Ohio must recognize gay couple's marriage, judge rules
— A federal judge in Ohio has ordered state officials there to recognize the Maryland marriage of a terminally ill gay Cincinnati man on his state death certificate.
The man and his husband, who were wed in Maryland, where gay marriage is legal, expect he will die soon.
<snip>
In his decision Monday, (U.S. District Judge Timothy S.) Black wrote that his order restraining the state from enforcing its laws applied to Arthur and Obergefell only, through Aug. 5 or as extended by the court. It will not affect Ohio or its other citizens, the order said.
But Black also took aim at the state's current law, saying Arthur and Obergefell were "not currently accorded the same dignity and recognition as similarly situated opposite-sex couples" in Ohio.
Black referred to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the federal law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal, and he challenged the notion that Ohio could pick and choose which out-of-state marriages to recognize — even among those that would be illegal in Ohio.
Black found that Ohio recognized opposite-sex marriages between first cousins and minors that are legally performed in other states, though they are otherwise illegal in Ohio.
A prominent Ohio Republican and former Cabinet member of Gov. John Kasich’s administration said Monday he supports an effort to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, contending the prohibition fosters intolerance and creates a roadblock to diversity.
Jim Petro, a former attorney general and state chancellor of higher education, has a daughter who is gay. She and her wife, who live in Massachusetts, are expecting their first child this fall.
“I believe in marriage equality, and I believe Ohio will be better and have better prospects for economic growth and prosperity if we did not have restrictive language in our Constitution as [the ban] provides,” he told reporters at a news conference in Columbus.
Ohio Plans Unspeakably Cruel Appeal Of Dying Man's Last Wish | ThinkProgress
My guess is this is one that will be fought after the man's passing.
My guess is also DeWine is a dick.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
A completely dick move on the part of the Ohio DA, and some of the posts in this thread reek of self-righteous bigotry and homophobic hatred. For shame. :2mad:
He is following the law - he has no choice,
Since the cemetery has guidelines and rules in place, why don't the men involved consider cremation? Both urns of ashes could probably be buried in the same plot, side by side, which would guarantee that they would be together for eternity, if that is their wish. Our family has done this. Just a suggestion...eace:
They aren't "cemetery guidelines" nor is the plot management a state function. The article says " in a family plot bound by a directive that only permits his lawfully wedded spouse to be interred alongside him" The family bought the plots years ago and setup directives on how they were to be managed. Basically the plots were purchased and setup in a trust and it is the directives of the trust that require legal spouses only in the plots for none blood family.
>>>>
Greetings, SMTA. :2wave:
:agree: Since when has following the law become "unspeakably cruel?" Sheesh! This sounds like another emotional diversion to avoid discussing our $17 trillion dollar debt, growing at $10 million dollars a minute, which is cruel to millions who will be affected if we go over the edge of the cliff!
Since the cemetery has guidelines and rules in place, why don't the men involved consider cremation? Both urns of ashes could probably be buried in the same plot, side by side, which would guarantee that they would be together for eternity, if that is their wish. Our family has done this. Just a suggestion...eace:
I think they're having more satisfaction arguing that it's unspeakably cruel than actually arranging a happy outcome.No.
The burial is one thing, I fail to see the issue there - but marriage does not and cannot happen after you die.
It is to the living only.
States do allow gay marriage - they should move if it's that vital.
Correct. Which means that those state laws are sill in effect... even in Ohio.Then they also have a fiduciary duty to bury him in that plot if he dies at any time prior to an appellate court ruling in favor of the State or a stay on the district court ruling.
The Supreme Court made no such ruling. The constitutionality of State bans wasn't even addressed.
I think they're having more satisfaction arguing that it's unspeakably cruel than actually arranging a happy outcome.
Was thinking the same thing...unspeakably cruel? Hyperbole much?
Dude couldn't be buried next to another dude. Call a cop.
Iirc, the OH judge decided that since OH recognizes other out of state marriages which could not be performed in OH, (like between 1st cousins and the marriage of minors, etc) that OH couldn't decide to not recognize just the one kind of out of state marriage which could not be performed in OH.It will be interesting to see the solution to this.eace:
That's not even the issue.
He just can't be buried next to another guy in that plot.
Nothing is actually stopping him from being buried next to the other guy elsewhere.
That's not even the issue. It's just a spiteful hate comment made by someone upthread.
That's not even the issue.
He just can't be buried next to another guy in that plot.
Nothing is actually stopping him from being buried next to the other guy elsewhere.
It seemed a pretty reasonable comment to me.
I certainly don't consider spouses being buried separately as "unspeakably cruel".
As I said though, the guy could just as easily be buried with his husband. He's the one who is basically choosing not to.
How unspeakably cruel can it be when he's basically inflicting it upon himself?
Sure he could. If he was buried next to a brother, uncle or even if his father was gay he could be buried next to a gay guy.
From my under standing of the OP article, there is no restriction on two gays being buried next to each other.
>>>>
Sure he could. If he was buried next to a brother, uncle or even if his father was gay he could be buried next to a gay guy.
From my under standing of the OP article, there is no restriction on two gays being buried next to each other.
>>>>
Is this like "the sequester is Obama's fault, because he didn't put down a mattress when the GOP started with the tantrums?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?