September 22, 2014

Elyria
Sunny
58°F
test

Judge considers staying Ohio gay marriage ruling

Judge Timothy Black

Judge Timothy Black

CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal judge who ordered Ohio to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states says he’s inclined to issue a stay of his decision pending appeal, meaning most gay couples living in the state would see no immediate tangible expansion of their rights.

Cincinnati-based Judge Timothy Black ordered attorneys on both sides of the case to file their arguments over whether he should issue a stay no later than Tuesday afternoon. He indicated he would rule expeditiously.

Black said in his Monday ruling that he is inclined to stay his ruling pending appeal except in the case of the four gay couples who filed the February lawsuit that led to the court case.

If he rules as indicated, Ohio would immediately have to recognize the four couple’s marriages and list both spouses as parents on their children’s birth certificates.

Three of the four couples live in the Cincinnati area. They’re all women and one spouse in each relationship is pregnant and due to give birth this summer.

The fourth couple lives in New York City but adopted their child from Ohio.

Black said Monday that the state’s gay marriage ban “most directly affects the children of same-sex couples, subjecting these children to harms spared the children of opposite-sex married parents.”

“Birth certificates are vitally important documents,” Black wrote. “Ohio’s refusal to recognize plaintiffs’ and other same-sex couples’ valid marriages imposes numerous indignities, legal disabilities, and psychological harms. Further, the state violates plaintiffs’ and other same-sex couples’ fundamental constitutional rights to marry, to remain married, and to function as a family.”

Black’s order does not force Ohio to allow gay marriages to be performed in the state, though civil rights attorneys in Cincinnati are planning to file a lawsuit in the next couple of weeks seeking such a ruling.

The state plans to appeal Black’s Monday order, arguing that Ohio has a sovereign right to ban gay marriage, which voters did overwhelmingly in 2004.

Attorneys for the state also will argue that Black should stay his ruling until their appeal of it is decided in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

If Black declines to stay the ruling, that would allow all married gay couples living in Ohio to obtain the same benefits as any other married couple in the state, including property rights and the right to make some medical decisions for their partner.


  • golfingirl

    Let ALL the people of Ohio decide, not just a single judge.

    Put it on the ballot, allow the majority to make the decision, and live with the results, regardless of which side of the issue you are on.

    Can’t live with the results either way…….move to a state which supports your point of view!

    • Larry Crnobrnja

      I don’t think I agree with you. If we are talking about constitutionally guaranteed rights, then it isn’t up to the voters unless you are talking about an amendment to the constitution.

      • golfingirl

        You see it as a 14th Amendment Right under the Constitution.

        I see it as a 10th Amendment issue, where marriage should be subject to state regulation, without federal intervention.

        California is a lot different than Iowa. Often people choose where they live based on the lifestyle of the populace and how it fits with theirs.

        That’s okay, we can disagree.

        Have a good day.

        • Larry Crnobrnja

          The 14th supersedes the 10th. Even the 10th says so, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…”

          I’m not sure where there’s an opportunity to disagree.

          • Pablo Jones

            Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (14th amendment.)

            Doesn’t this mean it is up to congress to decide the corrective action even if the courts find it unconstitutional?

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            The SCOTUS is the final arbiter. By definition, they can’t be wrong.

          • Pablo Jones

            They decide if something is constitutional or not. They can not state how it has to be corrected. If something violates the 14th amendment then it is up to the congress to try and correct it. And then the cycle may or may not repeat. If some groups feel the change is still unconstitutional it will have to go through the courts again.

            I guess in the case of the Dred Scott decision the SCOTUS was not wrong when they said blacks could not be American Citizens.

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            Until the SCOTUS gives a new ruling, they are always correct.

          • Pablo Jones

            Well the SCOTUS never gave a new ruling on Dred Scott so I guess to the Supreme Court that is never wrong, inherently are not American Citizens.

            If that is your view that they are always correct then that says more about you. There are 3 parts to our government all 3 are intended to be equal, none greater than the other. The supreme court is not superior to the rest.

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            But the SCOTUS is the final arbiter.

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            The SCOTUS didn’t need to give another ruling.

          • Pablo Jones

            And why didn’t they need to give another ruling? Because their ruling, which still stands, was superseded by an act of congress. I guess they weren’t the final arbiter.

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            Are you kidding me? The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the constitution AS IT STANDS when they rule. A legally passed amendment changes all that. The SCOTUS doesn’t rule on what-ifs or maybes and doesn’t have a crystal ball.

          • Pablo Jones

            Wow so you agree with the supreme court that blacks born in this country are inherently not citizens. Says a lot about you.

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            Is that really what you concluded from my comments?

            PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE!

      • Pablo Jones

        History in America has shown that when things are decided by election or those elected, whether people agree or disagree with the result, they basically accept the decision. But when things are decided by a judge and not the people it creates bitterness and more conflict.

        For example Roe v. Wade, decided by judges and has been controversial ever since. If they would have let states decide some places would allow abortions other would not, but there would be less of the issues of what are rights and not.

        Look at elections, we can have people elected by the slimmest of margins, and people might not like the results, but they except them and move on. Out of the thousands of elected people across the country very few face recalls and those that do very few actually get recalled.

        If the proponents of gay marriage, truly want equality and to be accepted going through the courts will not get them what they want.

        • Larry Crnobrnja

          Your argument is a non sequitur. Whether you agree with a group or not, if you recognize their position is supported by our constitution, a true American will support them and fight against anyone opposing them.

          I don’t know what makes a person gay, but I do know the U.S. Constitution gives them the same rights as you or I. With that in mind, I can’t consciously stand in their way or support those that do.

          • Pablo Jones

            Their position is not supported by the constitution though. Just look at the example of Roe v. Wade, judges decided it was constitutional, even though it is not anywhere in the constitution and look at all the problems it has caused. A woman has the right to what she wants to do with her body, but if she wants to sell it then it is no longer her right.

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            I am against abortion…

          • Pablo Jones

            If it is constitutional then you can’t “consciously stand in their way or support those that do.” So to be clear you can’t consciously support pro-life groups?

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            “…you can’t consciously support pro-life groups?”

            Please read what I said once more and answer that question for yourself.

          • Pablo Jones

            Using your words for a different topic that SCOTUS said was a right.

            “I don’t know what makes a person gay, but I do know the U.S. Constitution gives them the same rights (to have a marriage) as you or I. With that in mind, I can’t consciously stand in their way (of getting married) or support those that do (stand in their way of getting married).”

            Substitute in for abortion

            I don’t know why a person wants an abortion, but I do know the U.S. Constitution gives them the same rights as you or I (to have an abortion). With that in mind, I can’t consciously stand in their way (of having an abortion) or support those that do (stand in their way of having an abortion).

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            I don’t personally support either group.

          • golfingirl

            It isn’t true that only a constitutional amendment can stop the courts from imposing gay marriage.

            Congress can stop the gay-marriage movement cold by passing a simple statute, saying nothing more than no State shall define marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.

            Equal protection clauses are interpreted different ways all the time.

            For example, most states don’t allow 14year olds to get married without parental consent. Don’t 14 year olds have equal protections. The Constitution does not limit these rights to “adults.”

            What about marrying your first cousin. Most states prohibit this, while some allow it. Why is this is not viewed as a violation of any equal protection clauses under the Constitution? This has been left up to the states. Why is gay marriage any different?

            My point is simply that equal protection is open to interpretation, and as the examples above point out, it is often left up to the individual states.

            Difference is, the gay marriage movement is organized and vocal. The “I want to marry my first cousin movement” is not. But should that make it any different?

            I am surprised a Southview graduate has a vocabulary which includes the word “non sequitur.” However I am not sure you are using it properly in this case.

            Have a nice day.

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            Because the constitution has been interpreted incorrectly in the past doesn’t mean we can or should disregard it.

            And non sequitur was spot on.

          • golfingirl

            Constitutional interpretation is the process of assigning meanings to the words in the Constitution, in order to justify laws.

            What you may have considered “incorrect” interpretation in the past, other may have considered correct; and vice versa.

            Legal scholars have debated these points their entire lives, and there still is not unanimous agreement.

            I would never suggest we discard the Constitution, but who then gets to interpret it? I suggest it is the people who are governed by its rules. Not an activist judge in a judicial system which has been transformed into nothing more than a political branch of the government.

            Just my opinion. Have a nice day and say hello to Cheryl for me.

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            “…and say hello to Cheryl for me.”

            I would if I had a clue who you are.

          • Pablo Jones

            My point wasn’t about whether it was constitutional or not. It is about what they say they want. They want equality and to be accepted. Which will not happen if they go through the courts.

      • Pablo Jones

        Again marriage is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. No where in the constitution is there a mention of marriage or the Federal government regulation of it.

        Now even if you want to apply the broad scope of the 14th amendment to it, it still isn’t unconstitutional.

        “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

        Marriage is a license as it is written and with all license there are conditions established that are either met or not met. If they are not met the license is not granted. The condition for marriage in Ohio is that marriage is between a man and a woman. This condition is equally applied to all people that want to get married. It does not discriminate against a gay or straight person. If a straight couple wants to marry (man & woman) they meet the conditions. If a gay man or woman wants to marry a person of the opposite sex for marriage between a man and woman they will be given a license. If they want a same sex marriage they don’t meet the conditions.

        The law is being equally applied and since marriage is not a constitutional right that allows the states to place the restrictions on the marriage license. If you disagree with that, then you are opening the door that age limits on driving or drinking are unconstitutional as well.

        • Larry Crnobrnja

          Married couples receive benefits that unmarried don’t. Go back and read the 14th.

          • Pablo Jones

            And those benefits are? So far I what I have found is in Ohio Gay couples can not file a joint tax return, which means they pay less in taxes. If they feel that violates them by not paying more they are allowed to pay more in taxes.

          • Larry Crnobrnja

            I believe we went through your ridiculous and ignorant reasoning recently. No need for me to disgrace you in public again.

          • Pablo Jones

            Your one liners, lack of reasoning, and poor arguments aren’t a disgrace to me.

    • Air and Light
      • golfingirl

        Are you Gay? Just curious.

        Trying to see this from a Gay person’s perspective.

        • Pablo Jones

          From the postings to me he (might be a she) is a teenager. One who has a close relationship to this topic (personal, family, friend, etc.) or has picked up the issue as their own personal crusade because that is just what some teens do. From the postings s/he isn’t old enough to realize a quick google search does not always produce accurate correct answers and doesn’t have the patience or knowledge to verify the info. Throw in the pictures and videos in the post and it narrows it down to a high school kid (15-17). I’d bet s/he is probably pretty smart, probably to a fault since they think they know more than they really do. Grades are probably above average but not straight As because they probably know the material but doesn’t put forth the effort to get the best grades on the assignments.

          • golfingirl

            Your are probably right. Perhaps a teen who is struggling with their own gender indentity issues.

  • Air and Light

    Those who say “Let the people decide”, those who ask “Is it a right ?”, those who say “Move to another state”. Those are the discriminating. prejudice people you need to be aware of. They breed hate, intolerance, and fear, just to name a few of the creepy things they breed. They are the bad guys you read about, they are the evil depicted in movies, they are the “Haterz” that get sung about. It will be up to you to see if there’s any good in them at all left.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym8ID1wsYXY

  • golfingirl

    Air and Light,

    Honestly if you want to place your male appendage into the rear of another man, that is your business. I really could care less.

    Just something about a man, rooting around in another man’s colon, that doesn’t appeal to me. But hey, if that is what you enjoy, carry on.

    I just have a problem with that visual. My issue I suppose.

    You are right, it is your choice, and I guess I just have to accept the fact this is what you enjoy.

    • Air and Light

      I suppose if this was during the civil war, and we were debating slavery, you’d call me a N***** lover too huh ? Callin’ em’ the way eyes sees them. What part of “EQUAL” rights don’t you understand ? Which one of you is Sito ? Oh, and apology accepted.

      • Pablo Jones

        Again you haven’t shown any laws that are not equal or result in a disadvantage to a gay couple.

        • golfingirl

          I don’t think there any sodomy laws any longer. I could be wrong though.

          If there are, I don’t think any states enforce them.

          You can pretty much stick it where you want!

        • Sis Delish

          Well, there currently is no Diana Ross or Melissa Ethridge 24/7 Music Channels, but there is an Elvis Channel playing The King’s Hits 24/7, 365 days a Year!

    • B4CE

      Pretty strong feelings , So no hetero an al for you? I feel for your husband. Maybe just relax ?

      • Sis Delish

        Nice to see our Public Education Dollars at work… sorry you had to struggle with your post. It must have been worth the effort?

        • B4CE

          Maybe you could make the topic of your next club meeting on difference between the words tricky and struggle.
          Or did the club disband because you got tired of playing with yourself?

      • golfingirl

        Don’t feel sorry for my husband, I can assure you he gets all he can handle…..laughing.

        I just think the whole visual of two men having s*x is gross.

        Just my opinion. You have yours, I have mine.

        Have a great day.

        • B4CE

          There Are a lot of straight couples that the visual of them together is off putting.
          Shall relations be reserved only for people that pass your “visual” test?

          • golfingirl

            Never said that. To each their own. Just telling you how I feel.

            Are you Gay?

    • Starryeyes63

      I am with you could care less what others do. I guess I should come out of the closet too I am a heterosexual, female, conservative whew I feel better. What I am sick of is others rubbing their sexuality in my face. Hey LOOK at me…….