Posted on 12/23/2013 3:09:44 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Ohio officials must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who married out of state for purposes of being considered married on death certificates, a federal judge ruled on Monday.
Judge Timothy Black had granted a temporary injunction for James Obergefell and John Arthur in July, ordering that their marriage be recognized on his death certificate should Arthur — who was in hospice care — die. Since then, Arthur died, but the case was amended to included a funeral director who wanted to ensure that he would be protected should he list same-sex couples as married, as well as another individual who sought to be listed as the surviving spouse on his husband’s death certificate. On Monday, Black made the injunction against county and state officials permanent.
Black explained that the case was not about marriage, but rather about “the right to remain married”:
The plaintiffs in the case only sought a ruling regarding the treatment of death certificates in light of Ohio’s constitutional amendment and statute banning recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages, so Black’s order is limited to that request. In explaining the narrow scope of the case, Black wrote:
Update at 3:10 p.m.: Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine communications director, Lisa Hackley, told BuzzFeed, “Following the judge’s decision, we have consulted with our client, Director Theodore E. Wymyslo, M.D. of the Ohio Department of Health. Following our client’s wishes, we will appeal the decision to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Wymyslo was directed by Black’s order earlier Monday “to make a best faith effort to communicate Notice of this Court’s Final Orders … to all persons within Ohio who assist with completing Ohio death certificates.”
Permanent Injunction:
(DOCUMENT-AT-LINK)
Final Order:
(DOCUMENT-AT-LINK)
Indeed, just like in Pakistan. Cripple, blind, maim and castrate people into being gay, makes them good little beggars for government taxes and tourist donations.
Poverty pimps. Obama is expert at it. It is how he was raised.
gun permits too... right???
Fearful perhaps?
It took a devout Christian last week to speak out.
Thankfully that is starting to change, starting last week with the Duck Dynesty taking a stand.
wont be long before there wont be a reason to follow any 'law', since there is no black and white letter of it to actually follow, and no gov agency is capable of following their own rules either...
As just conceded your Inalienable Right is now subject to permission from the gov’t.; unless you fight the case ala Constitutional carry (AK, AZ, VT, WY).
In fact, I gotta check if the RNA is fighting that battle or not (I suspect the latter, unfortunately)
Since lefty’s only feel rather than think, their 8 year long feel process will constantly clash into the wall of unintended consequences. 10,000 years of Western Civilization has reconciled all of these matters. Their failure to think ahead for even a second will undo all of that in just 20 years.
This is exactly what many of us had feared—in fact, had even considered inevitable: The left now wants to federalize “gay marriage”—not just allow it on a state-by-state basis, according to the majority of residents’ wishes—and accomplish this by judicial fiat.
I appreciate what Robertson did. But it's not the same as having an elected official state the obvious.
I see here that the Constitution of the United States of America played absolutely no role in the rendering of this decision.
Yup at the very least, the 10th comes into play and the fact that there is no long term historical basis for recognizing gay marriage.
However, I have had arguments with those who cite the 9th as some justification for its legality, just as the Court found for federal abortion rights using the 9th.
There are many cross currents here and I am actually surprised it took this long to come to the fore.
Yes I like the phrase “cross currents” you used.
A complete analysis requires several constitutional provisions to be considered.
With regard to the 9th Amendment, my understanding is that it should only be used to recognize existing rights, not “new rights”.
For instance, I strongly believe that home schooling is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the United States. So if a state were to ban it I would be fine the court recognizing this right and characterizing is as essential to ordered liberty.
The left would cry activism, but they have no credibility and are intellectually dishonest. So it’s hardly worth arguing with them.
I would also suggest that our right to keep and bear arms could be easily protected the same way even in the absence of the Second Amendment.
The historical record would support that finding in both instances.
The left on the SCOTUS has really ruined a beautiful document. It worked pretty well until FDR.
Everybody needs to join a militia
Agreed; I have found arguing with the left, who can routinely can turn a catchy phrase but rarely bases reasoning on well-founded logic, to be almost always a waste of time.
As you well know, the meaning of the 9th is still argued over to this day; I have interpreted it to convey to future jurists an attitude of the Founders-era humility: meaning that despite having more foresight than most, by including the 9th they were, in essence, saying “we think we have covered the most fundamental rights in this document, but we may not be all knowing.Therefore, you citizens a few hundred years down the road may discover that we missed something. If you do, and decide that the “new” rights should be codified, then those belong to citizens, not the government. So I read it to encompass unknown (at that time) rights not enumerated.
What do you think?
Agreed; I have found arguing with the left, who can routinely can turn a catchy phrase but rarely bases reasoning on well-founded logic, to be almost always a waste of time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It’s like chasing a roach around the kitchen counter.
yet again another fed judge tells a state what it should accept and what their laws should be.
I don;t ever think we will ever see a republican in office again due to bozo the clown putting in all these activist judges and if an election is close you can guarantee that the socialists will go to their judges again
Remember a time when homosexuals used to say it was their private business?
today I ma all for it because I ma sick to death of these left wing nuts and socialists telling us to be more like the north east and parts of the west coast.
Maybe then we could also stop the leeches, and other types who move here and then demand we have to be like their old state which they left
What is the point of electing a Republican when judges make all the laws?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.