create the basic unit, the building block of our society. And traditional-marriage children are naturally conceived and raised, generations are linked together. And through these webs of relationships, cohesion and strength is given to societies. Every successful and every major society in the history of mankind has demonstrated a strong preference for traditional marriage. If you just look at the scientific evidence, children of married partners tend to be healthier. They tend to be more creative. They tend to do better in school. They tend to be less involved in crime. Married spouses tend to be happier, healthier, wealthier than their counterparts. I would say to you, please, don't be so quick to rush to judgment and throw traditional marriage aside for some unproven social experiment. Nor should we allow some unnamed court to simply redefine traditional marriage in any way they might choose. It's time that the people's house stands up and defends traditional marriage. 29

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I move to lay the amendment upon the table. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Bill is out of order. Out of order. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Representative Young, you're out of order. Question is, shall the motion be agreed to? The chair recognizes Representative Faber. MR. FABER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Move to lay the amendment on the table. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman moves to lay the -- moves to lay the amendment on the table. The house will prepare to proceed to vote on that motion. Representative Cates voting in the affirmative. Have all members now voted? Clerk will take the roll. 61 affirmative votes, 32 negative votes; therefore, the motion is laid upon the table and does not become part of the bill. The question is, shall the bill pass? The chair recognizes Representative Yates. REPRESENTATIVE YATES: Mr. Speaker --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

legislation to add a permissive may, that the state may provide domestic partner benefits in statute, when the state administration decides to, through the Department of Administrative Services. I believe that this is an amendment which mirrors in state law and for state employ -employees the same benefits that the sponsor would like to or has included for the private sector. And since many of us believe that all of us -- that the private sector is often more correct than we are, then why would we not include this permissive application of domestic partner benefits to the sponsor's bill? And I would ask for a roll call vote, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Question is, shall the motion be agreed to? The chair recognizes Representative Stewart. REPRESENTATIVE STEWART: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak to the amendment and the bill?

30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Speaker, request permission to move to amend. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman moves to amendment. The amendment is 5101. It has been distributed to all members, it is in order, and the gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE YATES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I'd ask you to have pulled 5102. I won't be introducing 5101. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: All right. REPRESENTATIVE YATES: Or 5103. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Okay. That's good. I feel much better about this amendment, Representative Yates. Gentleman is asking for us to move 5102. It is in order. Gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE YATES: Thank you. I just wanted to indicate that I asked that those amendments be pulled because just like the proponent's bill that he has introduced, the one -- those other two are probably not right for this discussion, and, in that spirit, they have been pulled. Speaking to this amendment, 5102, what this amendment does is amends the sponsor's

SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE STEWART: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Boy, what a difference a day makes. Yesterday, I was so proud of the bipartisan effort we -- we did to lower the cost of prescription drugs. And, today, I'm rather saddened by this -- this -- this effort here. What we're about to do here is -- is just wrong. God, I miss the good old days of -- my friend, my colleague from Cincinnati -- my friend's grand old party, when they stood for a party of less government intrusion into people's personal life, you know, the party of Lincoln, that stood for equality, that all men and women are equal. This isn't about the defense of marriage. I'm all for marriage. We're all for defending marriage. This is something else. The federal legislation that you discussed would allow the state to prevent recognizing other states' marriages, so this isn't necessary. This now deals with benefits for heterosexual or gay couples, unmarried,

31

33

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

partners that work for the state, and would prohibit them from receiving benefits. It sends unintended consequences. We all recognize that today, in this world, in the real world of 2003, we receive our benefits from our employment or our spouse's employment. And that's a good thing, to try to increase benefits for people out there. We all know we pay for this. Your taxpayers pay for it just like I do, and my citizens do. Why wouldn't we want to cover more people? This is going to have unintended consequences. I have a letter here from NCR. While it doesn't -- this legislation doesn't affect private companies, we all know that what we do has an impact on business. This is sending the wrong message. I can't put it any more eloquent than my colleague from Cincinnati. There are more people here that are more eloquent and can debate the final legal points of this. But what we're about to do here is just wrong, and I support the amendment, and I would urge for the adoption of the amendment. 34
Thank you. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: The question is, shall the amendment be agreed to. The chair recognizes Representative Widowfield. REPRESENTATIVE WIDOWFIELD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move we lay the amendment on the table. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman moves to lay the motion upon the table. The house will proceed to on that motion. Have all members now voted? Clerk will take the roll. 65 affirmative votes, 29 negatives votes; therefore, the motion is laid upon the table and does not become a part of the bill. The question is, shall the bill pass? The chair recognizes Representative Redford. REPRESENTATIVE REDFORD: Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak to House Bill 272? SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE REDFORD: I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that at least we know this issue

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

is about money and not the sanctity of marriage. Up until a couple of speeches ago, I thought that was the case. In this great state where we fall over ourselves to create no-fault divorce to speed up the process for ending the sanctity of marriage among heterosexual couples, I find it, Mr. Speaker, offensive to suggest that those children that are raised in single-parent households, that are raised in bisexual, homosexual, transgender households somehow receive less than the household I was raised in with my mother and father. I do find it offensive. I do. I feel, both in my capacity as a representative for the 80th house district, which stretches from Vermillion to the city of Northwood, as well as the minority leader, leading 37 -- 36 of my colleagues, nearly four million constituents, that it is impair upon -- impair -- that it is incumbent upon all of us not to worry about the polls or reaction from the far right or the far left, but to search our soul. It's interesting that the analogy used by a prior speaker suggests this was not an 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

35

issue, like making it easier for a 16-year-old to receive a driver's license when they're 15. That 16-year-old, if she's a female, could marry in this state. Of course, she'd need to get permission from her parents. 70 percent of all marriages under seven years end in divorce. 50 percent of all marriages in this state, if not more, end in divorce. Let's not suggest that one is better off or not better off if he or she is in a heterosexual marriage, because, statistically, it's just simply not the case. It's about loving one's neighbor or loving one's spouse. And that, my friends, is not a tenet of western civilization. That's a tenet of civilization. The Loving case that my colleague from Cincinnati spoke to so eloquently -- and, certainly, I don't have that ability -- dealt with marriages of different races -- rest assured male and female, of course -- but dealt with marriages of separate races. And up until the Supreme Court ruled in its '67 ruling, the state of Virginia prohibited marriage among African Americans or 37

10

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Caucasians. In the case of the Loving decision, those folks were barred from the state of Virginia -- Commonwealth of Virginia for 25 years. That was just about 30 years ago. I am quite concerned, not about the sanctity of marriage -- no one on this side has suggested that -- that we should make marriage available for same-sex couples. We have merely suggested that perhaps one day we will have that discussion; not tonight, not tomorrow night, but I've heard 10 or 20 years, perhaps. What I'm pointing out, and what others are pointing out -- and it make -- and it may make some feel uneasy. So be it. Why do companies in the private sector choose to offer benefits when the law does not require them to do so? In my opinion, extending benefits to nonmarried couples is a very profamily action, because it acknowledges the truth of the modern family life for those single mothers, for those couples who have lived together without marriage for decades. Reasons cited by corporations who extend 38 such benefits include: fairness. We should never let fairness get in our way of legislation, of course. Fairness. Since benefits comprise about 30 to 40 percent of the average employee's compensation, an employee who does not receive benefits for his or her partner due to his or her marital status and/or orientation, those employees are at a significant disadvantage. We could continue to chase the brightest and the best out of this state. We shouldn't have our handprints on their backs. Comprehensive benefits are highly enticing in the hiring process. And benefits packages that do not address the full range of modern families exclude many qualified applicants; of this, we all agree. Diversity. The rising population of women, minorities, and others in the workplace value a diverse workplace. Those in the private sector understand that. Heck, you can count the Fortune 500 corporations doing bus -- business in this state in the 10s, 20s, 30s who offer benefits to unmarried couples, heterosexual couples. 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Offering these kind of benefits also increase productivity and employee satisfaction. Employees receiving benefits are less likely to be lured away by competitors or competing states, for that matter. I guess -- well, we're one of 37, potentially. Thank goodness. Doing so is responsive to the competitive trends among those in the private sector. I want to make it clear that the representative from Cincinnati is precisely correct when he suggests that the federal legislation which was passed did not bar states from recognizing civil unions, certainly. It gave them the ability to do so. Because, prior to that, there was some constitutional question regarding states recognizing or not recognizing civil unions. But the analogies that have since been used, I'm troubled with. Frankly, I cannot sit here and accept without standing. The founding fathers, and we've heard several names, many were Quakers, congregationalists. Both of which -- both churches recognizes civil union marriages, by the way, today, 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ironically enough. Vice president Dick Cheney recognized the predicament we were in when, during the last presidential debate, he was asked about his daughter and same-sex marriage. He said -and I quote -- the fact of the matter is that we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think that means people should be free to enter any kind of relationship they want to. It's really no one else's business in -- in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. It speaks to my point. I'm not here to suggest that the representative, the sponsor, is in the business of hate mongering. He's merely suggesting that we don't have the funds here in the state of Ohio to provide for, within our retirement systems -- for those folks in same-sex or heterosexual couples -those benefits. For him -- and I certainly don't mean to speak for the -- the sponsor -- it may be a 41

11

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

question of dollars and cents. But for others -- and I sat in committee -- it certainly was not a question of dollars and cents. It was a question of casting judgment upon others, criticizing one's life and livelihood and the -- the way they mar -- they raise their children. And I, again, find that offensive. Gays and lesbians are a part of every Ohio family. They should need -- should not be short-changed in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be rewarded and not just be turned your back upon because you're gay. It is time Ohio realize that there was no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. These are not my words, they're Barry Goldwater's words. He said, I am proud that the republican party has always stood for individual rights and liberties. Positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. 42
Our party has led the way in the fight for freedom, a free-market economy, a society where competition and the Constitution matter and sexual orientation shouldn't. I only wish that the issues discussed in committee dealt with the issues that were brought up by the sponsor of the legislation. You know what they say. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Restoring stability to these families in question is a tough problem. It requires careful, thoughtful -and, yes, solutions. The break-up of the American family, which we watch from our seats as legislators, that problem was not created by homosexuality. That idea may get you through the night, but statistically, empirically, logically, it just doesn't hold water. I agree that marriage is a quintessential state issue. I would agree with the representative from Cincinnati. It's a shame that the facts of the legislation were lost in the rhetoric and the demagogy for some -- from some on the very, very fringe of our society. I would hope and I would urge a no vote 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

on the bill and we allow this discussion, as legislators, as policymakers, to continue. And, for that, we would all be much better as a body and as a state. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Question is, should the bill pass? Chair recognizes Representative Grendell. REPRESENTATIVE GRENDELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Request permission to speak briefly on House Bill 272. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: You may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE GRENDELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 272 is not wrong. It's not about government intrusion. If we were talking about limiting private companies from doing as they see fit, we'd be intruding by government. We're not. It's not about divorce. It's not about 1773 or the framers of the constitution or Virginia. It is about the defense of marriage. And the representative from -- and sponsor from Hamilton County has already spoken to the issue. But to my colleague from across the

44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

aisle, it is about something else, something very important, and that is affirming who sets the public policy in the state of Ohio. Now, I used to read from a book, but we got these computers, so I'm going to have to do this. But Article 1 -- I'm sorry -Article 2, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution, The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a general assembly consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives. It doesn't say that the legislative policy-making powers of the state of Ohio are established by a court in Massachusetts, some folks in Canada, Vermont, California, or some federal judge, wherever he or she may be located. The vote on the defense of marriage act today is preserving a principle, a principle that is the Ohio General Assembly that establishes the policy of the state of Ohio. And as the last speaker noticed, marriage is a quintessential policy of state law and has been for a long time. Now, there's no shame in voting for this, because 37 state have already recognized the legislative responsibility of their general 45

12

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

assemblies. Two courts have already upheld states that have adopted DOMAs. And the federal DOMA signed by Bill Clinton, no paramour of conservative values, has not been challenged. There's a reason why the public policy is set by us and not by Massachusetts, and that's because we are accountable to the people of Ohio. There's no judge in Massachusetts who is accountable to one person who lives in this state, but we all are. And that's why it is important that we retain the policy, power in Ohio to decide on what is marriage. If the people of Ohio want to change marriage, the people of Ohio have the power to do that, either through this general assembly or powers reserved to them in Article 2, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution. But those powers would be lost, even the powers of the people to change what we do here, if we have a Massachusetts court establish what is marriage in Ohio. Now, we cannot advocate our responsibilities to another state or a federal judge. You've heard me rally before. It's 46
bad enough that we are extorted by the federal government to pass bills, sort of usurping our independent authority. It would be inexcusable to advo -- advocate our duty to set public policy on what constitutes marriage to another state or federal judge. We can disagree on policy. And if the issue of what constitutes marriage needs to be redefined later in the history of Ohio, that's this august body exists and the people have the powers they've reserved in Article 2. We should debate policy in this body. But the Defense of Marriage Act you're being asked to vote on tonight is a question of whether you want to keep that power or whether you want to kick that power to some folks in Massachusetts. I'm going to vote that the people of Ohio deserve to have their representatives decide the public policy of this state. And I ask that you support 272 and support yourselves in the process. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: The question is, should the bill pass? The chair recognizes Representative Dale

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Miller. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Speaker Householder, request permission to speak to House Bill 272. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Thank you very much. My colleagues, my distinguished colleague from Hamilton County, the sponsor of the bill, is an attorney, and a very learned one at that, and I am not. But I do believe that people, in fact, are going to do what he suggested. They are going to read the bill. And they are going to read the bill in different ways. And there is going to be a lot of litigation. And I do believe and I do predict that some people will either lose benefits that they currently enjoy or else they will find it more difficult to obtain benefits that they should reasonably be entitled to than it would be if this legislation were not enacted. I, for one, am not willing to gamble on any of my constituents or any of my fellow citizens in

48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

47

this state to lose benefits simply to make a statement about marriage. This bill is not about the defense of marriage. I can tell you that a homosexual couple is in no way a threat to my marriage, nor do I believe that it is a threat to anybody else's marriage. There are things that are threats to marriage. Unemployment is a threat to the quality and sanctity of marriage. When people have to work two or three jobs at minimum wages trying to hold a family together, that's a threat to marriage. The lack of health insurance is a threat to marriage. Domestic violence is a threat to marriage. Child abuse is a threat to marriage. And we should be dealing with these real issues if we truly care about the sanctity of marriage. My colleague, the distinguished minority leader of this body, talked about the way that companies are offering these benefits because of how important that is in attracting quality employees. I would add to that argument that the state of Ohio is in very serious competition, not only with other states, but 49

13

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

with the private sector, to gain and keep the employment of quality workers so that we can provide good public services at the lowest possible cost. And I tell you that we are making a very serious mistake that is going to hurt this state in the long run by denying ourselves the possibility in the future of offering domestic-partner benefits. In closing, I would like to bring to everybody's attention that in about the year 1798, the state of Kentucky, their legislature, passed a bill stating that, from henceforth, the value of pi would be exactly three. They didn't like these uneven numbers. Fortunately the governor of Kentucky vetoed it. But the legislature of Kentucky has been derided ever since for this. Well, I tell you that, at some point in the future -- I don't know whether it's 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years from now, our legislature and other legislatures who have passed this kind of legislation are going to be seen in the same way. Because it is an undeniable fact that homosexuals represent 50
between 5 and 10 percent of our population. And that's just the way it is. And to pretend that these people don't exist or that they should be treated as second-class citizens is plain wrong. And the vast majority of these homosexuals, their sexual orientation is not a matter of their choice but a matter of what they were either born with or what was formed very early in their life. And to pass this bill is simply a denial of reality, and I urge a no vote on House Bill 272. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: The question is, shall the bill pass? The chair recognizes Representative Ujvagi. REPRESENTATIVE UJVAGI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak to the bill? SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Gentleman may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE UJVAGI: Mr. Speaker, members of the house, as we have sat here debating tonight, I keep reading this bill over and over and over. And for the life of me, I cannot understand how this is the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Defense of Marriage Act. And if there is truth in advertising, this is not true. It really is an issue of tolerance that we're talking about here. And if anyone had attended any of the hearings, and if the good representative from Hamilton County who -- who presided over he -- those hearings knows the level of intolerance that was presented at that -- at those hearings. It is very interesting for us to note that while we're here debating this bill -and it's not just a question of -- of the issue of marriage, but goes to the heart of -of the rights of people in terms of benefits. There is a headline cover on Governing magazine that talks about the exact opposite and about how cities and states are working very, very hard to be able to -- to prove the tolerance in their communities to attract people of all diversity, because that is so critical to their future and their economic life and their cultural life. And for us to be sitting here today and to pass this bill and to pretend that it is a defense of marriage is a shame. There have 52
been efforts, motion after motion after motion from this side of the aisle to focus the issue, and each of those motions failed. That is not on our backs. That is your responsibility. If those -- any of those motions had focused the issue on the question of the definition of marriage, you would have found a much stronger, perhaps, vote here on this floor. But don't do sleight of hand. This is about tolerance, this is about the future, and this is not about the defense of marriage. I would urge a strong no vote on this act. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: Question is, should the bill pass? The chair recognizes Representative Beatty. REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to make a few brief remarks? SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: You may proceed. REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: Thank you. I didn't have a written speech tonight. But I'm a clinician. I'm a certified diversity trainer. And, like many of you, I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

51

53

14

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

didn't want go home tonight and say, did I really hear all that stuff I heard? Or I didn't want to go home tonight and say, why I didn't I make a comment about something? So let me just briefly make three points. Let's talk about the first point that my friend and colleague from Hamilton County said about our former president of the Senate, that this bill never surfaced when he was here, and yesterday, or recently, there was a clip that said he had changed his opinion. Well, I think his longevity and the reason it didn't come -- because when he was here, he was representing all of the citizens of Ohio, and he understood that the right thing to do was not to do something that could be discriminatory, so he chose not to bring it before this great body. Now, when you go out of office and you're not running for anything, we all know that you can really say a little more than oftentimes we can say here. So I wanted to make that statement. The other thing we talked about, the tradition of marriage, I think that's very 54

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

is your background, your lifestyle, your culture. And I will be the first to say that I respect that. That's why I agreed with a lot of what my colleague from the 98th district said on public policy. It's okay. But don't come to me with it disguised as something else. And in this great state -- and in my district alone, in the city of Columbus, we have the second highest gay population to San Francisco. We have individuals who fall into that population who are homeowners, who are great leaders, who pay into that pension that my colleague talked about. So let's not play like if someone has a partner that's of the same sex that they're asking for a free ride. They do the same things that we do. Quickly, some facts. If we would pass this bill, it would immediately adversely affect over a quarter of a million Ohioans, Ohioans who pay into our tax base. My constituents wrote me and said that they believe that House Bill 272 violates the 56
Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio and US Constitutions, because it does not provide a rational basis for denying benefits between married and unmarried people. We also believe that it could discriminate against unmarried state workers. Under this bill, all unmarried state employees, both those in labor unions and those who are not, will be forever barred for bargaining or -- and/or obtaining health care. Now, let me end with something I read. You know how we all have pieces of paper and then you find something, or you're surfing on the Internet and you find a quote and you say, I really like this. Well, I found something. And it's only three lines. And it was called, Standing Tall and Preserving American Values. It says, We should celebrate our freedoms every day. We should live each day as if it were the Fourth of July. We should rejoice in the fact that we live in a nation that offers her citizens rights and freedoms that others cannot enjoy. And, today, I ask you to support the rights and freedoms of our gay friends. And those words are from Speaker 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

interesting. Because, see -- I can say this because I've been discriminated against because I'm black, because I'm female, and because I'm well over 50. But let me tell you about the tradition of marriage. My mother-in-law, in the early '40s, had graduated from a prominent college as a female, and all she wanted to do was teach school and get married. Well, see, the tradition then was, you couldn't be married and teach school. So she had to give up her teaching job in order to get married. Now, let's fast-forward. There was also a time that you could not be married to someone who was not of the same color or race as you. Now, that's our rich ter -- tradition that we talked about. So, you see, tradition is not what's at the table here today, because we change every decade or so. And, for the most part, I agree with that. I agree that this is not about marriage. I do agree that this is really about something that, for many of us, for a variety of reasons, is difficult to talk about, whether it is your religion, whether it 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

15

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Larry Householder. Thank you, Speaker, for those great words. SPEAKER HOUSEHOLDER: You're welcome. The question is, shall the bill pass. The House will proceed to vote on the bill. Have all members now voted? Clerk will take the roll. 69 affirmative votes, 23 negatives votes. Therefore, the bill, having received the required constitutional majority, is hereby passed and entitled. ---

58
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE I, SuzAnne McMillin, CLR, the undersigned court reporter, state the foregoing transcript was transcribed by me via video to the best of my ability. ______________________________ SuzAnne McMillin, CLR

59

16

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

bdd1c568-10b0-4db2-89e8-4e92517db92f

1
A ability 15:9 37:19 40:15 59:6 able 24:25 52:18 abuse 49:15 accept 40:21 accountable 46:8,10 ach 8:3 achie 8:3 acknowledges 38:21 act 11:3 45:16 47:13 52:1 53:13 action 38:21 acts 3:19 8:14 actuarial 13:1 adams 5:12,12 add 32:1 49:23 added 9:4 adding 18:4 additional 22:24 27:19 address 39:15 addressing 24:18 administration 32:3 administrative 32:4 adopt 7:22,24 adopted 46:2 adoption 34:25 advantage 12:21 adversely 56:21 advertising 52:2 advo 47:4 advocate 46:23 47:4 affect 20:7 22:16 34:15 56:22 affirmative 16:2 23:16 30:17,19 35:14 58:9 affirming 45:2 afraid 11:12 african 37:25 age 28:15 agencies 11:5 ago 2:10,19 4:13,22 5:7 6:20 36:2 38:5 agree 39:17 43:19,20 55:20,21,22 agreed 15:18 18:17 23:6 28:2 30:7 32:19 35:3 56:4 agreements 9:6 20:8 agrees 13:25 27:7 ahead 14:3 aisle 13:13 45:1 53:2 akron 21:10 allow 29:21 33:22 44:1 amend 14:15,17 16:10,12 23:23,25 31:2 amended 9:2,3 amendment 14:17,22 15:2,21 16:12 16:17,20 18:22,24 23:9,12,25 24:5,19 25:20 27:6 30:1,11,14 31:4,4,13,24,25 32:6,25 34:24,25 35:3,8 amendments 13:12,14 26:1 31:19 amends 31:25 american 43:13 57:17 americans 37:25 analogies 40:19 analogy 36:24 andrew 25:11 anglican 24:24 anybody 9:13 12:6 21:4 49:7 anyway 23:3 applaud 13:13 applicants 39:17 application 32:14 approached 25:20 appropriate 41:15 area 10:11 arent 13:6 argument 9:17 17:17 19:21 20:15 21:2 49:23 article 3:2 45:6,7 46:17 47:11 aside 29:20 asked 31:18 41:4 47:14 asking 31:15 56:18 aspx 1:11 assemblies 46:1 assembly 45:9,18 46:16 assume 8:3 assured 37:21 attend 15:10 attended 52:5 attention 50:11 attorney 7:13,23 8:1 48:11 attract 52:19 attracting 49:22 august 47:10 authority 47:3 available 9:16,19 13:16 38:9 avantgarde 22:13 average 39:5 B back 25:17,21 42:15 background 6:22 56:1 backs 39:12 53:4 bad 47:1 bar 40:13 bargain 10:2 21:8 bargaining 10:1,5 57:10 barred 38:3 57:9 barry 42:20 base 56:23 basic 26:18 28:9 29:2 basis 57:3 battle 26:16,23 beatty 53:17,18,22 behalf 25:12 behavior 41:13 beleaguered 22:23 belgium 4:17 believe 6:6,10 15:8 26:7 27:15 32:6 32:11 48:12,18 49:6 56:25 57:5 believed 26:8 beltandsuspenders 22:22 benefit 9:10,17 16:21 22:8 23:3 benefits 4:15 7:5,17 8:10,11 9:8,23 10:6,15,23 11:1,11,14 12:20 13:16,23 15:3,5,6 17:1,12 18:2 19:5,22,24 20:1,5,17,20 21:11 22:2,10,12 27:5,10,21 32:2,8,15 33:24 34:2,6,8 38:18,20 39:1,4,6 39:13,14,24 40:1,3 41:23 48:19 48:21 49:1,21 50:9 52:14 57:3 bequeathing 7:12 bereavement 15:7,14 best 39:10 59:5 better 29:14 31:13 37:9,10 42:11 44:3 beyond 17:10 big 27:1 bill 1:7 2:5,11,20,23 3:4,10,23 4:12 6:23 7:9,10,15,16 8:6,7,13,19 9:2 9:5,6 10:16,25 11:17,17 13:8,17 13:24 14:2,12 16:5,7,22 17:2,10 18:5,9 19:23 20:12 21:13,15,17 21:23 23:19,19 24:5,15,19 25:4 25:15,23 28:7 30:3,21,22 31:20 32:16,25 35:16,17,21 44:1,7,11 44:15 46:3 47:24 48:4,10,14,15 49:3 50:13 51:11,12,14,18,23 52:11,24 53:15 54:9 56:21,25 57:7 58:5,6,10 bills 10:20 47:2 bipartisan 33:6 bisexual 36:11 black 55:3 block 29:2 board 9:19 10:7 boards 9:15 body 44:4 47:10,12 49:20 54:18 book 45:4 born 51:9 bottled 3:3

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

2
boy 33:5 breakup 43:13 brief 53:19 briefly 44:11 54:5 brightest 39:10 bring 13:17,22,24 50:10 54:17 broad 16:25 broadly 27:16 brought 43:7 budget 17:24 building 29:2 bus 39:23 business 22:17 34:17 39:23 41:11 41:18 buy 10:23 C c 25:9 59:1,1 c3 19:24 calculations 13:1 calhoun 25:9 california 45:14 call 27:25 32:17 called 5:17 57:16 camp 28:11 canada 4:9,24 45:14 canadian 4:10 cant 9:9,22 19:8 27:14 34:19 capacity 36:15 care 17:6 19:17 49:18 57:10 careful 43:11 case 5:17,18,24 26:2 36:3 37:12,17 38:2 casting 42:4 cates 30:16 caucasians 38:1 celebrate 57:18 cents 42:1,4 century 26:17 certainly 25:24 28:9 37:19 40:14 41:24 42:3 certified 53:24 chair 2:2 14:12,15,15 15:18 16:7 18:17 23:6,20 28:2 30:8,23 32:21 35:4,18 44:8 47:25 51:15 53:16 chairman 9:1 challenged 46:5 chance 27:13 change 6:6 14:8 46:14,20 55:19 changed 3:6,10 54:11 changing 28:16 chase 39:10 cheney 41:2 child 7:22,24 8:3 49:15 children 26:9 29:3,12 36:9 42:7 choice 51:8 choose 29:23 38:17 chose 11:12 54:17 church 24:24 churches 27:17 40:24 cincinnati 33:12 34:20 37:18 40:11 43:21 cited 38:25 cities 8:8 52:17 citizens 26:21 34:11 48:25 51:4 54:14 57:22 city 36:17 56:10 civil 3:13 4:13,17 7:2 17:8 27:9,20 40:14,18,25 civilization 28:10 37:15,16 claimant 27:21 claiming 13:3 claims 22:24 clarification 15:2,13 clarifies 6:24 clarifying 12:7 clause 3:18 57:1 clear 16:23 17:3 18:10 20:11 40:10 clearer 22:19 clerk 15:25 16:2 23:15 30:18 35:12 58:7 clinician 53:24 clinton 11:18 46:3 clip 54:10 clips 2:25 3:2 clogged 18:9 closely 5:23 closing 50:10 clr 59:3,8 code 8:16 10:9 11:1 12:9 19:4,18 codified 17:4 cohesion 29:7 coincidence 6:8 colleague 24:16 25:7 26:11 33:12 34:20 37:17 44:25 48:9 49:19 54:7 56:5,15 colleagues 13:12 36:19 48:9 collecting 22:7 collective 9:25 10:5 collectively 10:2 21:8 college 55:8 colony 24:22,25 color 55:15 columbus 56:10 come 19:12 21:17,24 41:14 54:13 56:7 coming 12:22 22:25 28:25 comment 54:4 commission 6:11 committee 13:18 14:5 18:23 42:2 43:6 commonwealth 38:4 communities 42:12 52:19 community 26:20 companies 8:8 34:16 38:17 44:17 49:21 compensation 39:5 competing 40:5 competition 43:3 49:25 competitive 40:8 competitors 40:5 comprehensive 39:13 comprise 39:4 computers 45:5 conceived 29:4 concerned 28:6 38:6 conclusions 41:15 condition 28:23 conditions 10:3,13 conferred 20:5 22:2 congregationalists 40:23 congress 10:24 11:3,10 conscientiously 24:14 consequence 22:5 consequences 34:3,13 conservative 46:4 consider 28:12,22,22 consideration 1:8 considered 4:12 5:17 6:14 25:18 consisting 45:9 constituents 36:19 48:25 56:24 constitute 6:15 constitutes 47:5,8 constitution 5:10,14 25:25 43:3 44:21 45:7 46:18 constitutional 3:17 4:9 5:8 26:2 40:16 58:11 constitutionally 25:18 constitutions 57:2 construed 15:6 19:25 continue 27:13 39:10 44:2 continues 27:2 contort 22:1 contract 20:21,25 contracted 6:4 contractual 11:24 contrast 25:10 conventional 11:15,16 conviction 3:4

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

3
corporations 27:4 38:25 39:22 correct 26:10 32:13 40:11 cost 33:7 50:4 costs 17:25 18:1 couldnt 55:10 council 16:22 count 39:22 counterparts 29:17 countries 7:4 country 25:1 26:13,19 27:1,12 county 24:17 25:7 26:11 44:24 48:10 52:6 54:7 couple 36:2 49:5 couples 4:10,15 9:11 33:25 36:7 38:9,20,23 39:24,25 41:22 course 37:4,21 39:3 court 3:18 4:1 5:8,16,24 10:18 26:5 29:22 37:23 45:13 46:21 59:4 courts 4:9 5:2 6:15 11:22 46:1 cousins 5:19 cover 17:18 34:11 52:15 create 29:1 36:5 created 43:15 creative 29:13 credit 3:17 17:7 crime 29:15 critical 52:21 criticizing 42:5 croak 21:22 cultural 52:22 culture 56:2 current 3:11 6:24 currently 48:20 curve 14:3,4 custody 8:4 D dale 47:25 daniel 5:11 dare 5:6 daughter 41:5 day 26:25 33:5 38:10 57:19,19 days 33:11 dayton 10:11 deal 11:13 13:25 25:2 dealing 11:13 16:25 28:14 49:17 deals 33:24 dealt 11:1 37:19,22 43:6 dear 24:16 debate 34:22 41:4 47:12 debating 51:23 52:11 decade 55:20 decades 38:24 december 1:9 3:2 decide 46:13 47:19 decides 32:3 decision 6:21 26:5 27:23 38:2 decisions 26:25 declaration 3:12 6:16 19:1 42:19 declare 4:2 declared 11:23 declares 26:3 declaring 6:18 12:15 decline 6:2 decrees 3:19 defeated 18:23,24 defending 33:19 defends 29:25 defense 2:14,18 10:19,25 11:19 33:18 42:25 44:22 45:16 47:13 49:3 52:1,25 53:11 defer 3:18 define 5:2 defined 8:15 12:11,12 definition 8:17 53:7 delete 16:20 delighted 35:24 demagogy 43:23 democratic 25:11 demonstrated 29:9 denial 10:23 51:11 deny 15:9 denying 19:22 50:7 57:3 department 32:4 derided 50:18 dern 12:19 described 25:3 deserve 47:19 deserves 18:24 designed 28:24 determining 11:2 developments 3:6 4:24 dick 41:2 didnt 2:23 11:10 19:10 50:15 53:23 54:1,3,4,13 difference 33:5 different 7:7,20 20:4 25:2 26:15 37:20 41:14,15 48:16 differently 17:16 difficult 48:21 55:24 directly 27:6 disadvantage 39:9 disagree 47:7 discriminate 57:6 discriminated 55:2 discriminatory 10:17 54:17 discuss 27:13 discussed 27:16 33:21 43:5 discussion 31:22 38:11 44:1 disguised 56:7 distinguished 48:9 49:19 distributed 14:17 16:13 24:1 31:5 district 10:2,12 36:16 56:5,10 diverse 39:20 diversity 39:18 52:20 53:25 divine 28:20 division 19:24 divorce 36:5 37:7,9 44:20 doesnt 34:15,15 43:18 45:11 doing 3:20 8:21 12:13 26:22 39:22 40:8 44:18 dollars 42:1,3 doma 46:3 domas 46:2 domestic 8:11 13:23 27:9 32:2,15 49:14 domesticpartner 27:4,20 50:9 dont 6:1,10 7:21,22,24,25 8:1,2,4 10:23 12:14 13:4 18:5 20:10 22:18 29:18 37:19 41:19,24 50:20 51:3 53:9 56:6 doubt 5:10 8:25 drivers 37:2 driving 28:15 drugs 33:8 due 39:7 duty 47:4 E e 59:1,1 earlier 24:20 early 26:17 51:10 55:7 easier 37:1 economic 52:21 economy 43:2 education 10:9 effect 8:6 12:2 effort 33:7,9 efforts 42:11 53:1 either 10:24 19:25 26:10 27:9 46:16 48:19 51:9 eloquent 24:16 34:19,21 eloquently 37:18 elses 41:11 49:7 empirically 43:17 employ 10:12 32:7 employed 17:15 employee 39:6 40:2 employees 10:3 17:18 21:7,11,16

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

4
22:3 32:8 39:5,8 40:3 49:23 57:8 employers 20:14 employment 10:3 34:6,7 50:2 enacted 48:23 enamored 2:23 encompass 19:14 ends 1:14 enjoy 48:20 57:23 enjoyed 7:17 20:2 enjoying 7:13 enter 41:10 entered 7:3 enticing 39:14 entities 8:20 entitled 9:8 21:6 48:22 58:12 entity 8:23 equal 33:17 57:1 equality 33:16 error 25:19 establish 46:21 established 45:12 establishes 45:19 esteemed 3:8 euphemism 4:16 evening 28:6,13 everybody 13:10 41:8 everybodys 50:11 evidence 29:12 evolving 19:14 exact 6:8,9 52:16 exactly 13:6 50:14 example 9:12 exclude 39:16 excuse 35:19 exemption 42:17 exist 51:3 exists 47:10 experience 26:14 experiment 29:21 explaining 13:8 explicitly 6:18 exposes 22:14 express 3:12 expressly 8:13 20:6 extend 38:25 extended 4:15 extending 8:10 38:19 extension 7:16 20:1,5 extorted 47:1 F f 59:1 faber 30:9,10 fact 28:19 41:6 48:13 50:25 57:21 facts 13:10 28:22 43:22 56:20 failed 4:2 53:3 fairly 28:24 fairness 39:1,2,3 faith 3:17 17:7 fall 36:4 56:12 familiar 10:11 families 27:18 39:16 43:10 family 38:22 42:10 43:13 49:12 far 17:10,18 27:14 36:22,23 farther 12:6 20:10 fastforward 55:13 father 36:13 fathers 24:21 40:22 federal 2:13,17 10:21 14:4 25:25 33:21 40:12 45:14 46:3,24 47:1,6 feds 12:12 21:2 feel 31:13 36:14 38:16 feelings 27:23 fellow 48:25 female 37:3,21 55:3,8 females 28:24,25 fifty 13:18 fight 43:1 figuring 13:2 fileid 1:11 final 34:22 find 36:7,14 42:7 48:20 57:13,14 finding 5:4 findlay 9:2 first 5:19 54:6 56:3 firstcousin 6:2,7 fishing 28:17 fit 44:18 five 12:21 22:8 fix 12:17 19:2 floor 25:8 53:9 florida 12:1 flushed 13:6 focus 5:15 53:2 focused 53:6 folks 9:5 10:17 15:7 38:3 41:22 45:13 47:16 follow 2:25 following 19:25 foregoing 59:4 foreign 7:3 forever 57:9 form 22:17 formed 51:9 former 3:3,8 4:20 54:8 fortunately 50:16 fortune 39:22 forum 3:21 forward 25:12 fought 17:21 26:18 found 3:24 4:9 5:8 53:8 57:15 founding 24:20 40:22 four 22:19 36:19 fourth 57:20 framers 44:20 framework 19:14 francisco 56:12 frankly 40:20 fred 13:3 free 41:7,10 56:18 freedom 41:7,8 43:2 freedoms 57:18,22,24 freemarket 43:2 friend 4:20 24:16 25:3 33:12 54:7 friends 33:13 37:14 57:25 fringe 43:24 full 3:17 17:6 39:15 fund 22:1 fundamental 26:4 42:25 funds 12:22 13:5 22:8,15,23 41:19 funeral 15:10 funny 20:19 further 18:13 future 50:8,20 52:21 53:11 G gain 50:1 gamble 48:24 gay 26:20 33:25 42:15,17 56:11 57:24 gays 42:9 gee 20:17 general 45:9,18,25 46:16 generally 25:13 generations 29:4 gentleman 2:6 10:10 14:16,19,23 15:22 23:11,24 24:2,6 30:13 31:3 31:6,15,16 33:1 35:9,22 48:5 51:19 gentlemen 15:1 gentlewoman 18:21 georgia 11:23 give 7:23 10:7 27:12 55:11 given 28:21 29:7 giving 7:12 12:2 glass 43:8 go 17:19 18:13 20:10 54:1,3,19 goal 27:12 god 28:21 33:11

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

5
goes 17:10 26:6 52:13 going 12:5 17:20,23 18:1 19:12 20:17,23 21:13,24 22:11,16,21 34:12 45:5 47:18 48:13,14,15,16 50:6,23 goldwaters 42:21 good 4:20 9:1 31:12 33:11 34:7 50:3 52:5 goodness 40:7 governing 52:15 government 2:13,17 8:9,18 14:4 33:14 42:24 44:16,19 47:2 governmental 8:23 governments 8:20 16:23 governor 50:16 graduated 55:7 grand 33:13 granted 11:20,25 great 25:2 36:4 54:18 56:9,14 58:2 greater 22:15 grendell 23:7,8 44:8,9,13 group 2:16 guardianship 8:4 guess 9:18 40:6 H hamilton 24:17 25:7 26:11 44:24 48:10 52:6 54:7 hancock 5:11 hand 53:9 handprints 39:12 happened 4:7 happier 29:16 happiness 42:18 hard 17:22 42:13 52:18 harwood 16:8,9,15,19 haste 27:22 hate 41:18 headline 52:15 health 9:15,19,24 10:14 20:16,21 20:25 22:16 49:13 57:10 healthcare 7:12 17:21 21:11 healthier 29:13,16 hear 54:2 heard 7:10 8:7 9:16 38:12 40:22 46:25 54:2 hearings 52:5,7,9 heart 52:13 heck 39:21 henceforth 50:14 heres 9:12 heretofore 12:10,11 hes 41:18 heterosexual 22:1 33:25 36:7 37:11 39:25 41:22 hey 9:4 21:9 highest 56:11 highly 39:13 hiring 39:14 history 29:9 47:9 hold 43:18 49:12 holmes 26:12 home 54:1,3 homeowners 56:13 homes 27:18 homosexual 4:15 6:16 7:11 8:11 21:25 36:11 49:4 homosexuality 43:15 homosexuals 50:25 51:7 honest 13:14,21 hope 3:1 25:9 43:25 hospital 8:5 house 1:7,7 15:2,23 23:13 24:13 28:7 29:24 30:15 35:10,21 36:16 44:11,15 45:10 48:4 51:12,22 56:25 58:6 household 36:12 householder 2:2,6 14:11,16,23 15:17,22 16:6,11,18 18:16 23:5 23:11,24 24:6,10 28:1 30:5,13 31:3,10,12 33:1 35:2,9,22 44:6,12 47:23 48:3,5 51:13,19 53:14,21 58:1,4 households 36:10,11 houses 43:8 howevermany 13:19 http 1:10 human 25:13 26:20,24 28:23 hunting 28:17 hurt 17:11 50:6 husband 11:7,9 hypothetical 4:22 I id 31:8 idea 43:16 im 12:23 19:12 21:18 23:1,2 28:6 33:8,19 38:14 40:20 41:16 45:5,6 47:18 53:24,24 55:3,3,4 immediately 56:21 impact 20:23 34:17 impair 36:20,20 implications 25:25 important 3:16 25:24 45:2 46:12 49:22 imported 4:1 imposes 8:22 inadequate 6:15 inaudible 23:4 include 9:11 13:3 15:7,14 32:14 39:1 included 32:9 including 20:5 increase 34:8 40:2 incumbent 36:21 independence 42:19 independent 47:3 indicate 31:18 individual 42:23 individuals 56:12 inexcusable 47:4 inferior 8:18 inherit 8:2 institution 28:20 insurance 9:15,19,24 10:15 20:21 20:25 22:17 49:14 insured 17:22 intended 5:5 18:10 intent 15:8 intentions 13:22 interesting 36:24 52:10 55:1 interfere 20:13 internet 57:14 interpretation 11:4 intervening 4:7,24 intolerance 52:8 introduced 31:21 introducing 31:9 intruding 44:18 intrusion 33:14 44:16 involved 7:11 29:15 involving 6:9 ironically 5:20 41:1 isnt 10:17 20:17 33:18,23 issue 5:18 27:13,15 35:25 37:1 43:20 44:25 47:8 52:3,13 53:3,6 issued 27:10 issues 8:6 17:7 43:5,6 49:17 ive 7:10 8:7 9:12 13:7 19:9 38:12 55:2 J jackson 25:11 jeopardy 21:5 job 55:12 jobs 49:11 john 5:11,12 25:9 johns 13:4 join 2:12

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

6
joined 2:16 judge 45:15 46:9,25 47:6 judgment 29:19 42:4 judicial 8:14 july 57:20 K keep 47:15 50:1 51:23 kentucky 11:22 50:12,16,17 kentuckys 11:19 kick 47:16 kind 10:6 22:12 40:1 41:10 50:23 knew 26:12 knock 18:2 know 2:21 3:8,9 5:25 13:5,10 20:10 22:18,25 26:23 28:13 33:15 34:9 34:16 35:25 43:8 50:20 54:20 57:12 knows 26:12 52:7 L la 23:12 labor 57:8 lack 49:13 ladies 15:1 lady 10:10 16:11,14,18 laid 16:4 23:17 30:20 35:15 language 6:13 19:5 26:6 27:8 largely 4:22 largest 27:3 larry 58:1 law 3:11 4:3,10 5:25 6:3,14 7:21 11:19 12:7 15:3,13 19:2,3,8,14 20:12 26:2,13 32:7 38:18 45:21 laws 20:9 22:14 23:1 lawsuits 19:6 lay 15:21,23 23:9,12 30:1,11,14,14 35:7,10 leader 18:5 36:18 49:20 leaders 56:14 leading 36:18 learned 48:11 leave 5:1 15:7,15 27:19 led 43:1 left 36:23 legal 5:20 7:6 8:10 9:18 11:6 34:22 legally 9:22 legislation 2:14,18 3:7 10:19 15:4 32:1 33:21 34:15 39:3 40:12 43:7 43:22 48:23 50:23 legislative 6:11 45:8,11,25 legislators 43:14 44:2 legislature 5:5 15:9 19:7 50:13,17 50:22 legislatures 50:22 legitimized 3:24 4:14,18 lesbian 26:21 lesbians 42:9 letter 34:14 level 10:21 52:8 liberties 42:23 liberty 42:17 license 28:17,17 37:2 life 26:13 33:15 38:22 42:5,17 51:10 51:24 52:22,22 lifestyle 56:1 lightly 3:9 liken 26:16 limited 4:8 8:14 20:6 42:24 limiting 22:20 44:17 limits 4:4 lincoln 33:16 lines 57:16 linked 29:5 list 11:10 listen 9:13 litigation 18:7 48:17 little 22:22 54:21 live 41:7 57:19,21 lived 38:24 livelihood 42:6 lives 42:12 46:10 living 17:13 local 8:9,18,20 10:7 located 45:15 logic 26:14 logically 43:17 long 45:22 50:7 longevity 54:12 look 25:17,21 29:11 lose 48:19 49:1 lost 43:22 46:19 lot 7:9 13:9 28:7 48:17 56:4 loving 26:2 37:13,13,17 38:2 lower 33:7 lowering 28:14 lowest 50:3 lsc 6:20 lured 40:4 M magazine 52:16 major 29:8 majority 3:25 14:1 51:6 58:11 making 22:11 37:1 50:5 male 37:21 males 28:23,25 man 4:4 11:7 17:5 18:12 mankind 29:9 mansfield 10:10 mar 42:6 marital 7:14 12:20 15:6 16:21 17:1 39:7 marriage 2:14,18 3:11,24 4:4,16 5:9,19 6:3,4,7,14 7:6 8:10 9:10,18 10:19,25 11:6,15,19,21,25 12:3,7 12:15,18 13:15,16 15:4 17:5 18:12 19:1,3,3,8,19 26:3,8 28:19 29:1,10,20,23,25 33:18,19,20 36:2,7 37:11,25 38:7,9,24 41:5 43:19 44:22 45:16,20 46:13,15,21 47:5,8,13 49:2,4,5,7,9,10,13,14 49:15,16,18 52:1,13,25 53:7,12 54:25 55:6,22 marriages 3:13 4:19 5:22 6:16,18 6:19,25 7:2 11:24 33:23 37:6,8,20 37:22 40:25 married 4:11 7:18,22,23,24,25 8:1 8:3,5 9:16,22,24 10:5 11:15 12:9 12:10 19:8 20:2,7 23:1 29:12,15 55:9,11,12,14 57:4 marry 37:4 massachusetts 3:6,25 4:8,25 5:7,9 5:20 6:5,9,21 24:22 26:5 27:22 45:13 46:7,9,21 47:17 matter 27:14 40:6 41:6 43:3 51:8,8 mazzolini 5:17,18 mcmillin 59:3,8 mean 11:15 12:10 41:24 meaning 11:3 means 8:17 9:18 11:6 17:14,16 19:11 41:7,9 meant 17:11 media 1:11 medialibrary 1:10 medialibraryembed 1:11 medicaid 17:25 18:3 20:18 21:1,3 meet 27:11 meetings 27:16 member 24:24 members 14:18 15:25 16:13 23:15 24:1,13 30:17 31:5 35:12 51:22 58:7 memo 6:12 men 33:16 merely 38:10 41:19 message 34:18 miami 21:10 miller 48:1,2,7

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

7
million 36:19 56:22 mind 3:7,9 14:8 minimum 49:11 minorities 39:19 minority 36:18 49:19 mirrors 32:7 missing 11:12 mistake 50:6 modern 38:22 39:16 money 13:6 36:1 mongering 41:18 month 5:7 morally 26:24 mother 36:13 motherinlaw 55:6 mothers 38:23 motion 15:18,23,24 16:3 18:17 23:6 23:14,17 28:2 30:7,16,20 32:19 35:10,11,15 53:1,1,1 motions 53:3,6 move 14:15 15:21 16:10 23:9,23 30:1,11 31:2,15 35:7 moves 14:16 15:22 16:11 23:12,24 30:13,14 31:3 35:9 multiplicity 19:6 myles 5:10 myths 7:9 13:9 N names 40:23 nation 57:21 nations 27:3 naturally 29:4 ncr 34:14 nearly 36:19 necessary 2:24 3:5 33:23 need 18:5,13 19:16,19 37:4 42:10 needs 13:10 47:8 negative 16:3 23:17 30:19 negatives 35:14 58:9 neighbor 37:13 netherlands 4:18 never 4:5 5:5 39:2 54:9 new 26:23 night 38:12 43:16 nofault 36:5 nonmarital 7:18 20:3 nonmarried 38:20 normally 3:18 northwood 36:17 note 52:10 noticed 45:20 number 13:11 18:25 23:25 28:7,8 39:7 56:17 partners 29:12 34:1 O party 33:13,14,15 42:22 43:1 pass 3:22 14:12 16:7 23:20 30:22 obligated 3:18 35:17 44:7 47:2,24 51:10,14 obligations 22:15 52:24 53:15 56:20 58:5 obtain 28:17 48:21 passed 2:10,17 10:20,24 14:5 40:13 obtaining 57:10 50:13,23 58:12 obvious 28:24 passes 25:15 october 2:10 passing 2:14 15:12 offensive 36:8,14 42:8 paul 5:12 offer 16:24 38:18 39:24 pay 12:23 21:1,2 23:3 34:9,10 56:14 offered 18:22 56:23 offering 17:12 18:22 40:1 49:21 paying 20:21,24 50:8 pension 12:22,24 13:5 21:21 22:1,8 offers 57:21 22:14,15 23:3 56:14 office 54:19 pensions 22:23 oftentimes 54:21 people 5:22 8:12 9:7 10:16,22 12:21 oh 21:23 13:15,17,24 17:11,12,15,16,20,23 ohio 2:12,19 4:1,3 5:21,21,24,25 6:2 18:2 19:7,22 20:16,18 21:19 6:19 7:2,4,21 8:9 9:14 16:25 22:25 34:8,12,21 41:9 46:8,14,15 41:20 42:10,16 45:3,7,12,18,19 46:20 47:10,18 48:13,19 49:10 46:9,13,14,15,18,22 47:9,18 51:3 52:14,20 57:4 49:24 54:15 57:1 peoples 29:24 33:15 ohioans 17:22 27:12 56:22,23 percent 21:3 37:6,7 39:4 51:1 ohiochannel 1:10 perfectly 21:15 ohiohouse 1:11 permission 2:5 14:21 16:16 31:1 ohios 3:11 5:2 6:14,24 27:3 32:24 35:20 37:5 44:10 48:3 okay 21:12,14,14,15,15 31:12 56:6 51:18 53:19 old 33:11,13 permissive 32:1,14 oliver 26:12 pers 13:1 ones 37:13,13 42:5 person 11:8 46:10 open 18:6 personal 33:15 opinion 22:6 38:19 54:11 persons 7:6,10,18,19 20:2,4,7 21:25 opposite 11:9 17:14 52:16 pi 50:14 opposition 24:15 pieces 57:12 order 14:18 16:13 24:2 30:4,4,6 pillars 28:18 31:6,16 55:12 place 26:8 org 1:10 places 19:17 orientation 39:8 43:4 51:7 plain 51:5 orleans 26:23 plan 20:17 osu 21:9 plans 17:21 outright 4:19 play 42:13 56:16 outside 19:12 please 8:21 29:18 P point 25:1 41:16 50:19 54:6 pointing 38:14,15 packages 39:15 points 34:22 54:5 paper 57:12 poised 2:12 paramour 46:4 policy 3:12,14,21 4:3,6 5:2 6:1 7:1 parents 37:5 12:16 17:4 18:11 19:1 45:3,19,21 part 16:5 23:18 30:21 35:16 42:9 46:6,12 47:5,7,12,20 56:6 55:20 policymakers 44:2 particularly 2:22 policymaking 45:11 partner 8:11 13:23 27:10 32:2,15 numbers 50:15

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

8
political 12:2 polls 36:22 population 39:18 51:1 56:11,13 positive 42:23 possibility 50:8 possible 17:23 50:4 possibly 27:15 potentially 40:7 power 7:23,25 45:8 46:12,15 47:15 47:16 powers 7:12 45:12 46:17,19,19 47:11 precisely 40:11 precluding 8:19 predicament 41:3 predict 48:18 preference 29:10 prepare 15:24 23:13 30:15 prescription 33:8 presented 52:8 preserving 45:17 57:17 presided 52:7 president 2:22 3:3,9 4:21 11:17 14:7 41:2 54:8 presidential 41:4 pretend 51:2 52:24 prevent 7:10 17:7 33:22 prevents 9:6 principally 26:8 27:2 principle 45:17,17 principles 42:25 prior 36:25 40:15 private 8:8,20 9:5 20:8,13 32:9,12 34:16 38:17 39:21 40:9 44:17 50:1 probably 10:8 31:22 problem 4:22 6:8 11:2 12:17 19:2 43:11,15 proceed 2:7 14:19,24 16:14,18 23:13 24:2,7 30:15 31:6,16 33:2 35:11,23 44:12 48:6 51:20 53:21 58:6 proceedings 2:1 8:15 process 36:6 39:14 47:22 procreation 26:9 productivity 40:2 profamily 38:21 program 14:7,9 prohibit 8:8 20:1 34:2 41:13 prohibited 12:1 37:24 prohibition 6:24 prohibitions 8:22 prohibits 7:1,4,16 17:11 prominent 55:7 property 7:12 8:2 proponents 31:20 proposed 24:15 protection 22:23 57:1 proud 33:6 42:21 prove 52:18 provide 22:22 32:2 41:20 50:3 57:2 provided 5:14 providing 3:11 7:5 20:20 27:4 provisions 3:24 12:18 public 3:12,14,21 4:3,6 5:2 6:1 7:1 8:14 12:16 17:4 18:11 19:1 45:3 46:6 47:5,20 50:3 56:6 pulled 31:9,19,23 purported 17:2 purposely 18:2 purposes 19:11 pursuit 42:18 put 18:3 20:18 22:24 34:19 putting 21:4 Q quakers 40:23 qualified 39:16 quality 49:10,22 50:2 quarter 56:22 question 14:11 15:17 16:6 18:16 23:5,19 28:1 30:7,22 32:19 35:2 35:17 40:16 42:1,3,4 43:10 44:6 47:14,23 51:13 52:12 53:6,14 58:5 questions 27:20 quick 29:19 quickly 56:20 quintessential 43:19 45:21 quite 38:6 quits 20:24 quote 41:6 57:14 R r 59:1 race 55:15 races 37:20,22 raise 42:7 raised 29:4 36:9,10,13 rally 46:25 ramifications 18:4 range 39:15 rational 57:3 reaction 36:22 read 7:15 8:16 19:23 45:4 48:14,15 57:11 reading 51:23 real 5:16 34:5 49:17 reality 51:11 realize 42:16 really 13:2 18:13 20:19 28:14 41:11 52:3 54:2,21 55:22 57:15 reason 3:16 4:23 6:1 22:9 46:6 54:13 reasonable 10:13 reasonably 48:22 reasons 38:25 55:24 receive 15:24 34:5 36:12 37:2 39:6 received 58:10 receiving 34:2 40:3 recognition 7:1 19:3 recognize 5:22 6:2,19 17:8 34:4 recognized 5:21 41:2 45:24 recognizes 2:2 14:12 15:19 16:7 18:18 23:7,20 28:3 30:8,23 32:21 35:4,18 40:24 44:8 47:25 51:15 53:16 recognizing 33:22 40:13,17,18 record 5:3 records 8:14 redefine 13:15 29:22 redefined 9:11 19:13 47:9 redefinition 22:13 redford 35:18,19,24 reengineered 28:10 refer 24:19 reference 16:21 referral 24:20 refers 11:8 refight 26:22 reflect 25:10 reflects 25:8 regard 41:13 regarding 15:3 40:17 regulate 41:12 regulation 11:4 rejoice 57:20 related 5:23 relating 27:9 relationship 7:11,14 12:4 22:9 41:10 relationships 4:14 7:19 9:20 12:3 19:15 20:3 29:6 religion 55:25 religiously 3:1 reluctantly 24:14 remarks 53:20 remiss 24:18 removes 27:8

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

9
reporter 59:4 reports 18:8 represent 50:25 representative 2:3,4,8 14:13,14,20 14:25 15:19,20 16:8,9,15,19 18:18,19 23:7,8,20,22 24:3,8,12 28:3,4 30:5,8,16,23,25 31:7,11,14 31:17 32:21,23 33:3 35:4,6,18,19 35:24 36:15 40:10 41:17 43:21 44:8,9,13,23 47:25 48:2,7 51:15 51:17,21 52:6 53:16,18,22 representatives 1:7 45:10 47:19 representing 54:14 represents 4:5 republican 42:22 request 24:4 31:1 44:10 48:3 require 13:23 38:18 required 58:11 requires 43:11 reserved 46:17 47:11 respect 18:21 56:4 responsibilities 46:24 responsibility 45:25 53:5 responsive 40:8 rest 14:9 37:20 restatement 27:7 restoring 43:9 retain 46:12 retirement 41:21 revere 5:13 revised 8:16 rewarded 42:14 rhetoric 43:23 rich 55:16 ride 56:18 right 4:10,21 5:8 7:13 21:7 26:4 31:10,22 36:22 42:17 54:15 rights 11:20,24 21:9 25:14 26:18,19 26:20,24 42:23 52:14 57:22,24 rise 24:13 rising 18:1 39:18 risk 3:23 role 42:24 roles 21:5 roll 16:1 23:16 27:25 30:18 32:17 35:13 58:8 rolls 19:23 20:16 ruled 37:23 rules 42:13 ruling 11:4 37:24 run 50:7 running 54:20 rush 29:19 rushed 27:22 S s 14:21 saddened 33:9 samesex 3:13,24 4:10,18 5:9 6:7,18 6:25 7:2 9:11,20 11:21,24 12:3,15 13:17 19:15 21:10 22:9 27:5 38:9 41:5,22 samuel 5:12 san 56:11 sanctity 36:1,6 38:7 49:10,18 sat 17:24 42:2 51:22 satisfaction 40:3 saw 3:1 saying 9:4,21 11:14 12:7,8,22 21:13 22:19,25 says 5:25 8:17,19 9:9,14,23 10:4,11 11:20 19:9 21:12,21 57:18 school 9:15,18 10:1,7,12 29:14 55:9 55:11 scientific 29:11 search 36:23 seats 43:14 second 56:11 secondclass 51:4 section 9:23 10:8 11:1 15:3,4,5 17:1 19:4,24 20:12 45:7 46:18 sections 16:21 sector 32:10,12 38:17 39:21 40:9 50:1 see 6:1 13:18,25 28:8 44:18 55:1,9 55:18 seen 6:12 50:24 senate 2:19,22 3:3 4:20 14:7 45:10 54:8 sending 34:17 sends 34:3 sense 11:16,16 sentence 9:4 separate 37:22 seres 21:19 serious 49:24 50:6 serve 42:12 service 6:11 services 32:5 50:3 set 12:25 46:7 47:5 sets 45:2 settle 24:24 settled 27:14 seven 37:6 sex 7:19 11:9 17:14,14 20:4 56:17 sexes 7:8,20 20:4 sexual 43:4 51:7 shame 25:22 43:21 45:23 52:25 shape 22:17 shed 37:4 shes 18:22 37:3 shortchanged 42:11 shouldnt 39:11 43:4,9 side 13:13 21:1 38:7 53:2 sietz 2:3,4,8 15:19,20 18:18,19 signed 11:17 46:3 significant 15:10,11 39:9 similar 24:22 26:6 simply 3:22 12:6 17:3 18:9 28:10 29:22 37:12 49:1 51:11 single 38:23 singleparent 36:10 sit 40:21 sitting 52:23 situation 26:16 situations 27:5 skindell 14:13,14,20,25 sleight 53:9 small 25:12 26:25 social 29:21 societies 29:7 society 28:19 29:2,8 41:7 43:2,24 solutions 43:12 somebody 8:5 sorry 45:6 sort 47:2 soul 36:23 speak 2:5 14:22 16:16 24:4,14 25:12 32:24 35:20 41:25 44:10 48:3 51:18 speaker 2:2,5,6,9 13:7 14:11,16,21 14:23 15:1,17,20,22 16:6,10,11 16:16,18 18:16,20 23:5,9,11,23 23:24 24:4,6,9,10,12 27:24 28:1,5 30:3,5,11,13,25 31:1,1,3,8,10,12 32:18,24 33:1,4 35:2,7,9,20,22,25 36:8,25 44:5,6,10,12,14 45:20 47:23 48:2,5 51:13,18,19,21 53:14,19,21 57:25 58:2,4 speaking 16:22 27:6 31:24 speaks 41:16 specific 7:5,14,17 11:14 20:1 speech 53:23 speeches 36:2 speed 36:5 spirit 25:9,11 31:23 spoke 37:18 spoken 44:24 sponsor 27:7 32:8 41:17,25 43:7

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

10
44:23 48:10 sponsors 27:11 31:25 32:15 spouse 11:8,16 12:10,11,23 13:4 19:10,11,13,19 22:4,7,13 23:2 37:13 spouses 13:3 21:21 29:15 34:7 stability 43:9 stand 18:8 standing 40:21 57:17 standish 5:11 stands 29:24 starts 1:13 state 2:15 3:12,15,21 4:3,6 6:4,9,17 6:25 7:4 8:15,17,17,23,24 12:17 12:22 16:23 17:5,12,15,19 18:11 20:9,16,20,22,24,25 21:7,16 22:2 22:3,20 23:1 25:22,24 26:6 27:10 32:2,3,7,7 33:22 34:1 36:4 37:4,8 37:24 38:3 39:11,23 41:20 43:20 44:4 45:3,8,12,19,21,24 46:11,24 47:6,20 49:1,24 50:7,12 56:9 57:6 57:7 59:4 stated 3:22 6:12 statement 49:2 54:23 states 2:13,16 3:20 5:4 7:3 10:20,25 11:5 14:4 16:24 17:9 18:6 25:2 33:23 40:5,13,17 41:14 46:2 49:25 52:17 stating 50:13 statistically 37:11 43:17 status 39:8 statute 4:14 9:7,9,10,14 10:14 19:9 19:12 20:6 21:20 32:3 statutes 9:25 10:1 12:20 statutory 7:5 11:14 21:9 stemming 12:4 step 25:12 stewart 32:22,23 33:3 stones 43:9 stood 33:13,16 42:22 stop 12:14 18:25 21:13 28:12 strength 29:7 strengthen 3:10 stretches 36:16 strewn 19:17 stricken 10:18 strong 3:14,20 4:2,6 6:1,25 12:16 12:16 17:4 18:11 27:23 29:10 53:12 stronger 53:8 strs 13:1 21:18 stuff 54:2 subdivisions 12:2 successful 29:8 suffragettes 26:17 suggest 36:8 37:9 41:17 suggested 38:8,10 48:14 suggesting 24:21 41:19 suggests 27:8 36:25 40:12 support 14:2 34:24 47:21,21 57:24 supports 3:7 supreme 4:1 5:7,16,24 37:23 sure 22:11 surfaced 54:9 surfing 57:13 surviving 12:23 13:3,4 21:21 22:7 23:2 suzanne 59:3,8 synagogues 27:17 systems 41:21 T t 59:1,1 table 15:21,23 16:4 23:10,13,18 30:2,12,15,20 35:8,10,15 55:19 tabled 18:24 take 2:20 13:8,17 16:1 17:6,20 19:17 23:16 30:18 35:13 58:8 talk 12:20 18:8 54:6 55:24 talked 49:20 54:24 55:17 56:15 talking 17:24 28:13,15,18,20 44:17 52:4 talks 15:5 52:16 tall 57:17 tax 56:23 taxpayers 34:10 teach 55:9,11 teachers 9:16,20,24 teaching 55:12 tell 49:4 50:5,19 55:5 temples 27:17 ten 25:17 tend 29:12,13,14,14,16 tenet 37:14,15 tenets 28:9 ter 55:16 term 25:13 terms 10:2,13 41:12 52:14 texas 2:15 thank 2:4,8 14:10,14,20,21,25 15:16 16:9,15 18:15,19 23:8,22 24:3,8 28:4 30:2,10,10 31:7,17 32:18,23 33:3 35:1,6,20 40:7 44:5 44:9,13 48:7 51:17 53:18,22 58:2 thatll 9:13 thats 6:20 8:21 9:17 12:12 18:1 19:19 20:19 21:15 28:19,21 31:12 34:7 37:15 41:15 46:7,11 47:9 49:12 51:2 54:25 55:16 56:4,17 theres 7:9 9:14,25 10:8 13:9 15:14 45:23 46:6,9 theyre 9:8 13:21 21:6 22:11 37:2 42:20 56:17 theyve 47:11 thing 8:7 12:19 22:21 34:7 54:16,24 things 5:4 6:23 49:8 56:19 think 2:24 12:25 13:4 17:11 24:10 25:15 41:9,13 54:12,25 thought 5:13 36:3 thoughtful 27:21 43:11 threat 5:15,16 49:5,6,9,13,14,15,16 threats 49:8 three 6:20,23 49:11 50:15 54:5 57:16 throw 29:19 43:9 throwing 19:22 20:16 thrown 21:5 time 2:15 13:8 14:8 24:23 27:8 29:24 42:16 45:22 55:14 times 22:19 today 4:23 13:6 25:16 26:15 33:8 34:4 40:25 45:17 52:23 55:19 57:23 tolerance 52:3,19 53:10 tomorrow 38:12 tonight 24:13 25:5,10,15,21 26:22 38:11 47:14 51:23 53:23 54:1,3 totally 16:20 tough 43:10 town 27:16 track 5:3 tradition 54:25 55:5,10,16,18 traditional 28:19 29:1,10,20,22,25 traditionalmarriage 29:3 trainer 53:25 transcribed 59:5 transcript 59:4 transgender 36:11 treated 22:4 51:4 treats 17:15 trends 40:9 tried 13:7 troubled 40:20 true 7:15 8:13 12:5 52:2 truly 17:2 49:17 truth 38:22 52:2 try 10:6,14 34:8 trying 41:12 49:12 turned 42:14

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

11
two 2:10,19 3:4 4:7,12,22 31:21 46:1 49:11 U ujvagi 51:16,17,21 unanimously 14:6 uncodified 20:12 undeniable 50:25 undersigned 59:3 understand 13:11 39:21 51:25 understood 54:15 uneasy 38:16 unemployment 49:9 unenforceable 11:21 uneven 50:15 unidentified 30:3 unintended 34:3,12 union 4:13,17 11:6 40:25 unions 3:13 7:2 17:8 27:9,20 40:14 40:18 57:8 unit 29:2 united 10:25 11:5 25:2 units 8:9,18 university 17:18 21:7,12,16,19 unmarried 7:6,18 8:12 9:20 13:24 20:3 21:24 33:25 39:24 57:4,6,7 unnamed 29:22 unprecedented 10:22 unproven 29:20 upheld 46:1 urge 14:2 34:24 43:25 51:11 53:12 use 9:9,22 10:5,14 12:9 19:18 21:8 usurping 47:2 V valid 6:3 20:9 validity 3:19 20:7 value 39:20 50:14 values 46:4 57:17 variety 55:24 various 11:5 vast 25:24 51:6 vermillion 36:17 vermont 4:13 45:14 versus 5:17 26:3 vested 45:9 vetoed 50:16 vexing 25:4 vice 41:2 video 59:5 violate 3:20 violates 56:25 violence 49:15 virginia 26:3 37:24 38:4,4 44:21 virtue 11:20,25 visit 8:5 void 6:16,18 11:23 volumes 12:9 19:18 vote 2:11 15:24 23:14 24:25 25:21 26:18 27:25 30:16 32:17 43:25 45:16 47:14,18 51:12 53:8,12 58:6 voted 15:25 23:15 30:18 35:12 58:7 votes 13:19,19 16:2,3 23:16,17 30:19,19 35:14,14 58:9,9 voting 30:17 45:23 W wages 49:12 want 5:15 9:7 13:15,23 21:10 34:11 40:10 41:11 46:14 47:15,16 54:1 54:3 wanted 31:18 54:22 55:8 wants 10:7,12 14:1 war 26:24 wasnt 3:5 watch 43:14 water 43:18 way 11:2 22:17 23:2 24:21 29:23 39:2 40:25 42:6 43:1 49:5,20 50:24 51:2 ways 26:25 27:1 28:16 48:16 wealthier 29:16 webs 29:6 webster 5:11 wed 44:18 wednesday 1:9 welcome 58:4 wendell 26:12 western 25:11 28:9 37:15 weve 6:12 40:22 whats 55:18 whomsoever 10:12 whos 20:21 widowfield 35:5,6 wife 11:7,9 willing 5:1 48:24 wish 25:5 43:5 witnessed 27:2 woman 4:4 11:7 17:6 18:12 women 26:17 33:17 39:19 won 26:25 wont 31:9 word 4:17 6:6 11:6,8 12:9 19:19 22:13 words 42:20,21 57:25 58:3 work 9:1 34:1 42:13 49:11 worked 6:13 workers 50:2 57:6 working 52:17 workplace 39:19,20 workplaces 27:18 world 25:1 26:15 34:5,5 worry 36:21 wouldnt 12:19 34:11 writing 17:3 written 53:23 wrong 33:11 34:18,23 44:15 51:5 wrote 56:24 www 1:10 X Y yates 23:21,22 24:3,8,12 30:24,25 31:7,11,14,17 year 25:16 50:11 years 2:10,19 3:4 4:8,12,22 6:20 25:17,19 26:18 37:7 38:5,5,12 50:21,21,21 yesterday 9:3 14:6 18:23 33:6 54:10 youd 12:21 young 28:3,4 30:6 youre 9:21 21:24 30:6 42:15 47:13 54:19 57:13 58:4 youve 46:25 Z 0 00 1:13,14 1 1 18:25 45:6,7 46:18 10 1:9 38:12 50:21 51:1 100 25:19 50:21 10s 39:23 112162 1:12 14th 25:20 26:1 15 28:15 37:2 16 28:15 16yearold 37:1,3 1773 44:20 1774 24:23 1798 50:12 1950s 5:16 1st 26:1

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

12
2 2 28:7 45:7 46:17 47:11 20 38:12 2000 6:11 2001 2:10 2003 1:9 24:21 34:5 20s 39:23 20th 26:17 23 58:9 25 1:13 38:5 2512 24:11 272 1:7 35:21 44:11,15 47:21 48:4 51:12 56:25 29 2:11 35:14 3 3 3:25 5:8 30 38:5 39:4 30s 39:24 3101 12:18 19:12 32 30:19 3307 9:14,22 36 2:12 36:18 37 2:16 10:20 14:4 16:3,24 23:16 36:18 40:6 45:24 4 4 3:25 5:8 40 39:4 40s 55:7 5 5 51:1 50 37:7 50:21 55:4 500 39:22 5087 16:12 5090 14:18 51 16:2 5100 23:23,25 5101 31:4,9 5102 31:9,15,24 5103 31:11 57 12:9 19:18 23:16 58 21:3 6 61 30:19 65 35:14 67 2:11 37:24 69 58:9 7 7 11:1 70 37:6 75 26:18 79 9:14,22 7th 3:2 8 80th 36:16 82 8:15 9 9 8:15 96 1:14 98th 56:5

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-7

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair recognizes Senator Harris. SENATOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. And, members of the Ohio Senate, I stand before you today to discuss House Bill 272, also known as the Defense of Marriage Act. House Bill 272 was approved out of the finance committee earlier this morning. As all of us know, the finance committee heard 30 plus witnesses, both proponents and opponents of the bill, during the nine hours of committee hearing yesterday. During public testimony, the emotions and comple -complexities of this issue were very apparent to all of us who were in the committee. While the arguments for and against this bill are often very personal, as chairman of the finance committee, I attempted to keep all testimony and questions focused solely on the legislation itself and the impact that is may or may not have on public policy in Ohio. This is my objective before you today. House Bill 272 closes a potential 2 loophole that currently exists in the Revised Code. The bill clarifies Ohio's definition of marriage as solely between one woman and one man and further states that the same-sex marriage -- same-sex marriages are against the strong public policy of the state of Ohio and have no legal effect in this state. House Bill 272 guards against judiciary or legislative acts in other states or countries from compelling Ohio to recognize certain marriages, unions, or relationships that the laws of this state do not grant. When President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in September of 1996, he stated, the act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to marriage. House Bill 272 affirms Ohio's right toward courts, our governments from outside our jurisdiction from encroaching their laws regarding same-sex or common -- or common-law marriages. Ohio joins, with passage of this bill, 37 other states in supporting a state's rights in determining marriage policy. Further, House Bill 272 declares that the recognition 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

or extension of specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships is against the strong public policy of the state of Ohio. While in the house, the bill was amended to clarify that the benefits language is not intended to infringe on existing or future benefits offered by private companies nor by local subdivisions; that includes counties, cities, and school districts. If they choose to offer domestic partner benefits, the statutory benefits section only pertains to state law. During committee, the finance committee accepted two amendments that helped clarify specific areas of the legislation. First, we accepted a technical amendment relating to Ohio's recognition of other states' common-law marriages so that the provisions are consistent within the vari -- within the revised code. The second amendment, which was crafted by Senator Prentiss and the bill's sponsor in the House, Representative Sietz, clarifies that the bill does not prohibit benefits 4
currently permitted under Chapter 4117, the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Senator White, we have heard the debate on same-sex marriage for many years. I believe that Ohio, in adjoining 37 other states who have already approved similar legislation, is right in clarifying that public policy of this great state is to recognize that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, let me submit to each and every one of us here today that no group of individuals should ever equate this legislation as a license to discriminate against, harass, or intimidate against any group or individual based on their sexual orientation, gender, religion, or ethnic background. Senator White, I enjoy -- I encourage the support of this body in passing House Bill 272. Thank you. PRESIDENT WHITE: The chair, before calling on other members to debate this very sensitive and passionate issue, would ask all members, as we make our comments, to keep them

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

focused on the subject matter of this bill and from the use of personalities and the other extraneous issues. With that, the chair recognizes Senator Hottinger. SENATOR HOTTINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, rise in support of House Bill 272. It was almost exactly seven years ago that I first introduced this legislation, first, as a member of the Ohio House and, later, as a member of the Senate. And I'm pleased this body is finally considering this important issue here today. There are those who would argue that this bill has been rushed or fast-tracked. And to those members, I would remind them that this is the fourth attempt to pass this bill. It's clearly been an issue that's been debated for a number of years, at least -- at least seven years in the state of Ohio. Even last night on national television, in his State of the Union Address, President George Bush elevated both the importance and the timeliness of what we are addressing 6
today. House Bill 272 is needed to clarify and to protect Ohio's definition of marriage between one man and one woman, and that is what this bill is ultimately about, clarification. It is much more a preservation of our traditional definition of marriage than a significant change in our public policy. It is, in a nutshell, the closure of a potential loophole in our state statute on marriage. Recent events, like the court case in Massachusetts and the Vermont civil unions and the legitimizing of same-sex marriages in Canada pose the threat that this date may have to recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in other states or countries. In fact, it is the result of these recent events that moved the immovable former president, Richard Finan. Some of you may recall his nickname of -- of cement head that was attributed to him as a result -- the result of his longstanded -- longstanding beliefs and immovable positions often. But even President Finan, as a former member of this body, has moved from a position of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

nonsupport to an advocate for the -- the bill's necessity. Due to the Full Faith and Credit Provision under the United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 1, which states that -- that we must honor the policy of other states, such as marriages. For example, someone married in the state of Pennsylvania comes to Ohio, we recognize that as a legally binding marriage; someone gets a driver's license in the state of West Virginia, they move to Ohio, we recognize that as a -- as a valid driver license. But same-sex marriages pose an entirely new issue, due to the fact that states like Ohio do not have any laws recognizing them or specifically declaring them void. And I want to speak to -- on just a couple Supreme Court issues: one, a United States Supreme Court issue and also a state Supreme Court issue. First, in 1934, Supreme Court ruling in Loughran versus Loughran, our high court held that each state is to give the full faith and 8
credit to marriages of other states unless -unless they are declared void by statute of that state. In other words, if a same-sex couple were to get married in one state and move to Ohio, Ohio could potentially have to recognize that marriage unless state law declares that same-sex marriages in Ohio are void. That is what House Bill 272 is about, is adding that necessary language. And other important case to note is with the issue of Mazzolini vs. Mazzolini. In this case, an Ohio Supreme Court ruled, in 1958, that the state would have to recognize a marriage between first cousins which took place in another state. By happenchance, that state happened to be Massachusetts. Even though Ohio law does not permit first cousins to be married, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the marriage would have to be recognized, because the Ohio statute did not declare that a first cousin marriage was void. A May 2000 research memo from LSC states, and I quote, The language of Ohio's marriage law might be considered by some courts to be 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

inadequate to constitute a declaration that homosexual marriages are void in this state. Without explicitly deeming same-sex marriages void, Ohio may have to recognize such marriages, end quote. House Bill 272, therefore, clarifies that same-sex marriages are against the strong public policy of the state of Ohio, they are void in this state, and the bill prohibits the recognition in Ohio of same-sex marriages or civil unions entered into either in other states or foreign countries. Senate -- excuse me -- House Bill 272 will strengthen current language and uphold that marriage is solely between a male and a female. Ohio, ladies and gentlemen, must be able to clearly establish and define our own laws rather than have another state or country determine the way we define something as important as the definition of marriage. As Floor Manager Harris had indicated, 37 other states have adopted similar defense of marriage act legislation. I'd also remind that the federal government, in 1996, passed a defense of marriage act, then signed by 10
President Bill Clinton. I believe it's now time for Ohio to become the 38th state. Let me tell you what this bill is not, briefly. This bill is not about grandstanding, it is not about gay bashing and it's not about demagoguery. It is solely and clearly limited to and specifically about clarifying and protecting Ohio's definition of marriage between one man and one woman, and I urge your support of the bill. PRESIDENT WHITE: The chair recognizes Senator Fingerhut. SENATOR FINGERHUT: Okay. Mr. President, I move to amend. PRESIDENT WHITE: (Inaudible.) SENATOR FINGERHUT: I believe the amendment has been distributed. It's LSC 125.1436-1. PRESIDENT WHITE: The amendment has been passed out, the amendment is in order, and the gentleman may prepare to explain his amendment. SENATOR FINGERHUT: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, members of the Senate,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

there will be time later to discuss our views on the entire bill and to respond to some of the comments that have previously been made. However, I hope you were listening carefully, as I was, to both Senators Harris and Hottinger, because they both indicated -and I believe, as we all respect them, and I do sincerely -- that the sole -- this was Senator Hottinger's last word -- the sole intent of this bill is to clarify the definition of marriage so that we get protected in the event we experience a lawsuit or a full faith and credit claim based on a marriage from Massachusetts or a marriage from Canada. It is the opinion of Senator Hottinger and Senator Harris, as they've explained it to us -- I don't agree, but it's their opinion -that Ohio's law may not be adequate and, therefore, we have a potential loophole. These are their words. If that were so, if that were solely the intention of this bill, then we would stop there. We would still have a disagreement, perhaps, but we would stop there. But the 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11

bill doesn't stop there. The bill goes on. And the bill specifically denies benefits to nonmarried couples. And, of course, because nonmarried in Ohio -- as even Senator Hottinger and Senator Harris agree -- means the marriage of a man and a woman -- that's our law, it's always been our law -- it means, therefore, that not only homosexual couples who are seeking benefits, but also nonmarried heterosexual couples who are seeking benefits are specifically denied benefits under this statute. The amendment that is before you simply deletes those provisions, lines 52 through 77. It's a short bill. I urge you to read them for yourself before you cast your votes. Line 52 simply begins in a very straightforward manner, the recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. That is completely unnecessary to the point that 13

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Senator Harris articulated and that Senator Hottinger said is the sole purpose of this bill. Now, the section will go on and try to carve out from that strong language I just read to you private contracts and actions by the state, by local government entities, thereby leaving the impression as if this were okay, leaving the impression that all we're doing is denying specific statutory benefits to state employees. That would be the reading of this. First of all, state employees -- a relatively fair number of people I would say, including in all of our entities such as universities and community colleges, and that issue is going to be addressed separately, I believe. But even -- you don't have to stray very far to know how this touches state employees. For those members of the committee that were there at 10:00 last night, we heard one of our own employees in this very Ohio Senate, one of the people that welcomes people to the statehouse and shows people around the 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that will claim that they can no longer, under this statute, provide domestic partner benefits. Now, the sponsor -- I mean the House sponsor, in this case -- was absolutely certain -- he was so certain that this would be a completely unmeritorious claim, would never, never, never happen. He, however, thinks the courts make wild decisions all the time on the other side, but there's no chance they'll make a wild decision with respect to the private benefits and the interpretation of specific statutory benefits. But despite the fact that he has very selective confidence in the courts -- when he doesn't agree with them, they're crazy, and when he does agree with them, they're absolutely brilliant -- we know that lawsuits against major corporations have a chilling effect, and they don't want to defend these lawsuits. And so it will have a chilling effect on domestic partner benefits, whichever way the courts end up ruling, because we do not define what we mean by specific statutory benefits, 16
what we are denying people here today. So ladies and gentlemen, members of the Senate, based on the testimony, the -- the -the words of the sponsor and of Senator Hottinger, that their intention is simply to shore up this potential loophole -- let's leave the bill with that in it. And let's take out the sections of the bill that are denying benefits to our employees, that are potentially denying benefits to other employees around Ohio. We had testimony that -- you've -- you've all received a letter from NCR Corporation in Dayton. You have -- you should have heard testimony that we had from benefits managers of other major companies who said, you know, we try to recruit talent to Ohio, this is one of the things they ask about. So this is a real serious issue for us here in Ohio. Let's take that language out. If we do take it out, it will then at least be true that what the sponsors have said about this bill is what the bill does. We can then debate whether we still want to do that or not. But at least, then, the description we 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

statehouse come forward and explain how this bill affects him. It's too bad the entire Senate could not have heard our employee and talk about how this bill affects him. But even under a fair reading -- even under a neutral reading, I should say, of this provision, we know we're denying benefits to nonmarried state employees. We know we're taking benefits away. There was much testimony prevented -presented -- contested and disputed by the sponsor, to be sure -- but testimony that I believe was quite persuasive that this will, in fact, have an impact on benefits at private companies, because we did not define what a specific statutory benefit is. And so, I'm a lawyer. You can make a claim that a specific statutory benefit includes tax credits, the deduction of benefits by a private company under state law from taxes. There's a lot of ways that specific statutes affect private businesses. And so we will see lawsuits against private businesses in Ohio, major private businesses, 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

will have heard will be accurate if we pass this amendment and take those sections out of the bill. The statement that 37 other states have this kind of legislation is only true if we take this out. It is not true. It is not true. We will go beyond what other states are doing if we leave this in. I urge adoption of the amendment. PRESIDENT WHITE: Question is, shall the amendment pass? Chair recognizes Senator Gardner. SENATOR GARDNER: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the motion to amend be laid upon the table. PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair recognizes Senator Fingerhut. SENATOR FINGERHUT: Chairman, I object, and I'd like to (inaudible.) PRESIDENT WHITE: The gentleman may proceed. SENATOR FINGERHUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I object to the motion and ask for a roll call vote. I would like to simply point out to the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PRESIDENT WHITE: Question is, shall the -- amend -- motion to table be agreed to? Roll call vote having been requested, clerk will call the roll. THE CLERK: Amstutz? SENATOR AMSTUTZ: Yes. THE CLERK: Armbruster? SENATOR ARMBRUSTER: No. THE CLERK: Austria? SENATOR AUSTRIA: Yes. THE CLERK: Blessing? SENATOR BLESSING: Yes. THE CLERK: Brady? SENATOR BRADY: No. THE CLERK: Carey? SENATOR CAREY: Yes. THE CLERK: Coughlin? SENATOR COUGHLIN: Yes. THE CLERK: Dann? SENATOR DANN: No. THE CLERK: DiDonato? SENATOR DiDONATO: No. THE CLERK: Fedor? SENATOR FEDOR: No. THE CLERK: Fingerhut? 20
SENATOR FINGERHUT: No. THE CLERK: Randy Gardner? SENATOR RANDY GARDNER: Yes. THE CLERK: Robert Gardner? SENATOR ROBERT GARDNER: No. THE CLERK: Goodman? SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes. THE CLERK: Hagan? SENATOR HAGAN: No. THE CLERK: Harris? SENATOR HARRIS: Yes. THE CLERK: Hottinger? SENATOR HOTTINGER: Yes. THE CLERK: Jacobson? SENATOR JACOBSON: Yes. THE CLERK: Jordan? SENATOR JORDAN: Yes. THE CLERK: Mallory? SENATOR MALLORY: No. THE CLERK: Miller? SENATOR MILLER: No. THE CLERK: Mumper? SENATOR MUMPER: Yes. THE CLERK: Nein? SENATOR NEIN: Yes. 21

sponsor of the motion, President Prentiss -who may not -- I don't believe was in committee yesterday, I'm sure had other pressing business -- that we have not had an opportunity to debate this question. We offered this motion in committee this morning, and it was tabled. There were less than, I believe -- Mr. Chairman, you correct me if I'm wrong. There were maybe three members who attended the entire hearing -three members, I should say, on that side of the aisle, I believe, three members of this side of the aisle who attended the entire hearing all day. This is a critical question. It is going to lead to the challenge of this bill, the constitutional challenge to this bill. It should be debated on the floor here today. This is -- as the president -- as our respected president said, this is a bill with very significant and deep emotions around the state. Members of the Senate, we owe the people of this state a debate on this issue. Do not table this motion. 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE CLERK: Padgett? SENATOR PADGETT: Yes. THE CLERK: Prentiss? SENATOR PRENTISS: No. THE CLERK: Roberts? SENATOR ROBERTS: No. THE CLERK: Schuler? SENATOR SCHULER: Yes. THE CLERK: Schuring? SENATOR SCHURING: Yes. THE CLERK: Spada? SENATOR SPADA: Yes. THE CLERK: Stivers? SENATOR STIVERS: No. THE CLERK: Wachtmann? SENATOR WACHTMANN: No. THE CLERK: Zurz? SENATOR ZURZ: No. THE CLERK: White? SENATOR WHITE: Yes. THE CLERK: 18 yeas, 15 nays. PRESIDENT WHITE: There being 18 yeas and 15 nays, the amendment is table -- laid upon the table. Question is, shall the bill pass? Chair recognizes Senator Roberts.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

And NCR is not alone. Nationwide, The Limited, Bank One, and Procter & Gamble, just to name a few companies in Ohio, currently offer domestic partner benefits. We are limiting a company's ability to offer the best benefits package they can to their employees. In the words of NCR in this document, the workplace diversity will help us to build the high performance growth-orientated companies we need to be successful in the long term, end of quote. This bill is really an antibusiness bill -- antibu -- business competition bill. The amendment would have alleviated that issue. Since we did not take up the issue, we still have this concern in the bill, and at the committee last night heard testimony from experts who practice law in this area that this issue is alive and well in the bill. One of the letters I received from my constituents pointed further to this issue. And she believes that if we pass this bill, the rights of her children for these benefits to the partner will be lost. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this 24
bill hurts more people than it helps. But, primarily, I think it's going to hurt a lot of Fortune 500 companies in the state of Ohio who offer these benefits as a way to attract Ohio's best and brightest. We defeated the amendment that would have cleared up this issue. This issue is still in the bill. I ask you, at this point, to defeat the bill, because it hurts a lot of Ohioans, it hurts a lot of businesses, and it's not in the best interest of the state. Thank you, Mr. President. PRESIDENT WHITE: The chair recognizes Senator Miller -UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible) to amend. SENATOR MILLER: Thank you, Mr. President. Move to amend. PRESIDENT WHITE: The gentleman moves to amend. Could you identify your amendment? SENATOR MILLER: The amendment, Mr. President and members, is amended AM5317-125 and it reads -- very briefly, to quote in line 57 --

SENATOR ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. President. I really wanted to speak to the amendment, but I'll use the opportunity to speak against the bill, at this point. PRESIDENT WHITE: Gentleman may proceed. SENATOR ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, as Senator Fingerhut pointed out, this bill will hurt unmarried households, holds that com -- that comprise almost a quarter of a million households in Ohio. House Bill 272 will harm these families, and this is why I feel we ought to defeat this bill. House Bill 272 opens the door for pro -prohibiting companies from offering healthcare and other partners benefits, thereby increasing the number of uninsured individuals. And many people that live together, but unmarried, may lo -- no longer be able to offer these benefits. As Senator Fingerhut pointed out, in December of last year, December the 12th, 2003, we received a letter from NCR. 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PRESIDENT WHITE: Gentleman may ex -gentleman may explain his amendment. SENATOR MILLER: The amendment reads, quote, but excluding state-supported institutions of higher education. Mr. President and members, I believe I'm the only member of the General Assembly who worked for the Legislative Service Commission as a research associate. And so I had the opportunity to draft a number of bills and to do a bit of research. And, during the hearings, I -- I could not help but continually to go back to the code and to read it. The language in the bill talks about a declaration, which we tend not to do in bills -- maybe in resolutions, but not in bills -- and it also talks about the strong public policy. And we certainly don't do that in the Revised Code. I would guess that there is nowhere else in the code that you could find the word strong used in this manner. And so in section 3101.01, it reads as follows: Male persons of the age of 18 years and female persons of the age 16 years not 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Ohio -- very fortunate in the state of Ohio, due to the vision and the hard work of former Governor James Allen Rhodes, to have the most extensive system of private and public institutions of higher education than any state in America. And so our colleges and universities want to attract the best and the brightest. And in order to be competitive, you can't just focus on salaries. Salaries are important, but you also have to focus on benefits: healthcare benefits, life insurance, pension, retirement, benefits. If I'm trying to attract the best faculty member from some other university or some other part of the country, they're not just going to focus on, what are you going to pay me, what is my salary going to be, they have to see the whole package, the whole compensation package, if you will. And so what we're doing here is putting our colleges and universities, all of them, at a distinct disadvantage. Even though we say that this bill does not apply to colleges and universities, it clearly does. It very 28
clearly does. And so the amendment is to exclude our universities from this kind of prohibition, because this bill is all about denying benefits to individuals. I would urge adoption of the amendment. PRESIDENT WHITE: Question is, shall the amendment be adopted? Chair recognizes Senator Randy Gardner. SENATOR RANDY GARDNER: Mr. President, I move that the motion to amend be laid upon the table. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Objection. PRESIDENT WHITE: The motion is to lay the amendment upon the table. Objection heard. The clerk will call the roll. THE CLERK: Amstutz? SENATOR AMSTUTZ: Yes. THE CLERK: Armbruster? SENATOR ARMBRUSTER: No. THE CLERK: Austria? SENATOR AUSTRIA: Yes. THE CLERK: Blessing? SENATOR BLESSING: Yes. THE CLERK: Brady?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

nearer of kin than second cousins and not having a husband or wife living may be joined in marriage. And so the law is already crystal-clear in stating who may be joined in marriage. I ask myself, what are we trying to do here? It can only be to deny benefits, because the law already clearly states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. The legislation that we have before -before us, as has been presented by the sponsors, says that a marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. The amendment deals with the denial of benefits. I happen to represent the largest university in the country, The Ohio State University, and I think Senator Stivers may have a part of the university area as well. And what we try to do at The Ohio State University is attract the best and the brightest that we can find: the best students, faculty, staff, administrators. We try to attract the best in the country at The Ohio State university. We're also pleased in the state of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

29

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SENATOR BRADY: No. THE CLERK: Carey? SENATOR CAREY: Yes. THE CLERK: Coughlin? SENATOR COUGHLIN: Yes. THE CLERK: Dann? SENATOR DANN: No. THE CLERK: DiDonato? SENATOR DiDONATO: No. THE CLERK: Fedor? SENATOR FEDOR: No. THE CLERK: Fingerhut? SENATOR FINGERHUT: No. THE CLERK: Randy Gardner? SENATOR RANDY GARDNER: Yes. THE CLERK: Robert Gardner? SENATOR ROBERT GARDNER: No. THE CLERK: Goodman? SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes. THE CLERK: Hagan? SENATOR HAGAN: No. THE CLERK: Harris? SENATOR HARRIS: Yes. THE CLERK: Hottinger? SENATOR HOTTINGER: Yes. 30
THE CLERK: Jacobson? SENATOR JACOBSON: Yes. THE CLERK: Jordan? SENATOR JORDAN: Yes. THE CLERK: Mallory? SENATOR MALLORY: No. THE CLERK: Miller? SENATOR MILLER: No. THE CLERK: Mumper? SENATOR MUMPER: Yes. THE CLERK: Nein? SENATOR NEIN: Yes. THE CLERK: Padgett? SENATOR PADGETT: Yes. THE CLERK: Prentiss? SENATOR PRENTISS: No. THE CLERK: Roberts? SENATOR ROBERTS: No. THE CLERK: Schuler? SENATOR SCHULER: Yes. THE CLERK: Schuring? SENATOR SCHURING: Yes. THE CLERK: Spada? SENATOR SPADA: Yes. THE CLERK: Stivers?
31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SENATOR STIVERS: No. THE CLERK: Wachtmann? SENATOR WACHTMANN: No. THE CLERK: Zurz? SENATOR ZURZ: No. THE CLERK: White? SENATOR WHITE: Yes. PRESIDENT WHITE: Clerk will call the name Goodman. SENATOR GOODMAN: (Inaudible.) PRESIDENT WHITE: Without objection, the gentleman is so recorded. THE CLERK: 18 yeas, 15 nays. PRESIDENT WHITE: There being 18 yeas and 15 nays, the amendment is laid upon the table. Question is, shall the bill pass? Chair recognizes Senator Hottinger. SENATOR HOTTINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to say that I believe that the -- the gentleman from the fifth district makes some very good arguments, if only they were accurate. There are not any Ohioans who are currently receiving benefits today that would have their benefits taken away either on

32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the public or the private sector. The reality of it is this bill is limited to, and I quote, the public acts, records, or judicial proceedings of this state, end quote. And it says nothing about precluding private entities and local governments in this state from doing what they please. It imposes no prohibitions on governmental entities in this state, other than the state itself. In fact, the bill expressly says it not does affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid in the state of Ohio. The Ohio House, in the Juvenile and Family Law Committee, they took quite seriously the concerns that were raised by many, including the Ohio business community, that the original language in -- in House Bill 272 would, quote, put them at risk for legal action if they extended benefits to unmarried domestic partners. During the committee process in the House, the bill was amended three times. The first bill was technical in nature, and the following two were added because it was 33

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

brought to the attention of the committee by various constituencies and businesses in the state that House Bill 272 could potentially put some institutions at risk of legal action from providing domestic partner benefits to its employees. Although only 51 of the over 240,000 businesses in Ohio currently offer such benefits to their employees, it is, of course, not the intention of this bill to deny any citizen of Ohio an already existing right or benefit. It was for that reason that the bill was twice amended to further emphasize this point. The first amendment specifies that the extension of statutory marital benefits to nonmarital relationships is against the public policy of Ohio only when those benefits are extended by the state. The second amendment altered the bill to specifically provide language declaring that while it is the strong public policy of the state not to recognize or extend statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships, it should not be construed to 34
prohibit the extension of specific benefits enjoyed by all persons to nonmarital relationships or to affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under Ohio law. It further makes clear that the phrase specific benefits enjoyed by all persons includes any benefit conferred by statute that is not expressly limited to married persons. Let's make no mistake about it. No individual today in the state of Ohio that is currently receiving benefits are going to have those benefits removed. One other issue that I wanted to speak to was the comments from Senator Miller when he questions the use of strong -- the wording of strong public policy. There's two things I want to say to that. One, I -- I believe he said that this is not something that we do regularly. And -- and it may not be something that is done regularly, but there are two other sections, complete other sections in the Ohio Revises Code that use those specific terms, the strong public policy. 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

But the real reason why that language is inserted in House Bill 272 is a result of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, again, signed by President Clinty -- Clinton, detailing to us that it had to be states expressly stating in their -- that it is against their strong public policy. So, therefore, it is a result of the federal DOMA Act of 1996 that we are using what we have done in other instances in the past, the wording the strong public policy. PRESIDENT WHITE: The chair recognizes Senator Goodman. SENATOR GOODMAN: Permission to speak to the bill? PRESIDENT WHITE: Gentleman may proceed. SENATOR GOODMAN: Thank you, Mr. President. This is not the best day that I've had in the legislature for many reasons. But I think -- because we're sitting here today debating this issue and we're going to vote on it, and it looks like we're going to probably vote this bill out of the Senate, it's a bad day, I think, for the state Senate

36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and a bad day for me, therefore. But this morning, when I got up and was getting dressed, Benjamin was in his little bouncy chair, and I looked over at him, and for the very first time, he smiled at me. He was looking right at me, and he smiled. And I came a little closer, and the smile got bigger. So no matter what happens today, it's a good day, because I got that going for me, which is nice. However, it also got me thinking. Benjamin, someday, is going to do more than smile at me. He's going to look at what I've done with my life. And I want him to look at what I've done, and I want to set the right example for him. And I think, today, by voting no on this, I'm going to be setting the right example for him. Because I think what I'm going to be telling him, because I voted no on this, that I think it's important that we be tolerant and accepting of others who are different than us. We've talked about why this is important for us to pass today, why we need to, because -- because of -- there's a trend 37

10

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

throughout the country, and we need to protect ourselves by passing this legislation. There is a thing -- and to put this very simply -- called the full faith and credit in the Constitution. And it is public policy for the state of Ohio, as stated by Senator Miller already, that says that marriage is between a male and a female. Passing this legislation to say, we really mean it, isn't going to get us over Constitutional scrutiny. It's unnecessary for us to do this. And it's already been stated that the reason why we're -- that -- that -- that benefits has nothing to do with this either. So it makes me ask myself, why are we doing this? When I was little, I used to read comic books, and I kind of still do, and -- but it -- and it used to be, at the back of those comic books, was an advertisement that if I exercised, I could get stronger, and if I took some sort of potion, I could be bigger and stronger. And it used to always be this little guy laying on the sand, and this big guy would come over and kick sand on him. And I always 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Marriage, as if we need to defend ourselves from folks who may have a different idea about what it is to have a union and love each other and want to be able to fulfill some sort of commitment, be it not marriage, because we already don't allow that, but some sort of commitment. I'll tell you a good way to defend marriage. Today, after we're all done, go downstairs to the pharmacy and buy a greeting card, and write in it how much you love your wife or your husband. And then when you get home tonight, give it to her or him. When you get home, ask your spouse how her day was or how his day was, and then listen to what they have to say, really listen. When you see your child, ask him or her how his day was. Turn off the TV, read them a book, spend some time with them, really pay attention and defend your -- and defend marriage by caring about those in your family. We all strive to be the best that we can be when it comes to our families, and we should continue to do so, but we're not perfect. But I do think that by passing this 40
bill, we're pointing fingers at others, and that's not what we ought to be doing. We ought to be looking at ourselves and trying to be better parents and better husbands and better wives. And that is the way you defend marriage. Now, I looked at -- a lot of folks have been also talking about the overwhelming trend or the overwhelming polling that shows that folks support what's going on here. But I think if you look at those numbers -- and I looked at a New York Times tracking poll on this issue -- you would find that as you go towards a younger generation of people, they -- the younger generation is much more accepting of domestic partnerships, or even same-sex marriages -- which is not what we're talking about today. But you'll find that those over 65, it's probably 65, 70 percent are opposed. But those 20 to 30 years old and younger are 60 to 65 percent in favor or comfortable with this. The trends are going against us. When my child, Benjamin, gets older and grows up, he's going to look at this issue, 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

identified with the little guy for some reason. And it seems to me that what we're really doing here is kicking sand on the little guy. And because I've always identified with the little guy, I don't feel good about that. So I think that this is piling on. Maybe that's because my perspective, generally, is -- is from a minority perspective. You see, in my family, we've never had to feel like we needed to protect ourselves and the integrity of who we are by looking elsewhere and getting support from the world around us. My religion is different than most people around me, and I get my self-esteem and strength of conviction from my family. So -and I -- it's -- I'm not challenged by people around me who have a different way of thinking. I'm not threatened by them. I'm interested. I'm accepting. And so we don't really need to defend ourselves, in my opinion, from people who are different than us. But we are about to pass the Defense of 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and he's going to want to know how I voted on it. Because things are going to be much different. He's going to be part of a newer generation that, I think, is going to be even more accepting, because that's where we're heading. Two generations ago, down in the south -and maybe even here -- I'm not as familiar with it as I ought to be, maybe -- but African Americans couldn't marry whites, and that was accepted. I'm not saying this is the same thing. But I'm saying, someone my age may be asking his grandparent how they could have been in favor of something like that, how could they have been so wrong. I don't want to be in that same position 20, 30, 40 years down the line, when Benjamin says to me, dad, how could you have been so wrong. So I'm voting no on this, and I ask that you vote no, too. PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair recognizes Senator Dann. SENATOR DANN: Mr. President, move to amend. PRESIDENT WHITE: Gentleman moves to 42
amend. The amendment has been distributed. Would you identify your amendments? SENATOR DANN: It's LSC 1251436-1. PRESIDENT WHITE: The gentleman may explain his amendment. SENATOR DANN: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Senate, I urge you to consider the amendment which deals with a very narrow topic related to state public employees who may be denied, based on the language of this bill, the opportunity to attend the funeral of their closest personal friend, in the event that they are not married to that person. We're simply asking for a vote to include in this bill a provision that will prevent a policy of the state that would prevent bereavement leave benefits to those in nonmarital relationships to be and to grieve -- to be with and to grieve their loved one in the event of a loss. This would allow unmarried partners to take bereavement leave in the same way that married partners that would do so; not as broad and as sweeping as the other amendments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that have offered so far today, but I believe, at least, we can offer this gesture of humanity to those unmarried partners at the time of the loss of that partner. PRESIDENT WHITE: The question is, shall the amendment become part of the bill? Chair recognizes Senator Gardner, Randy Gardner. SENATOR RANDY GARDNER: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the motion to amend be laid upon the table. PRESIDENT WHITE: The question is, shall the amendment be laid upon the table? A roll call being asked for, the clerk will call the roll. THE CLERK: Amstutz? SENATOR AMSTUTZ: Yes. THE CLERK: Armbruster? SENATOR ARMBRUSTER: No. THE CLERK: Austria? SENATOR AUSTRIA: Yes. THE CLERK: Blessing? SENATOR BLESSING: Yes. THE CLERK: Brady? SENATOR BRADY: No. THE CLERK: Carey?

44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

43

SENATOR CAREY: Yes. THE CLERK: Coughlin? SENATOR COUGHLIN: Yes. THE CLERK: Dann? SENATOR DANN: No. THE CLERK: DiDonato? SENATOR DiDONATO: No. THE CLERK: Fedor? SENATOR FEDOR: No. THE CLERK: Fingerhut? SENATOR FINGERHUT: No. THE CLERK: Randy Gardner? SENATOR RANDY GARDNER: Yes. THE CLERK: Robert Gardner? SENATOR ROBERT GARDNER: No. THE CLERK: Goodman? SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes. THE CLERK: Hagan? SENATOR HAGAN: No. THE CLERK: Harris? SENATOR HARRIS: Yes. THE CLERK: Hottinger? SENATOR HOTTINGER: Yes. THE CLERK: Jacobson? SENATOR JACOBSON: Yes. 45

12

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE CLERK: Jordan? SENATOR JORDAN: Yes. THE CLERK: Mallory? SENATOR MALLORY: No. THE CLERK: Miller? SENATOR MILLER: No. THE CLERK: Mumper? SENATOR MUMPER: Yes. THE CLERK: Nein? SENATOR NEIN: Yes. THE CLERK: Padgett? SENATOR PADGETT: Yes. THE CLERK: Prentiss? SENATOR PRENTISS: No. THE CLERK: Roberts? SENATOR ROBERTS: No. THE CLERK: Schuler? SENATOR SCHULER: Yes. THE CLERK: Schuring? SENATOR SCHURING: Yes. THE CLERK: Spada? SENATOR SPADA: Yes. THE CLERK: Stivers? SENATOR STIVERS: No. THE CLERK: Wachtmann?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

really confused about why we would think that it's just okay to jump in there without really admitting what this is all about. And some of you sitting there with a straight face -- no pun intended -- should remember that the issue is a lot about sex. And I am going to make all of you feel like you're wearing a hair shirt. Because it really does talk about your personal choices and your personal preferences. And this bill does go directly to that. Some people are uncomfortable about talking about it. Some people -- you know, when I was growing up, this influence that you have by people that you love dearly -- one time, Mr. President, I wanted to buy a motorcycle. I wanted to ride that motorcycle. My father completely convinced me that I shouldn't by saying this little phrase, riding a motorcycle is a manifestation of your fear of being sexually inadequate. Of course, now, I drive a locomotive. We need to start thinking about the issue in clearer terms and feel uncomfortable about it, because it is a very serious personal 48 decision that a lot of people make. You can't hide behind it. Last night surely drove it home to all of us. It was politics, pure and simple, organized at the top, Mr. President, so that it would drift down very slowly and impact elections coming up. Yeah, it is politics. And people are uncomfortable about it, because they want to make sure that if there's an opening to win an election, you might be able to say somebody isn't really that straight or is gay or has an impact in a negative way about that person and how they act. That's troubling to me, because this now becomes a very divisive bill. This becomes a bill of hatred. My 15-year-old said to me, dad, what is going on? Why would they even talk about this? Why do we care about this? Why is this issue so important? Why is it that we're jumping up and screaming about the Defense of Marriage Act when there's issues that we should be talking about? Senator Dann has one that he wants to talk about for the National Guard in protecting them and giving them this, the 49

SENATOR WACHTMANN: No. THE CLERK: Zurz? SENATOR ZURZ: No. THE CLERK: White? SENATOR WHITE: Yes. THE CLERK: 18 yeas, 15 nays. PRESIDENT WHITE: There being 18 yeas and 15 nays, the bill -- the amendment does not become part of the bill. Question is, shall the bill pass? Chair recognizes Senator Hagan. SENATOR HAGAN: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, members of this general assembly, I guess all of us are a little uncomfortable today talking about this issue. Because inside the issue, there are a multitude of sidebar issues, issues that all of us sort of don't want to talk about. A little bit uncomfortable as it might be, we sort of push them aside. But I want to know what we think we're really doing in the personal lives of our constituents. I want to know why we think it's okay to enter into their choices in life, into their personal lives. I'm a little --

47

13

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Defense of Marriage Act? We should be acting in the defense of our soldiers. I understand it's an important issue to many people, and it's important to me. It's important to us because we care about each other -- or we should be caring about each other, but for some reason, we drift away and start entering the lives -- the personal lives of our constituents. Now, I -- I'm not uncomfortable talking about this. I'm not uncomfortable when I work on the railroad and guys are talking about it in very sexist ways, in very negative terms where I have to correct them. And I think all of you sitting there know exactly what this issue is about: sexual presence, uncomfortable about some act, uncomfortable about it because you want to dictate who should have sex and how they do it and when they do it in their bedrooms. That's what it's about. Think about it. That's what it's about. Defense of Marriage Act? Of course we all believe in marriage. It's there. It's in the law. But now we've decided that we'll get a little bit more 50
detailed about it. When my 15-year-old says, Dad, what's going on? Didn't you introduce universal healthcare to 1.2 million Ohioans without it 15 years ago, 1.4 now? Defense of Marriage Act, let's take away some more benefits from some people. They don't need any healthcare benefits. Unemployment in Ohio, 6 percent. Are we creating jobs? 140,000 just left. 300 from my district this week left. But we're going to talk about an issue that makes people feel uncomfortable. I met with Terry Anderson last week, the hostage. Seven years, he was a hostage. He sat in my office and he talked about the things that he thought about. And he said to me, you know, Senator, I don't think any of those soldiers are getting up thinking about who's gay down the street or about who's going to marry who. They don't really care. They care about making sure we protect them, making sure that we're here to act on their behalf. That's what they care about. They care about making sure that we provide a good economic 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

opportunity for them when they come back into this state. Now, I don't want to diminish this -this legislation, because it's extremely important to some people, because it will take away benefits. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of taking away anyone's benefits. And I'm not going to let you sit there with your straight faces and pretend that this isn't political, because you know it's political. When it comes down from above on high and all through the states there's a movement -- because, yes, Senator Goodman, they did do some polling. Yes, they did find out that it is a divisive issue, and it could hurt someone in the next election. When you cast your vote today, think about it deeply, what it is that you're voting on. Think about how you're really voting on this bill for something other than what you're standing up there and talking about. I told one reporter that we have to be honest about what this is. All of us have to be honest. If your shirt is starting to itch 52
a little bit, that's good. Because I don't care if you're uncomfortable. You should be uncomfortable. We should all be uncomfortable. This is not the issue that the state of Ohio and its taxpayers want us to deal with. This is not the issue, Mr. President, that we should be fighting for at this hour of the day. I urge the defeat of the bill. PRESIDENT WHITE: Question is, shall the bill pass? Chair recognizes Senator Brady. SENATOR BRADY: Thank you, Mr. President. My colleague on the other side of the aisle, who has championed this legislation for the last few years indicated that we had been debating this issue for the last few years. And, in fact, we have been debating this issue for at least 30 years. And I guess it's all about how old you happened to be when you entered the debate. And there's been a tremendous amount of progress made for gay rights, for gay civil rights, and that's a very, very, good thing, and it's part of the arc of history and social 53

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

14

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

change in this country that's been occurring for over 50 years. And there's no way to stop it. There's no way to turn it back. It's ironic, of course, that we passed the 14th Amendment last year after a -- a hundred years after a democratic-party controlled legislature rescinded it. Because somewhere down the roads -- we may not be here, particularly because of term limits. But somewhere down the road, the Ohio Senate will be rescinding this legislation if they pass it today. And here's the thing I think is really a shame. Because I'm convinced -- it's pretty obvious that this Senate is at least pretty evenly divided over this issue. And I'm pretty convinced that the majority members of this Senate actually are opposed to this legislation, because they know it's wrong -and this is always more effective when it comes from someone on the other side of aisle -- or they don't really think that this is an issue that we should have in front of us. I'm pretty sure that a majority members 54 of -- members of this -- a majority of the members of this Senate today would prefer not to be voting for this bill. And that's a shame, when minority can rule the Senate through the intimidation and fear that accompanies an issue like this. If only a couple more senators had the courage to oppose this bill, this wouldn't happen. And I know you're over there somewhere. I really don't understand this obsession will denying gays their civil rights. Because it is an obsession. Now, I know part of it is a reaction to what's been going on around the country: the Supreme Court decision over the taxes law, what's gone on in Vermont, what's gone on in Massachusetts, what's gone on in Canada. So, yes, it's very real. Because the march of history is going in the right direction. And it's true that we will be condemned in the pages of history -- in the pages of Ohio history down the road if we pass this bill, in my opinion. Now, for some people -- not everybody, I'm sure -- this is simply a wedge issue. 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

We've seen so many of those things over the years. It's just a way to divide people, just a way to win an election, in spite of the fact that we may be talking about denying a million people in Ohio their rights -- and, in many cases, some of the most talented people in Ohio their rights. Even the most humble citizen deserves their civil rights. But it is a fact that we have a tremendous number of talented gay citizens in Ohio, and everyone knows it. There's no point in pretending it's not the case, that they don't make an incredible contribution to our economy and to our lives, that they're part of the diversity and vibrancy of this state, and that we will simply look foolish -- and we should -- to the rest of the country and to the rest of our citizens here in Ohio. As we lose over 100,000 manufacturing jobs, we stand here trying to figure out a way to deny gays their basic civil rights. And we're all here in Columbus. I understand that if you come from some small town, like I originally did, this would be a 56 fairly unusual issue for you. But everybody knows that almost all the metropolitan centers of our country have tens of thousands of gay citizens. And we sit here in Columbus, which has become a mecca for the gay community -- tens of thousands of them, at least -- working in our companies, working in our statehouse. What are we pretending we're doing? Why are we acting like we don't know the reality of this issue? I know you're smarter than that. I've heard you speak on lots of other issues. And for those of you that are ideologically committed, I understand that. So, finally, I guess I'd just like to say, whether you intended it or not, this is bigoted legislation. That's what it is, and that's the way it will be seen in history. That is the way it will be seen. So finally, what's wrong with gay marriage? As far as this con -- senator is consent -- is concerned, absolutely nothing. PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair recognizes Senator Fingerhut. SENATOR FINGERHUT: Thank you, 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

15

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Mr. President. Mr. President, there's been many eloquent and thoughtful statements today, and I've really enjoyed listening to them. I want to add just a couple of very brief points. Senator Hottinger mentioned that we shouldn't say we've rushed this bill through because it's been debated for seven years. But, in fact, the truth is, we have rushed this bill through. And though we don't use legislative history in Ohio when this issue gets to court, there will undoubtedly be historians, Senator Brady and Senator Goodman, who will be looking at what we've done. And so maybe they'll dig up the tape of today's hearing and -- or today's debate. And I would like to simply make sure that when they do that, they know, for the record, that this bill arrived in the Senate, I believe, just towards the end of last year, that it was referred just last week -- not to the judiciary committee, which is the committee that one would think such an issue would be referred, but, rather, to the finance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

58
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and we would continue until such time as all testimony -- including sponsor testimony, proponent testimony, and opponent testimony is heard. Now, those who are digging through history watching this tape may not realize how unusual that is. Normally, of course, we schedule three separate hearings -- sponsor testimony, proponent, opponent -- usually weeks apart, but we did this all in one day, and then the bill would be on the floor. It would be scheduled for a vote the following morning at 9:00 a.m. and then it would be on the floor today as -- as it is; just some facts for the record that somebody might want to dig through today. The -- during the course of the hearing, as I noted earlier when I moved an amendment, there was -- I think at the -- during the sponsor testimony, most members of the committee were there. But as the day went on -- and it concluded, as Senator Prentiss has reminded me, at 10:23 p.m. Every time I say, approximately 10:00, she says, 10:23 p.m. As the day went on, fewer and fewer members 60 were there to listen to the citizens of Ohio who came forward, pro and con, to hear the testimony. And, again, I would venture to guess that maybe three members of the majority and three members of the minority heard most of the testimony. This morning when we moved the amendments -- just as happened on the floor here today -- they were tabled without substantive discussion. So the fact is, is that we did move this bill in a rush. We can only conclude -- we can only make speculations to why we've done that. Others have speculated. I'll -- I'll just simply say I tend to agree with them, but I'll refrain from repeating it. And -- and we have had -- and less than half a dozen members in the Senate heard the testimony, and none of us engaged in a substantive debate about some of the specific issues of concern. I want to also point out a couple of the pieces of information that were deduced at the hearing yesterday, since you're about to vote on this bill. And I will try to be as objective as I can be in stating that 61

committee. We can only imagine why that occurred. My guess is that -- that there were not the votes on the -- on the Senate Civil Justice Committee to pass the bill, so it was the intention of the committee of reference to refer it to a bill where, in fact, there were the votes to pass the bill. There was not to be a hearing in the Senate finance committee this week. We were informed by the chairman that no such hearing was scheduled. However, the chairman called last Thursday, I believe -- is that correct -Thursday to inform us that there'd been a change in plans, that, in fact, there would be a hearing in the Senate finance committee this week, that it would consist of only one bill -- even though there are other bills that have been referred to the Senate finance committee awaiting hearing -- that it -- that bill would be heard beginning at 1:30 on Tuesday -- what was yesterday, the 20th of -the 20th of January, 2004, ironically, the day after we celebrated Martin Luther King's birthday -- and that we would begin at 1:30 59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

16

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

information. But I'm sure if I mischaracterize it, I'll be corrected. The first is, is that in the seven years or the eight years that this issue has been before the legislature, the House sponsor stated in response to a question that there has been no case -- no case in Ohio challenging Ohio's definition of marriage and that there is currently no fact pattern or case pending anywhere in Os -- in Ohio's courts that challenges Ohio's definition of marriage. Therefore, the urgency here is truly -- Senator Brady's phrase about the sweep of history, but it's certainly not about anything happening in Ohio. The second piece of information that was deduced was that this ca -- this bill will certainly spark more litigation. In other words, we have zero cases today about this. We will have cases in our courts after this bill passes. The bill itself will be challenged on equal protection grounds. And as I alluded to when I offered an amendment earlier, there will be challenges based on the private awarding of benefits in 62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

testimony as to the economic impact. Senator Brady alluded previously to the fact that the city of Columbus is known nationally as a community friendly to gay couples. And it was mentioned in testimony that the annual gay pride festival in Columbus attracts -- is the largest such festival in the Midwest, attracts 50, 60,000 people. I actually happened to be here for it this year. It was a pretty remarkable event. Those people -- it's like a major convention. Those people come, stay in hotels, go to restaurants, et cetera, et cetera. Some of you are familiar -- I apologize if -- those from Cincinnati should probably state this fact themselves. They'd get it more accurate. But -- but there is an issue in Cincinnati involving a city charter. There's a boycott against the city of Cincinnati as a result of a similar issue called Article 12. And the -- the director of the Greater Cincinnati Convention and Visitor's Bureau has indicated that she believes that through the loss of convention business, specific 64
conventions that have been cancelled as a result of the boycott, the city of Cincinnati has lost roughly 40 to $45,000,000 in income. We also heard -- as Senator Miller alluded to earlier when he made his amendment -- that -- that we would lose the talents of people who would come to our universities and to our colleges. We heard from major businesses who are concerned about recruiting employees. And we heard -- and statistically insignificant, but powerful testimony from individuals who've lived in Ohio, worked in Ohio, and told us that they will -- as soon as their children are safely grown or as soon as their business situation changes sufficiently, they will leave Ohio to a place that is more welcoming for them. I would simply say that the -- the debates that we've had on this floor about the economic situation in Ohio have been interesting to me, and they have been challenging. Some of us believe that it has to do with investment and education and technology and research and development. Others say it's the lawyers that are filing 65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

local communities, et cetera. All the things that the sponsor -- the House sponsor is certain won't be challenged will all be challenged. Some of us were discussing privately earlier today that the irony is, is that for those of you won't/don't want to see Ohio's law struck down, you've just increased the odds astronomically if you pass this bill, because there will be a lawsuit. But that's -- that will be one of the ironies of the great sweep of history, I guess. But there will be more litigation. So we're creating more litigation. The third fact that was deduced -- and I guess this -- this one, maybe, is a little bit debatable. I'll put it out there, though. It certainly wasn't contested yesterday -- is that the economic impact of this bill will be serious to Ohio. The chairman of the Senate finance committee said that the reason it was in the finance committee is -- was to look at the economic impact, I believe, the financial impact of the bill. And we did, in fact, have 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

17

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

too many lawsuits. I think the Secretary of State believes it's the temporary sales tax we enacted. All of these different options for slowing down Ohio's progress. I would simply say that if we pass this bill, just get up and look in the mirror, and you will see smiling back at you someone who has slowed Ohio's progress as an economic growth engine by putting up a sign that says to a group of people, we don't want you here. And no matter what -- I know the -Senator Hottinger said earlier, this isn't a gay-bashing bill. It is, in fact, viewed -as we heard specific testimony yesterday -repeatedly as a gay-bashing bill, as a hate bill by the gay community in Ohio. So let's make no mistake about what they think about what we're doing. We can say whatever we want. That's what they think. That is what the reaction is -- is going to be. So, again, for the record, those are some of the specific facts that were deduced in our one day of hearing. And I think that you ought to at least have the benefit of that one 66
day of hearings before you cast your vote. Finally -- I'll be seated, but I do have to say that I get a bit of a chuckle about this bill. Because while I've probably been one of the -- among the outspoken opponents of it, my Senate office is one of the most traditional marriage-oriented offices you've ever seen in your life. My legislative aide of, now, six years, Sarah, who many of you know, was married the summer after college, is now pregnant with her second child. My administrative aide, Liz Stewart Peron (phonetic) -- who's not here, I don't think -- got married this summer right as she graduated from college. You all know that I'm blessed with my wonderful wife and my two-year-old. We're pretty much as traditional an office as you can possibly have. And I have to say that not one of us believes that this is a bill that's necessary to defend our marriages. And I was thinking abut why that is and listening to my friend, Senator Goodman, who -- most of you know that he and I share our Jewish faith. And I realized that it is 67

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

because the state actually has nothing to do with my marriage; nothing, whatsoever. I was married -- my wife Amy and I were married in the sight of God. When we signed the Jewish marriage contract, when we exchanged the commitments prescribed by our faith under a canopy, which is the tradition of our faith, that's before whom we're married. If we were ever to contemplate changing our marriage or ending our marriage, we would similarly have to consult the tenets of our faith. There is nothing the state of Ohio has to do with that. When, however, we start granting benefits as a matter of law to people through the power of the state, then we must be very careful that we do so on an equal basis, trusting all people equally. And so a marriage is really a misnomer, I think, when he talks about it as a matter of state. Because I think we all believe that marriage is a matter that we enter into in the sight of God. And what we're talking about here today is, in fact, the benefits and the statutes of the state of Ohio. That should be 68
left alone, and I urge defeat of the bill. PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair will recognize Senator Dann. SENATOR DANN: Mr. President, permission to speak to the bill. PRESIDENT WHITE: Gentleman may proceed. SENATOR DANN: Thank you, Mr. President. It's only taken me a year to master the rules here, so I'm getting better. Ladies and gentlemen, I urge -- I, too, urge the defeat of the bill. And much of what I had planned to say today has already been very eloquently said by my colleagues on both sides off the aisle and, for that, I'm very thankful, because they said it much better than I could have. But I think this bill, in this day, is defined more by what it is not than what it is. It's not about an effort to replace -and, Senator Brady, I have to disagree with you. We've lost Senate -- we've lot 230,000 manufacturing jobs in the state of Ohio. We haven't done anything about that today. We haven't done anything to improve our school finance system in the state of Ohio

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

69

18

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that would create the kinds of schools that would attract the kinds of business that would create the manufacturing jobs that would put people to work. We haven't changed the tax code, which discriminates against Ohio businesses, that could create manufacturing jobs that we could attract to this state. Because Ohio-only businesses are greatly discriminated against in our corporate franchise tax. And that's something we've known about at least for a year, since I've been here, and we're not doing anything about that today. If we could move a bill like that in a week, I'd be delighted. We are not doing anything to regulate the massive importation of out-of-state waste into our communities on the eastern edge of the State of Ohio, and, believe me, they're coming west. That's a bill that this Senate's already passed in the last session, but we can't -- and we could have done in a Week this session, but we didn't take the time. That's not what we're doing today. We could have increased access to 70
college, the cost of which has increase -increased over 50 percent so that we could have trained workers to work in the manufacturing plants that might come to this state because of the improved economic environment as a result. But we're not doing that today either. And all of those things are important because there are now 500 -- and then soon to be 1500 Ohioans who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we haven't -- we had a chance this week to do something which is to get them body armor to protect them, and we're not doing that today either. And we're not giving them jobs to come back to -PRESIDENT WHITE: Excuse me, Senator. I think we're getting into some extraneous -extraneous issues and -SENATOR DANN: Thank you. Let me re -PRESIDENT WHITE: -- and I -- I -- I would appreciate it if we would stay on topic of the bill. Rome was not built in a day, we are not going to address all those things in here today, and I would appreciate if the gentleman would stay focused upon the bill. 71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SENATOR DANN: Thank you, Mr. President. I agree that we will not address those things, any of those things, today. Mr. President, members of the Senate, Senator Fingerhut alluded a little bit to the fact that we have a -- and so did Senator Miller -- we have a clear definition of the revised codes of marriage being between a man and a woman. I have a little news flash. There was a court case recently, this year, in Trumbull County, that was then decided by the 11th District Court of Appeals and refused by the Ohio Supreme Court that reaffirmed the fact that only a man and woman can receive a state-recognized Ohio marriage license. And that case came out of our probate court, where a transvestite who had been born a woman, but became a man, wanted to marry another woman, and a judge refused a marriage license. The case was appealed. The case was appealed again to the Supreme Court. If your interest is in making sure that state law is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, it's done. And this bill, as

72
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Senator Fingerhut correctly pointed out, is only going to throw a wrench into that. And if you truly want that right legally protected, then the thing to do today is to vote no on this bill. Because we're going to have a firestorm of litigations. The Constitutional issues are real. The connection to benefits brings the whole thing together for a judge. And one of those liberal Clinton-appointed judges that many of you all fear is going issue an order that's going to be binding on the state, and you'll have nobody to thank for it but yourselves by voting for this bill. So we're not -- and Senator -- and my colleague from -- from the other side of the aisle talked about the fact that this isn't denying anybody any benefits, that we're not reducing anybody's access to benefits, yet we -- we're tabling an amendment that simply clarified the fact that there would be -- that we would allow bereavement benefits for people who lost a significant other. And we didn't choose to include that in 73

19

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the bill, even though it wasn't a bill that's going to deny anybody any benefits. Somehow it wasn't -- it wasn't relevant enough to even have an up or down vote on. But the fact is that it's not -- if Sen -- if Senator Hottinger's correct, and we're not going to change anything in terms of people's rights to benefits, and we're only complicating the law regarding whether or not a marriage is composed of a man and a woman in the state of Ohio, and that's not, clearly, the stated goal of the proponents of this bill, then the only possible reason for passing this bill, and doing it so quickly today, in light of the state of the union and in light of the political statements that have been made around this country, is politics. But this does not come without a price. You may be able to use our votes on this bill to win an election. And maybe you'll be able to win more than one election based on our votes on this bill. But the price for that victory is going to be the extension of hate throughout the state of Ohio. And I respect Senator Harris and his 74
declaration that this was not about hate. But all you have to do is read the bill. And everybody who reads this bill and people who are affected by it are going to suffer from that hate. So ladies and gentlemen, I urge the defeat of the bill. And if the bill is passed, I hope those election victories are worth it for each of you. PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair recognizes Senator Fedor. SENATOR FEDOR: Thank you, Mr. President. Permission to speak to the bill? PRESIDENT WHITE: Senator may proceed. SENATOR FEDOR: Thank you. You know, this doesn't feel like a good day in the Senate. You know, I was proud to be a senator my very first day. You know, I came from the classroom. And this bill -just sitting here and listening and knowing the ramifications of, you know, the future of Ohio and the problems we've already kind of outlined remind me of something that I came across. And I know a lot of you have heard this,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

everything I learned, I learned in kindergarten. And when I look and I think back about all the children in the playground, I'm wondering how many of those children when they grow up in Ohio are going be judged, labeled, and, therefore, have to live out a potential law like this. And I think that this is going to be a hard bill for all of us to have to explain in the end. And it's a serious, serious, you know, a serious debate. I think it's something that we should take more time -- it was very much a surprise to all of us. It's something we've all travailed about. And I want you to think about it. Are we sending a message to the citizens of Ohio that tells them that the legislative priorities of this state are skewed? We have bills in both chambers of the legislator -- legislature that are designed specifically to protect and support servicemen and women and their families, but these are not a priority today. Apparently, this bill is. We have bills introduced in both chambers of the legislature that are meant to protect 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

75

our state's children and ensure a positive future for them, but these are not the priority today, but this bill is. We are taking chances with the core right to democracy, the ability to vote, and the public's feeling of security in knowing that their vote has counted. Yet, this is not a priority today and, apparently, this bill is. Well, I have news for you. And as you've heard before, this bill is unconstitutional, a litigation nightmare, a squirmy can of worms. This bill will not make it through a challenge in the court. And, unfortunately, I -- this is a very hard statement for me to say. But I'm thinking about those children now that are going to grow up and be adults and be labeled, judged, and have to live out the ramifications of what may happen in the business world that we may be sending. And some of us legislators may be sending that our priorities are hate, exclusion, and discrimination. This issue is not a divider, not a uniter, and we should not do this to the citizens of the State of Ohio, so I urge a no 77

20

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

vote. Thank you. PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair recognizes Senator Jordan. SENATOR JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. President. Someone once said -- and I wish I knew who made this statement, because I think it's so accurate -- when marriage means everything, it ceases to mean anything. And I think that's so true. When you begin to allow marriage to be defined in more than one way, you're on a slippery slope. And we've heard comments from the other side about the march of history, the sweep of history. We've heard about progress. But I just want to point out a question that -- that I think should come to mind. Where does it all take us? Where does it end? And I just want to point to an -- an article that appeared -- it's an Associated Press story that appeared back -- I got the Dayton Daily News copy from December 2nd, 2003. And the headline says, Polygamist says case should be tossed out. Tom Green, who is not (inaudible) with any 78
insurance was convicted of four counts of bigamy and one count of criminal nonsupport of his 30 children in August of 2001. His lawyer -- representing the guy with, quote, five wives -- argued that his bigamy conviction should be thrown out following the Supreme Court decision decriminalizing gay sex; quote from his lawyer. I mean, this is -- when I think about this, this was actually made -- this argument made in an American court of law. It's no different for polygamists, argued Tom Green's attorney, John Booker, to the Utah Supreme Court. I mean, I think about the march of -- this -- this is why -- and people said, this is not important, we should be dealing with taxes and we should be dealing with whatever other policy. This is why it's important. Many of us on, I guess, the conservative side have talked a lot -- talked a lot about this slippery slope on other social issues. I mean, here it is. And this -- this argument's being made in an American court of law. The chief justice -- I saw the quote from 79

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court when they okayed the civil unions and the same-sex marriage issue in Massachusetts, and she said this -- and I think maybe Senator Jacobs may speak about this more, but I thought it was -- it was interesting what she said. She said, simply put, government creates civil marriage. I would totally disagree. Senator Fingerhut just said he totally disagrees. He said it's not the state that was involved in his marriage, it was the church. I mean, it's -- it's not -- it's separate from the state. And I would argue that's exactly right. And -- and I -- I'm not sure I read -but this is so -- government doesn't create marriage, it recognizes it. And why does it recognize it? Because we have understood over a hundred -- we recognize it, we give it special status, because we understand it's the best arrangement for raising children. I mean, that's ultimately what it boil -it's the best arrangement for raising -- not to say kids in some other situations don't 80
turn out fine, aren't wonderful people. Government has traditionally understood -historically understood that traditional marriage is the best arrangement for raising kids, that -- I mean, how many times on this floor -- I can remember back to my days in the house when we -- when we did welfare ref -- we talk about moms and dads being involved in kids' -- we talk about the fam -- we talk about the fact that -- when we did welfare reform, we talked about the fact that fathers aren't involved enough in their -- that's what this is all about, ultimately what this issue is about. That's why this is important legislation. That's why it's important that we pass this. That's why it's important that the state of Ohio make a public policy statement about what marriage really is. That's why it's significant. Ultimately, it comes down to what is the best arrangement for raising children. If the sweep of history is going to lead us to -- to headlines like this and that things hap -- it's wrong. We need to stop it. 81

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

21

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

We need to make a stand and say, no, traditional marriage, the way it's historically been defined, is right because it's best for kids. I would urge a yes vote. PRESIDENT WHITE: The chair recognizes Senator Zurz. SENATOR ZURZ: Thank you, Mr. President. Permission to speak to the bill? Thank you. PRESIDENT WHITE: The senator may proceed. SENATOR ZURZ: Thank you. I had not intended on speaking today. I hate that this is my first opportunity to address you on this floor. Actually, I'm ashamed that it's my first opportunity. I came in here very torn on how I would vote on this issue, because I completely support a husband and wife marriage. I have been married for quite some time to my husband. I have three absolutely terrific children. I hope that each one of them gets to grow up and choose to have a partner in their life that they can share. I can't imagine not having my husband in my life, and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

82
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

But we aren't addressing whether she should be 16. I think we should be. But it -- it's very clear that it says, and not having a husband or wife living may be joined in marriage. So, obviously, thank goodness, the option there to have those two husbands or wives would be out of question by our law in the state of Ohio. When I put my hand in the air and I swore to uphold these laws, I believed very strongly in that. And I think that it says that here. My fear as to what we're doing today -- and I know I could take the safe route out. I'm not stupid. You know, I might not have been down here long, but I've been doing this for a while, and it is political. And it's sad. It's very sad. I know I look around this room -- and I've gotten to know enough people for a while here. There's a lot of people that can't be comfortable with this decision today. And there's a lot of people who've got to walk out of this room ashamed of what they've had to do. And I feel badly for you. I do. Because I know we're uncomfortable. 84

I hope someday they have the privilege of that same kind of feeling. But I got to tell you, if one of my children come to me someday and tell me, Mom, I think I might want a partner that isn't necessarily of the opposite sex, I'm not going to love them any less. I'm not going to look at them any differently. And I am very ashamed that we are putting them in that position today. And I would love to believe that that is not the intention of this legislation. But I keep sitting here reading 3101 that we presently have. And I guess I listened to Senator Jordan, and I go to 3101, and, by golly, if it didn't flat out there tell me that it is between a husband and a wife, a male and a female. I'm more offended, actually, that the female can be 16 years old. I got news for you. I think that's absurd. I -- you know, I'd hate to see my 16-year-old come to me and tell me she can get married. I got -- I'd have a whole 'nother list of arguments for her. 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Because I know this hasn't been given the time, it hasn't been given the thoughtfulness that it should have been, and we are discriminating against people, and I really don't think that's what we came here to do. I really believe most of the folks on this floor have very good intentions. And when I decided to come down here, it was because I want to do good things for the state of Ohio. I want to make economic development a positive thing here. We need it so desperately. I want our kids to have books to read out of. I want to know that my children go into a safe neighborhood. I care about the things that the people at home care about. And while this may be turned into the issue that they care about -- because the sound bytes are going to be there, and I'm sure the money's going to be behind the sound bytes, and we're all going to fall into the trap. But I certainly hope we don't forget, the rest of this year, to really address what's necessary. And I certainly hope we remember 85

22

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

when we've done this, we have hurt people, and have done an -- an unnecessary thing. Because we've got a law here that already has done the necessary thing. I hope we don't pass laws continually that are irrelevant, and, unfortunately, this is one of those. I will join the other members of the -- I can pretty much guess -18 to 15 number here that will be voting no. And I'm going to do that because I'm trying -- I'm trying to understand why we are so focused on something that really isn't a hot topic at home. They care what's in their pocket at the end of the day. They care how they put food on their table. They care what school their kid's going to. They care about what affects them day to day. And while, certainly, high morality is a very important issue, I think we have it in the state of Ohio. I think we're almost saying we didn't have it, and we should be more ashamed of that. Thank you, Mr. President. PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair recognizes Senator Armbruster. 86

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

individuals that -- they are shunned by their family. They have a lifestyle that no one can accept, yet, they are not trying to change anyone else's lifestyle. They are not trying to change my lifestyle, my kids' lifestyle. And we may look at the companies in the state of Ohio that have diverse benefit pan -plans. These companies can continue to offer these plans to their employees regardless of their diverse lifestyle. But, yet, as we move forward in this bill -- and depending on how it goes into place after the fact, if it's signed, is to -- is, in fact, NCR or The Limited going to be able to attract those diverse lifestyles or those diverse people that want to come to the state of Ohio, and knowing that the state of Ohio is not open to the prospects of having -- having a union ceremony or being -- recognizing, not a marriage, but a commitment to one another in life? And there's nothing wrong to that commitment. You make that commitment to your wife, to our husband. You can make that commitment to a sorority sister, you can make

88
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SENATOR ARMBRUSTER: Thank you, Mr. President. I look upon the Senate floor today and I see the gallery out there. As we're intently listening to -- in my five years being here -one of the most important debates ever to be discussed on this floor -- with my little kids and my big kids, from age 6 to 35, and my three wives, two of which have died of leukemia, I've always tried to teach a diverse lifestyle with my children, as how they accept one another, no matter what race, color, creed, where they go -- all the different things that they look at. When I look at my children from age 36, now, to 6, each one of them are different. And I look at my extended family beyond that, of my five brothers and my sister, and I look at their diverse family, and I look at what they have done. And some of their lifesyles are gay. And if you're in that side -- on that dark side over there, for the years that they are over there, without the diversity that we have seen in the last ten years, you find 87

that commitment to a fraternity brother, or any place you want to, and have a commitment to live with another one and enjoy one another's company, to grow, and to prosper. And in this diverse so -- society that we live in, I have friends that are gay that are raising children. And, quite honestly, my kids, the younger ones and the older ones, will accept that. I wish the best for all of our families out here. And I wish the best for my children as they grow up. But the one thing that we should look at is the unconditional love that we should give to our families, to our extended families, and the love that we should have for the state of Ohio, for not only its economic growth, but to be a diverse society willing to accept all things, being able to negotiate, being able to mediate, being able to handle the controversy in coming up with an agreement and a prospect. As I sit here today -- and I'm going to vote no on this issue -- we will all continue -- as I see in our eyes, we will all continue to work on this issue to try to make 89

23

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

it better for one side or another, and that's great. But it's a sad day for us today to take the steps that we're taking today if this bill is to pass. I urge the defeat of the bill. PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair recognizes Senator Prentiss. SENATOR PRENTISS: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to speak in favor -- against the bill and -- and in favor of Armbruster, in favor of so many people here who shared themselves. The west broadly construed as western civilization may not have a monopoly on the truth and the right or only way to live, but, certainly, this western civilization that we belong to has contributed a number of important progressive steps throughout history. But we are not making such a contribution today. That is not what we have before us today with House Bill 272, so-called defense of marriage or denial of benefits. This bill is not progress; it's discrimination, good 90
old-fashioned discrimination. It's so ironic that we pass this bill only two days after we celebrated our Martin Luther King's birthday, a national holiday named after the descendant of a slave. I'm going to take a minute here. Because every time I hear it, it brings me to another level. So I just want to repeat for you some of the things that Dr. King said in 1963. And by the way, in 1963, I was on that mall in Washington DC. And what basically happened -- there were black, brown, white -- you know, I was a youngster at the time. But we sat there as a sea of youngsters holding hands, walking up the Lincoln Memorial Mall -- burning up hot outside. I remember just sitting on the grass. That's when we all had signs, singing, we shall overcome some day. It was -- it's one of these things you'll never forget. Of course, I won't tell you I went home to a husband who beat me. But let me just stick with Dr. King at that point. He said, let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today my friends that even though 91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

we face the difficulties of tomorrow and today, I still have a dream. It's a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. It's a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that all men are created equal. He goes on, Senator Gardner, to say, I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation that will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. And, finally, he says, I have a dream that little black boys, little white boys, little black boy -- girls, will hold hands together. Well, I, CJ Prentiss, born again, if you will, in the civil rights movement, have a dream that one day our society will be fully accepting of all of our brothers and sisters, regardless of whether they are gay, straight, black, brown, or white. The old Biblical saying is, we are all precious in His sight. That's my dream, 92
equality for all in all aspects of life, not how I came into the world, frankly, as three-fifths of a person or denied the right to vote or live where or how or with whom I wanted to live. It's a testimony to your society's ability to progress and to partially, at least, correct past wrongs that we do celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday. When we sat there in our various churches and gave our various speeches across the state of Ohio just two days ago, recognizing, because we were elected leaders in the state, we claimed that we would build on Dr. King's dream. He let -- he laid the road map, but we said we would build on it. We would celebrate past wrongs, Martin Luther King Day after 340 years of channeled slavery, 100 years after Jim Crow, 40 years after the great society, and even today, when the remnants -- where the remnants of discrimination still continue. But we do, as a nation, and have, as a nation, made progress. We develop. We figure out how to live together, to accept each 93

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

24

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

other, and that, really, is the key point. This bill is about the lack of acceptance of some by others. It embodies a mean spirit, nonpluralism, nonpluralistic attitude that says, my way or no way. This bill imposes one set of values not held by all on the entire state of Ohio without regard to diversity and pluralism, without regard, even, to the US Constitution, which requires equal treatment for all. If this bill merely dealt with marriage, per se, then even then I would still have some concerns. But if this bill did limit marriage, the ability to marry to some religiously based conception of marriage, then we could have a discussion about the appropriate use of religiously based concept in the law of our state in the context of separation of church and state, separation of church and state, which our Constitution and out society is founded on. But this bill prohibits the state from extending the benefits of marriage, and we've heard all the denials that it gives us. How ironic, frankly, that we still face 94

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastic source, where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populous or the public acts of its office, officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. The concept of marriage, as we Christians and Jews believe, is founded in our Bibles, our Bibles. Some people don't fall into these categories, thank you very much. But in 1600, we said, all you all come. In 1600, we escaped England because we were under somebody's idea of what's the right way and what's the right religion. Previously, society has discriminated on the base of race, sex, gender, religion, region, language, ability -- I'm sure I'm missing a few -- over 200 years. A nation was founded -- again, I was only three-fifths of a person. And I understand you all know that I'm married to a white male, but in 1967, 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

religiously based discrimination in our country, a country founded by those who fled England to escape religious persecution in the early 1960s. How ironic that today, almost 500 years later, we are here enacting into law discrimination so that the few can impose their religious values -- religious values on the many and deny full persons to all in the process. I want to stop a minute and thank the chairman of the committee. You didn't have to do what you did, Bill, Senator Harris. I appreciate it. And you led the committee with dignity. But I want to challenge one thing, though. We start out talking about the Defense of Marriage Act by President Clinton, who was unfaithful -- thank you -- to his wife. I'd like to resurrect, if you will, another president who spoke very clearly to the issue of religious freedom. It's the words of John Kennedy, when his presidential candidacy was challenged because of his faith, I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish, 95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

some states still said that this was illegal. Some states still said that this was illegal. Some churches spoke from the pulpit of the devaluing of races. And, now, we even have, in countries, religious fighting to see who's on top, still haven't figured this one out; was not fully a person in people's eyes. Today, again, we are not allowing people different from us to be considered full persons. We uphold ourselves as a pluralistic society, yet we legislate exclusion. Some say that we are doing this because the courts across America have begun an assault on the traditional concept of marriage. Yes, our society is changing. We have to struggle to ensure the rights of all. Resistance to change is a fatal flaw of our society. The majority seeks to oppress the minority, to reshape the minority in its image. As recently as the '60s in some communities, we're still denying the rights. Seventeen states proclaimed illegal, again, for me to marry. As a society, the majority, those in power, often deny the ability of the minority. 97

25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Those excluded from traditional conceptions, the ability to fully participate in the good, the bounty of society. But we, as a society, given all of that, have evolved. Things have changed. The question is, how quickly do we want to evolve and more fully include more people into our society? The question is, how many will be hurt in the process because they have been denied marriage benefits, tax advantages, parental rights? I must speak to a definition of marriage as one that means that you can raise good children. My mom, as you guys know, is 91 years old. She's been diagnosed with dementia/Altzheimer's. We do this once a -on the weekends, we keep her as a family. Now, I raised my kids as a single mom, Senator Jordan, for almost 18 years. Those boys -- first one was all-state wrestler, as you know, the McIntosh brothers. But those boys, at age 40, and 42, with their families have decided -- and they don't have to do this -- that they're going to take care of my mama, give up their weekends every other 98 weekend. We do; me, them, and -- so every three weekends. I did something right. There are many, many, many alternative families out there that we have no control over. I think Armbruster got it right. It's the love of peace. I mean, we have defined marriage in law. I put forth an amendment that said, why don't we outlaw or prohibit divorce. Would you have supported that, prohibit divorce? But we know -- and what is it -- somebody give me some statistics -- an average marriage lasts seven years -- five years? My goodness. 50 percent of the people are married -what -- 10 percent of the people are married? I'm not making fun of it. It is our institution. But don't hold it to be something that it's not. Respect our religion that sanctifies marriage, but respect other people's belief that they do not choose to fall into that category. I ask -- I could go on. Believe me, I've even cut this short. Because I did have all of Dr. King's speech, and I could have made you listen to all of it. And thank you, Mr. 99

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

President. But it does mean a lot to all of us that -- that really, frankly, just don't understand -- don't understand. I don't understand. I urge you to not -PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair -SENATOR PRENTISS: -- support the bill. PRESIDENT WHITE: Chair recognizes Senator DiDonato. SENATOR DiDONATO: Thank you, Mr. President. I think I'm the last one on this side. So for the ones who are anxious to get out of here, that's the good thing, I guess. But I'm also going to have a little bit of a story. Because, see, I represent (inaudible -sound like roll high) and am in a very strong catholic family. Because I've told so many, my father is 82 years old, and I can count about one time how many times he's missed church, one -- on one hand how many times my father has missed church. It also bothers me, I guess, just in theory. All this weekend, I thought about a lot of different things, but I think it does 100
come back to your roots and who you are and what you're about. I also think that what I am today is a product of what I learned. I didn't learn it from government. I didn't learn it from the from people in elected office. I learned it from my parents, my family. You know, I grew up most -- I graduated in '80 in high school, but I grew up in the '70s, I mean. And I remember the stories that my parents often taught. See, this discrimination and how these things happen and what class of people, they've happened in so many different varieties a way in life. But I grew up -- remember my parents talking about several divides. One my father talking about -- there was this imaginary line down Second Street. If you were on the right side of Second Street, that's where the Catholics stayed on. If you were the left side -- the Catholic school people. If you were on the left side, that's where the public schools -- and if you crossed that imaginary line, you got the crap kicked out of you by the other side. That was common practice, and 101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

they knew that. And I could never understand that as a kid. Because I looked at them and -- there was no religion line when I grew up. I didn't even really ever knew what my friends were. I only may have knew that they were Catholic because I'd seen them in church. For the rest of them, I've never asked. It wasn't my business. I didn't know if they went to church, whether they didn't, what religion or what. Because, really, that was not my business. I respected their religion and their business. And then, you know, I heard about when my mother and my father met. My mother is Scottish-Irish, country girl, Lutheran -- oh, God forbid. Her parents had a fit. You're seeing an Italian, a dark-skinned Italian? They're Ca -- they're Catholics? The persecution they went through -- Dad was 27, Mom was 20 when they first met roller skating. They used to sneak to the roller skating place so they could meet. And they had to sneak for months. Finally broke it to their parents to only have to go through basic 102
living hell on both sides. That's just untraditional. You don't do that. But in the end, it finally worked out. They both come to acceptance. We went on many family vacations together. Our grandma and grandpas went with us. Matter of fact, I was going through a lot of them this weekend, making a thing for my new house, a mural of all my grandparents, a family tree. And then I also heard about the job discrimination. My father worked for the Pennsylvania Railroad. My grandfather came here. And that's kind of why they become the Roosevelt democrats, because that's when -back then, they made some work rules and safeties and -- at the time when the unions did start. But the union, see, that ended discrimination. My father used to talk about, as a railroader, Catholics and Italians never got promoted. Whenever a job come open that they could move up, they were always looked over. That was common. That was the practices. But when they got the work rules in and they got a contract, they were structured, and they had

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

to respect and they had to abide, and no longer did that happen. Forgot to tell you another thing. The -great story. My mom and dad got married. My mother lived in the village of Tuscarawas in Tuscarawas County, which we call Tuscy. And what's fascinating is, back in those times, during the depression, you moved in, normally, with one of your parents. And my mother moved up -- got married and moved in with my dad's parents on Center Street. I think with less than a week she was there, she woke up in the middle of the night -- my father, at that time, was the new guy in the railroad, so he used to work midnight shifts. She only had to wake up about 3:00 in the morning to only -- there was a second house in sight from the corner -- to wake up to see a cross ignited, burning on the corner. See, back then, we had the KKK in our area. And people have passed away since then. Being there and living there, we have found the old robes in a lot of these people homes if they passed away. But, back then, they

104
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

103

used to burn crosses at Catholic Italian homes. That was very common. Because my mother was terrified. She used to ask my father, what the heck? What did you get me into? That was just something she had never seen in her whole lifetime. So, you know, all this weekend, I had to deal with those upbringings and those understandings and these emotions. Because, see, we're not here about -- debating about marriage between man and women. That's not what I'm voting for. That was law before, and it'll be law in this. But we're going beyond that with the benefits, and that's where I have a problem. Because, see, I believe marriage is between man and women. That's not a debate with me. But I have a real problem when I start infringing and crossing the line and hurting others. Because, see, our Bible says -- God commands us, you shall love your neighbor. You shall love your neighbor. And you mean to tell me when we look at God and we see God in our dying days -- you know, there's a difference between marriage 105

27

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

here and economically hurting somebody, taking away their benefits and harming them economically. There's a difference, folks. We need to learn to respect that. And that's why it goes back to -- when I was growing up in the '70s and I heard these stories, I used to look at my mom and dad -and, you know, we're all cocky and smart -and I used to think, oh, you guys are crazy. It couldn't have been that bad. And I used to think how blessed I am. Because, see, that didn't happen then. And sometimes my parents would warn me about, well, be careful with that family, about staying overnight with them. I remember his grandfather, what he did to our family, how he treated Catholics then, how he hated us. And I used to say, oh, Dad, you don't know what you're talking about. We're great friends. We play football together. We play sports, you know, we're good friends. What are you talking about? I don't want to hear that. I just want to stay overnight over at house with two or three of us, play cards or whatever. Well, I'm just warning you, Son, I 106 know the history. And I used to think they were crazy. And what really bothers me, I see a repeat of this. It's just a different day. It's a different group of people. We're not the victims. Catholics don't mean nothing today. Italian, light skin don't mean much today. We've moved beyond that, as history has said. We've moved beyond that. What we're doing today is mean-spirited. It's wrong. It's just plain wrong. And, you know, when you talk about traditional family -- I'm going to make a comment, because I hadn't already planned -to my colleague, Senator Jordan. You know, my parents have been married 60 years. I got three brothers beside me. My oldest been married 32 years; my second oldest one, 30; and my third one, 20 years. He lives in Dublin. There's not a divorce in our family. You know, I grew up in a family that taught me, be worry -- beware of people who maybe -- you know, when it come to religion, my father said, you know, you don't preach it and talk it, you live it. You live it. 107

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Because you know what, you never have to question if somebody is Godly. Their examples and their behaviors will show you that. And in 42 years, I do agree on that. I've seen that. I've learned a lot -- all of us -through this lifestyle. Because, you know, back then, we'd have people knock on our door and preach the faith and everything else. And father said -- my father used to again repeat, you learn a lot from the person. And, you know, when you talk about family values, that's what it goes back to. Government don't teach us that. I -- I never learned anything. Matter of fact, my first interest in politics was in the early '80s. And my father used to go livid when Ronald Reagan talked about fo -- family values. And he said, he's the first -- first divorced president of the United States, don't tell me about family values. And my father, I'll tell you, called Bill Clinton a pig, when that came out. He was disgusted as a Catholic. A disgrace. And he also has problems with people, even, in the 108

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

White House now, because he thinks that the person -- my father didn't drink and carouse until he was 40 years old. He got married. He worked. He took care of his family. He met the needs. He supported us from day one. He didn't have to wait till he was 40 to clean up his act. So when you talk about family values, don't look at government. Don't look at government. Don't preach it to me, because I didn't learn it from a lot of them. I see the world today -- like you said, lots of divorces. I was mayor. We used to have mayor's court back home, Mr. President. If you seen the photographics (sic) -- you know, we no longer can do it, but back in the mayor's court, we used to be able to hold domestic viol -- we used to be able to hear, at that time, like DUIs, domestic violence. If you seen some of the pictures and the beatings I used to see -- and when you heard those cases, it was disgusting. Because, see, I'd never seen that. My parents weren't perfect. They had theirs ups 109

28

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and downs. They had their yelling matches once in a while, of course, hot-blooded Italians. But they loved each other. They respect each other. And as far as I know, to this day -- and I would vow on my life -- they were faithful all the way through, both of them, in their marriage, all the way through to each other. And so when we talk about traditional marriage, you know, there could be some of us says, well, you know, why don't we outlaw divorce or why don't we, if they get divorced, take away the health insurance or the benefits of the children to punish them and make them stay together? But, see, we're not proposing that today. Because, see, that's -- 50 percent of Americans would be affected. This is about divide. It is about hate. It is about getting someone elected, about an issue. It's a sad day. It really is a sad day. I was at a benefit Saturday night and told a couple of -- group of primary Catholics I happened to be with that night at the benefit -- and most of them are reborn 110
Catholics, which means they are more traditional. And we talked about this. And we all said, well, we do believe that marriage is between a man and woman. But they also looked at me and said, can you imagine -- can you imagine in 2004 we're talking about messing with people's health insurance and their benefits? You would think by now we'd be a better, more smarter and educated society, but we still repeat the wrongdoings of the past. It's just with a different group of people today. History will rewrite this. I agree with you, Senator Armbruster. History will rewrite this. So in closing -- because I know some of you have already made comments to me today that are going to vote for this that, you know, you don't even want this on the floor today. It's a shame it came to the floor. It really is a shame. It should have never come to this level, and not in the style it did. See, another thing I would echo with Senator Fingerhut, if you truly believed in what you were doing, you'd have never snuck it 111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

in the middle of the night on Thursday, announced it on Martin Luther King Weekend, and cut off the hearing process the way you did. And the House is over there waiting for us to pass this so they can concur. You're not even doing this because you feel good about it. It's how fast you can get it done. So, again, I urge -- I urge all of you to dig in. Dig in your heart and soul and your guts and say what's right or wrong here. You know, I think, like I said, we are a nation who learns from our past. That's the history that I heard from my parents. And, like I said, you want to talk about traditional marriage -- I would caution people talking about that, because traditional marriage, to me, is my parents being married 60 years and being faithful to each other. That's real traditional marriage. That's real traditional marriage. Thank you. PRESIDENT WHITE: Recognizes Senator Amstutz. REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you, Mr. President. Fellow members, I think that last 112
speech -- it's hard to pick. There were so many speeches. But the last one was an eloquent illustration that we can all take many things home from. If we were listening -- it's hard to listen, you know, when you're as wound into this as I think all of us are. Because when I look around, I see people who have more emotion showing than I've seen in the many years that I've had the opportunity to be a part of the general assembly. And the last speech, just to give you an example, taught me -- and I would hope it would teach all of us -- that we really have a lot to learn if we listen. And I'd like to share a few things, kind of, in my summation on this, too, about why I'm not ashamed that I am for this. I've been told many times today that I should be ashamed for being for this bill. Well, I'm not. So let me -- let me just kind of visit with you a little bit about this for a few minutes. The first thing I want to say is sort of an extension of what I started to say at the very beginning, and that is, I'm almost 113

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

29

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

on the edge of shock, personal shock, at how much and what has come out in this debate that started yesterday around -- I think we started around 1:30 or shortly thereafter -- mostly from the opponents of this bill that I'm for that I agree with, and not just intellectually, but even resonate with in my heart. So I guess it comes down to, sometimes, even though we're on opposite sides of a bill, we might find an awful lot on which can agree. Just to give you a quick example, it was -and, by the way, good first job. When you suggested that, you know, why aren't we fixing this 16, 18-year-old thing -- well, you know what? I think I might be able to cosponsor that bill with you, if you want to put it in. You know, I might even want to suggest we go to 21, but that might be a little harder to pass. Because what that does, you know, as an illustration, is shows that -- you know, this is the revised code, my friends, and maybe we're going to need to revise it again. I think someone predicted -- from the Cleveland 114
area, in their speech -- that this bill might be repealed not too far down the road. So, you know, the fact that there's so much emotion attached to this debate today might have things to do with more than just what this bill says. And I'll -- I'll talk a little bit about what it says in a couple minutes. But this bill has -- has been described as being about a squirmy can of worms, about sex, about hate, about economic harm, about denying benefits, about politics, about intolerant actions, about the need to tolerate diversity, about the march of history. Well, I can go on. There's a long list here. I was writing these things down. You know, some of them I actually agree with, and some, I think, I don't really agree with at all. But, you know what, my friends -- and I mean that literally, friends -- this is a wonderful, in some ways, extended family here isn't it -- I -- I'm going to let somebody else make the judgment of whether there was any mean-spirited parts to this whole debate 115

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that started yesterday about 1:30. I don't know that I'm in a good position to make the judgments that if there was any hate or any other things that aren't good things that we want to identify with, whether -- if that happened, where that was coming from. Okay? There's something else I can agree on. And the individual that I think made this statement -- maybe there were several -- isn't sitting in his seat right now, but that doesn't matter. Because, you know, it was suggested that if we pass this bill today, there will be lawsuits filed. Well, now, there's something we can agree on. Okay? I think there will be lawsuits filed. And, you know what, I think there's going to be lawsuits filed if we don't pass this bill today here, too, on this very issue. I'm not talking in general. So, actually, you know, although we agree on that issue, I think this is a rare moment. Because, you know, one of the things that's frustrated me in the many years that I've served in this general assembly is, it seems like we're always reacting, always reacting, 116 always reacting to things I wish we would have thought of before and did something proactive. In my humble opinion, this is one of the rare proactive bills that this general assembly has taken up. Now, it doesn't do a whole lot of things legally, but it does a few things, and I'll take that. Before we get to that, can I suggest that the discussion about minorities -- and I wish there were some people in the room that aren't in the room right now -- is an appropriate one. And I want to share a very short -- at least I hope it's short -- personal -- very, very personal story about my family and what happens when minorities are discriminated against. Quite a few years ago, in another century, my ancestors came to this country from Europe. They came here but they were being hunted down like animals. They were being hunted down -- not because they'd done anything, in their minds, that was wrong. They had a simple faith that believed that you should baptize someone. Now, we're not going to hold church here, 117

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

30

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

okay, although you can argue that some of the other arg -- comments that were made were pretty close to that, and -- and I don't -I'm okay with that. But the point is, because of their religious beliefs, they were driven up into the mountains where they couldn't provide for themselves economically. And there was a lot of economic impact on their -- on that family. They came over to this country with almost nothing, because it had been lost. They came here because they wanted to be able to practice their faith in a way that they believed deeply was important. That's minority. Now, over here -- I could go into some of the other things that happened, but the point I'm trying to make is, you know, I can relate to what it is to be a minority and to be -you know, that that psyche, that background still is with me several generations later. And, in fact, I think you can make a fairly objective argument that today, in today's world that we live in, the faith that I hold is probably discriminated against more 118
in the public square and in other places than maybe some of the areas of discrimination that we've had a lot of national debate and discussion about over the years. So I'm not sure -- you know, we're kind of having this very personal discussion today, aren't we? And I appreciate it, that it's not a -- not a partisan discussion, because I heard some of the very same things from both sides of the aisle today. So that's very meaningful to me. And we can't have a full discussion, because the clock's ticking. But, you know, there's been an awful lot of statements about what this bill is. And I think it's two things. It's about what people think this bill will do. And I really believe that people on both sides of this -- I think they really have strong, well-intentioned beliefs about what this bill does. And I think it's been described as the denial of rights. It's -- it's all about taking benefits away from people. So those are pretty strong statements, and they ought to be taken very seriously. And the fact that it is 5:33 -- you know, 119

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

if it is important, maybe we ought to take a couple more minutes to look at this bill together. Because I think the one thing we sometimes don't do is actually read the bills, so I'm going to get to that in just a minute or two. I want to take up an issue that you might wonder why I would and that's the question of why this bill went to finance committee, because I kind of wondered that myself, you know. But it has occurred to me, one of the values of having hours of debate -- and I've been a member of the finance committee during this debate yesterday and today -- is that you have a chance to think. And, you know, it's occurred to me that there are some very logical reasons why the finance committee would have this bill. First of all, I heard other speakers talk about the economic impacts of this bill on our state. Clearly, our finance committee should care about that. But there are some more direct reasons why I think we should care. And these were referred to, especially by the minority leader, and I -- I appreciated what 120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

he had to say, and I mean that, and we should have some more conversation about that in this body. Think about the budget. That's, you know, the main thing we do in the finance committee. Think about -- pick -- take your pick. I'm just going to pick two big ones. Education, primary and secondary education, let's just start there. That's a huge issue. We've gone from $4 billion of state taxpayer money going out into operating our schools to $8 billion in just about 11 or 12 years. And that's triple the rate of inflation, if you check it. So why it that relevant? Well, you know, I've been to central city Cleveland schools. It's been a while, but I have. I've been inside them. And, very recently, I had the Legislative Service Commission do a -- a little bit of -- and this is on my website if you want to review it -- you know, kind of put the schools into categories according to how wealthy they are, their ability to raise money. And then I said, you know, after you've 121

31

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

categorized them in boxes like that, put the central city districts into their own category so that we can see how much resource per student is available in the poorest districts and in the wealthiest districts. And, you know what, one of the things that kind of surprised me was that -- that when we did that, I discovered that central city school districts -- the big eight, let's say, and that's what we measured -- actually have more money now -- and this was a couple years ago, and it's still that way -- about a couple hundred dollars more per student from the state -- no, that's wrong -- a couple hundred more dollars per student from all the resources, local and state put together, than the wealthiest districts in this state have. And so I would submit to you -- you think, well, where -- where is he going with this? Well, I'm suggesting that when fathers abandon their families, there is a cost, and that cost can be measured in many different ways. But the cost, just to the state of Ohio, in terms of attempting to counteract the 122 affects of what happens when that committed relationship -- and I do agree that commitment to the well-being of others -- if you have to find a central theme about why we're living this life, that's -- that's probably it. When that's lost, the economic impact on our state and to our taxpayers, my friends, is very, very high, very, very high. Let me give you another example: nursing homes. You talk about an out-of-control part of our budget in this state and in most states -- the amount of money that taxpayers are putting into nursing homes is tremendous. This bill is about marriage, but it's also about family. I recently went to the funeral of my great aunt. And my great -- I'm not going to give you that story, but my great aunt died in her own home being cared for by her daughter. That's a rare thing these days. So all I'm trying to suggest to the folks -- if you can still stay focused on this -- is that choices do make a difference. And that's unfortunate that we sometimes think that, you know, we should be able to make just any choice we want to and -- and -- you know, 123

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

when a father makes a choice to leave that home -- and that's not the only way we get in trouble with our families. We had some other illustrations today -- there is an impact. And then there's an interest right here in this room when those decisions are made. We do need to be very careful about how we judge those situations, because we can be very wrong. But you know what? Everybody's got their take on what this bill's about. Well, I think in some ways what really is being reflected in this debate today is a common theme in our society called excessive self-interest, some would say selfishness, because that's at the core of what's going on. It's saying that we in this body and in our public life should -- should take the policy position that whatever anybody in your society wants to do, they should be allowed to do that. It's a very, very popular viewpoint, and it was expressed over and over again today in, I believe, deeply held views. But I would submit to my friends here in this body that the right to do what I, I, I, I 124

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

want to do has consequences, and it's very much in opposition to the important thought that was shared with us by several speakers that the commitment to the well-being of others is a high ideal. You can't have both. Okay? You need to balance those. All right. Let's talk about the bill for just a little bit. I'm almost done. Here's the bill. This bill that's going to have such negative impacts on the private-sector employers of our state has the following two lines in it -- and I need to put them into a little bit of context, because the heart of the bill is -- starts at around line 51. There's been several amendments to start getting rid of the bill at that point, but those have not been enacted. If you have the bill -- well, most of you don't have the bill. We're now electronic, so I'll read it to you. Nothing in the division that's the heart of the bill shall be construed to affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this state. Now, is anybody still listening? The 125

32

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

press is partly here and they're partly out filing their stories, and the same is true of the members of this general assembly. But that says two things as it relates to the private sector. And hear me out if you really want to understand a little bit about what this bill does. Nothing in this division shall affect the validity of private agreements, the very private agreements that we've had a lot of debate about today that are -- you know, as this is abridging and taking away. I'm sorry, my folks, that's a pretty plain statement. Now, you say, well, but, but, but, but, but, but it says, otherwise valid under the laws of this state. And that's the second part that I need to explain to you. This -- what this bill does is says, time out, we're going to restate that as it relates to marriage, the laws that exist today, the statutes that exist today are what they mean to say. They're just exactly doing what they're stated to do as it relates to spouses and marriage. So what we're doing is a proactive thing 126
that relates to what others have very eloquently explained, but I'm not sure we always listen to each other like we ought to. Mr. President, one of the speakers who is standing at the back right now having an important conversation, I'm sure, said earlier in this debate that part of what went on kind of made him have to chuckle. And you know what, I think this debate either is about whether you want to have a laugh or cry, and we've seen mostly the latter today. And, you know what, I think it is a very serious issue, and so I can empathize with those that are crying. Because we have, my friends -- and I mean that literally -- a lot of hurting people in this state. My suggestion, however, is that we need to be careful in how we define what it means to be fully committed to their well-being. Mr. President, I think I've said enough. Thank you for the opportunity. PRESIDENT WHITE: The chair recognizes Senator Jacobson. SENATOR JACOBSON: Thank you, Mr. President. 127

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I know the hour is late. And I'm persuaded by the eloquence of all members involved that people have given this a lot of thought, that this is not a knee-jerk position taken by anyone. It's something that we've all struggled with in our own minds and our own souls to figure out what it is that we want to stand for and what it is that we want to say. And I think a lot of us who support this bill have struggled also as to whether or not we want to say it. Because it's hard to say things that friends are going to hear as hurtful things, whether or not they're intended as hurtful. And it's hard to say things that people see as words that mean that you do not support or approve of choices or directions they have made with their life. It's hard to say that. And so you want to stay silent because you don't want to cause anew people to upset or offended. But there's also a need to recognize that we are here to speak and that we are here to say what we believe in and why. And perhaps the best thing you can do for someone who 128
disagrees with you and thinks something is hurtful and doesn't understand why you do it is to -- you owe them a better explanation. Don't let your position and your opinions be defined by the statements of others. You know, there is an old adage that silent -- silence implies consent. And I don't want people here to think that because some of us have not spoken or we have not addressed issues or challenges that have been raised that we assent to those or that we believe those are true about us or about why we support this bill. And before I say more about this bill, I want to read you all a section of our rules. And I say this out of deep friendship for my friends in -- in this room and -- and a recognition that I have not always abided by this rule myself. Although I would say that I had a change of heart in it -- on this issue probably the day that my good friend, who is no longer here, got up and reminded me that every time I use the word disingenuous in a speech, it -it causes people on the other side of the 129

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

33

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

aisle to want to stand up and respond to me. And he said it with a laugh. And it made me realize, you know, when I do that, it does call forth people wanting to respond. And I think we have violated this rule almost every time and almost every day that we have a controversial issue, and it leads to division of people. And it leads other people -- people here and people not here -to hear what we say about each other that we don't respond to and assume it must be true because it was said and not contradicted. And that rule says, in our rules, that you have to avoid personalities. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to say that Bob Hagan is the funniest guy, when he wants to be, that I've met. That's not what it means. What is means to engage in personality -- although that's true. What it means to engage in personalities is to describe people's motives, to describe their motives and say, you are doing this because you believe X or because you want to hurt people or because you hate or because you want to get an election issue. 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

not accept and they will lose friends, too, and I think that's sad. I think it's sad that there will be people who hear how we voted and ascribe to that a motive and an opinion of them and the way that they live their lives that is either affirming or denying when, in fact, that may not be. And at least for me, that is not what this is about. It's interesting when we discuss this topic. I hear my friends who are against the bill talk one set of points and I hear my friends who are for this bill talk an entirely different set of points. And perhaps it is inevitable when you are talking two different languages and describing two separate bills that you begin to wonder if each other's motives are somehow or other suspect because they don't see what you see. And I think we need to be clear in saying what those of us who are voting yes are seeing and why we are voting yes on this bill. And I have to disagree with my friend, who is an attorney, my friend -- my two friends, attorneys, who suggested that there 132

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

And let me read to you this. And I'm going to refer to it again. And I hope that if any of you see me doing it in the future you will call my attention to it as well. It is not the person but the measure that is the subject of debate. And it is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. Otherwise, we're going to spend all of our time, ladies and gentlemen, with somebody saying, you're doing this because you want to win an election. And then we have to say, no, you're defending on that because you don't want to talk about the subject. And we could go back and forth and back and forth, and then we'd lose the ability to communicate with each other. I'm not interested in this bill because of an election. I know fully well that my family will lose friends because I'm going to vote yes. And I know fully well that others that will happen to, whether they be yes or no votes today, that there are going to be friends of theirs who do not understand and do 131

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

will be lawsuits with private companies. And I would say that you have to have standing to bring a lawsuit. You know, just because NCR offers benefits, I can't just sue them and say that because we passed a law they can't offer those benefits anymore. And I reject that idea. I think we've been very careful to say statutory benefits. Statutory benefits is a defined term. We didn't just invent that. A statutory benefit, for example, is the right as a wife or a husband to say, I don't care what the will says, I get a share of the estate even if my husband or wife cut me off because -- for whatever reason, under the law, they have the right to a share of the estate. Those are statutory benefits. And I think we can debate whether or not benefits belong in the bill or not. And I know that those who disagree stake a lot of their position on that bill -- on the bill on that point. Those of us who support the bill stake a lot of our position on the other points, which is why it is that we believe we need to 133

34

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

reaffirm that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I heard two separate arguments from my friends who are voting no. On one hand, I heard, we don't need to do anything about that, that's the law already. On the other hand, I heard that the march of history -- by the way, you know where that line is famous from, of course. The march of history was something about communism, that it was inevitable, that communism was the march of history, and we were all struggling against the tide. As you know, communism is now defunct, for the most part. But I would like to say, though, that we heard that. And we heard some of our friends say that this is discriminatory because we are not allowing gay marriages, same-sex marriages. But I heard others say, we're not for same-sex marriages, but we don't need this, because we won't have same-sex marriages. You know, that was a very good debating argument last month -- or last year, the year before, the year before when Senator Finan led 134

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Court decision from the 1930s -- which name I heard once, it escapes me -- that says that for you not to give full faith and credit to what happens in another state, it must be against the strong public policy of your state. I don't know the context then, but I have a feeling it's something today where states that were very narrow-minded were saying to others, you have to live by our narrow-minded rules. And those states with more broad-minded rules, perhaps, on race, said, no, we don't want to have to live by your discriminatory rules and so it's against our strong public policy to discriminate. And I'm not trying to stand here today and say that another state or that any other part of this world can't come to a different opinion. The question is, what do we here in Ohio believe? What is important to us about marriage? And where I fundamentally part company, where I have the difficulty in communicating with my friends who disagree and my friends who feel hurt and my friends who feel singled 136

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

a consensus that said, we don't need to do this because our institution of marriage, our definition of marriage is not today in jeopardy in the way we conceive it legally. And that all changed when Massachusetts did what it did. We don't have to give full faith and credit, necessarily, to what happens in Canada, although you can argue treaty obligations may require us to do certain things. But our US Constitution requires us to give full faith and credit to what is the law of other states. And so, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, with the decision in Massachusetts, it became very clear to me, and I think to those who believe in support of this bill -- who are going to vote in support of this bill that we had to act, that we couldn't just say that this is enough, we've taken care of it, this isn't an issue, that we had to give us the better hope, the better chance of surviving no matter what a court might be faced with, so that we were clear, so that we reiterated, so that we followed the United States Supreme 135

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

out is that this is not about the choices of adults. This is not about the way adults choose to order their lives. Because whether you call it marriage or anything else, adults can order their lives. Adults can form household relationships if they want. Perhaps they don't have all the bells and whistles. Perhaps they don't have all the opportunities and all the -- the -the appearance as equally equal to everyone else's, but they can do it. People can make choices in how to live their individual lives. This is not about saying some kinds of sex -- to my friend from Youngstown -- some kinds of sex are allowed and some kinds of sex are not allowed. That's not the issue anymore. It was an issue in the past. It's not an issue. The Supreme Court's taken care of that. What it's about, though, is what environment do we feel is best for children. That's the way those of us who are voting yes look at this. And we believe that the best environment for children -- not the only environment in which children can be 137

35

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

successful and be raised happy, not in any way saying that all children don't deserve whatever the best opportunity that their family, whatever it may be, can provide. But, to us, it is a recognition that marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship in which children can be created, and, if they're faithful to it, no other children can be created outside of that marriage, and that teaches children to live in a stable family that stays together because they're committed to each other and to their children so that those children grow up and want to do the same things. Is that something we invented? Is that something that, you know, narrow-minded thinkers just came up with? No. It's something that has survived in almost every society around the world for a very long time -- not every society. You know, there's some places where the rich can have as many wives as they want, or not even wives, they can just father as many children. That's not a society that we have here, and it's not a society that we want to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

138
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

can to keep them going, not because they work for every human being -- none of us are perfect -- not because there is anyone here who lives up to the ideal. You know, my wife probably wouldn't appreciate me talking about how we get along on a day-to-day basis. But I have to tell you, she's been reading a book that talks about the stages of marriage. And there's a stage when you love each other, a stage when you look at each other and go like, how did I end up with this person, a stage that goes through where you say, you know -- you know, isn't there somebody better out there, and what am I getting into. And then there's the stage that says, we'll maybe this person's not so bad after all, and then the stage that says, all right, I give up, you -- you know, let's stay together. And don't ask me on each day what stage we're in. I'm always trying to figure it out. But I will tell you one very important thing to us and that is that we feel that because we have a very precious son, that no matter which stage we're in, his well-being 140

see us become. And though children deserve that best opportunity and we are going to help children in whatever situation they are raised in, that does not mean to say that because two people would like to order their lives in a certain way that we have to change the institution of marriage just to make them feel better about their choice. I respect people's choices. I know lots of people have made choices. And I know some -- some of them who are working very hard to raise loving children in a loving environment. I respect that, and I admire their commitment to each other. But that does not mean to those of us who are voting yes that we have to do something to marriage to make marriage less in order to let those people do the best they can. Ladies and gentlemen, this bill is not about hate. This bill is about a recognition that there are things in society which should change and things in society which have been preserved in society throughout the ages for a very good reason, and we need to do what we

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

139

comes first, not the well-being of what Susan and I individually might like to do on any given day. That's what marriage, the ideal, is about. And the fact that we all fall short, the fact that we all struggle, the fact that we all don't know and that, often, marriages break up does not mean that we should say that marriage is not an ideal, that children shouldn't have a mother and a father or don't -- we don't have to look at that as something that would be healthy and helpful if they can get it. So, ladies and gentlemen, it is really two separate conceptions that we are talking about, and I ascribe to all of my friends on the other side who feel differently goodwill. I think they think they're doing the right thing. I think they believe that they are doing something that is helpful. And I want you all, if you can grant it, to grant the same things to us, that we are trying to preserve something that we believe to be essential and helpful and that, in that mode, let's go forward to talk about each of 141

36

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

those other issues tomorrow, because I -- you don't want to hear me talk anymore on any other issue. And the days to follow, let's talk about all those other issues that are still remaining to be done in goodwill and recognizing that though we disagree vehemently, perhaps, on what the effects of this bill would be, we all are doing what we think is the right thing to do and trying our best to the help the families and people of the state of Ohio and that, in and of itself, makes the individual decisions we are making today important ones that need to be made. And so, Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I urge people to vote how they see fit. PRESIDENT WHITE: The question is, shall the bill pass? Clerk shall call the roll. THE CLERK: Amstutz? SENATOR AMSTUTZ: Yes. THE CLERK: Armbruster? SENATOR ARMBRUSTER: No. THE CLERK: Austria? SENATOR AUSTRIA: Yes. 142

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SENATOR HARRIS: Yes. THE CLERK: Hottinger? SENATOR HOTTINGER: Yes. THE CLERK: Jacobson? SENATOR JACOBSON: Yes. THE CLERK: Jordan? SENATOR JORDAN: Yes. THE CLERK: Mallory? SENATOR MALLORY: No. THE CLERK: Miller? SENATOR MILLER: No. THE CLERK: Mumper? SENATOR MUMPER: Yes. THE CLERK: Nein? SENATOR NEIN: Yes. THE CLERK: Padgett? SENATOR PADGETT: Yes. THE CLERK: Prentiss? SENATOR PRENTISS: No. THE CLERK: Roberts? SENATOR ROBERTS: No. THE CLERK: Schuler? SENATOR SCHULER: Yes. THE CLERK: Schuring? SENATOR SCHURING: Yes.

144

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE CLERK: Blessing? SENATOR BLESSING: Yes. THE CLERK: Brady? SENATOR BRADY: No. THE CLERK: Carey? SENATOR CAREY: Yes. THE CLERK: Coughlin? SENATOR COUGHLIN: Yes. THE CLERK: Dann? SENATOR DANN: No. THE CLERK: DiDonato? SENATOR DiDONATO: No. THE CLERK: Fedor? SENATOR FEDOR: No. THE CLERK: Fingerhut? SENATOR FINGERHUT: No. THE CLERK: Randy Gardner? SENATOR RANDY GARDNER: Yes. THE CLERK: Robert Gardner? SENATOR ROBERT GARDNER: No. THE CLERK: Goodman? SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes. THE CLERK: Hagan? SENATOR HAGAN: No. THE CLERK: Harris? 143

THE CLERK: Spada? SENATOR SPADA: Yes. THE CLERK: Stivers? SENATOR STIVERS: No. THE CLERK: Wachtmann? SENATOR WACHTMANN: No. THE CLERK: Zurz? SENATOR ZURZ: No. THE CLERK: White? SENATOR WHITE: Yes. THE CLERK: 18 yeas, 15 nays. PRESIDENT WHITE: There being 18 yeas and 15 nays, the bill is passed and entitled. ---

145

37

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE I, SuzAnne McMillin, CLR, the undersigned court reporter, state the foregoing transcript was transcribed by me via video to the best of my ability. _____________________________ SuzAnne McMillin, CLR

146

38

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Electronically signed by SuzAnne McMillin (601-288-036-8069)

36a91b03-d8f9-468f-820a-7bc36c5d9f51

1
A abandon 122:21 abide 104:1 abided 129:18 ability 24:5 77:5 93:7 94:14 96:21 97:25 98:2 121:23 131:17 146:6 able 10:16 23:22 40:4 49:10 74:19 74:20 88:14 89:18,19,19 109:18 109:19 114:16 118:12 123:24 abridging 126:11 absolutely 16:5,18 57:22 82:21 absurd 83:21 abut 67:22 accept 87:11 88:3 89:9,18 93:25 132:1 acceptance 94:2 103:4 accepted 4:15,17 42:11 accepting 37:21 39:21 41:16 42:5 92:21 accepts 96:2 access 70:25 73:20 accompanies 55:6 accurate 18:1 32:23 64:17 78:8 act 2:8 3:14,15 10:23,25 36:3,9 49:13,21 50:1,17,22 51:6,23 95:17 96:9,9 109:7 135:19 acting 50:1 57:10 action 33:20 34:4 actions 14:6 115:13 acts 3:9 33:3 96:7 adage 129:6 add 58:5 added 33:25 adding 9:9 address 6:23 71:23 72:2 82:15 85:24 addressed 14:17 129:10 addressing 6:25 84:1 adequate 12:19 adjoining 5:5 administrative 67:12 administrators 27:22 admire 139:14 admitting 48:3 adopted 10:22 29:8 adoption 18:8 29:6 adults 77:17 137:2,2,5,6 advantages 98:10 advertisement 38:19 advocate 8:1 affect 15:23 33:11 35:3 125:22 126:8 affirming 132:7 affirms 3:17 afghanistan 71:11 african 42:9 age 26:24,25 42:12 87:8,15 98:22 ages 139:24 ago 6:10 42:7 51:5 93:12 117:17 122:12 agree 12:18 13:6 16:16,17 61:15 72:2 108:4 111:13 114:6,11 115:17,18 116:7,14,20 123:2 agreed 20:2 agreement 5:2 89:21 agreements 33:12 35:4 125:23 126:9,9 aide 67:9,12 air 84:9 aisle 19:12,13 53:15 54:22 69:14 73:18 119:10 130:1 alive 24:19 allen 28:3 alleviated 24:14 allow 40:6 43:22 73:23 78:10 allowable 131:6 allowed 124:20 130:15 137:15,16 allowing 97:8 134:18 allstate 98:20 alluded 62:23 64:2 65:5 72:5 altered 34:20 alternative 99:3 altzheimers 98:16 am5317125 25:24 amend 11:14 18:15 20:2 25:16,18 25:20 29:11 42:24 43:1 44:10 amended 4:5 25:23 33:23 34:14 amendment 4:17,22 11:17,19,20,22 13:14 18:2,9,11 22:23 23:3 24:14 25:6,21,22 26:2,3 27:13 29:2,6,8 29:15 32:15 34:15,20 43:1,5,8 44:6,12 47:8 54:5 60:18 62:24 65:6 73:21 99:7 amendments 1:7 4:15 43:2,25 61:8 125:15 america 28:6 95:24 97:13 american 79:11,24 92:3 americans 42:10 110:18 amount 53:22 123:12 amstutz 20:5,6 29:17,18 44:15,16 112:22 142:20,21 amy 68:3 ancestors 117:18 anderson 51:14 anew 128:21 animals 117:20 announced 112:2 annual 64:6 anothers 89:4 antibu 24:13 antibusiness 24:12 anxious 100:13 anybody 73:19 74:2 124:19 125:25 anybodys 73:20 anymore 133:6 137:17 142:2 anyones 52:8 apart 60:10 apologize 64:14 apparent 2:16 apparently 76:23 77:8 appealed 72:21,22 appeals 72:13 appearance 137:10 appeared 78:20,21 apply 28:24 appreciate 71:21,24 95:13 119:7 140:6 appreciated 120:25 appropriate 94:17 117:11 approve 128:17 approved 2:9 5:6 approximately 60:24 arc 53:25 area 24:18 27:18 104:22 115:1 areas 4:16 119:2 arent 81:1,12 84:1 114:14 116:4 117:10 119:7 arg 118:2 argue 6:15 80:14 118:1 135:9 argued 79:5,12 argument 79:10 118:23 134:24 arguments 2:18 32:22 79:23 83:24 134:3 armbruster 20:7,8 29:19,20 44:17 44:18 86:25 87:1 90:11 99:5 111:14 142:22,23 armor 71:13 arraign 131:7 arrangement 80:22,24 81:4,21 arrived 58:20 article 8:5 64:21 78:20 articulated 14:1 ascribe 132:4 141:16 ashamed 82:16 83:9 84:23 86:22 113:18,19 aside 47:20 asked 44:13 102:8 asking 42:13 43:15 aspects 93:1

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

2
aspx 1:10 assault 97:14 assembly 26:7 47:14 113:12 116:24 117:5 126:3 assent 129:11 associate 26:9 associated 78:20 assume 130:11 astronomically 63:9 attached 115:4 attempt 6:18 attempted 2:20 attempting 122:25 attend 43:11 attended 19:10,13 attention 34:1 40:20 131:4 attitude 94:4 attorney 79:13 132:24 attorneys 132:25 attract 25:4 27:20,23 28:8,14 70:2 70:8 88:14 attracts 64:7,8 attributed 7:21 august 79:3 aunt 123:16,18 austria 20:9,10 29:21,22 44:19,20 142:24,25 available 122:4 average 99:12 avoid 130:14 awaiting 59:20 awarding 62:25 awful 114:11 119:13 B back 26:13 38:18 52:1 54:3 66:7 71:15 76:3 78:21 81:6 101:1 103:15 104:7,21,25 106:5 108:7 108:12 109:15,17 127:5 131:16 131:16 background 5:18 118:20 bad 15:3 36:25 37:1 106:10 140:17 badly 84:24 balance 125:6 bank 24:2 baptize 117:24 bargaining 5:2 base 96:20 based 5:16 12:13 17:3 43:10 62:25 74:21 94:15,17 95:1 bashing 11:5 basic 56:22 102:25 basically 91:12 basis 68:17 140:7 beat 91:22 beatings 109:21 bedrooms 50:20 beginning 59:21 113:25 begins 13:18 begun 97:13 behalf 51:23 behaviors 108:3 belief 99:20 beliefs 7:23 118:6 119:19 believe 5:5 11:1,16 12:7 14:18 15:14 19:2,8,12 26:6 32:20 35:19 44:1 50:23 58:21 59:13 63:24 65:22 68:21 70:19 83:11 85:6 95:24 96:12 99:22 105:16 111:3 119:16 124:23 128:24 129:12 130:23 133:25 135:17 136:20 137:23 141:19,23 believed 84:10 111:24 117:23 118:14 believes 24:22 64:24 66:2 67:20 bells 137:8 belong 90:18 133:19 benefit 15:17,19 34:12 35:8 66:25 88:7 110:22,25 133:10 benefits 4:1,6,8,11,12,25 13:2,10,11 13:12,21 14:10 15:8,9,15,21 16:3 16:12,13,23,25 17:9,10,15 23:18 23:22 24:4,6,23 25:4 27:7,14 28:11,12,13 29:5 32:24,25 33:20 34:5,9,16,18,24 35:1,7,12,13 38:13 43:18 51:6,8 52:6,8 62:25 68:14,24 73:8,19,20,23 74:2,8 90:24 94:23 98:10 105:14 106:2 110:13 111:8 115:12 119:22 133:4,6,8,9,17,19 benjamin 37:3,12 41:24 42:17 bereavement 43:18,23 73:23 best 24:6 25:5,11 27:20,21,23 28:8 28:14 36:19 40:22 80:22,24 81:4 81:21 82:4 89:10,11 128:25 137:21,23 138:3 139:2,19 142:11 146:5 better 41:4,4,5 69:9,16 90:1 111:9 129:3 135:22,22 139:8 140:14 beware 107:22 beyond 18:7 87:17 105:13 107:8,9 bible 105:20 bibles 96:12,13 biblical 92:24 big 38:24 87:8 121:7 122:9 bigamy 79:2,5 bigger 37:8 38:21 bigoted 57:17 bill 1:7 2:7,9,13,19,25 3:2,8,17,22 3:25 4:5,25 5:20 6:1,9,16,18 7:2,5 9:9 10:6,9,13 11:1,3,4,10 12:2,10 12:23 13:1,1,2,16 14:3 15:2,5 17:7,8,23,23 18:3 19:16,17,20 22:24 23:4,10,13,15,16 24:12,13 24:13,16,19,22 25:1,8,9 26:14 28:24 29:4 32:16 33:2,10,19,23 33:24 34:3,10,13,20 36:2,15,24 41:1 43:11,16 44:6 47:8,9,10 48:11 49:14,15 52:21 53:9,11 55:3,8,23 58:7,9,20 59:5,7,8,18 59:21 60:11 61:11,24 62:17,21,21 63:9,19,25 66:6,13,15,16 67:4,20 69:1,5,11,17 70:14,20 71:22,25 72:25 73:5,15 74:1,1,13,14,19,22 75:2,3,7,7,13,19 76:9,23 77:3,8 77:10,12 82:9 88:11 90:4,5,11,23 90:24 91:2 94:2,5,11,13,22 95:12 100:7 108:22 113:20 114:5,10,17 115:1,6,9 116:12,18 119:14,16,19 120:2,9,18,20 123:14 125:7,9,9 125:14,16,18,19,21 126:7,18 128:11 129:13,14 131:19 132:12 132:13,22 133:19,21,21,23 135:17,18 139:20,21 142:9,19 145:13 billion 121:10,12 bills 4:23 8:2 26:10,16,17 59:18 76:18,24 117:4 120:4 124:11 132:16 binding 8:10 73:13 birthday 59:25 91:4 93:9 bit 26:11 47:19 50:25 53:1 63:16 67:3 72:5 100:15 113:22 115:7 121:20 125:8,13 126:6 black 91:13 92:15,16,23 blessed 67:16 106:11 blessing 20:11,12 29:23,24 44:21,22 143:1,2 bob 130:16 body 5:20 6:13 7:25 71:13 96:5 121:3 124:17,25 boil 80:23 book 40:19 140:8 booker 79:13 books 38:17,19 85:12 born 72:18 92:18 bothers 100:23 107:3 bouncy 37:4 bounty 98:3

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

3
boxes 122:1 boy 92:16 boycott 64:19 65:2 boys 92:15,15 98:20,22 brady 20:13,14 29:25 30:1 44:23,24 53:11,12 58:14 64:2 69:20 143:3 143:4 bradys 62:13 break 141:8 brief 58:5 briefly 11:4 25:24 brightest 25:5 27:21 28:8 brilliant 16:18 bring 133:3 brings 73:8 91:7 broad 43:25 broadly 90:14 broadminded 136:12 broke 102:24 brother 89:1 brothers 87:18 92:21 98:21 107:17 brought 34:1 brown 91:13 92:23 budget 121:4 123:11 build 24:9 93:14,17 built 71:22 bureau 64:23 burn 105:1 burning 91:16 104:19 bush 6:24 business 19:4 24:13 33:17 64:25 65:15 70:2 77:19 102:9,12,13 businesses 15:23,25,25 25:10 34:2,8 65:9 70:6,9 buy 40:10 48:16 bytes 85:19,21 C c 146:1,1 ca 62:17 102:19 call 18:24 20:3,4 29:16 32:8 44:13 44:13 104:6 130:4 131:4 137:4 142:19 called 38:4 59:12 64:21 108:22 124:14 calling 5:23 canada 7:14 12:15 55:17 135:9 cancelled 65:1 candidacy 95:23 canopy 68:7 cant 28:9 49:1 70:22 82:24 84:20 119:11 125:5 133:4,5 136:18 card 40:11 cards 106:24 care 49:18 50:5 51:21,22,24,24 53:2 85:14,15,18 86:13,14,15,16 98:24 109:4 120:22,23 133:12 135:20 137:19 cared 123:18 careful 68:16 106:14 124:7 127:18 133:8 carefully 12:5 carey 20:15,16 30:2,3 44:25 45:1 143:5,6 caring 40:21 50:6 carouse 109:2 carve 14:5 case 7:11 9:11,13 16:5 56:13 62:7,7 62:10 72:11,17,21,21 78:24 cases 56:6 62:19,20 109:22 cast 13:17 52:18 67:1 categories 96:14 121:22 categorized 122:1 category 99:21 122:2 catholic 95:25 100:18 101:21 102:6 105:1 108:24 catholics 101:20 102:19 103:20 106:17 107:6 110:23 111:1 cause 128:20 causes 129:25 caution 112:15 ceases 78:9 celebrate 93:9,17 celebrated 59:24 91:3 cement 7:20 center 104:11 centers 57:2 central 121:16 122:2,8 123:4 century 117:18 ceremony 88:19 certain 3:11 16:6,6 63:3 135:10 139:6 certainly 26:18 62:14,18 63:18 85:23,25 86:18 90:17 cetera 63:1 64:13,13 chair 2:2 5:22 6:4 11:11 18:11,16 22:25 25:13 29:8 32:16 36:12 37:4 42:21 44:6 47:10 53:11 57:23 69:2 75:10 78:2 82:6 86:24 90:6 100:6,8 127:22 chairman 2:19 18:18,23 19:8 59:11 59:12 63:21 95:11 challenge 19:16,17 77:12 95:15 challenged 39:18 62:22 63:3,4 95:23 challenges 62:11,24 129:10 challenging 62:8 65:22 chambers 76:19,24 championed 53:15 chance 16:10 71:12 120:15 135:22 chances 77:4 change 7:8 54:1 59:15 74:7 88:3,5 97:17 129:20 139:7,23 changed 70:5 98:5 135:5 changes 65:16 changing 68:10 97:15 channeled 93:19 chapter 5:1 character 92:13 charter 64:18 check 121:14 chief 79:25 80:1 child 40:17 41:24 67:12 children 24:23 65:14 76:3,4 77:1,16 79:3 80:22 81:22 82:22 83:4 85:14 87:11,15 89:7,11 92:10 98:14 110:14 137:21,24,25 138:2 138:7,9,10,13,13,24 139:2,3,13 141:9 chilling 16:19,22 choice 123:25 124:1 139:9 choices 47:24 48:9 123:22 128:17 137:1,12 139:10,11 choose 4:10 73:25 82:23 99:20 137:3 christians 96:11 chuckle 67:3 127:8 church 80:13 94:19,20 96:9 100:21 100:22 102:7,10 117:25 churches 93:10 96:3 97:3 cincinnati 64:15,18,20,23 65:2 cities 4:10 citizen 34:11 56:8 citizens 56:11,19 57:4 61:1 76:16 77:25 city 64:3,18,19 65:2 121:16 122:2,9 civil 7:12,15 10:11 53:23 55:11 56:9 56:22 59:4 80:2,9 92:19 civilization 90:15,17 cj 92:18 claim 12:13 15:19 16:1,7 claimed 93:14 clarification 7:6 clarified 73:22 clarifies 3:2 4:24 10:6 clarify 4:6,15 7:2 12:10 clarifying 5:7 11:8 class 101:13 classroom 75:19

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

4
clean 109:6 clear 35:6 72:7,24 84:3 132:20 135:16,24 cleared 25:7 clearer 48:24 clearly 6:19 10:17 11:7 27:8 28:25 29:1 74:11 95:20 120:21 clerk 20:3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21 20:23,25 21:2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16 21:18,20,22,24 22:1,3,5,7,9,11,13 22:15,17,19,21 29:16,17,19,21,23 29:25 30:2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 30:20,22,24 31:1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 31:17,19,21,23,25 32:2,4,6,8,13 44:13,15,17,19,21,23,25 45:2,4,6 45:8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24 46:1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23 46:25 47:2,4,6 142:19,20,22,24 143:1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21 143:23,25 144:2,4,6,8,10,12,14 144:16,18,20,22,24 145:1,3,5,7,9 145:11 cleveland 114:25 121:16 clinton 3:13 11:1 36:4 95:17 108:23 clintonappointed 73:11 clinty 36:4 clocks 119:12 close 118:3 closer 37:7 closes 2:25 closest 43:12 closing 111:16 closure 7:9 clr 146:3,8 cocky 106:8 code 3:2 4:21 26:14,19,20 35:23 70:5 114:23 codes 72:8 colleague 53:14 73:17 107:15 colleagues 69:13 collective 5:2 college 67:11,15 71:1 colleges 14:16 28:7,22,24 65:8 color 87:12 92:12 columbus 56:23 57:5 64:3,6 com 23:11 come 15:1 38:25 52:1 56:24 64:12 65:7 71:4,15 74:18 78:17 83:4,22 85:8 88:16 96:15 101:1 103:4,21 107:23 111:21 114:2 136:18 comes 8:9 40:23 52:12 54:21 81:20 114:9 141:1 comfortable 41:22 84:21 comic 38:16,19 coming 49:6 70:19 89:20 116:6 commands 105:21 comment 107:14 comments 5:25 12:3 35:15 78:13 111:17 118:2 commission 26:8 121:19 commitment 40:5,7 88:20,23,23,25 89:1,2 123:2 125:4 139:15 commitments 68:6 committed 57:14 123:1 127:19 138:12 committee 2:10,11,14,17,20 4:14 4:14 14:21 19:3,6 24:17 33:15,22 34:1 58:23,24 59:1,5,6,10,16,20 60:21 63:22,23 95:11,13 120:9,13 120:17,21 121:6 common 3:20 101:25 103:23 105:2 124:13 commonlaw 3:21 4:18 communicate 131:17 communicating 136:23 communism 134:10,11,13 communities 63:1 70:18 97:21 community 14:16 33:17 57:6 64:4 66:16 companies 4:8 15:16 17:16 23:17 24:3,10 25:3 57:8 88:6,8 133:1 company 15:21 89:4 136:22 companys 24:5 compelling 3:10 compensation 28:20 competition 24:13 competitive 28:9 comple 2:15 complete 35:22 completely 13:25 16:7 48:18 82:18 complexities 2:16 complicating 74:9 composed 74:10 comprise 23:11 con 57:21 61:2 conceive 135:4 concept 94:17 96:11 97:14 conception 94:15 conceptions 98:1 141:15 concern 24:16 61:20 concerned 57:22 65:9 concerns 33:16 94:13 conclude 61:12 concluded 60:22 concur 112:5 condemned 55:21 131:9 conferred 35:8 confidence 16:15 confirms 3:15 confused 48:1 connection 73:8 consensus 135:1 consent 57:22 129:7 consequences 125:1 131:8 conservative 79:20 consider 43:8 consideration 1:7 considered 9:25 97:9 considering 6:13 consist 59:17 consistent 4:20 constituencies 34:2 constituents 24:21 47:23 50:9 constitute 10:1 constitution 8:5 38:5 94:9,20 135:11 constitutional 19:17 38:10 73:7 construed 34:25 90:14 125:22 consult 68:11 contemplate 68:9 content 92:12 contested 15:12 63:18 context 94:18 125:13 136:7 continually 26:13 86:5 continue 40:24 60:1 88:8 89:24,25 93:22 contract 68:5 103:25 contracts 14:6 contradicted 130:12 contributed 90:18 contribution 56:14 90:21 control 99:4 controlled 54:7 controversial 130:7 controversy 89:20 convention 64:11,23,25 conventions 65:1 conversation 121:2 127:6 convicted 79:1 conviction 39:17 79:6 convinced 48:18 54:14,17 copy 78:22 core 77:4 124:16 corner 104:18,20 corporate 70:10 corporation 17:13 corporations 16:19 correct 19:8 50:14 59:13 74:6 93:8 corrected 62:2

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

5
correctly 73:1 cosponsor 114:16 cost 71:1 122:21,22,24 coughlin 20:17,18 30:4,5 45:2,3 143:7,8 couldnt 42:10 106:10 118:7 135:19 council 96:3 count 79:2 100:19 counted 77:7 counteract 122:25 counties 4:9 countries 3:10 7:16 10:12 97:5 country 10:18 27:16,23 28:16 38:1 54:1 55:14 56:18 57:3 74:17 95:2 95:2 102:16 117:18 118:10 counts 79:1 county 72:12 104:6 couple 8:20 9:4 55:7 58:5 61:21 110:23 115:7 120:2 122:11,13,14 couples 13:3,9,11 64:5 courage 55:7 course 13:4 34:10 48:21 50:23 54:4 60:7,17 91:21 110:2 134:9 court 7:11 8:20,21,22,23,24 9:13,20 55:14 58:12 72:11,13,14,18,22 77:13 79:7,11,14,24 80:2 109:15 109:18 135:23 136:1 146:4 courts 3:18 9:25 16:9,15,24 62:11 62:20 97:13 137:18 cousin 9:22 cousins 9:15,19 27:1 crafted 4:22 crap 101:24 crazy 16:16 106:9 107:2 create 70:1,3,7 80:17 created 92:7,8 138:7,9 creates 80:8 creating 51:10 63:14 credit 8:3 9:1 12:13 38:4 135:8,12 136:3 credits 15:20 creed 87:13 92:5 criminal 79:2 critical 19:15 cross 104:19 crossed 101:23 crosses 105:1 crossing 105:19 crow 93:20 cry 127:10 crying 127:14 crystalclear 27:4 current 10:13 currently 3:1 5:1 24:3 32:24 34:8 35:11 62:9 cut 99:23 112:3 133:14 D dad 42:18 49:16 51:2 102:20 104:4 106:7,18 dads 81:8 104:10 daily 78:22 dann 20:19,20 30:6,7 42:22,23 43:3 43:6 45:4,5 49:23 69:3,4,7 71:19 72:1 143:9,10 dark 87:23 darkskinned 102:18 date 7:14 daughter 123:19 day 19:14 36:19,25 37:1,9 40:14,15 40:18 53:9 59:23 60:10,21,25 66:24 67:1 69:17 71:22 75:17,18 86:14,17,17 90:2 91:19 92:4,11 92:20 93:18 107:4 109:5 110:5,21 110:21 129:22 130:6 140:20 141:3 days 81:6 91:3 93:12 105:24 123:19 142:4 daytoday 140:7 dayton 17:14 78:22 dc 91:11 deal 53:6 105:8 dealing 79:17,17 deals 27:14 43:8 dealt 94:11 dearly 48:15 debatable 63:17 debate 5:3,23 17:24 19:5,24 53:21 58:17 61:19 76:11 105:17 114:2 115:4,25 119:3 120:12,14 124:13 126:10 127:7,9 131:6 133:18 debated 6:19 19:18 58:8 debates 65:19 87:6 debating 36:22 53:17,18 105:10 134:23 december 23:24,24 78:23 decided 50:25 72:12 85:8 98:23 decision 16:11 49:1 55:14 79:7 84:21 135:15 136:1 decisions 16:9 124:6 142:13 declaration 10:1 26:15 75:1 declare 9:22 declared 9:2 declares 3:25 9:7 declaring 8:18 34:21 decriminalizing 79:7 deduced 61:22 62:17 63:15 66:23 deduction 15:20 deeming 10:3 deep 19:21 129:16 deeply 52:19 92:3 118:14 124:23 defeat 23:14 25:8 53:9 69:1,11 75:7 90:4 defeated 25:6 defend 16:20 39:22 40:1,8,20,20 41:5 67:21 defending 131:14 defense 2:8 3:13 10:22,25 36:3 39:25 49:20 50:1,2,22 51:5 90:23 95:17 define 10:17,19 15:16 16:24 127:18 defined 69:18 78:11 82:3 99:6 129:5 133:9 definition 3:2 7:3,7 10:20 11:8 12:11 62:8,11 72:7 98:12 135:3 defunct 134:14 deletes 13:15 delighted 70:15 demagoguery 11:6 dementia 98:16 democracy 77:5 democraticparty 54:6 democrats 103:14 denial 27:14 90:24 119:20 denials 94:24 denied 13:12 43:10 93:3 98:10 denies 13:2 deny 27:7 34:10 56:21 74:2 95:8 97:25 denying 14:10 15:8 17:1,9,10 29:4 55:11 56:4 73:19 97:21 115:12 132:7 depending 88:11 depression 104:8 descendant 91:5 describe 130:21,21 described 115:9 119:20 describing 132:16 description 17:25 deserve 138:2 139:2 deserves 56:8 designed 76:20 despair 91:24 desperately 85:12 despite 16:14 detailed 51:1 detailing 36:5 determine 3:16 10:19 determining 3:24

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

6
devaluing 97:4 develop 93:24 development 65:24 85:11 diagnosed 98:15 dictate 50:19 didnt 51:3 70:23 73:25 83:16 86:21 95:11 101:4,5 102:4,9,10 106:12 109:2,6,11 133:10 didonato 20:21,22 30:8,9 45:6,7 100:9,10 143:11,12 died 87:9 123:18 difference 105:25 106:3 123:22 different 13:23 37:22 39:15,19,23 40:2 42:3 66:3 79:12 87:13,16 97:9 100:25 101:14 107:4,5 111:12 122:22 132:14,15 136:18 differently 83:8 141:17 difficulties 92:1 difficulty 136:23 dig 58:15 60:16 112:9,9 digging 60:5 dignity 95:14 diminish 52:3 direct 120:23 direction 55:20 directions 128:18 directly 48:11 96:5 director 64:22 disadvantage 28:23 disagree 69:20 80:9 132:23 133:20 136:24 142:7 disagreement 12:24 disagrees 80:11 129:1 discovered 122:8 discriminate 5:14 136:15 discriminated 70:9 96:19 117:15 118:25 discriminates 70:6 discriminating 85:4 discrimination 77:22 90:25 91:1 93:22 95:1,6 101:12 103:11,18 119:2 discriminatory 134:17 136:14 discuss 2:7 12:1 132:10 discussed 87:7 discussing 63:5 discussion 61:10 94:16 117:9 119:4 119:6,8,12 disgrace 108:24 disgusted 108:24 disgusting 109:23 disingenuous 129:24 disputed 15:12 distinct 28:23 distributed 11:17 43:1 district 32:21 51:11 72:13 districts 4:10 122:2,4,5,9,17 diverse 87:10,19 88:7,10,15,15 89:5 89:17 diversity 24:8 56:15 87:24 94:7 115:14 divide 56:2 110:19 divided 54:16 divider 77:23 divides 101:16 division 125:20 126:7 130:8 divisive 49:14 52:16 divorce 99:9,10 107:20 110:12 divorced 108:19 110:12 divorces 109:13 document 24:8 doesnt 13:1 16:16 75:16 80:17 116:11 117:5 129:2 130:15 doing 14:10 18:8 28:21 33:7 38:15 39:3 41:2 47:22 57:9 66:18 70:13 70:16,24 71:6,14 74:14 84:12,15 97:12 107:10 111:25 112:6 126:22,25 130:22 131:3,12 141:18,20 142:9 dollars 122:13,15 doma 36:8 domestic 4:11 16:2,23 24:4 33:21 34:5 41:16 109:18,20 dont 12:18 14:18 16:20 19:2 26:18 39:5,21 40:6 42:16 47:18 51:7,18 51:21 52:3 53:1 54:22 55:10 56:13 57:10 58:11 63:7 66:10 67:14 80:25 85:5,23 86:5 96:13 98:23 99:8,17 100:3,4,4 103:2 106:18,22 107:6,7,24 108:13,20 109:9,9,10 110:11,12 111:19 115:18 116:1,17 118:3 120:4 125:19 128:20 129:4,8 130:11 131:14 132:19 133:12 134:5,20 135:1,7 136:7,13 137:7,8 138:2 140:19 141:7,11,11 142:2 door 23:16 108:8 downs 110:1 downstairs 40:10 dozen 61:17 dr 91:9,23 93:9,14 99:24 draft 26:10 dream 92:2,2,3,4,10,14,20,25 93:15 dressed 37:3 drift 49:5 50:7 drink 109:2 drive 48:21 driven 118:6 driver 8:13 drivers 8:11 drove 49:2 dublin 107:20 due 8:3,16 28:2 duis 109:20 dying 105:24 E e 146:1,1 earlier 2:10 60:18 62:24 63:6 65:5 66:12 127:6 early 95:4 108:16 eastern 70:18 ecclesiastic 96:4 echo 111:23 economic 51:25 63:19,24 64:1 65:20 66:8 71:5 85:10 89:17 115:11 118:9 120:20 123:6 economically 106:1,3 118:8 economy 56:14 edge 70:18 114:1 educated 111:10 education 26:5 28:5 65:23 121:8,8 effect 3:7 16:20,22 effective 54:20 effects 142:8 effort 69:19 eight 62:4 122:9 either 10:11 32:25 38:14 71:7,14 96:1 127:9 132:6 elected 93:13 101:6 110:20 election 49:10 52:17 56:3 74:20,21 75:8 130:25 131:13,20 elections 49:6 electronic 125:19 elevated 6:24 eloquence 128:3 eloquent 58:2 113:3 eloquently 69:13 127:2 elses 88:4 137:11 embodies 94:3 emotion 113:9 115:4 emotions 2:15 19:21 105:9 empathize 127:13 emphasize 34:14 employee 15:4 employees 14:11,13,20,23 15:9 17:9 17:11 24:7 34:6,9 43:9 65:10 88:9 employers 125:11 enacted 66:3 125:17

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

7
enacting 95:5 encourage 5:19 encroaching 3:19 ended 103:17 ends 1:13 engage 130:18,20 engaged 61:18 engine 66:9 england 95:3 96:16 enjoy 5:19 89:3 enjoyed 35:2,7 58:4 ensure 77:1 97:16 enter 47:24 68:22 entered 10:11 53:21 entering 50:8 entire 12:2 15:3 19:10,13 94:6 entirely 8:15 132:13 entities 14:7,15 33:6,9 entitled 145:13 environment 71:6 137:21,24,25 139:14 equal 62:22 68:17 92:7,8 94:9 137:10 equality 93:1 equally 68:18 137:10 equate 5:13 escape 95:3 escaped 96:16 escapes 136:2 especially 120:24 essential 141:24 establish 10:17 estate 133:13,16 et 63:1 64:13,13 ethnic 5:17 europe 117:19 evenly 54:16 event 12:12 43:13,21 64:10 events 7:11,18 everybody 55:24 57:1 75:3 everybodys 124:10 evolve 98:6 evolved 98:5 ex 26:1 exactly 6:9 50:16 80:15 126:22 example 8:8 37:16,18 113:13 114:12 123:9 133:11 examples 108:2 excessive 124:14 exchanged 68:6 exclude 29:2 excluded 98:1 excluding 26:4 exclusion 77:22 97:11 excuse 10:12 71:16 exercised 38:20 exist 126:20,21 existing 4:7 34:11 exists 3:1 experience 12:12 experts 24:18 explain 11:21 15:1 26:2 43:5 76:9 126:17 explained 12:17 127:2 explanation 129:3 explicitly 10:3 expressed 124:22 expressly 33:11 35:9 36:6 extend 34:23 extended 33:20 34:19 87:17 89:15 115:22 extending 94:23 extension 4:1 13:20 34:16 35:1 74:23 113:24 extensive 28:4 extraneous 6:3 71:17,18 extremely 52:4 eyes 89:24 97:7 F f 146:1 face 48:5 92:1 94:25 faced 135:23 faces 52:10 fact 7:17 8:16 15:15 16:14 33:10 53:18 56:3,9 58:9 59:7,15 61:10 62:9 63:15,25 64:3,16 66:13 68:24 72:6,14 73:18,22 74:5 81:10,11 88:12,13 103:6 108:15 115:3 118:22 119:25 132:7 141:5 141:6,6 facts 60:15 66:23 faculty 27:22 28:14 fair 14:14 15:5 fairly 57:1 118:23 faith 8:3,25 12:13 38:4 67:25 68:7,8 68:12 95:23 108:8 117:23 118:13 118:24 135:7,12 136:3 faithful 110:6 112:18 138:8 fall 85:21 96:13 99:21 141:5 fam 81:9 familiar 42:8 64:14 families 23:13 40:23 76:22 89:10,14 89:15 98:22 99:4 122:21 124:3 142:11 family 33:15 39:10,17 40:21 87:17 87:19 88:2 98:17 100:18 101:7 103:5,9 106:14,16 107:13,20,21 108:12,18,20 109:4,8 115:22 117:14 118:9 123:15 131:21 138:4,11 famous 134:8 far 14:19 44:1 57:21 110:4 115:2 fascinating 104:7 fast 112:7 fasttracked 6:16 fatal 97:17 father 48:17 100:19,22 101:16 102:15 103:11,19 104:14 105:4 107:24 108:9,10,16,22 109:2 124:1 138:23 141:10 fathers 81:11 122:20 favor 41:21 42:14 90:10,11,12 fear 48:20 55:5 73:12 84:12 federal 10:24 36:3,8 fedor 20:23,24 30:10,11 45:8,9 75:11,12,15 143:13,14 feel 23:14 39:5,11 48:7,24 51:12 75:16 84:24 112:6 136:25,25 137:21 139:8 140:23 141:17 feeling 77:6 83:2 136:8 fellow 112:25 female 10:15 26:25 38:8 83:18,20 festival 64:6,7 fewer 60:25,25 fifth 32:21 fighting 53:8 97:5 figure 56:21 93:24 128:8 140:21 figured 97:6 filed 116:13,16,17 fileid 1:10 filing 65:25 126:2 finally 6:13 57:15,20 67:2 92:14 102:24 103:3 finan 7:19,24 134:25 finance 2:9,11,20 4:14 58:25 59:10 59:16,19 63:21,23 69:25 120:9,13 120:17,21 121:5 financial 63:24 find 26:21 27:21 41:13,18 52:15 87:25 114:11 123:4 fine 81:1 fingerhut 11:12,13,16,23 18:17,18 18:22 20:25 21:1 23:9,23 30:12 30:13 45:10,11 57:24,25 72:5 73:1 80:10 111:24 143:15,16 fingers 41:1 firestorm 73:6 first 4:16 6:10,11 8:23 9:15,19,22

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

8
14:13 33:24 34:15 37:5 62:3 75:18 82:14,16 98:20 102:21 108:15,19,19 113:23 114:13 120:19 141:1 fit 102:17 142:17 five 79:5 87:5,18 99:13 fixing 114:14 flash 72:10 flat 83:16 flaw 97:17 fled 95:2 floor 10:21 19:18 60:11,14 61:8 65:19 81:6 82:15 85:6 87:3,7 111:19,20 fo 108:18 focus 28:9,11,17 focused 2:21 6:1 71:25 86:12 123:21 folks 40:2 41:7,10 85:6 106:3 123:21 126:12 follow 142:4 followed 135:25 following 33:25 60:12 79:6 125:11 follows 26:24 food 86:15 foolish 56:17 football 106:20 forbid 102:17 foregoing 146:4 foreign 10:12 forget 85:23 91:20 forgot 104:3 form 137:6 former 7:18,24 28:2 forth 99:7 130:4 131:16,16 fortunate 28:1 fortune 25:3 forward 15:1 61:2 88:11 141:25 found 104:23 founded 94:21 95:2 96:12,23 four 79:1 92:10 fourth 6:18 franchise 70:10 frankly 93:2 94:25 100:3 fraternity 89:1 freedom 95:21 friend 43:12 67:23 129:22 132:23 132:24 137:14 friendly 64:4 friends 89:6 91:25 102:5 106:20,21 114:23 115:20,21 123:7 124:24 127:15 128:13 129:17 131:21,25 132:1,11,13,25 134:4,16 136:24 136:24,25 141:16 friendship 129:16 front 54:23 frustrated 116:23 fulfill 40:4 full 8:3,25 12:13 38:4 95:8 97:9 119:11 135:7,12 136:3 fully 92:20 97:7 98:2,7 127:19 131:20,22 fun 99:16 fundamentally 136:22 funeral 43:12 123:16 funniest 130:16 further 3:4,24 24:21 34:14 35:6 future 4:7 75:21 77:2 131:3 G gallery 87:4 gamble 24:2 gardner 18:12,13 21:2,3,4,5 29:9 29:10 30:14,15,16,17 44:7,7,8 45:12,13,14,15 92:9 143:17,18,19 143:20 gay 11:5 49:11 51:20 53:23,23 56:10 57:3,6,20 64:4,6 66:16 79:7 87:21 89:6 92:22 134:18 gaybashing 66:13,15 gays 55:11 56:21 gender 5:17 96:20 general 26:7 47:13 96:6 113:11 116:19,24 117:4 126:3 generally 39:9 generation 41:14,15 42:4 generations 42:7 118:21 gentleman 11:21 18:20 23:5 25:19 26:1,2 32:12,21 36:16 42:25 43:4 69:6 71:25 gentlemen 10:16 17:2 24:25 69:10 75:6 128:1 131:11 135:14 139:20 141:14 george 6:24 gesture 44:2 getting 37:3 39:13 51:19 69:9 71:17 110:20 125:16 140:15 girl 102:16 girls 92:16 give 8:25 40:13 80:20 89:14 98:25 99:12 113:12 114:12 123:9,17 135:7,12,21 136:3 140:18 given 85:1,2 98:4 128:4 141:3 gives 94:24 giving 49:25 71:15 go 14:4 18:7 26:13 40:9 41:13 48:11 64:12 83:15 85:14 87:13 99:22 102:25 108:17 114:18 115:15 118:16 131:16 140:11 141:25 goal 74:12 god 68:4,23 102:17 105:21,24,24 godly 108:2 goes 13:1 88:12 92:9 106:5 108:12 140:12 going 14:17 19:15 25:2 28:17,17,18 35:12 36:22,23 37:9,12,13,17,19 38:9 41:10,22,25 42:1,2,3,4 48:7 49:17 51:3,11,20 52:6,7,9 55:13 55:19 66:20 71:23 73:2,5,12,13 74:2,7,23 75:4 76:5,8 77:17 81:23 83:6,7 85:19,20,21 86:10,16 88:14 89:22 91:6 98:24 100:15 103:7 105:13 107:13 111:18 114:24 115:23 116:17 117:25 120:5 121:7,11 122:19 123:17 124:16 125:9 126:19 128:13 131:2,10,21,24 135:18 139:3 140:1 golly 83:16 good 32:22 37:9 39:6 40:8 51:25 53:1,24 75:16 85:7,9 90:25 98:2 98:13 100:14 106:21 112:6 114:13 116:2,4 129:22 134:23 139:25 goodman 21:6,7 30:18,19 32:9,10 36:13,14,18 45:16,17 52:14 58:14 67:23 143:21,22 goodness 84:5 99:13 goodwill 141:17 142:6 gotten 84:19 government 10:24 14:7 80:8,17 81:2 101:5 108:13 109:9,10 governmental 33:9 governments 3:18 33:6 governor 28:3 graduated 67:15 101:8 grandfather 103:12 106:16 grandma 103:5 grandparent 42:13 grandparents 103:9 grandpas 103:6 grandstanding 11:5 grant 3:12 141:21,22 granting 68:14 grass 91:18 great 5:8 63:12 90:2 93:20 104:4 106:19 123:16,16,17 greater 64:22 greatly 70:9

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

9
green 78:25 greens 79:13 greeting 40:10 grew 101:8,9,15 102:4 107:21 grieve 43:20,20 grounds 62:22 group 5:12,16 66:10 107:5 110:23 111:12 grow 76:5 77:17 82:23 89:4,12 138:13 growing 48:14 106:6 grown 65:15 grows 41:25 growth 66:9 89:17 growthorientated 24:10 guard 49:24 guards 3:8 guess 26:19 47:14 53:19 57:15 59:3 61:4 63:12,16 79:20 83:14 86:8 100:14,23 114:9 guts 112:10 guy 38:23,24 39:1,4,5 79:4 104:15 130:16 guys 50:12 98:14 106:9 H hadnt 107:14 hagan 21:8,9 30:20,21 45:18,19 47:11,12 130:16 143:23,24 hair 48:8 half 61:17 hand 84:9 100:21 134:4,7 handle 89:20 hands 91:15 92:16 hap 81:25 happen 16:8 27:15 55:8 77:19 101:12 104:2 106:12 131:23 happenchance 9:16 happened 9:17 53:20 61:8 64:9 91:12 101:13 110:24 116:6 118:17 happening 62:15 happens 37:8 117:15 123:1 135:8 136:4 happy 138:1 harass 5:15 hard 28:2 76:9 77:15 113:1,5 128:12,15,19 139:12 harder 114:19 harm 23:13 115:11 harming 106:2 harris 2:3,4 10:21 12:5,17 13:6 14:1 21:10,11 30:22,23 45:20,21 74:25 95:12 143:25 144:1 hasnt 85:1,2 hate 66:15 74:23 75:1,5 77:21 82:14 83:22 110:19 115:11 116:3 130:24 139:21 hated 106:17 hatred 49:15 havent 69:23,24 70:5 71:11 97:6 head 7:20 heading 42:6 headline 78:23 headlines 81:24 health 110:13 111:7 healthcare 23:17 28:11 51:4,7 healthy 141:12 hear 61:2 91:7 106:22 109:19 126:5 128:13 130:10 132:4,11,12 142:2 heard 2:12 5:3 14:22 15:4 17:14 18:1 24:17 29:16 57:12 59:21 60:4 61:5,18 65:4,8,10 66:14 75:25 77:10 78:13,15 94:24 102:14 103:10 106:6 109:22 112:13 119:9 120:19 134:3,5,7,16 134:16,19 136:2 hearing 2:14 19:10,14 58:16 59:9 59:11,16,20 60:17 61:23 66:24 112:3 hearings 26:12 60:8 67:1 heart 112:9 114:8 125:13,21 129:21 heck 105:4 held 8:24 94:6 124:23 hell 103:1 help 24:8 26:13 139:3 142:11 helped 4:15 helpful 141:12,20,24 helps 25:1 heres 54:13 125:8 hes 37:13 41:25 42:1,3 100:20 108:18 heterosexual 13:10 hide 49:2 high 8:24 24:9 52:13 86:18 100:17 101:9 123:8,8 125:5 higher 26:5 28:5 historians 58:13 historically 81:3 82:3 history 53:25 55:19,21,22 57:18 58:12 60:6 62:14 63:12 78:14,15 81:23 90:20 107:1,8 111:13,14 112:12 115:14 134:7,9,12 hold 92:6,16 99:17 109:18 117:25 118:25 holding 91:15 holds 23:11 holiday 91:4 home 40:13,14 49:3 85:15 86:13 91:21 109:15 113:4 123:18 124:2 homes 104:24 105:2 123:10,13 homosexual 10:2 13:9 honest 52:24,25 honestly 89:7 honor 8:6 hope 12:4 75:8 82:22 83:1 85:23,25 86:5 113:13 117:13 131:2 135:22 hostage 51:15,15 hot 86:13 91:16 hotblooded 110:2 hotels 64:12 hottinger 6:5,6 12:6,16 13:5 14:2 17:5 21:12,13 30:24,25 32:17,18 45:22,23 58:6 66:12 144:2,3 hottingers 12:9 74:6 hour 53:8 128:2 hours 2:13 120:12 house 1:7 2:7,9,25 3:8,17,25 4:5,24 5:20 6:8,11 7:2 9:9 10:6,13 16:4 23:13,16 24:25 33:14,18,23 34:3 36:2 62:5 63:2 81:7 90:23 103:8 104:18 106:24 109:1 112:4 household 137:6 households 23:10,12 http 1:9 huge 121:9 human 140:2 humanity 44:3 humble 56:8 117:3 hundred 54:6 80:20 122:13,15 hunted 117:20,21 hurt 23:10 25:2 52:17 86:1 98:9 130:23 136:25 hurtful 128:14,15 129:2 hurting 105:20 106:1 127:16 hurts 25:1,9,10 husband 27:2 40:12 82:19,21,25 83:17 84:4 88:24 91:22 133:12,14 husbands 41:4 84:6 I id 10:23 18:19 32:20 57:15 70:14 83:22,23 90:10 95:19 102:7 109:24 113:16 idea 40:2 96:17 133:7 ideal 125:5 140:4 141:4,9 identified 39:1,5 identify 25:21 43:2 116:5 ideologically 57:13

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

10
ignited 104:19 ill 23:3 40:8 61:14,14,15 62:2 63:17 67:2 108:22 115:6,6 117:7 125:20 illegal 97:1,2,22 illustration 113:3 114:22 illustrations 124:4 im 6:12 15:18 19:3,9 26:6 28:14 37:17,19 39:18,20,20,21 42:8,11 42:12,19 47:25 50:10,11 52:6,7,9 54:14,16,25 55:25 62:1 67:16 69:9,14 76:4 77:15 80:16 82:15 83:6,7,19 84:13 85:19 86:10,10 86:11 89:22 91:6 96:21,21,25 99:16 100:12,14 105:12 106:25 107:13 113:18,20,25 114:5 115:23 116:2,19 118:4,18 119:5 120:5 121:7 122:20 123:16,20 125:8 126:12 127:2,6 128:2 130:15 131:1,19,21 136:16 140:20 image 97:20 imaginary 101:17,23 imagine 59:2 82:25 111:6,6 immovable 7:18,23 impact 2:22 15:15 49:6,12 63:19,24 63:25 64:1 118:9 123:6 124:4 impacts 120:20 125:10 implies 129:7 importance 6:24 important 6:14 9:11 10:20 28:10 37:20,23 49:19 50:3,4,5 52:5 71:8 79:16,19 81:15,16,17 86:19 87:6 90:19 118:14 120:1 125:2 127:6 136:20 140:22 142:14 importation 70:17 impose 95:6 96:5 imposes 33:8 94:5 impression 14:8,9 improve 69:24 improved 71:5 inadequate 10:1 48:21 inaudible 11:15 18:19 25:15 32:10 78:25 100:16 include 43:15 73:25 98:7 includes 4:9 15:20 35:8 including 14:15 33:17 60:2 income 65:3 increase 71:1 increased 63:8 70:25 71:2 increasing 23:19 incredible 56:13 indicated 10:21 12:6 53:16 64:24 indirectly 96:6 individual 5:16 35:10 116:8 137:13 142:13 individually 141:2 individuals 5:13 23:20 29:5 65:12 88:1 indivisible 96:8 inevitable 132:15 134:11 inflation 121:13 influence 48:14 inform 59:14 information 61:22 62:1,16 informed 59:11 infringe 4:7 infringing 105:19 inserted 36:2 inside 47:16 121:18 insignificant 65:11 instances 36:10 institution 99:17 135:2 139:7 institutions 26:5 28:5 34:4 instructions 96:2 insurance 28:12 79:1 110:13 111:8 integrity 39:12 intellectually 114:7 intended 4:7 48:5 57:16 82:13 128:15 intent 12:10 intention 12:23 17:5 34:10 59:6 83:12 intentions 85:7 intently 87:4 interest 25:11 72:23 108:15 124:5 interested 39:21 131:19 interesting 65:21 80:6 132:10 interpretation 16:12 intimidate 5:15 intimidation 55:5 intolerant 115:13 introduce 51:3 introduced 6:10 76:24 invent 133:10 invented 138:15 investment 65:23 involved 80:12 81:8,12 128:3 involving 64:18 iraq 71:10 ironic 54:4 91:2 94:25 95:4 ironically 59:23 ironies 63:11 irony 63:6 irrelevant 86:6 isnt 38:9 49:11 52:11 66:12 73:18 83:5 86:12 115:23 116:9 135:21 140:14 issue 2:16 5:24 6:14,19 8:16,21,22 9:12 14:17 17:19 19:24 24:15,15 24:19,21 25:7,7 35:14 36:22 41:13,25 47:15,16 48:6,23 49:19 50:3,16 51:12 52:16 53:5,7,17,18 54:16,23 55:6,25 57:1,11 58:12 58:24 62:4 64:17,20 73:12 77:23 80:3 81:13 82:18 85:18 86:19 89:23,25 95:21 110:20 116:18,21 120:7 121:9 127:13 129:21 130:7 130:25 135:21 137:17,17,18 142:3 issues 6:3 8:20 47:17,17 49:21 57:12 61:20 71:18 73:7 79:22 129:10 142:1,5 italian 102:18,18 105:1 107:7 italians 103:20 110:3 itch 52:25 itll 105:13 ive 36:20 37:13,15 39:4 57:12 58:3 67:4 70:12 84:15,19 87:10 99:22 100:18 102:8 108:4,5 113:9,10,18 116:23 120:12 121:16,17 127:20 130:17 J jacobs 80:5 jacobson 21:14,15 31:1,2 45:24,25 127:23,24 144:4,5 james 28:3 january 1:8 59:23 jeopardy 135:4 jewish 67:25 68:5 95:25 jews 96:12 jim 93:20 job 103:10,21 114:13 jobs 51:10 56:20 69:22 70:3,7 71:15 john 79:13 95:22 join 86:7 joined 27:2,5 84:4 joins 3:22 jordan 21:16,17 31:3,4 46:1,2 78:3 78:4 83:15 98:19 107:15 144:6,7 judge 72:20 73:9 124:8 judged 76:5 77:18 92:11 judges 73:11 judgment 115:24 judgments 116:3 judicial 33:4 judiciary 3:8 58:23 jump 48:2 jumping 49:20

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

11
141:14 laid 18:15 22:23 29:11 32:15 44:10 44:12 93:16 language 4:6 9:10,24 10:14 14:5 K 17:20 26:14 33:18 34:21 36:1 43:10 96:21 keep 2:20 5:25 83:13 98:17 140:1 languages 132:16 kennedy 95:22 largest 27:15 64:7 key 94:1 lasts 99:13 kick 38:25 late 128:2 kicked 101:24 laugh 127:10 130:2 kicking 39:3 law 4:13 9:7,18,25 12:19 13:7,8 kid 102:3 15:21 24:18 27:4,7 33:15 35:5 kids 80:25 81:5,9 82:4 85:12 86:16 50:24 55:15 63:8 68:15 72:24 87:7,8 88:5 89:8 98:18 74:9 76:7 79:11,24 84:7 86:3 kin 27:1 94:18 95:5 99:7 105:12,13 133:5 kind 18:5 29:3 38:17 75:22 83:2 133:15 134:6 135:13 103:13 113:16,21 119:5 120:10 laws 3:12,20 8:17 10:17 84:10 86:5 121:21 122:7 127:7 125:24 126:16,20 kindergarten 76:2 lawsuit 12:12 63:10 133:3 kinds 70:1,2 137:14,15,16 lawsuits 15:24 16:18,21 66:1 king 91:9,23 93:18 112:2 116:13,15,17 133:1 kings 59:24 91:4 93:9,14 99:24 lawyer 15:18 79:4,8 kkk 104:21 lawyers 65:25 kneejerk 128:5 lay 29:14 knew 78:6 102:1,5,6 laying 38:24 knock 108:8 know 2:11 14:19 15:7,9 16:18 17:16 lead 19:16 81:23 leader 120:25 23:9 42:1 47:21,23 48:13 50:15 leaders 93:13 51:18 52:11 54:19 55:8,12 57:10 leads 130:7,8 57:11 58:19 66:11 67:10,16,24 learn 101:4,5 106:4 108:10 109:11 75:16,17,18,21,25 76:11 83:21 113:15 84:13,14,18,19,25 85:1,13 91:13 96:24 98:14,21 99:11 101:8 102:9 learned 76:1,1 101:4,6 108:5,14 learns 112:12 102:14 105:7,25 106:8,19,21 leave 17:7 18:8 43:18,23 65:16 107:1,12,15,21,23,24 108:1,7,11 124:1 109:16 110:4,10,11 111:16,19 112:11 113:5 114:14,15,18,21,22 leaving 14:8,9 led 95:13 134:25 115:3,17,20 116:2,11,16,20,22 118:18,20 119:5,13,25 120:11,15 left 51:10,11 69:1 101:20,22 legal 3:7 4:2 13:21 33:20 34:4,24 121:5,15,21,25 122:6 123:24,25 legally 8:10 73:3 117:6 135:4 124:10 126:11 127:8,12 128:2 legislate 97:11 129:6 130:3 131:20,22 133:3,20 legislation 2:22 4:16 5:7,14 6:10 134:8,13,23 136:7 138:16,21 10:23 18:5 27:10 38:2,8 52:4 139:10,11 140:5,13,13,18 141:7 53:15 54:11,19 57:17 81:15 83:12 knowing 75:20 77:6 88:17 legislative 3:9 26:8 58:11 67:9 known 2:8 64:3 70:11 76:17 121:19 knows 56:11 57:2 legislator 76:19 L legislators 77:20 legislature 36:20 54:7 62:5 76:19 labeled 76:6 77:17 76:25 lack 94:2 legitimizing 7:13 ladies 10:16 17:2 24:25 69:10 75:6 letter 17:13 23:25 128:1 131:11 135:14 139:20 jurisdiction 3:19 justice 59:4 79:25 80:1 juvenile 33:14 letters 24:20 leukemia 87:10 level 91:8 111:22 liberal 73:10 liberty 96:8 license 5:14 8:11,14 72:16,21 life 28:12 37:14 47:24 67:8 82:24,25 88:21 93:1 101:14 110:5 123:5 124:17 128:18 lifestyle 87:11 88:2,4,5,5,10 108:6 lifestyles 88:15 lifesyles 87:20 lifetime 105:6 light 74:15,16 107:7 limit 94:13 limited 11:7 24:2 33:2 35:9 88:14 limiting 24:5 limits 54:9 lincoln 91:16 line 13:18 25:25 42:17 101:17,24 102:4 105:19 125:14 134:8 lines 13:15 125:12 list 83:24 115:15 listen 40:15,16 61:1 99:25 113:5,15 127:3 listened 83:14 listening 12:4 58:4 67:23 75:20 87:5 113:5 125:25 literally 115:21 127:15 litigation 62:18 63:13,14 77:11 litigations 73:6 little 37:3,7 38:16,23 39:1,4,5 47:14 47:19,25 48:19 50:25 53:1 63:16 72:5,10 87:7 92:15,15,16 100:15 113:22 114:19 115:7 121:20 125:8,13 126:6 live 23:20 76:6 77:18 89:3,6 90:16 92:5,11 93:4,5,25 107:25,25 118:24 132:6 136:10,13 137:12 138:10 lived 65:12 104:5 lives 47:22,25 50:8,8 56:14 107:19 132:6 137:3,5,13 139:6 140:4 livid 108:17 living 27:2 84:4 103:1 104:23 123:4 liz 67:12 lo 23:21 local 4:9 14:7 33:6 63:1 122:16 locomotive 48:22 logical 120:17 long 24:11 84:15 115:15 138:19 longer 16:1 23:21 104:2 109:17 129:22

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

12
longstanded 7:22 longstanding 7:22 look 37:13,14 41:11,25 56:17 63:23 66:6 76:2 83:7 84:18 87:3,14,15 87:17,18,19 88:6 89:13 105:23 106:7 109:9,9 113:8 120:2 137:23 140:11 141:11 looked 37:4 41:7,12 102:3 103:22 111:5 looking 37:6 39:13 41:3 58:14 looks 36:23 loophole 3:1 7:10 12:20 17:6 lose 56:19 65:6 131:17,21 132:1 loss 43:21 44:4 64:25 lost 24:24 65:3 69:21 73:24 118:11 123:6 lot 15:22 25:2,9,10 41:7 48:6 49:1 69:21 75:25 79:21,21 84:20,22 100:2,25 103:7 104:24 108:5,10 109:11 113:15 114:11 117:6 118:8 119:3,13 126:10 127:15 128:4,10 133:20,24 lots 57:12 109:12 139:10 loughran 8:24,24 love 40:3,11 48:15 83:7,11 89:13,15 99:6 105:21,22 140:10 loved 43:20 110:3 loving 139:13,13 lsc 9:23 11:17 43:3 luther 59:24 91:4 93:9,18 112:2 lutheran 102:16 M m 60:13,23,24 main 121:5 major 15:25 16:19 17:16 64:11 65:9 majority 54:17,25 55:1 61:4 97:18 97:24 making 51:22,22,25 72:23 90:21 99:16 103:8 142:13 male 10:15 26:24 38:8 83:18 96:25 mall 91:10,16 mallory 21:18,19 31:5,6 46:3,4 144:8,9 mama 98:25 man 3:4 5:9 7:4 11:9 13:6 27:9,13 72:8,15,19,25 74:10 105:11,17 111:4 134:1 138:6 manager 10:21 managers 17:15 manifestation 48:20 manner 13:19 26:22 manufacturing 56:20 69:22 70:3,7 71:4 map 93:16 march 55:19 78:14 79:15 115:14 134:7,9,11 marital 34:16 marriage 2:8 3:3,5,14,17,24 4:2 5:4 5:9 7:3,7,10 8:10 9:7,15,20,22,24 10:14,20,23,25 11:9 12:11,14,14 13:6,21 27:3,5,8,12 34:24 36:3 38:7 40:1,5,9,21 41:6 49:21 50:1 50:22,23 51:5 57:21 62:8,12 68:2 68:5,10,10,19,22 72:8,16,20,24 74:10 78:8,11 80:3,9,12,18 81:4 81:19 82:2,19 84:5 88:20 90:24 94:11,14,15,23 95:17 96:11 97:15 98:10,12 99:7,12,19 105:11,16,25 110:7,10 111:3 112:15,17,19,20 123:14 126:20,24 134:1 135:2,3 136:21 137:4 138:6,10 139:8,17 139:18 140:9 141:4,9 marriageoriented 67:7 marriages 3:5,11,21 4:19 7:13,15 8:7,15 9:1,8 10:2,3,5,7,10 41:17 67:21 134:18,19,20,22 141:7 married 8:8 9:5,19 35:9 43:13,24 67:10,14 68:3,4,9 82:20 83:23 96:25 99:14,15 104:4,10 107:16 107:18 109:3 112:17 marry 42:10 51:21 72:19 94:14 97:23 martin 59:24 91:3 93:9,18 112:2 massachusetts 7:12 9:17 12:14 55:16 80:1,3 135:5,15 massive 70:17 master 69:8 matches 110:1 matter 6:1 37:8 66:11 68:15,20,22 87:12 103:6 108:15 116:11 135:23 140:25 mayor 109:14 mayors 109:14,17 mazzolini 9:12,12 mcintosh 98:21 mcmillin 146:3,8 mean 16:4,25 38:9 78:9 79:8,14,22 80:13,23 81:5 94:3 99:6 100:2 101:10 105:23 107:6,7 115:21 121:1 126:21 127:15 128:16 130:15 139:5,16 141:8 meaning 92:5 meaningful 119:11 means 13:6,8 78:8 98:13 111:1 127:18 130:18,18,20 meanspirited 107:10 115:25 meant 76:25 measure 131:5,8 measured 122:10,22 mecca 57:6 media 1:10 medialibrary 1:9 medialibraryembed 1:10 mediate 89:19 meet 102:23 member 6:11,12 7:24 26:7 28:15 120:13 131:7 members 2:6 5:23,25 6:17 11:25 14:21 17:2 19:10,11,12,23 25:23 26:6 43:7 47:13 54:17,25 55:1,2 60:20,25 61:4,5,17 72:4 86:8 112:25 126:3 128:3 memo 9:23 memorial 91:16 men 92:7,7 mentioned 58:6 64:5 merely 94:11 message 76:16 messing 111:7 met 51:14 102:15,21 109:5 130:17 metropolitan 57:2 middle 104:13 112:1 midnight 104:16 midwest 64:8 miller 21:20,21 25:14,17,22 26:3 31:7,8 35:15 38:6 46:5,6 65:4 72:7 144:10,11 million 23:12 51:4 56:4 mind 78:17 minds 117:22 128:7 minorities 117:9,15 minority 39:9 55:4 61:5 97:19,19 97:25 118:15,19 120:25 minute 91:6 95:10 120:5 minutes 113:23 115:8 120:2 mirror 66:6 mischaracterize 62:2 misnomer 68:19 missed 100:21,22 missing 96:22 mistake 35:10 66:17 mode 141:25 mom 83:4 98:14,18 102:21 104:4 106:7 moment 116:21 moms 81:8 money 121:11,24 122:11 123:12

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

13
moneys 85:20 monopoly 90:15 month 134:24 months 102:24 morality 86:18 morning 2:10 19:7 37:2 60:13 61:7 104:17 mother 102:15,15 104:5,9 105:3 141:10 motion 18:14,23 19:1,6,25 20:2 29:11,14 44:9 motive 132:5 motives 130:21,22 131:7 132:18 motorcycle 48:16,17,19 mountains 118:7 move 8:12 9:5 11:14 18:14 25:18 29:11 42:23 44:9 61:11 70:14 88:10 103:22 moved 7:18,25 60:18 61:7 104:8,9 104:10 107:8,9 movement 52:14 92:19 moves 25:19 42:25 multitude 47:17 mumper 21:22,23 31:9,10 46:7,8 144:12,13 mural 103:8 N name 24:3 32:9 136:1 named 91:5 narrow 43:9 narrowminded 136:9,10 138:16 nation 92:4,11 93:23,24 96:22 112:11 national 6:22 49:24 91:4 96:3 119:3 nationally 64:4 nationwide 24:1 nature 33:24 131:8 nays 22:21,23 32:13,15 47:6,8 145:11,13 ncr 17:13 23:25 24:1,7 88:13 133:3 nearer 27:1 necessarily 83:6 135:8 necessary 9:10 67:21 85:25 86:4 necessity 8:2 need 24:10 37:24 38:1 39:22 40:1 48:23 51:7 81:25 82:1 85:11 106:4 114:24 115:13 124:7 125:6 125:12 126:17 127:17 128:22 132:20 133:25 134:5,20 135:1 139:25 142:14 needed 7:2 39:11 needs 109:5 negative 49:12 50:13 125:10 negotiate 89:19 neighbor 105:22,22 neighborhood 85:14 nein 21:24,25 31:11,12 46:9,10 144:14,15 neither 95:25 neutral 15:6 never 16:8,8,8 39:11 91:20 102:2,8 103:20 105:5 108:1,14 109:24 111:21,25 new 8:16 41:12 103:8 104:14 newer 42:3 news 72:10 77:9 78:22 83:20 nice 37:10 nickname 7:20 night 6:22 14:22 24:17 49:2 104:14 110:22,24 112:1 nightmare 77:11 nine 2:13 nonmarital 4:2 13:22 34:17,24 35:2 43:19 nonmarried 13:3,4,10 15:8 nonpluralism 94:4 nonpluralistic 94:4 nonsupport 8:1 79:2 normally 60:7 104:8 note 9:11 noted 60:18 nother 83:24 number 6:20 14:14 23:19 26:10 56:10 86:9 90:18 numbers 41:11 nursing 123:9,13 nutshell 7:9 O object 18:18,23 objection 29:13,15 32:11 objective 2:24 61:25 118:23 obligations 135:10 obsession 55:10,12 obvious 54:15 obviously 84:5 occurred 59:2 120:11,16 occurring 54:1 odds 63:9 offended 83:19 128:21 offer 4:11 23:22 24:4,6 25:4 34:8 44:2 88:8 133:5 offered 4:8 19:6 44:1 62:23 offering 23:17 offers 133:4 office 51:16 67:6,18 96:7 101:6 offices 67:7 official 96:1 officially 95:24 officials 96:7 oh 102:16 106:9,18 ohio 2:6,23 3:6,10,22 4:4 5:5 6:11 6:21 8:9,12,17 9:5,6,8,13,18,19 9:21 10:4,8,10,16 11:2 13:5 14:23 15:25 17:11,17,20 23:12 24:3 25:3 27:16,19,24 28:1,1 33:13,14 33:17 34:8,11,18 35:5,11,23 38:6 51:9 53:6 54:10 55:22 56:5,7,11 56:19 58:12 61:1 62:7,15 63:20 65:13,13,16,20 66:16 68:13,25 69:22,25 70:6,19 72:14,16 74:11 74:24 75:22 76:5,16 77:25 81:18 84:8 85:10 86:20 88:7,16,17 89:16 93:12 94:7 122:24 136:20 142:12 ohioans 25:9 32:23 51:4 71:10 ohiochannel 1:9 ohioonly 70:8 ohios 3:2,17 4:18 7:3 9:24 11:8 12:19 25:5 62:8,10,11 63:7 66:4,8 ohiosenate 1:10 okay 11:13 14:9 47:24 48:2 116:6 116:15 118:1,4 125:6 okayed 80:2 old 41:20 53:20 83:20 92:24 98:15 100:19 104:24 109:3 129:6 older 41:24 89:8 oldest 107:17,18 oldfashioned 91:1 once 78:6 98:16 110:2 136:2 ones 89:8,8 100:13 121:7 142:14 open 88:17 103:21 opening 49:9 opens 23:16 operating 121:11 opinion 12:16,18 39:23 55:23 117:3 132:5 136:19 opinions 129:4 opponent 60:3,9 opponents 2:13 67:5 114:5 opportunities 137:9 opportunity 19:5 23:3 26:10 43:11 52:1 82:14,16 113:11 127:21 138:3 139:3 142:16 oppose 55:7 opposed 41:20 54:18 opposite 83:6 114:10 opposition 125:2

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

14
oppress 97:18 option 84:6 options 66:3 order 11:20 28:9 73:12 137:3,5 139:6,18 org 1:9 organized 49:4 orientation 5:17 original 33:18 originally 56:25 os 62:10 ought 23:14 27:12 41:2,3 42:9 66:25 119:23 120:1 127:3 outlaw 99:8 110:11 outlined 75:23 outofcontrol 123:10 outofstate 70:17 outside 3:19 91:17 138:9 outspoken 67:5 overcome 91:19 overnight 106:15,23 overwhelming 41:8,9 owe 19:23 129:3 142:19 passage 3:22 passed 10:24 11:20 54:4 70:21 75:8 104:22,25 133:5 145:13 passes 62:21 passing 5:20 38:2,8 40:25 74:14 passionate 5:24 pattern 62:9 pay 28:17 40:19 peace 99:6 pending 62:10 pennsylvania 8:9 103:12 pension 28:12 people 14:14,24,24,25 17:1 19:23 23:20 25:1 39:15,18,23 41:14 48:12,13,15 49:1,7 50:4 51:7,12 52:5 55:24 56:2,5,6 64:8,11,12 65:7 66:10 68:15,18 70:4 73:23 75:3 79:15 81:1 84:19,20,22 85:4 85:15 86:1 88:15 90:12 96:13 97:8 98:7 99:14,15 101:6,13,21 104:22,24 107:5,22 108:8,25 111:12 112:15 113:8 117:10 119:15,17,22 127:16 128:4,16,21 P 129:8,25 130:4,8,9,9,9,24 132:4 137:12 139:5,11,19 142:11,16 p 60:23,24 peoples 74:8 97:7 99:20 111:7 package 24:6 28:19,20 130:21 139:10 padgett 22:1,2 31:13,14 46:11,12 percent 41:19,21 51:9 71:2 99:14 144:16,17 99:15 110:17 pages 55:21,22 perfect 40:25 109:25 140:3 pan 88:7 performance 24:9 parental 98:11 parents 41:4 101:7,11,15 102:17,25 performed 7:16 permission 36:14 69:4 75:13 82:9 104:9,11 106:13 107:16 109:25 permit 9:18 112:13,17 permitted 5:1 part 27:18 28:16 42:3 44:6 47:9 peron 67:13 52:6,7 53:25 55:12 56:15 113:11 persecution 95:3 102:20 123:10 126:17 127:7 134:14 person 43:14 49:12 93:3 96:24 97:7 136:18,22 108:11 109:2 131:5 140:12 partially 93:7 personal 2:19 43:12 47:22,25 48:9 participate 98:2 48:10,25 50:8 114:1 117:13,14 particularly 54:9 119:6 partisan 119:8 personalities 6:2 130:14,20 partly 126:1,1 personality 130:19 partner 4:11 16:2,23 24:4,24 34:5 persons 13:22 26:24,25 35:2,7,9 44:4 82:23 83:5 95:8 97:10 140:16 partners 23:18 33:21 43:22,24 44:3 perspective 39:8,10 partnerships 41:16 persuaded 128:2 parts 115:25 pass 6:18 18:1,11 22:24 24:22 32:16 persuasive 15:14 pertains 4:12 37:24 39:25 47:10 53:11 54:12 55:22 59:5,8 63:9 66:5 81:16 86:5 pharmacy 40:10 90:4 91:2 112:5 114:20 116:12,17 phonetic 67:13 photographics 109:16 phrase 35:6 48:19 62:13 pick 113:1 121:6,7,7 pictures 109:21 piece 62:16 pieces 61:22 pig 108:23 piling 39:7 place 9:16 65:17 88:12 89:2 102:23 places 119:1 138:21 plain 107:11 126:13 planned 69:12 107:14 plans 59:15 88:8,9 plants 71:4 play 106:20,20,24 playground 76:3 please 33:7 pleased 6:13 27:25 pluralism 94:8 pluralistic 97:10 plus 2:12 pocket 86:14 point 13:25 18:25 23:4 25:8 34:14 56:12 61:21 78:16,19 91:23 94:1 118:5,17 125:16 133:22 pointed 23:9,23 24:21 73:1 pointing 41:1 points 58:5 132:12,14 133:24 policy 2:23 3:6,16,24 4:3 5:8 7:8 8:6 10:8 13:24 26:18 34:18,22 35:17 35:25 36:7,11 38:5 43:17 79:18 81:18 96:2 124:18 136:5,15 political 52:11,12 74:16 84:16 politics 49:3,7 74:17 108:16 115:12 poll 41:12 polling 41:9 52:15 polygamist 78:24 polygamists 79:12 poorest 122:4 pope 96:3 popular 124:21 populous 96:6 pose 7:14 8:15 position 7:25 42:16 83:10 116:2 124:18 128:5 129:4 133:21,24 positions 7:23 positive 77:1 85:11 possible 74:13 possibly 67:19 potential 2:25 7:9 12:20 17:6 76:7 potentially 9:6 17:10 34:3 potion 38:21 power 68:15 97:25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

15
powerful 65:11 practice 24:18 101:25 118:13 practices 103:23 preach 107:24 108:8 109:10 precious 92:25 140:24 precluding 33:5 predicted 114:25 prefer 55:2 preferences 48:10 pregnant 67:11 prentiss 4:23 19:1 22:3,4 31:15,16 46:13,14 60:22 90:7,8 92:18 100:7 144:18,19 prepare 11:21 prescribed 68:6 presence 50:17 presented 15:12 27:11 presently 83:14 preservation 7:6 preserve 141:23 preserved 139:24 president 2:2,5 3:13 5:22 6:7,23 7:19,24 11:1,11,13,15,19,24,25 18:10,14,16,20 19:1,19,20 20:1 22:22 23:2,5,8 25:12,13,18,19,23 26:1,6 29:7,10,14 32:8,11,14,19 36:4,12,16,19 42:21,23,25 43:4,6 44:5,9,11 47:7,12,13 48:16 49:4 53:7,10,13 57:23 58:1,2 69:2,4,6 69:7 71:16,20 72:1,4 75:10,12,14 78:2,5 82:6,8,10 86:23,24 87:2 90:6,9 95:17,20 100:1,6,8,11 108:19 109:15 112:21,24 127:4 127:20,22,25 142:15,18 145:12 presidential 95:22 press 78:21 126:1 pressing 19:4 pretend 52:10 pretending 56:12 57:9 pretty 54:14,15,17,25 64:10 67:18 86:8 118:3 119:23 126:13 prevent 43:16,17 prevented 15:11 previously 12:3 64:2 96:19 price 74:18,22 pride 64:6 primarily 25:2 primary 110:23 121:8 priorities 76:17 77:21 priority 76:22 77:3,8 private 4:8 14:6 15:15,21,23,24,25 16:12 28:4 33:1,5,12 35:4 62:25 125:22 126:5,8,9 133:1 privately 63:5 privatesector 125:10 privilege 83:1 pro 23:16 61:2 proactive 117:2,4 126:25 probably 36:24 41:19 64:15 67:4 118:25 123:5 129:21 140:5 probate 72:17 problem 105:15,18 problems 75:22 108:25 proceed 18:21 23:6 36:17 69:6 75:14 82:11 proceedings 2:1 33:4 process 33:22 95:9 98:9 112:3 proclaimed 97:22 procter 24:2 product 101:4 progress 53:23 66:4,8 78:15 90:25 93:7,24 progressive 90:19 prohibit 4:25 35:1 99:8,10 prohibiting 23:17 prohibition 29:3 prohibitions 33:8 prohibits 10:9 94:22 promoted 103:21 proponent 60:3,9 proponents 2:12 74:12 proposing 110:16 prospect 89:21 prospects 88:18 prosper 89:4 protect 7:3 38:1 39:11 51:22 71:13 76:20,25 protected 12:12 73:4 protecting 11:8 49:25 protection 62:22 protestant 95:25 proud 75:17 provide 16:2 34:21 51:25 118:7 138:4 providing 34:5 provision 8:4 15:7 43:16 provisions 4:19 13:15 psyche 118:20 public 2:14,23 3:6 4:3 5:8 7:8 10:8 13:24 26:18 28:4 33:1,3 34:17,22 35:17,24 36:7,11 38:5 43:9 81:18 96:1,2,7 101:22 119:1 124:17 136:5,15 publics 77:6 pulpit 97:3 pun 48:5 punish 110:14 pure 49:3 purpose 14:2 push 47:20 put 33:19 34:4 38:3 63:17 70:3 80:8 84:9 86:15 99:7 114:17 121:21 122:1,16 125:12 putting 28:21 66:9 83:9 123:13 Q quarter 23:12 question 18:10 19:5,15 20:1 22:24 29:7 32:16 44:5,11 47:10 53:10 62:6 78:16 84:7 98:6,8 108:2 120:8 136:19 142:18 questions 2:21 35:16 quick 114:12 quickly 74:14 98:6 quite 15:14 33:15 82:20 89:7 117:17 quote 9:24 10:5 24:11 25:25 26:4 33:3,4,19 79:5,8,25 R r 146:1 race 87:12 96:20 136:12 races 97:4 railroad 50:12 103:12 104:15 railroader 103:20 raise 98:13 121:23 139:13 raised 33:16 98:18 129:11 138:1 139:4 raising 80:22,24 81:4,21 89:7 ramifications 75:21 77:18 randy 21:2,3 29:9,10 30:14,15 44:7 44:8 45:12,13 143:17,18 rare 116:21 117:4 123:19 rate 121:13 reacting 116:25,25 117:1 reaction 55:13 66:20 read 13:16 14:6 26:14 38:16 40:18 75:2 80:16 85:13 120:4 125:20 129:15 131:1 reading 14:11 15:6,6 83:13 140:8 reads 25:24 26:3,23 75:3 reaffirm 134:1 reaffirmed 72:14 reagan 108:17 real 17:19 36:1 55:18 73:7 105:18 112:19,19 reality 33:2 57:10 realize 60:6 130:3 realized 67:25

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

16
really 23:2 24:12 38:9 39:3,22 40:16,19 47:22 48:1,2,9 49:11 51:21 52:20 54:13,22 55:10 58:4 68:19 81:19 85:4,6,24 86:12 94:1 100:3 102:5,11 107:3 110:21 111:21 113:14 115:18 119:16,18 124:12 126:6 141:14 reason 34:13 36:1 38:12 39:2 50:7 63:22 74:13 133:15 139:25 reasons 36:20 120:17,23 reborn 110:25 recall 7:20 receive 72:15 received 17:13 23:25 24:20 receiving 32:24 35:12 recognition 3:25 4:18 10:10 13:19 129:18 138:5 139:21 recognize 3:10 5:9 7:15 8:10,13 9:6 9:14 10:4 34:23 69:2 80:19,20 128:22 recognized 9:21 recognizes 2:2 6:4 11:11 18:11,16 22:25 25:13 29:8 32:17 36:12 42:21 44:7 47:11 53:11 57:23 75:10 78:2 80:18 82:6 86:24 90:6 100:8 112:21 127:22 recognizing 8:17 88:19 93:12 142:7 record 58:19 60:15 66:22 recorded 32:12 records 33:3 recruit 17:17 recruiting 65:10 reducing 73:20 ref 81:7 refer 59:7 131:2 reference 59:6 referred 58:22,25 59:19 120:24 reflected 124:12 reform 81:11 refrain 61:15 refused 72:13,20 regard 94:7,8 regarding 3:20 74:9 regardless 88:9 92:22 region 96:21 regularly 35:20,21 regulate 70:16 reiterated 135:24 reject 133:7 relate 118:18 related 43:9 relates 126:4,19,23 127:1 relating 4:17 relationship 123:2 138:7 relationships 3:11 4:2 13:22 34:17 34:25 35:3 43:19 137:6 relatively 14:14 relevant 74:3 121:15 religion 5:17 39:15 96:18,20 99:18 102:4,11,12 107:23 religious 95:3,7,7,21 96:4,8 97:5 118:6 religiously 94:15,17 95:1 remaining 142:6 remarkable 64:10 remember 48:6 81:6 85:25 91:17 101:10,15 106:15 remind 6:17 10:23 75:23 reminded 60:23 129:23 remnants 93:21,22 removed 35:13 repealed 115:2 repeat 91:8 107:4 108:10 111:10 repeatedly 66:15 repeating 61:16 replace 69:19 reporter 52:23 146:4 represent 27:15 100:16 representative 4:24 112:23 representing 79:4 requested 20:3 requests 96:1 require 135:10 requires 94:9 135:11 rescinded 54:7 rescinding 54:11 research 9:23 26:9,11 65:24 reshape 97:19 resistance 97:17 resolutions 26:16 resonate 114:7 resource 122:3 resources 122:16 respect 3:16 12:7 16:11 74:25 99:18 99:19 104:1 106:4 110:4 139:10 139:14 respected 19:20 102:12 respond 12:2 130:1,4,11 response 62:6 rest 56:18,18 85:24 102:8 restate 126:19 restaurants 64:13 result 7:17,21,22 36:2,8 64:20 65:2 71:6 resurrect 95:19 retirement 28:12 review 121:21 revise 114:24 revised 3:1 4:21 26:19 72:8 114:23 revises 35:23 rewrite 111:13,14 rhodes 28:3 rich 138:22 richard 7:19 rid 125:16 ride 48:17 riding 48:19 right 3:15,18 5:7 34:11 37:6,15,18 55:19 67:14 73:3 77:4 80:15 82:3 90:16 93:3 96:17,18 99:2,5 101:18 112:10 116:10 117:11 124:5,25 125:7 127:5 133:11,16 140:18 141:18 142:10 rights 3:23 24:23 53:23,24 55:11 56:5,7,9,22 74:8 92:19 97:16,21 98:11 119:21 rise 6:8 92:4 risk 33:19 34:4 road 54:10 55:22 93:16 115:2 roads 54:8 robert 21:4,5 30:16,17 45:14,15 143:19,20 roberts 22:5,6,25 23:1,7 31:17,18 46:15,16 144:20,21 robes 104:24 roll 18:24 20:3,4 29:16 44:12,14 100:17 142:19 roller 102:21,22 rome 71:22 ronald 108:17 room 84:18,23 117:10,11 124:6 129:17 roosevelt 103:14 rooted 92:3 roots 101:1 roughly 65:3 route 84:13 rule 55:4 129:19 130:5,13 ruled 9:13,20 rules 69:8 103:15,24 129:15 130:13 136:11,12,14 ruling 8:23 16:24 rush 61:11 rushed 6:16 58:7,9 S sad 84:16,17 90:2 110:21,21 132:2 132:3 safe 84:13 85:14

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

17
safely 65:14 safeties 103:16 salaries 28:10,10 salary 28:18 sales 66:2 samesex 3:4,5,20 5:4 7:13,15 8:15 9:4,8 10:3,7,10 41:17 80:3 134:18 134:20,21 sanctifies 99:19 sand 38:24,25 39:3 sarah 67:10 sat 51:16 91:14 93:10 saturday 110:22 saw 79:25 saying 42:11,12 48:19 86:21 92:24 124:16 131:12 132:20 136:9 137:14 138:2 says 27:12 33:5,11 38:7 42:18 51:2 60:24 66:9 78:23,24 84:3,11 92:14 94:5 105:21 110:11 115:6,7 126:4,15,18 130:13 133:13 136:2 140:16,18 schedule 60:8 scheduled 59:12 60:12 school 4:10 69:25 86:16 101:9,21 122:9 schools 70:1 101:23 121:11,16,22 schuler 22:7,8 31:19,20 46:17,18 144:22,23 schuring 22:9,10 31:21,22 46:19,20 144:24,25 scottishirish 102:16 screaming 49:20 scrutiny 38:10 se 94:12 sea 91:15 seat 116:10 seated 67:2 second 4:22 27:1 34:20 62:16 67:12 101:18,19 104:18 107:18 126:16 secondary 121:8 secretary 66:1 section 4:12 8:5 14:4 26:23 129:15 sections 17:8 18:2 35:22,23 sector 33:1 126:5 security 77:6 see 15:24 28:19 39:10 40:17 63:7 66:7 83:22 87:4 89:24 97:5 100:16 101:11 103:17 104:19,21 105:10,16,20,24 106:11 107:3 109:11,22,24 110:16,17 111:23 113:8 122:3 128:16 131:3 132:19 132:19 139:1 142:17 seeing 102:18 132:21 seeking 13:9,11 seeks 96:5 97:18 seen 56:1 57:18,19 67:8 87:25 102:7 105:6 108:4 109:15,21,24 113:9 127:11 selective 16:15 selfesteem 39:16 selfevident 92:6 selfinterest 124:14 selfishness 124:15 sen 74:6 senate 1:7 2:6 6:12 10:12 11:25 14:23 15:3 17:3 19:23 36:24,25 43:7 54:10,15,18 55:2,4 58:20 59:4,10,16,19 61:17 63:21 67:6 69:21 72:4 75:17 87:3 128:1 senates 70:20 senator 2:3,4 4:23 5:3,19 6:4,6 11:12,13,16,23 12:9,16,17 13:5,5 14:1,1 17:4 18:11,13,17,18,22 20:6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24 21:1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23 21:25 22:2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 22:20,25 23:1,7,9,23 25:14,17,22 26:3 27:17 29:9,10,18,20,22,24 30:1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23 30:25 31:2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 31:20,22,24 32:1,3,5,7,10,17,18 35:15 36:13,14,18 38:6 42:22,23 43:3,6 44:7,8,16,18,20,22,24 45:1 45:3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23 45:25 46:2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 46:20,22,24 47:1,3,5,11,12 49:23 51:18 52:14 53:11,12 57:21,24,25 58:6,13,14 60:22 62:13 64:2 65:4 66:12 67:23 69:3,4,7,20 71:16,19 72:1,5,6 73:1,16 74:6,25 75:11,12 75:14,15,18 78:3,4 80:4,10 82:7,8 82:10,12 83:15 86:25 87:1 90:7,8 92:9 95:12 98:19 100:7,9,10 107:15 111:14,24 112:21 127:23 127:24 134:25 142:21,23,25 143:2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22 143:24 144:1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17 144:19,21,23,25 145:2,4,6,8,10 senators 12:5 55:7 sending 76:16 77:20,21 sensitive 5:24 separate 60:8 80:14 132:16 134:3 141:15 separately 14:17 separation 94:19,19 september 3:14 serious 17:19 48:25 63:20 76:10,10 76:11 127:13 seriously 33:16 119:24 served 116:24 service 26:8 121:19 servicemen 76:21 serving 71:10 session 70:21,23 set 37:15 94:6 132:12,14 setting 37:17 seven 6:9,20 51:15 58:8 62:3 99:13 seventeen 97:22 sex 13:23 48:6 50:19 79:8 83:6 96:20 115:11 137:14,15,16 sexes 13:23 sexist 50:13 sexual 5:16 50:16 sexually 48:21 shame 54:14 55:4 111:20,21 share 67:24 82:24 113:16 117:12 133:13,16 shared 90:12 125:3 shes 98:15 140:8 shifts 104:16 shirt 48:8 52:25 shock 114:1,1 shore 17:6 short 13:16 99:23 117:12,13 141:5 shortly 114:4 shouldnt 48:18 58:6 141:10 show 108:3 showing 113:9 shows 14:25 41:9 114:22 shunned 88:1 sic 109:16 side 16:10 19:11,13 53:14 54:21 73:17 78:14 79:20 87:22,23 90:1 100:12 101:19,21,22,25 129:25 141:17 sidebar 47:17 sides 69:14 103:1 114:10 119:10,17 sietz 4:24 sight 68:4,23 92:25 104:18 sign 66:9 signed 3:13 10:25 36:4 68:4 88:13 significant 7:8 19:21 73:24 81:20 signs 91:18 silence 129:7 silent 128:20 129:7 similar 5:6 10:22 64:20 similarly 68:11 simple 49:4 117:23

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

18
simply 13:14,18 17:5 18:25 38:4 43:15 55:25 56:17 58:18 61:14 65:18 66:5 73:21 80:8 sincerely 12:8 singing 91:18 single 98:18 singled 136:25 sister 87:18 88:25 sisters 92:21 sit 52:9 57:5 89:22 sitting 36:21 48:4 50:15 75:20 83:13 91:17 116:10 situation 65:15,20 139:4 situations 80:25 124:8 six 67:9 skating 102:22,23 skewed 76:18 skin 92:12 107:7 slave 91:5 slavery 93:19 slippery 78:12 79:21 slope 78:12 79:22 slowed 66:8 slowing 66:4 slowly 49:5 small 56:24 smart 106:8 smarter 57:11 111:9 smile 37:7,13 smiled 37:5,6 smiling 66:7 sneak 102:22,24 snuck 111:25 socalled 90:23 social 53:25 79:22 society 89:5,17 92:20 93:20 94:21 96:19 97:11,15,18,24 98:3,4,8 111:10 124:14,19 138:19,20,24 138:25 139:22,23,24 societys 93:6 soldiers 50:2 51:19 sole 12:8,9 14:2 solely 2:21 3:3 10:14 11:6 12:22 somebody 49:10 60:15 99:11 106:1 108:2 115:23 131:11 140:14 somebodys 96:17 someday 37:12 83:1,4 son 106:25 140:24 soon 65:14,15 71:9 sorority 88:25 sorry 126:12 sort 38:21 40:4,6 47:18,20 113:24 soul 112:9 souls 128:8 sound 85:19,20 100:17 source 96:4 south 42:7 spada 22:11,12 31:23,24 46:21,22 145:1,2 spark 62:18 speak 8:19 23:2,4 35:15 36:14 57:12 69:5 75:13 80:5 82:9 90:10 98:12 128:23 142:16 speaker 25:15 29:13 speakers 120:19 125:3 127:4 speaking 82:13 special 80:21 specific 4:1,16 13:20 14:10 15:17 15:19,23 16:13,25 35:1,7,24 61:20 64:25 66:14,23 specifically 8:18 11:7 13:2,12 34:21 76:20 specifies 34:15 speculated 61:14 speculations 61:12 speech 99:24 113:1,12 115:1 129:24 speeches 93:11 113:2 spend 40:19 131:10 spirit 94:3 spite 56:3 spoke 95:20 97:3 spoken 129:9 sponsor 4:23 15:13 16:4,5 17:4 19:1 60:2,8,20 62:5 63:2,2 sponsors 17:22 27:12 sports 106:21 spouse 40:14 spouses 126:23 square 119:1 squirmy 77:11 115:10 stable 138:11 staff 27:22 stage 140:10,10,12,16,17,20,25 stages 140:9 stake 133:20,23 stand 2:6 56:20 82:1 128:9 130:1 136:16 standing 52:22 127:5 133:2 start 48:23 50:8 68:14 95:16 103:17 105:19 121:9 125:15 started 113:24 114:3,3 116:1 starting 52:25 starts 1:12 125:14 state 3:6,7,12,16 4:3,13 5:8 6:21,23 7:10 8:9,11,21,25 9:3,5,7,14,16 9:17 10:2,8,9,18 11:2 13:20,24 14:7,11,13,19 15:8,21 19:22,24 25:3,11 27:16,19,24,25 28:1,6 33:4,6,9,10,13 34:3,19,23 35:11 36:25 38:6 43:9,17 52:2 53:5 56:16 64:16 66:2 68:1,12,16,21 68:25 69:22,25 70:8,19 71:5 72:24 73:13 74:11,15,24 76:18 77:25 80:11,14 81:17 84:8 85:10 86:20 88:7,16,17 89:16 93:11,13 94:7,18,19,20,22 120:21 121:10 122:14,16,17,24 123:6,11 125:11 125:24 126:16 127:16 136:4,6,17 142:12 146:4 stated 3:15 38:6,12 62:6 74:12 126:23 statehouse 14:25 15:1 57:8 statement 18:4 77:15 78:7 81:18 116:9 126:13 statements 58:3 74:16 119:14,23 129:5 staterecognized 72:16 states 3:4,9,23,23 4:18 5:6 7:16 8:4 8:6,7,16,21 9:1,23 10:12,22 18:4 18:7 27:8 36:5 52:13 77:1 97:1,2 97:22 108:20 123:12 135:13,25 136:8,11 statesupported 26:4 stating 27:5 36:6 61:25 statistically 65:11 statistics 99:12 status 80:21 statute 7:10 9:2,21 13:13 16:2 35:8 statutes 15:23 68:25 126:21 statutory 4:1,12 13:21 14:10 15:17 15:19 16:13,25 34:16,23 133:8,9 133:10,17 stay 64:12 71:21,25 106:23 110:15 123:21 128:20 140:19 stayed 101:20 staying 106:15 stays 138:11 steps 90:3,19 stewart 67:13 stick 91:23 stivers 22:13,14 27:17 31:25 32:1 46:23,24 145:3,4 stop 12:23,25 13:1 54:2 81:25 95:10 stories 101:10 106:7 126:2 story 78:21 100:15 104:4 117:14 123:17 straight 48:5 49:11 52:10 92:22 straightforward 13:19 stray 14:18

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

19
street 51:20 101:18,19 104:11 strength 39:17 strengthen 10:13 strive 40:22 strong 3:6 4:3 10:7 13:24 14:5 26:18,21 34:22 35:16,17,24 36:7 36:11 100:17 119:18,23 131:9 136:5,15 stronger 38:20,22 strongly 84:10 struck 63:8 structured 103:25 struggle 97:16 141:6 struggled 128:7,11 struggling 134:12 student 122:4,13,15 students 27:22 stupid 84:14 style 111:22 subdivisions 4:9 subject 6:1 131:6,15 submit 5:11 122:18 124:24 substantive 61:10,19 successful 24:11 138:1 sue 133:4 suffer 75:4 sufficiently 65:16 suggest 114:18 117:8 123:20 suggested 114:14 116:12 132:25 suggesting 122:20 suggestion 127:17 summation 113:17 summer 67:11,14 support 5:20 6:8 11:10 39:13 41:10 76:21 82:19 100:7 128:10,17 129:13 133:23 135:17,18 supported 99:9 109:5 supporting 3:23 supreme 8:20,21,22,23 9:13,19 55:14 72:14,22 79:7,14 80:1 135:25 137:18 sure 15:13 19:3 49:9 51:22,23,25 54:25 55:25 58:18 62:1 72:23 80:16 85:20 96:21 119:5 127:2,6 surely 49:2 surprise 76:13 surprised 122:7 survived 138:18 surviving 135:22 susan 141:1 suspect 132:18 suzanne 146:3,8 sweep 62:14 63:12 78:14 81:23 sweeping 43:25 swore 84:9 system 28:4 69:25 T t 146:1,1 table 18:15 19:25 20:2 22:23,24 29:12,15 32:15 44:10,12 86:15 tabled 19:7 61:9 tabling 73:21 take 17:8,20,21 18:2,6 24:15 43:23 51:6 52:5 70:23 76:12 78:18 84:13 90:3 91:6 98:24 110:13 113:3 117:7 120:1,7 121:6 124:11 124:18 taken 32:25 69:8 117:5 119:24 128:5 135:20 137:19 talent 17:17 talented 56:6,10 talents 65:7 talk 15:4 47:18 48:9 49:17,24 51:12 81:8,9,9 103:19 107:12,25 108:11 109:8 110:9 112:14 115:6 120:19 123:10 125:7 131:15 132:12,13 141:25 142:2,4 talked 37:23 51:16 73:18 79:20,21 81:11 108:17 111:2 talking 41:8,18 47:15 48:12 49:22 50:10,12 52:22 56:4 68:23 95:16 101:16,17 106:19,22 111:7 112:16 116:19 132:15 140:6 141:15 talks 26:15,17 68:20 140:8 tape 58:16 60:6 taught 101:11 107:22 113:13 tax 15:20 66:2 70:5,10 98:10 taxes 15:22 55:15 79:17 taxpayer 121:10 taxpayers 53:6 123:7,12 teach 87:10 108:13 113:14 teaches 138:10 technical 4:17 33:24 technology 65:24 television 6:22 tell 11:3 40:8 83:3,4,16,23 91:21 104:3 105:23 108:20,22 140:7,22 telling 37:19 tells 76:17 temporary 66:2 ten 87:25 tend 26:15 61:15 tenets 68:11 tens 57:3,6 term 24:11 54:9 133:9 terms 35:24 48:24 50:13 74:7 122:25 131:9 terrific 82:21 terrified 105:3 terry 51:14 testimony 2:15,21 15:11,13 17:3,12 17:15 24:17 60:2,2,3,3,9,20 61:3 61:6,18 64:1,5 65:12 66:14 93:6 thank 2:4,5 5:21 6:6 11:23 18:13,22 23:1,7 25:12,17 32:18 36:18 43:6 44:8 47:12 53:12 57:25 69:7 71:19 72:1 73:14 75:12,15 78:1,4 82:8,9,12 84:5 86:23 87:1 90:8 95:10,18 96:14 99:25 100:10 112:20,23 127:21,24 142:15 thankful 69:15 thats 6:19 13:7 39:8 41:2 42:5 49:13 50:20,21 51:24 53:1,24 54:1 55:3 57:17,18 63:11 66:19 67:20 68:8 70:10,20,23 73:12 74:1,11 78:10 80:15,23 81:12,15 81:16,17,19 83:21 85:5 90:1 91:18 92:25 100:14 101:19,22 103:1,13,14 105:11,14,17 106:5 108:12 110:17 112:12,19,19 116:22 118:14 119:10 120:8 121:4,9,13 122:10,14 123:5,5,6 123:19,23 124:2,15 125:9,21 126:12,16 130:17,19 132:2 134:6 137:16,22 138:24 141:4 theirs 109:25 131:25 theme 123:4 124:13 theory 100:24 thered 59:14 theres 15:22 16:10 35:17 37:25 49:9,21 52:13 53:22 54:2,3 56:12 58:2 64:19 84:20,22 88:22 105:25 106:3 107:20 115:3,15 116:7,14 116:16 119:13 124:5 125:15 128:22 138:21 140:9,15 theyll 16:11 58:15 theyre 16:16,17 28:16 56:15 70:19 98:24 102:19,19 126:1,22,23 128:14 138:8,12 141:18 theyve 12:17 84:23 101:13 thing 38:3 42:12 53:24 54:13 73:4,9 85:11 86:2,4 89:12 95:15 100:14 103:8 104:3 111:23 113:23 114:15 120:3 121:5 123:19 126:25 128:25 140:23 141:19 142:10 things 17:18 35:18 42:2 51:17 56:1

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

20
63:1 71:8,23 72:2,3 81:25 85:9,15 87:14 89:18 91:9,20 98:5 100:25 101:12 113:4,16 115:5,16 116:4,4 116:22 117:1,6,7 118:17 119:9,15 122:6 126:4 128:13,14,16 135:11 138:14 139:22,23 141:22 think 25:2 27:17 36:21,25 37:16,18 37:20 39:6 40:25 41:11 42:4 47:21,23 48:1 50:15,21 51:18 52:18,20 54:13,22 58:24 60:19 66:1,18,19,24 67:14 68:20,21 69:17 71:17 76:2,8,11,15 78:7,9 78:17 79:9,14 80:4 83:5,21 84:2 84:11 85:5 86:19,20 99:5 100:12 100:25 101:3 104:12 106:9,11 107:1 111:8 112:11,25 113:6 114:3,16,25 115:18 116:8,15,16 116:21 118:22 119:15,16,17,20 120:3,15,23 121:4,6 122:19 123:23 124:11 127:9,12,20 128:10 129:8 130:5 132:2,3,19 133:7,18 135:16 141:18,18,19 142:10 thinkers 138:17 thinking 37:11 39:20 48:23 51:19 67:22 77:16 thinks 16:9 109:1 129:1 third 63:15 107:19 thought 51:17 80:6 100:24 117:2 125:2 128:4 thoughtful 58:3 thoughtfulness 85:2 thousands 57:3,7 threat 7:14 threatened 39:20 three 19:9,11,12 33:23 60:8 61:4,5 82:21 87:9 99:2 106:24 107:17 threefifths 93:3 96:23 throw 73:2 thrown 79:6 thursday 59:13,14 112:1 ticking 119:12 tide 134:13 till 109:6 time 11:2 12:1 16:10 37:5 40:19 44:4 48:15 60:1,23 70:23 76:12 82:20 85:2 91:7,14 100:20 103:16 104:14 109:20 126:18 129:23 130:6 131:11 138:20 timeliness 6:25 times 33:23 41:12 81:5 100:20,22 104:7 113:19 today 2:7,24 5:12 6:14 7:1 17:1 19:18 32:24 35:11 36:22 37:8,16 37:24 40:9 41:18 44:1 47:15 52:18 54:12 55:2 58:3 60:14,16 61:9 62:19 63:6 68:24 69:12,24 70:13,24 71:7,14,24 72:3 73:4 74:15 76:22 77:3,8 82:13 83:10 84:12,21 87:3 89:22 90:2,3,22,23 91:25 92:2 93:21 95:4 97:8 101:3 107:7,8,10 109:12 110:16 111:12 111:17,20 113:19 115:4 116:12 116:18 118:23 119:6,10 120:14 124:4,13,22 126:10,20,21 127:11 131:24 135:3 136:8,16 142:14 todays 58:16,17 118:24 told 52:23 65:13 100:18 110:23 113:19 tolerant 37:21 tolerate 115:13 tom 78:25 79:13 tomorrow 92:1 142:1 tonight 40:13 top 49:4 97:6 topic 43:9 71:21 86:13 132:11 torn 82:17 tossed 78:24 totally 80:9,10 touches 14:19 town 56:25 tracking 41:12 tradition 68:7 traditional 7:7 67:7,18 81:3 82:2 97:14 98:1 107:13 110:9 111:2 112:15,16,19,20 traditionally 81:2 trained 71:3 transcribed 146:5 transcript 146:4 transvestite 72:18 trap 85:22 travailed 76:14 treated 96:9 106:17 treatment 94:9 treaty 135:9 tree 103:9 tremendous 53:22 56:10 123:13 trend 37:25 41:8 trends 41:22 tried 87:10 triple 121:13 trouble 124:3 troubling 49:13 true 17:22 18:5,6,7 55:20 78:10 92:5 126:2 129:12 130:11,19 truly 62:13 73:3 111:24 trumbull 72:11 trusting 68:17 truth 58:9 90:16 truths 92:6 try 14:4 17:17 27:19,23 61:24 89:25 trying 27:6 28:14 41:3 56:21 86:11 86:11 88:3,4 118:18 123:20 136:16 140:20 141:23 142:10 tuesday 59:22 turn 40:18 54:3 81:1 turned 85:17 tuscarawas 104:5,6 tuscy 104:6 tv 40:18 twice 34:14 two 4:15 33:25 35:17,22 42:7 84:6 87:9 91:3 93:12 106:24 119:15 120:6 121:7 125:11 126:4 132:15 132:16,24 134:3 139:5 141:15 twoyearold 67:17 U ultimately 7:5 80:23 81:13,20 uncomfortable 47:15,19 48:12,24 49:8 50:10,11,17,18 51:13 53:2,3 53:4 84:25 unconditional 89:13 unconstitutional 77:10 undersigned 146:3 understand 50:3 55:10 56:24 57:14 80:21 86:11 96:24 100:4,4,5 102:2 126:6 129:2 131:25 understandings 105:9 understood 80:19 81:2,3 undoubtedly 58:13 unemployment 51:9 unfaithful 95:18 unfortunate 123:23 unfortunately 77:14 86:6 unidentified 25:15 29:13 uninsured 23:19 union 6:23 40:3 74:15 88:18 103:17 unions 3:11 7:12,16 10:11 80:2 103:16 united 8:4,20 108:20 135:25 uniter 77:24 universal 51:3 universities 14:16 28:7,22,25 29:3 65:8 university 27:16,17,18,20,24 28:15 unmarried 23:10,21 33:21 43:22 44:3

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

21
unmeritorious 16:7 unnecessary 13:25 38:11 86:2 untraditional 103:2 unusual 57:1 60:7 upbringings 105:8 uphold 10:14 84:10 97:10 ups 109:25 upset 128:21 urge 11:10 13:16 18:8 29:5 43:7 53:9 69:1,10,11 75:6 77:25 82:4 90:4 100:5 112:8,8 142:16 urgency 62:12 use 6:2 23:3 35:16,23 58:11 74:19 94:17 129:24 usually 60:9 utah 79:13 V vacations 103:5 valid 8:13 33:12 35:4 125:23 126:15 validity 33:11 35:3 125:22 126:8 valley 91:24 values 94:6 95:7,7 108:12,18,21 109:8 120:12 vari 4:20 varieties 101:14 various 34:2 93:10,11 vehemently 142:8 venture 61:3 vermont 7:12 55:15 versus 8:24 vibrancy 56:16 victims 107:6 victories 75:8 victory 74:23 video 146:5 viewed 66:13 viewpoint 124:21 views 12:1 124:23 village 104:5 viol 109:19 violated 130:5 violence 109:20 virginia 8:12 vision 28:2 visit 113:21 visitors 64:23 void 8:18 9:2,8,22 10:2,4,9 vote 18:24 20:3 36:23,24 42:20 43:15 52:18 60:12 61:23 67:1 73:5 74:4 77:5,7 78:1 82:5,18 89:23 93:4 111:18 131:22 135:18 142:17 voted 37:19 42:1 132:4 votes 13:17 59:4,8 74:19,22 131:24 voting 37:17 42:19 52:19,20 55:3 73:15 86:9 105:12 132:21,22 134:4 137:22 139:16 vow 110:5 vs 9:12 W wachtmann 22:15,16 32:2,3 46:25 47:1 145:5,6 wait 109:6 waiting 112:4 wake 104:16,19 walk 84:22 walking 91:15 wallow 91:24 want 8:19 16:20 17:24 28:7 35:18 37:14,15 40:4 42:1,16 47:18,21 47:23 49:8 50:18 52:3 53:6 58:4 60:15 61:21 63:7 66:10,19 73:3 76:15 78:16,19 83:5 85:9,10,12 85:13 88:16 89:2 91:8 95:10,15 98:6 106:22,23 111:19 112:14 113:23 114:17,18 116:5 117:12 120:7 121:21 123:25 125:1 126:6 127:10 128:8,9,12,19,20 129:8,15 130:1,23,24 131:12,15 136:13 137:7 138:14,22,25 141:21 142:2 wanted 23:2 35:14 48:16,17 72:19 93:5 118:12 wanting 130:4 wants 49:23 124:19 130:16 warn 106:13 warning 106:25 washington 91:11 wasnt 63:18 74:1,3,3 102:9 waste 70:17 watching 60:6 way 10:19 16:23 25:4 39:19 40:8 41:5 43:23 49:12 54:2,3 56:2,3,21 57:18,19 78:11 82:2 90:16 91:10 94:5,5 96:17 101:14 110:6,7 112:3 114:13 118:13 122:12 124:2 132:6 134:8 135:4 137:2,22 138:1 139:7 ways 15:22 50:13 115:22 122:23 124:12 wealthiest 122:5,17 wealthy 121:23 wearing 48:8 website 121:20 wed 108:7 111:9 131:17 wedge 55:25 wednesday 1:8 week 51:11,14 58:22 59:10,17 70:14,22 71:12 104:12 weekend 99:1 100:24 103:7 105:7 112:2 weekends 98:17,25 99:2 weeks 60:10 welcomes 14:24 welcoming 65:17 welfare 81:7,10 wellbeing 123:3 125:4 127:19 140:25 141:1 wellintentioned 119:18 went 60:21,25 91:21 102:10,20 103:4,6 120:9 123:15 127:7 west 8:12 70:20 90:14 western 90:14,17 weve 37:23 39:10 50:24 56:1 58:7 58:15 61:13 65:19 69:21,21 70:11 75:22 76:14 78:13,15 86:1,3 94:23 107:8,9 119:3 121:10 126:10 127:11 128:6 133:7 135:20 whats 41:10 51:2 55:13,15,15,16 57:20 85:24 86:13 96:17,18 104:7 112:10 124:16 whatsoever 68:2 whichever 16:23 whistles 137:8 white 2:2 5:3,19,22 11:11,15,19 18:10,16,20 20:1 22:19,20,22 23:5 25:13,19 26:1 29:7,14 32:6,7 32:8,11,14 36:12,16 42:21,25 43:4 44:5,11 47:4,5,7 53:10 57:23 69:2,6 71:16,20 75:10,14 78:2 82:6,10 86:24 90:6 91:13 92:15 92:23 96:25 100:6,8 109:1 112:21 127:22 142:18 145:9,10,12 whites 42:10 whos 51:20,20 67:13 97:5 whove 65:12 84:22 wife 27:2 40:12 67:17 68:3 82:19 83:17 84:4 88:24 95:19 133:11,14 140:5 wild 16:9,11 willing 89:18 win 49:9 56:3 74:20,21 131:13 wish 78:6 89:10,11 117:1,9 witnesses 2:12 wives 41:5 79:5 84:7 87:9 138:22,23 woke 104:13

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

22
woman 3:3 5:10 7:4 11:9 13:7 27:9 27:13 72:9,15,19,20,25 74:10 111:4 134:2 138:6 women 76:21 105:11,17 wonder 120:8 132:17 wondered 120:10 wonderful 67:17 81:1 115:22 wondering 76:4 wont 63:3,7 91:21 134:21 word 12:9 26:21 129:24 wording 35:17 36:11 words 9:4 12:21 17:4 24:7 62:19 95:22 128:16 work 28:2 50:11 70:4 71:3 89:25 103:15,24 104:15 140:1 worked 26:8 65:13 103:3,11 109:4 workers 71:3 working 57:7,8 139:12 workplace 24:8 world 39:14 77:19 93:2 109:12 118:24 136:18 138:19 worms 77:11 115:10 worry 107:22 worth 75:9 wouldnt 55:8 140:5 wound 113:6 wrench 73:2 wrestler 98:20 write 40:11 writing 115:16 wrong 19:9 42:15,19 54:19 57:20 81:25 88:22 107:11,11 112:10 117:22 122:14 124:9 wrongdoings 111:11 wrongs 93:8,18 www 1:9 X x 130:23 Y yeah 49:7 year 23:24 54:5 58:21 64:10 69:8 70:12 72:11 85:24 134:24,24,25 years 5:4 6:9,20,21 26:24,25 41:20 42:17 51:5,15 53:16,17,19 54:2,6 56:2 58:8 62:3,4 67:9 83:20 87:5 87:23,25 93:19,19,20 95:5 96:22 98:15,19 99:13,13 100:19 107:16 107:18,19 108:4 109:3 112:18 113:10 116:23 117:17 119:4 121:12 122:12 yeas 22:21,22 32:13,14 47:6,7 145:11,12 yelling 110:1 yesterday 2:14 19:3 59:22 61:23 63:18 66:14 114:3 116:1 120:14 york 41:12 youd 111:25 youll 41:18 73:13 74:20 91:20 younger 41:14,15,21 89:8 youngster 91:14 youngsters 91:15 youngstown 137:15 youre 48:8 52:19,20,21 53:2 55:9 57:11 61:23 78:12 87:22 101:2 102:17 106:19 112:5 113:6 131:12,14 youve 17:12,12 63:8 67:7 77:9 121:25 Z zero 62:19 zurz 22:17,18 32:4,5 47:2,3 82:7,8 82:12 145:7,8 0 00 1:12,13 14:22 60:13,24 104:17 000 34:8 51:10 56:20 64:8 65:3,3 69:21 01 26:23 1 1 8:5 51:4,5 59:21,25 114:4 116:1 10 14:22 60:23,24,24 99:15 100 56:20 93:19 11 121:12 111583 1:11 11th 72:12 12 64:21 121:12 125 11:18 12514361 43:3 12th 23:25 140 51:10 14361 11:18 14th 54:5 15 22:21,23 32:13,15 47:6,8 51:5 86:9 145:11,13 1500 71:10 15yearold 49:16 51:2 16 26:25 83:20 84:2 114:15 1600 96:14,15 164 1:13 16yearold 83:22 18 22:21,22 26:24 32:13,14 47:6,7 86:9 98:19 145:11,12 18yearold 114:15 1930s 136:1 1934 8:23 1958 9:13 1960s 95:4 1963 91:9,10 1967 96:25 1996 3:14 10:24 36:3,9 2 2 51:4 20 41:20 42:17 102:21 107:19 200 96:22 2000 9:23 2001 79:3 2003 23:25 78:23 2004 1:8 59:23 111:6 20th 59:22,23 21 1:8 114:19 23 60:23,24 230 69:21 240 34:8 27 102:21 272 1:7 2:7,9,25 3:8,17,25 5:21 6:9 7:2 9:9 10:6,13 23:13,16 33:19 34:3 36:2 90:23 2nd 78:23 3 3 104:17 30 1:12 2:12 41:20 42:17 53:19 59:21,25 79:3 107:18 114:4 116:1 300 51:10 3101 26:23 83:13,15 32 107:18 33 119:25 340 93:18 35 87:8 36 87:15 37 3:23 5:5 10:22 18:4 38th 11:2 4 4 8:5 51:5 121:10 40 42:17 65:3 93:20 98:22 109:3,6 4117 5:1 42 98:22 108:4 45 65:3 5 5 119:25 50 54:2 64:8 71:2 99:14 110:17 500 25:3 71:9 95:5

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

23
51 34:7 125:14 52 13:15,18 57 25:25 6 6 51:9 87:8,16 60 41:21 64:8 107:16 112:18 60s 97:20 65 41:19,19,21 7 70 41:19 70s 101:10 106:6 77 13:15 8 8 121:12 80 101:9 80s 108:16 82 100:19 9 9 60:13 91 98:14

www.elitereportingagency.com 513-233-3000

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-8

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 3

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-9

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 2

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-10

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 5

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-11

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 3

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-12

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 4

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-13

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 3

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-14

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 3

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-15

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 2

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-16

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 1

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-17

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 1

Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 41-18

Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 5