A fellow Ohio academic librarian I follow re-tweeted this on February 21:

S3101.01 OH S Bill 5: “A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. ” How is that relevant to budget crisis?

I was a bit taken aback when I first read the tweet. I didn’t understand the connection between the “fiscal responsibility” line coming out of Columbus and its relationship to traditional marriage. I did what any good librarian would do and went looking for the source.

Here is the text of Chapter 3101.01.C (to be exact) as currently written in the Ohio Revised Code.

(C)(1) Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex 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.

(2) Any 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.

(3) 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. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio. Nothing in division (C)(3) of this section shall be construed to do either of the following:

(a) 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, which includes but is not limited to benefits available under Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code;

(b) Affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this state.

You may recall, that the people of Ohio voted to amend the Ohio Constitution on November 2, 2004 to define marriage to be between one man and one woman. The legislature codified the amendment into the Ohio Revised Code in Section 3101.01.

Now, back to the present.

Here is the proposed change to Section 3101.01 in Ohio SB 5 ”As Pending in the Senate Insurance, Commerce and Labor Committee”

As you probably noticed, the lines with strike through text is the part being changed.

Andrew Sullivan posted early this evening Just Balancing the Budget. He picked up on the  ”no same-sex marriage” part of Ohio SB 5 and asking what that has to do with financial reform. (I wrote him a shorter version of what I am writing here and he has since updated his post.) I did some searching and found other blogs asking the same question.  As you have probably figure out by now, there isn’t any relationship.

The proposed text to be removed in SB 5 relates to Chapter 4117 mentioned in  Section 3101.01. Chapter 4117 is the section of the Ohio Revised Code defining public employees collective bargaining. Public employee collective bargaining is what SB 5 is supposedly reforming.

Long story short…SB 5 does not insert any ban on same sex marriage or civil unions into the Ohio Revised Code. The wording that some people are jumping on has been in place for over six years. The reference to Section 3101.01 removes a reference to another section which is being overhauled.

What I find most interesting is that I don’t see any mention of Section 3101.01 in the final bill as passed by the Senate this afternoon.

And now for something completely different, 7BF2AMYNQXNF. Yep, you guessed correctly. I'm claiming/reclaiming my blog with that short code.  

I have dropped the library+instruction+technology as the title of this blog. I am now using my name. I should have made this switch a long time ago. The time is right, since I am making some changes to my server and also not doing as much library instruction. 

Another change I should have made awhile back was to make my blog the default when visiting http://whitis.us. I realize this will break some links at "The Google," but I'm not concerned. Google will eventually catch up and I will rely on the intellectual curiosity of site visitors pointed here by Google to figure it it out if they run into a 404.

My goal is to write more in 2011. Place your bets now. I had high hopes for 2010. I believe enough time has passed and I can now start reflecting, in a generalized way, about my transition to academic library director. I walked into a challenging situation and have had some success in making positive change in the last two years.

Ryan, aka GQ computer dude, configured one of the iPads this morning and gave it to me to use over the weekend. I will admit that I am impressed. I am not an Apple fan boy. I personally can’t stand Steve Jobs. However the speed, size, and screen make this device captivating.

The iPad connected easily to my home wireless. I’ve streamed from Netflix and the ABC apps and found the NPR and Pocket Pond (think koi, lily pads, and rippling water) apps addictive. I still need to do some research before buying any apps.

What are we going to do with our two iPads? Experiment. My reasons for purchasing were simple. I want to make sure our computer guys have some hands on-time prior to August. I’m confident that we will see more than a few students show up in the Fall with an iPad in hand. I am curious to see what role an iPad (or tablet) might play during library instruction or reference work. Based on my limited experience so far, the iPad is ideal for roving reference in and/out of the library (based on your wi-fi infrastructure). Searching and reading articles on JSTOR using the iPad…wasn’t quite magical, but it was cool. Finally, I want to give our faculty an opportunity to touch an iPad and figure out if/how it or another tablet device might be used for instructional purposes.

To be clear, MPOW has no plans to give away or require our students to have an iPad. The initial hands-on use will be by computer services, library staff, and faculty to discover the potential and the weaknesses. My intent is to lend the iPads to students starting sometime during the Fall semester.

I will continue to share our experiences with the iPads here. I’m curious if your library is lending iPads to faculty and/or students? What are your reasons/goals for lending? How much or little policy do you have in place for this type of technology? Please feel free to share your experiences by leaving a comment.