Ohio gay marriage ban is rejected in narrow ruling

0

CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal judge Monday ordered Ohioauthorities to recognize gay marriages on
death certificates, saying thestate’s ban on such unions is unconstitutional and that states
cannotdiscriminate against same-sex couples simply because some voters don’tlike homosexuality.Although
Judge Timothy Black’s ruling appliesonly to death certificates, his statements about Ohio’s gay-marriage
banare sweeping, unequivocal, and are expected to incite furtherlitigation challenging the law. Ohio’s
attorney general said the statewill appeal.Black cited the Supreme Court’s June decisionstriking down
part of a federal anti-gay marriage law, saying that thelower courts are now tasked with applying that
ruling."And thequestion presented is whether a state can do what the federal governmentcannot —
i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply becausethe majority of the voters don’t like
homosexuality (or at least didn’tin 2004)," Black said in reference to the year Ohio’s gay marriage
banpassed. "Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no."Eighteen states and
the District of Columbia allow same-sex weddings, up from six before the Supreme Court
decision.Blackwrote that "once you get married lawfully in one state, another statecannot summarily
take your marriage away," saying the right to remainmarried is recognized as a fundamental liberty
in the U.S. Constitution."Whena state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex
couplemarried in another jurisdiction, it intrudes into the realm of privatemarital, family, and
intimate relations specifically protected by theSupreme Court," he wrote.Black referenced Ohio’s
historicalpractice of recognizing other out-of-state marriages even though theycan’t legally be
performed in Ohio, such as those involving cousins orminors.Black’s decision stems from a lawsuit in
July by two gayOhio men whose spouses recently died and wanted to be recognized ontheir death
certificates as married. The two couples got married overthe summer in states that allow same-sex
marriage.Black said"there is absolutely no evidence that the state of Ohio or its citizenswill be
harmed" by his ruling but that without it, the harm would besevere for two men who filed the
lawsuit because it would strip them ofthe dignity and recognition given to opposite-sex
couples.Blackordered the state not only to recognize the marriages of the two men whofiled the lawsuit
on their respective spouses’ death certificate butalso to communicate his orders to anyone in the state
involved incompleting death certificates.Attorney General Mike DeWine saidthe 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 hugesurprise," given earlier rulings Black made in the case."Our job is to defend the Ohio
Constitution and state statutes … and that’s what we intend to do," DeWine said.BridgetCoontz,
the attorney who argued on behalf of the state, said Wednesdayin court that in the Supreme Court’s
historic June decision, thejustices also found that states have the right to decide for
themselveswhether to recognize gay marriage, and Ohio voters decided not to in2004."Ohio doesn’t
want Delaware or Maryland to define who ismarried under Ohio law," she said. "To allow that to
happen would allowone state to set the marriage policy for all others."Civil rightsattorney Al
Gerhardstein argued to Black that the case was "about lovesurviving death" and said that the
state had no right to recognizecertain out-of-state marriages and not others.Black sided
withGerhardstein, saying that constitutional rights trump Ohio’s gaymarriage ban, questioning whether it
was passed for a legitimate stateinterest "other than simply maintaining a ‘traditional’ definition
ofmarriage."He quoted then-Gov. Robert Taft who said in 2004 thatthe law was intended "to
reaffirm existing Ohio law with respect to ourmost basic, rooted, and time-honored institution: marriage
between a manand a woman."Black wrote that "the fact that a form ofdiscrimination has been
‘traditional’ is a reason to be more skepticalof its rationality.""No hypothetical
justification can overcomethe clear primary purpose and practical effect of the marriage bans …to
disparage and demean the dignity of same-sex couples in the eyes ofthe state and the wider
community," Black wrote.___Associated Press writer Dan Sewell contributed in Cincinnati.___Follow
Amanda Lee Myers on Twitter at https://twitter.com/AmandaLeeAP.Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All
rightsreserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten orredistributed.

No posts to display