Lawsuit aims to strike down Ohio gay marriage ban

“We just want the simplest thing: We want to be able to marry here in Cincinnati, in the state of Ohio, and we want it to be something that we share with our friends and our family because it’s right”
Associated Press
May 1, 2014
Civil rights attorneys filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking a judge to strike down Ohio’s gay marriage ban as unconstitutional and allow same-sex couples to wed in the state, echoing arguments that have led judges to throw out gay marriage bans in five other states.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Cincinnati on behalf of six gay Ohio couples who say they are in love and want to get married.

“We are just like any other couple,” said Gary Goodman, who proposed to his longtime partner, Karl Rece Jr., in 2011.

“We just want the simplest thing: We want to be able to marry here in Cincinnati, in the state of Ohio, and we want it to be something that we share with our friends and our family because it’s right” Goodman said.

Like other successful challenges to statewide marriage bans, the attorneys who filed the lawsuit are arguing Ohio’s ban, passed by voters in 2004, violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

“A consensus is finally emerging: the Constitution protects the right of consenting adults to love whoever they want,” the lawsuit says. “It is time for Ohio to do the same”

Lisa Peterson Hackley, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Mike DeWine, said in a statement the office “is prepared to defend the state’s constitution and statutes regarding marriage”

Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Ohio Gov. John Kasich declined to comment “except to say that the governor believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, and he supports Ohio’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage”

Along with Wednesday’s lawsuit, attorneys are asking federal Judge Michael Barrett to issue a temporary restraining order forcing Ohio to issue marriage licenses to the couples named in the lawsuit, record their marriages and grant them the same rights other married couples in the state have.

Hackley said the attorney general’s office will ask the court to deny any requests for immediate action “to maintain the status quo while the case is being litigated”

Wednesday’s lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that filed a February suit that led federal Judge Timothy Black to order Ohio to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.

In his April 14 order, Black said Ohio’s refusal to recognize gay marriage is a violation of constitutional rights and “unenforceable in all circumstances”

“The record before this court ... is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the state’s ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Black wrote.

His order stopped short of forcing Ohio to allow gay couples to wed in the state.

Although most of the ruling is on hold pending DeWine’s forthcoming appeal, Black did order Ohio to immediately recognize the marriages of the four couples by listing both spouses in each relationship on their children’s birth certificates.

In a similarly narrow order in December, Black ordered Ohio to recognize gay marriages on death certificates.

Comments

paws4thought

Sorry Gary - you aren't like "any other couple." You are two members of the same sex. For 2000+ years, marriage was considered a union between a man and a woman. I don't see the need to change that - nor do the majority of voters in Ohio. And before the namecallers crawl out of the woodworks, I am not a bigot, "hater" or homophobe. I simply prefer the status quo.

yea right

ok paws..you are that old that you know that 2000 yrs ago they did not have gay marriages..hmm just because the Bible does say that this was going on back then..different cultures different times..not everyone knew about the Bible back then..Aztecs..Indians..Russians..Japan..China..

So just because you say it can not be does not mean it is not right for others..this is the problem..closed mindedness..just a few yrs ago black ppl and white ppl could not cohabitate in certain states..wow..

OPEN YOUR MIND PEOPLE..it is NOT you business to judge others..

paws4thought

#1 - who said anything about the bible? #2 - so based on what you are commenting, "open mindedness" is accepting gay marriage and "closed mindedness" is not accepting it. Which one of us does the judging?

deertracker

You don't have to accept anything but it is not your place to judge. If two people of the same sex want to hook up why is that a problem for you? Are we free or not?

paws4thought

Why is it such a problem for you that I don't agree with you?

deertracker

It's not and I don't judge those that want to be who they are.

grumpy

I didn't see where he had a problem with two people, of the same sex hooking up. Perhaps you can point out where he said he did? I did see where he didn't agree with calling it a marriage... since for thousands of years, a marriage was between a man and woman. That is what he actually said. You have moved it outside of what he did say.

yea right

again grumpy..and how old are you..how do you know that the Aztecs did not have gay "marriages"??as far as we all know they might have called it a "union".. or maybe a "congress"..thing is why is anybody oppose to it..

grumpy

Lets see what I actually wrote.

"I didn't see where he had a problem with two people, of the same sex hooking up. Perhaps you can point out where he said he did? I did see where he didn't agree with calling it a marriage... since for thousands of years, a marriage was between a man and woman. That is what he actually said. You have moved it outside of what he did say."

Can you show me where I said anything about MY not wanting to call anything marriage?

I also didn't see where he was against or opposed to gays... I did see where he was against using the term marriage when speaking of gays getting married. If you can show different please do so. Feel free to quote him or me to prove your point about what he wrote... or what I have written. If I don't see a response I will take it that you can't.

grumpy

I didn't see where he had a problem with two people, of the same sex hooking up. Perhaps you can point out where he said he did? I did see where he didn't agree with calling it a marriage... since for thousands of years, a marriage was between a man and woman. That is what he actually said. You have moved it outside of what he did say.

The Big Dog's back

What's with the double dumb posts?

Peninsula Pundit

'OPEN YOUR MIND PEOPLE..it is NOT you business to judge others..'
Uh, that 'not judging others' part you mention is from the same book you deride.
Can't have it both ways,limpy.
Or, more correctly, you have an easy time showing your second face.

coasterfan

Paws: You want to deny someone else the same equal right to marry that you can enjoy. Racists in the 1950's also preferred the status quo, and sorry, that's not a valid excuse to deny someone else's rights, is it? Why should they not be able to marry because YOU disapprove?

44846GWP

Bigots never admit they are bigots.

I

So, when did you stop being a bigot? Deertracker and coasterfan wouldn't admit it either on another topic.

thinkagain

“We just want the simplest thing”

To be able to usurp the God given institution of marriage and replace it with sexual immorality.

coasterfan

Thinkagain, are you speaking of the sexual immorality that is practiced with us heterosexuals? Divorce rates are over 50% and the amount of marital infidelity has reached epic proportions. Why should gays have to live by a higher standard than we set for ourselves?

Also, marriage is NOT God-given. It requires acknowledgement and proper paperwork from the government. The church nor God isn't required. I had an atheist wedding ceremony several years ago, and I am most assuredly married.

Babo

IMO, you have a civil union under the law that has been improperly labeled a "marriage" which the government co-opted from religion.

deertracker

You are entitled to your opinion but does your marriage license say something different? Are the words "civil union" on it? Does it ask your sexual orientation?

Babo

My point is the institution of marriage existed long before government decided to start licensing it. If you look in your family history it is highly likely your great grand parents did not need the government to license their marriage. They just placed the marriage in the family Bible.

Thus government co-opted a religious institution in this country by requiring a government license for marriage. I propose we change the name of the license the government gives out for tax purposes to a civil union license and that's the end of it. Quit trying to make a silk purse out of pig's ear.

Finally, I do not consider myself married because the government tells me I'm married but because we stood before God in a Church during a ceremony and pledged our lives to one another.

It's amusing to me that Atheists claim God doesn't exist but want all the good things that God gives us without the responsibilities.

Peninsula Pundit

You are correct, Babo.
Good points, all.

Peninsula Pundit

Sexual immorality is the simplest thing.
Next it is marriage to more than 1 person, then someone will want to marry their dog because it is a better partner than any human they've ever met.
See? We agree on a couple things.

MiddleRight

The people of Ohio Voted.

yea right

to Middleright OLD FART ^^^^^^

coasterfan

Public attitudes have shifted since the vote. A decided majority now are in favor of gay marriage, and with people under age 30, more than 80% approve. Your mindset is outdated, and clearly a thing of the past.

Ten years from now, we'll look at the anti-gay folks the same way we now see the Southern white supremacists of the 1960's: you're an embarrassment to all Americans with a conscience.

Peninsula Pundit

Then have another vote.

grumpy

That would be too logical. Besides it must be much better for one, or a few judges make the decision. The vote might just not go their way. I wonder what folks would do if in some states where the people voted this in, they had another vote that would rescind the vote to allow it? Much like the Constitutional Amendment the first made booze illegal and then a couple years later made booze legal again? Just a twisted thought I had. Bet it would twist the Depends on a lot of people.

meowmix

Cryin' out loud, first three posts I have to read are from people who obviously think they have the right to tell others how to live their lives. -- Paws-- prefer the "status quo"???? Thank god it isn't the 1800's or you'd probably support slavery just so as not to upset the "status quo".

paws4thought

You have the right to your opinion as I have the right to mine. I have to say, when a point is being debated, I do enjoy reading an intelligent comment. When do you think you will make one?

deertracker

If you enjoy reading intelligent comments, try writing one!

Pages