Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Says Ohio Must Recognize Same-Sex Couplesí Out-Of-State Marriages
BuzzFeed Politics ^ | December 23, 2013 | Chris Geidner

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)


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; judiciary; lavendermafia; lawsuit; liberalfascism; ohio; romneymarriage; ruling; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-74 last
To: Biggirl
It took a devout Christian last week to speak out.

I appreciate what Robertson did. But it's not the same as having an elected official state the obvious.

51 posted on 12/24/2013 8:27:01 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Governor Sarah Heath Palin for President of the United States in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I see here that the Constitution of the United States of America played absolutely no role in the rendering of this decision.


52 posted on 12/24/2013 9:29:49 AM PST by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clump

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.


53 posted on 12/24/2013 9:40:17 AM PST by Zman (Liberals: denying reality since Day One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Zman

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.


54 posted on 12/24/2013 11:20:17 AM PST by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Everybody needs to join a militia


55 posted on 12/24/2013 1:11:07 PM PST by Friendofgeorge ( Palin 2016 or bust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clump

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?


56 posted on 12/24/2013 1:35:02 PM PST by Zman (Liberals: denying reality since Day One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Zman

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.


57 posted on 12/24/2013 1:36:24 PM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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?


58 posted on 12/24/2013 1:54:12 PM PST by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican

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


59 posted on 12/24/2013 1:56:18 PM PST by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: manc

What is the point of electing a Republican when judges make all the laws?


60 posted on 12/24/2013 1:58:38 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Better, on the whole, for Republicans to be the ones appointing the judges.


61 posted on 12/24/2013 2:24:32 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3; 2ndDivisionVet; NFHale
RE :”so, drivers licenses and marriage licenses count across state lines, but the 2A is solely a states decision and can, in fact be violated with impunity and cause us to be forever restricted federally by our home state if we break ‘the law’...???”

What's 2A??

This reminds me, notice the lib judges don't apply the same rule to gun licences.

62 posted on 12/24/2013 3:58:04 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What if states didn’t put marriage in the law at all? If we can’t have it as a symbol of what’s right, then why not move it privately, therefore most head’s of churches could then refuse to marry anyone that didn’t fit what they recognize as real marriage, sure some rogue pastors, ministers, priests, may marry gay couples anyway but it would be far less.


63 posted on 12/24/2013 7:40:00 PM PST by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If the States can stand up for themselves regarding marijuana and Obamacare, they should do so regarding an institution fundamental to society. Federal judges think of themselves as gods. They need to be dispelled of this delusion.


64 posted on 12/24/2013 7:52:04 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zman
To an extent I agree, depending I guess on what is meant by new rights.
The main thing to me about the 9th Amendment is that it should keep the government from taking away rights that we have always enjoyed as a free people.
I don't think it is meant to yank the power away from a state to exercise traditional police powers such as protecting the unborn and defining marriage.
Also, I of course agree that the rights listed in the BOR are not exhaustive, but rather a bare minimum. So I think we are in pretty much I'm agreement on this.
I argued these issues at length with other students and professors in law school, and now I don't argue unless I'm paid to for the most part. It's just too tiring, and there are few people willing to argue a point with an open mind.
I now understand why Justice Thomas rarely speaks during oral argument.
65 posted on 12/24/2013 8:49:17 PM PST by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I have an official Concealed Handgun License issued by the State of North Carolina, meaning I can officially exercise my 2nd Amendment right in North Carolina. I guess this means I can now legally carry in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, and any of the 57 states, right?

Right?

66 posted on 12/24/2013 9:34:54 PM PST by Gritty (Liberals think living your life free of welfare, EBT, and government nannies is "cheating"-J Hawkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
What's 2A?? This reminds me, notice the lib judges don't apply the same rule to gun licences.

2Amendment= or in other words, MY states gun 'license'...

67 posted on 12/25/2013 5:38:18 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ridiculous! I am from the Buckeye state. Here is a real good article pertaining to this-

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?
http://www.asoldiersprogress.com/2013/12/what-does-bible-say-about-homosexuality.html


68 posted on 12/25/2013 3:18:04 PM PST by bradley75 (Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zman

Same here.
I have found that they love to spout their bumper sticker slogans but when they are questioned they demonstrate their ignorance on such issues and have no facts what so ever.
In the end they either spout names or just say they don’t want to talk about it.

Either way , if the ignorant and dumb were not allowed to vote unless they knew what they were voting for then the Dem party and Bozo the clown would have no got voted in.


69 posted on 12/25/2013 7:29:59 PM PST by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What good is living is a democracy? This is a corruptocracy!


70 posted on 12/26/2013 5:26:39 AM PST by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

People are going to have to ignore the faggot judge.


71 posted on 12/26/2013 5:27:07 AM PST by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ohio tells ‘federal’ judge to go stuff him(?)self


72 posted on 12/27/2013 6:45:37 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zman
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Then state's laws mean NOTHING. Get rid of the borders.

73 posted on 12/27/2013 6:46:47 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
It took a devout Christian last week to speak out.

Jeff Smith spoke out about James Taylor, too.

74 posted on 12/27/2013 6:47:44 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-74 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson