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!

coasterfan

Paws: your opinion has boundaries, and it stops with being able to control someone else's life. There is never, ever a good reason to deny someone else's rights. Do you see how you're overstepping your bounds?

If you don't, try this: Would you accept it if they told you whom YOU could/couldn't marry? If your answer is "Of course not", then perhaps you've learned something.

paws4thought

Of course I would accept it - "they" already do - I can't marry my mother, father, sister, brother, son or daughter; I can't marry a dead person or non-human; I can't marry an inanimate object. If you are going to make an exception to the male/female = marriage rule, then you have to be ready to accept all the other alternatives. After all, how can YOU deny someone else's "rights" or "control their life." Problem is, you don't think things through and just react because it makes you feel good. It's called the "law of unintended consequences."

Nam Vet

They denied me my smoking rights when people voted. So we denied them marrying rights. What's the problem. Voted get it.

Peninsula Pundit

Who is talking 'control?'
Homosexuals can live together as far as I'm concerned.
Control has nothing to do with it.
I guess there is such a thing as 'too liberal'.

Donegan

We do not live in a theocracy. We live in a Republic which all citizens rights are safe guarded by those elected by the citizens. This includes the LGBT community. The problem is some citizens want to decide how others live and forget about "Liberty" and "Freedom" in there dash to nose into other peoples business.
Before those of the Rep/Dem parties get all self righteous, think about how your party has impacted the rights of others by passing laws labeling them. The Libertarians have had it in their platform since 1972 that ALL, even the LGBT community were equal citizens under the constitution.

deertracker

They have always been equal, Constitution or not

Donegan

I agree. Why do we need a bureaucracy to label and regulate it then? We can cut the governments power in half by taking these powers away.
The Constitution is there to protect the people from this sort of thing.

coasterfan

Outstanding comment, Donegan. I agree 100%, America is NOT a theocracy, and religion should really stay 100% out of politics.

There is never a moral, good reason to deny someone else's rights. If you use your religion or the Bible as a justification for bigotry, you probably should look for a new religion.

Peninsula Pundit

If religion should stay out of it, then why do homosexuals want something that is defined as a religious ceremony.
No wonder the cons have such fun with you.

Hollie Newton

There are more warnings in the Bible against eating shellfish than being with someone of the same sex. Yet I never see anyone wanting to stop shrimp eaters from marrying? hmm.....

Babo

Actually that's because it only smells like seafood, but it tastes like chicken.

Peninsula Pundit

Old Testament.
Christians are people of the New Covenant with God.
The New Testament.
And that has the same nix on homosexuals.
And adultery and fornication, I readily admit.

Babo

Agreed, but Hollie clearly is not descended from Sir Isaac so appeals to logic are wasted upon her.

coasterfan

Yup. There are dozens of "rules" listed in the Bible that we now ignore today, because they are seen as outdated. We need to add some to the list, I think... When Christians cherry-pick which rules to follow and which to ignore, it doesn't exactly add to their credibility...

wasthere

Sort of like the Obama administration and Eric Holder picking what laws to uphold right coaster?

Frostfire Sale

Christ never spoke against homosexuality, let alone against them marrying. Not in the Bible, nor any scrolls recovered in archaeological digs that I am aware of. Just sayin.' : )

Frostfire Sale

And I am fairly sure the U.S. Constitution never took issue with it, either.

Frostfire Sale

And, so you know I have no political and/or religious agenda with this, seeing two guys like that makes me cringe and/or gag reflex. But, see, that's me. I like girls : )

Peninsula Pundit

Review the epistles of the Apostle Paul again.

thinkagain

When Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27, He affirmed marriage is a union of a man and a woman and that God is the One who joins men and women together in marriage.

Jesus reaffirmed his position again in Matthew 19:4-5 when He stated, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

Not only should you feel guilty for sexual relations with a member of the same sex, you should feel guilty suggesting Jesus doesn't mind watching that kind of thing.

Many people do not want to believe in a God who demands righteousness and morality, so they invent a God who makes no such requirements.

Sodomy has always been and will always remain a sin and a perversion.

Frostfire Sale

V for Vendetta: Valerie's letter:
http://youtu.be/k2W0-z8EnaM

Frostfire Sale

While it does speak of the potential which exists for something deeper above all else between one man and one woman, there is nothing in those passages that would contradict Christ's words as a whole. And, by that, I mean that there is nothing to contradict the "greatest commandment." Particularly, in regards to this overall topic, when coupled with "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

And, to cut this even shorter, an apostle saying that homosexuality is an error (or, suboptimal) which will cause harm (or, deprivation) to those who do it isn't the same as judging and/or condemning them. This, I would add, was the same apostle who corrected another apostle about whether or not he should be bothering people about what they should and shouldn't eat.

As far as what you say about Sodom, just because the gang of rapists had homosexual tendencies does not mean that homosexuality was condemned in that account. Similar to how Lot's visitors pitying him regarding his irrational reaction to the ordeal (where he offered his daughters over to that mob in place of those he esteemed as holy), does not condone handing one's daughters over to rapists.

"thinkagain" said: "Not only should you feel guilty for sexual relations with a member of the same sex, you should feel guilty suggesting Jesus doesn't mind watching that kind of thing."

As for myself, I am a man. And, again, I like girls. And, since sexual relations between consenting adults doesn't necessarily require toying with a person's emotions in an unfair way (depending on the feelings of everyone involved), and (cue sarcasm for the purpose of further edification) since I didn't say that Christ was a peeping Thomas, I see nothing you assume I implied which I should feel guilty for.

44846GWP

Thank you Rev. Phelps.

hilltop

Lyrics to Whatever Happened To Sin
by Steve Taylor

A Christian counselor wrote, quote,
"It's the only human choice ahead
If you can't support it
Why don't you abort it instead?"
You say you pray to the sky
Why? when you're afraid to take a stand down here
'Cause while the holy talk reads like a bad ad-lib
Silence screams you were robbing the crib
Say it ain't none of my business, huh?
A woman's got a right to choose
Now a grave-digger
Next you pull the trigger
What then?
Whatever happened to sin?

I heard the Reverend say
"Gay is probably normal in the Good Lord's sight
What's to be debated?
Jesus never stated what's right"
I'm no theology nut, but
The Reverend may be a little confused
For if the Lord don't care
And he chooses to ignore-ah
Tell it to the people
Of Sodom and Gomorrah (woah)

Call it just an alternate lifestyle, huh?
Morality lies within
Consciences are restin'
Please repeat the question again
Whatever happened to sin?

When the closets are empty
And the clinics are full
When your eyes have been blinded
By society's wool
When the streets erupt
In your own backyard
You'll be on your knees
Praying for the national guard
If you don't care now
How the problems get solved
You can shake your head later
That you never got involved
'Cause the call came ringing
From the throne of gold
But you never got the message (got the message)
'Cause your mind's on hold

A politician next door
Swore he'd set the Washington Arena on fire
Thinks he'll gladiate them
But they're gonna make him a liar
Well he's a good ole boy
Who was born and raised
In the buckle o' the Bible Belt
But remember when you step
Into your voting booth
He'll never lie
He'll just embellish the truth

Promises were made to be broken, right?
You've gotta play the game to win
When you need supporting
Tell 'em that you're born again
Whatever happened to sin?

Frostfire Sale

While I found that intriguing, I found more interest in "The Grudge," by Tool. And, then, "4 Degrees," by Tool.