Ohio appeals judge’s ruling on gay marriage

“Once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away,”
Associated Press
Jan 17, 2014


Ohio authorities on Thursday appealed a federal judge’s ruling that ordered them to recognize gay marriages on death certificates and criticized the state’s ban on such unions as demeaning “the dignity of same-sex couples in the eyes of the state and the wider community.”


   The attorney general’s office filed its notice of appeal in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. A brief containing their arguments will be filed later.


   The state is appealing federal Judge Timothy Black’s ruling last month, which said Ohio’s ban on gay marriage, passed by voters in 2004, is unconstitutional and that states cannot discriminate against same-sex couples simply because some voters don’t like homosexuality.


   Though Black harshly criticized the gay marriage ban, his ruling was narrow and only applies to death certificates.


   Attorney General Mike DeWine previously told The Associated Press he would be appealing.


   “Our job is to defend the Ohio Constitution and state statutes ... and that’s what we intend to do,” he said.


   In the ruling, 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.


   “When a state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex couple married in another jurisdiction, it intrudes into the realm of private marital, family, and intimate relations specifically protected by the Supreme Court,” he wrote.


   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.


   Black’s decision stems from a lawsuit in July by two gay Ohio men whose spouses recently died and wanted to be recognized on their death certificates as married. The two couples got married over the summer in states that allow same-sex marriage.


   Black said “there is absolutely no evidence that the state of Ohio or its citizens will be harmed” by his ruling but that without it, the harm would be severe for two men who filed the lawsuit because it would strip them of the dignity and recognition given to opposite-sex couples.


   Two federal judges have reached the same conclusions as Black, though they went much further in their rulings. Judges in Oklahoma and Utah both recently struck down gay marriage bans in the deeply conservative states.



we are on a roll with the gay stories, rename the paper the sandusky rainbow gazette

JMOP's picture



" Black said “there is absolutely no evidence that the state of Ohio or its citizens will be harmed” by his ruling but that without it, the harm would be severe for two men who filed the lawsuit because it would strip them of the dignity and recognition given to opposite-sex couples."

The people in the State of Ohio voted into the State Constitution that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. That's what "we the people" of Ohio wanted and we would certainly be "harmed" by some liberal judge legislating from his bench to the contrary.

If you choose to live in Ohio, then you must abide by our constitution. If you don't like our constitution, then move to another state that gives you the "dignity and recognition" you desire.

However, if our non-elected judges decide that what's good for one state is good for all, then "fire 'em up" everyone, cause the legal marijuana laws in Colorado must be O.K. in Ohio, too.


We the people do not have the right to vote to restrict the rights of any minority group.

So pull up your big boy pants and prepare yourself for the day gay citizens in all 50 states will have civil recognition of their relationships.


Agree with Reader 100%. Discrimination should not be tolerated in America for any reason.

Peninsula Pundit

How 'bout the discrimination that mormon with 6 wives is getting?
Pedophiles are very discriminated against and they can't help it, they were 'born that way', as well.
NAMBLA has been around for ages, trying to get folks to get over the 'discrimination' they've been subject to. They will actually tell you and believe the child and they are in a 'loving relationship'.
Now go ahead and make your grand constructs as to why homosexuality is one thing and these others are 'perversions'.
In my book, it is all perversion and yes, they should all be treated equally. And that don't mean throwing a party and having them parade down the street.


First off your comparison of pedophiles, NAMBLA and homosexuality is completely disgusting. If you don't know the difference between the three you should just pick up a law book and read it. All you've shown here is your complete ignorance to the subject. Here I'll give you a head start. Pedophiles and nambla are breaking the law because they are committing a crime against CHILDREN!!! They are NOT two consenting ADULTS in a loving relationship. There how's that for you, do you get it now or are you still to thick to understand that?

Peninsula Pundit

Your argument is that if it isn't illegal, it's OK.
And you didn't say a word about the Mormon with 6 wives, I notice.
That's because that is probably the next moss-covered step down this slippery slope.
I pick up an not-too-old law book and I see sodomy and other homosexual behaviors listed right along with pedophilia and polygamy.
Why was it wrong then?
It was recognized as perverse behavior and was criminalized.
Morally, we were a much better country then, most will sadly concede.
In some states, the age of consent is the early teens, whereas many of us recognize that as undesirable and is criminalized in the more 'civilized' states. But the person marrying the child bride say that they are 'consenting' adults. Hmm.
You can't have it both ways,812.
'Oh, this perverse behavior is OK because it's legal and this one isn't?'
These laws were based on a moral ideal which most regular folks still operate under, no matter what the 'law' is. Everyone has an innate sense of 'right' and for the majority of people, homosexuality is not reckoned as 'right.'
Most of society, given a choice, do not consider homosexuals 'normal.'
Don't fool yourself.


I think you may be fooling yourself if you think the majority of people think that way. If things were in favor of your majority then you wouldn't see the laws changing as they are. Your majority seems to be falling to the minority. People see how homosexuals are denied the same rights as their heterosexual peers, and know that the situation needs changed. Just because a certain amount of people don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle doesn't mean they have the right to deny them the same rights they enjoy.


Is this horse dead yet?

JMOP's picture

It gets beaten about 3 times a day. I would think it has started to get weary.


Gosh, my pants were never down - what were you thinking?!

Dr. Information

Gaydusky paper getting their daily gay article out early.


The amount of anti-gay vitriol is the reason that gay activists have had to be so vocal. To be sure, if everyone would simply allow them to exist, allow them to receive equal treatment under the law that the rest of us enjoy, none of this would be news. The level of pushback from homophobes leaves the LGBT community with no other option: if people won't give you what you need or deserve, you have to fight for it.

JMOP's picture


JudgeMeNot's picture

Not one gay person would exist without us “straight people”.


Lol good point


Agreed Coaster! I will never understand why such a large portion of our society works so hard to deny equal rights and benefits to this segment of our society.

JudgeMeNot's picture

Why do gay people demand respect for their lifestyle but seem unwillingly to give the same respect to the rest of us homophobes? LMAO.

Peninsula Pundit


Peninsula Pundit

Under the same reasoning, why can't you just say you bought the marijuana in Colorado, where it is legal?
I said it before and I'll say it again:
If you'd told me in the 70's/80's that the government would allow homosexuals to 'marry' before they'd legalize herb, no one would've ever believed it.
I didn't much care when Superman got into the Bizarro-world phase, but sadly, this country looks more like it everyday.

JudgeMeNot's picture

I can accept you as a person, but I will not accept you're choice of being gay, and that is MY right and the right of the majority of Americans out there who will always be anti-gay.


It's not a choice if someone is gay or not.

Peninsula Pundit

But it is a choice whether or not to act on your unnatural urges,schmidt. You have to control your abnormal impulses. Just like Tourette's or stuttering, maybe it can be controlled medically. If you can control yourself, I'll be the first to say society has no right to discriminate against you.


Wow, that is ignorant on so many levels.


You can't fix stupid.