"The issue is whether the State of Ohio can discriminate against same sex marriages lawfully solemnized out of state, when Ohio law has historically and unambiguously provided that the validity of a marriage is determined by whether it complies with the law of the jurisdiction where it was celebrated."Just as in California, where the Gay Agenda highest officials refused to defend the voters' definition of marriage, the Cincinnati officials did likewise, and even named a holiday for the homosexual couple.
-- U.S. District Judge Timothy Black in Cincinnati
For background, read about last month's U.S. Supreme Court rulings INTENDED to allow citizens of each state to define marriage. Instead, the rulings are instituting tyrannical rule over Americans.
UPDATE 12/24/13: Activist Judges Say Supreme Court Justice Scalia Right on 'Gay Marriage'
-- From "Judge Rules for Ohio Men's Same-Sex Marriage" by Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press 7/23/13
Federal Judge Timothy Black ordered Monday that the death certificate of ailing John Arthur show that he was married and that James Obergefell is his surviving spouse. The ruling means the pair can be buried next to each other in Arthur's family plot, located at a cemetery that only allows descendants and spouses.
Arthur and Obergefell, both 47, say they've been in love for more than 20 years, that Arthur is likely on the verge of dying from Lou Gehrig's disease, and that "they very much want the world to officially remember and record their union as a married couple," according to a lawsuit filed by the couple Friday against Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Attorney General Mike DeWine and a Cincinnati official responsible for filing death certificates.
"This is one more step toward marriage equality in the state of Ohio," said the couple's attorney, Al Gerhardstein, who said he's gotten calls from other same-sex couples who married in other states and are exploring their options to have their marriage recognized in Ohio.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge rules for Ohio same-sex couple" by Kimball Perry, The Cincinnati Enquirer 7/23/13
The judge found that the Ohio Constitution "violates rights secured by the ... United States Constitution in that same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are valid, who seek to have their out-of-state marriage accepted as legal in Ohio, are treated differently than opposite-sex couples who have been married in states where their circumstances allow marriage in that state but not in Ohio."
Al Gerhardstein, the civil-rights lawyer who represented the couple, successfully argued that Ohio should recognize same-sex marriages from other states because it recognizes opposite-sex marriages from other states, including some banned in Ohio such as marriages between first cousins or involving people too young to marry in Ohio.
Without the official designation as Arthur's spouse, Obergefell told the judge he couldn't be buried with Arthur in Cincinnati's Spring Grove Cemetery, a burial ground that dates to 1845. Arthur's family plots are in that cemetery, and his grandfather stipulated that only direct descendants and their spouses can be buried in the family plot. With Black's ruling, Obergefell can be buried next to Arthur.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio must recognize gay couple's marriage, judge rules" by Kevin Rector, Los Angeles Times 7/23/13
. . . their lawsuit [was] against Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Atty. Gen. Mike DeWine and Camille Jones, Cincinnati's vital statistics registrar . . .
In a response to the couple's motion, Cincinnati City Solicitor John P. Curp said that although Jones had to follow state law in her job as vital statistics registrar, the city "will not defend Ohio's discriminatory ban on same-sex marriages."
In fact, Cincinnati officials named July 11, 2013, the day Obergefell and Arthur were married in Maryland, as John Arthur and James Obergefell Day in the city, which has a record of passing broader legal protections for gay and lesbian citizens than the state as a whole.
That left a challenge to the couple's motion in the hands of DeWine, who argued in his own response that any ruling in favor of the couple would set a bad precedent — threatening the state's constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex marriages that was supported by Ohio's voters.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal judge recognizes gay married couple in Ohio, despite state ban" by Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post 7/23/13
. . . any final ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.
Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said the case was “representative of the strategy advocates for redefining marriages are using,” in which “they make emotional appeals rather than rational ones.”
Sprigg said the case could have “legal significance” since it addresses one of the key issues left unresolved by the Supreme Court’s June ruling in the Defense of Marriage Act: namely, whether a state that bans same-sex marriage has to recognize a gay marriage that took place out of state.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio Judge Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage of Ailing Man and Partner" by Katherine Webe, Christian Post Reporter 7/23/13
John P. Curp, the city solicitor in Cincinnati, who was initially responsible in defending Cincinnati Vital Statistics Registrar Camille Jones in the lawsuit, refused to do so, passing the responsibility to Attorney General Mike DeWine.
DeWine challenged the lawsuit by arguing that by approving the couple's restraining order, Ohio would be setting a dangerous precedent for similar lawsuits in the future, and would undermine the voter-approved constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state.
DeWine reportedly intends to appeal Black's ruling.
In 2004, the majority of Ohio voters approved an amendment that changed the state's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/23/13: "Ohio gay marriage ban is rejected in narrow ruling" by The Associated Press
[Judge Timothy] Black [said] that constitutional rights trump Ohio’s gay marriage ban, questioning whether it was passed for a legitimate state interest “other than simply maintaining a ‘traditional’ definition of marriage.”
Black wrote that “once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away,” saying the right to remain married is recognized as a fundamental liberty in the U.S. Constitution.
Black referenced Ohio’s historical practice of recognizing other out-of-state marriages even though they can’t legally be performed in Ohio, such as those involving cousins or minors.
Attorney General Mike DeWine said the state will take its case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also based in Cincinnati. He called Monday’s decision “not a huge surprise,” given earlier rulings Black made in the case.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
