1. Lucca says

    What is that sound we’re hearing? It’s the chip chip chipping away of the unconstitutional laws. The walls of inequality are crumbling as they were made of faulty material.

  2. Francis says

    The headline is wrong. Judge Black didn’t say anything about Ohio’s constitutional ban against marriage in the state itself. However, this gives us more ammunition to, at the very least, force Ohio to recognize all out-of-state marriages in Ohio, which would effectively legalize same-sex marriage in the state!

    Chip chip chip, these red states don’t know what hit them!

  3. says

    This narrow ruling is huge. Even with restriction to death certificates only in this case,which was for burial, the ruling neonetheless underscores, rightfully, that Ohio (or any other state) cannot take away the status of legal marriages performed in other states.
    Many states made not recognizing out of state same sex marriages a integral part of their marriage bans between 2000 & 2012.
    This ruling is the first to clarify that states have no right to invalidate legal out of state same sex marriages.

    Judge Black knows what he’s doing.

  4. Gregory In Seattle says

    Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution says, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” This is the reason why a marriage enacted in one state is valid in all states.

    I am surprised that Due Process was the basis of this ruling, and not the Full Faith and Credit clause. I’m not sure if the FFCC has ever (yet) been ruled on with regards to marriage equality.

  5. Randy says

    More footnote:
    “although the question of whether Ohio’s refusal to grant same-sex marriages also violates Ohio same-sex couples’ right to due process and equal protection is not before the Court in this case, the logical conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, arguments, and law presented here is that Ohio’s violation of the constitutional rights of its gay citizens extends beyond the bounds of this lawsuit.”

  6. MiddleoftheRoader says

    The ruling is NOT as narrow as your first sentence says, that is, the ruling is NOT limited to death certificates. If you read the actual findings of the Judge at the end of his Opinion, Finding #1 under “Conclusions” says that Ohio cannot refuse to recognize validly-conducted out-of-state same-sex marriages: “The Court finds and declares that Article 15, Section 11, of the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio Revised Code Section 3101.01(C), violate rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is lawful, who seek to have their out-of-state marriage recognized and accepted as legal in Ohio, are denied their fundamental right to marriage recognition without due process of law; and are denied their fundamental right to equal protection of the laws when Ohio does recognize comparable heterosexual marriages from other jurisdictions, even if obtained to circumvent Ohio law.”

    The Judge did NOT issue an injunction against the general enforcement of the Ohio ban for everyone (see Finding #2 under his Conclusions) — he ordered only the death certificates of the two couples before him to reflect that they are validly married. So, in that sense, the injunctive relief was narrow. BUT NO DOUBT, the Judge ruled that the Ohio law against recognizing valid out-of-state same-sex marriages is unconstitutional (for everyone, not just the two couples).

  7. says

    ‘Just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, “the state-law shoe” has now dropped in Ohio.’

    Just like Shelby, Justice Black delivers some backhand Scalia smackdown.

  8. Francis says

    If you look through the details, not only did Judge Black effectively say Ohio’s ban on recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, but so is disallowing marriage equality in general. He basically said Ohio’s current laws on this issue are based on moral disapproval which isn’t a valid reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

    The actual effect of the ruling is narrow but the reasoning behind it is strong. Ohio is appealing this ruling to the 6th Circuit.

  9. says

    This is a house of cards ruling. He pulled a card from the bottom with what looks like a restricted law suit but worded his ruling so that it affects all the SS marriage prohibitions in Ohio. They’re all going to tumble.

    If Ohio must recognize out-of-state SS marriages on death certificates then they have to be recognized in all aspects of civil law. How can they not? You’re not just suddenly legally married at death without having been legally married in life.

    In a broader vein he cited Windsor ruling on all marriage laws have to be within constitutional guarantees and also cited recent Utah & NM Court decisions that state bans on SSM are unconstitutional.

    Gotta think that he knew this full well. Make what appears to be a restricted ruling while knowing it is going to affect all the SSM laws in Ohio.

Leave A Reply