Heading Logo

OUR VIEW: High court likely to decide gay vows issue

Voter-approved Bans in Ohio, other states liable to be contested

Published: January 27, 2014 4:00 AM

Attorney General Mike DeWine's decision to appeal a federal judge's ruling ordering Ohio to recognize out-of-state gay marriages on death certificates -- along with other pending appeals of similar rulings in Utah and Oklahoma -- could set the stage for an eventual Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.

Voters in Ohio, Utah and Oklahoma banned gay marriage in 2004. Federal courts in all three states have issued rulings recently that have contested the bans, citing last summer's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that The Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional.

The rulings in Utah and Oklahoma cleared the way for gay marriages in both states, but same-sex unions there were halted pending appeals.

The Ohio decision being appealed by DeWine was not as broad as the rulings in Utah and Oklahoma. The ruling ordered the state to recognize legally valid gay marriages on death certificates. It criticized the state's ban on such unions as demeaning "the dignity of same-sex couples in the eyes of the state and the wider community."

Judge Timothy Black's ruling said Ohio's ban on gay marriage, passed by voters in 2004, is unconstitutional and that states cannot discriminate against same-sex couples simply because some voters don't like homosexuality, but he did not call for legalizing gay marriages in the state. In the ruling, Black wrote that "once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away," saying the right to remain married is recognized as a fundamental liberty in the U.S. Constitution. He referenced Ohio's historical recognition of other out-of-state marriages even though they can't legally be performed in Ohio, such as those involving cousins or minors.

[Article continues below]

Following Black's ruling, DeWine said his job "is to defend the Ohio Constitution and state statutes ... and that's what we intend to do." He noted the 2004 voter mandate banning gay vows in Ohio; officials in Utah and Oklahoma have also raised the same argument.

Judge Terrence Kern's ruling in the Oklahoma case challenged that contention. "Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed," Kern wrote. "It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights."

Citing the Defense of Marriage Act ruling, Kern continued, "Supreme Court law now prohibits states from passing laws that are born of animosity against homosexuals ... and prohibits the federal government from treating opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently."

In addition to Ohio, Utah and Oklahoma, the legality of a ban on gay marriage also is being questioned in Virginia, where newly elected Attorney General Mark Herring said last week that he would not defend the state's constitutional ban but would support gay couples who have filed court challenges against it. The same-sex ban will remain in force, however.

Regardless of the outcome of the appeals in the Ohio, Utah and Oklahoma cases, it appears that the final decision on same-sex marriage, an issue that appears to be taking on increasing importance as more states legalize gay vows, will eventually end up being made by the nation's highest court.

Rate this article

Do you want to leave a comment?   Please Log In or Register to comment.

TaggR Jan 30, 2014 8:07 PM

God don't like liars red. 

redleg6 Jan 30, 2014 4:24 PM

1 Peter 3:15...but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

anothervoice Jan 29, 2014 12:05 PM

@redleg6. I commented in regard to the topic of the article. I am not here to play"my religion is better than yours". You have made it clear you believe your beliefs affords you to be one judge, over many others.. As taggr stated,this is a bit hypocritical considering the topic..

redleg6 Jan 29, 2014 11:39 AM

@anothervoice..You are the one talking about your church.

Since you folks are so enlightened, I thought you could do a public service and explain what constitutes a Sin in the United Church of Christ. What does the bible say?

Sorry I asked.

anothervoice Jan 29, 2014 11:10 AM

@redleg6. I commented in regard to the topic of the article. I am not here to play"my religion is better than yours". You have made it clear you believe your beliefs affords you to be one judge, over many others.. As taggr stated,this is a bit hypocritical considering the topic..

redleg6 Jan 29, 2014 9:24 AM

@anothervoice...(My church, the United Church of Christ allows same sex couples to marry).

Question: What is Your churches definition of Sin? If I wanted to repent of my sins as Jesus and the Apostles stated, What is SIN?

Question: What is Repentence?

anothervoice Jan 28, 2014 2:00 PM

That is their belief, so don't marry same-sex couples.No one is making any church do that. You still need a marriage certificate from the State before any church marriage is considered legal, thus State law is discriminatory, you'll see in time. By the way, I would consider the religious beliefs of my church are being discriminated agaist by the State.Dening civil rights is breaking the law,

My interpretation of Rareearth57's argument says it was a majority that voted, challenging, that one person, judge, should not be able to change the right invoked by that vote;The judge is saying the policy is against civil right law, thats where minority/majority come in. Glad to hear your opinion.

TaggR Jan 28, 2014 1:45 PM

Two self righteous hypocrites below.

childofgod Jan 28, 2014 1:33 PM

Thank you little_r_republican for exposing the bigoted views of Trawl and some others. Sometimes the minority groups try to bully and intimidate the majority. The bully and intimidation attitudes are the problem, not how many agree or disagree with you.

little_r_republican Jan 28, 2014 12:12 PM

Say what?...

The catholic church considers marrrage a sacrament.  So I guess they are imagining that ?

Courts exist to provide trials for those accused of breaking the law. Where does minority or majority come into this?


anothervoice Jan 28, 2014 11:34 AM

# rareearth57. Isn’t this what Judges and courts are for - to adjudicate matters of inequality between parties. The courts exist in part to protect minorities in our country from the majority. Yes, this is a democratic society, but it can never simply be "majority rules," otherwise we might still have things like slavery. Just because one group outnumbers another, it does not mean the minority does not deserve equal treatment. The court rulings are meant to, not promote an agenda, but rather,  keep agendas out of Constitutional issues and look at the law only - not the biases of the opposing sides.

anothervoice Jan 28, 2014 11:31 AM

#childofgod, Are you saying that marriage should exist only for the purpose of producing children? There are many marriages that do not produce children either by choice, infertility, age or adoption, So you seem to be saying that these marriage should be less in the eyes of the federal government, or of the God of your religion of choice? (My church, the United Church of Christ allows same sex couples to marry).Those people are accorded no fewer rights because the two married individuals do not procreate - nor should they be. Many same sex couples either produce natural children or adopt, create new families, and are no more self-serving to the individual than any opposite sex marriage in which children are dearly wanted. The desire or ability to procreate should not determine which rights a married couple should have. Parents have a right to teach their children what they wish. But “other” forms of marriage exist. You will not be able to shield them from this. Hopefully, none of your children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews are/will be gay and have to. feel your judgement (oh yeah, love the sinner, hate the sin blah blah) There are often children in Same-Sex marriages. The children do have two parents. What children don’t have may be a day to day influence of one parent of each gender. That may not be optimal, however, that's not always what each child gets - even with straight parents. Children suffer the loss of a parent due to all sorts of different causes: death, divorce, drug abuse, or abandonment. Based on US "straight" marriage divorce rates, there are far more children doing well while still not being raised by a mother and father in an intact family than there are in dire straits. But in many committed gay families, there are two parents in the home, with children who are well-adjusted and successful in school. The American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association have statements supporting same-sex marriages based on the well-being it brings to the children based in part on the civil law protections it affords these families.

trawl Jan 28, 2014 10:29 AM


Your God has nothing to do with this.

Anyone who imagines marriage a religious thing is sorely mistaken. Marriage is a legal thing. Can't really blame you for being so confused about this, marriage is the only legal contract that is finalized by a priest and such.

Just go through a divorce (or talk to someone who has gone through a divorce) and you'll quickly realize Marriage isn't made of Fairy Dust. AKA: God.

And thank you for another example of how members of the group(s) that complain about their freedoms being taken away are more than willing to trample the rights of others.

Thats the scary thing about you people, you're more than willing to actively impose your beliefs on others who in reality have nothing to do with you and are just trying to get along with their lives.

All because your belief in a Majic Fairy and someone has made you believe it's OK for you to ram your beliefs down everyone else's throats.

childofgod Jan 27, 2014 3:01 PM

"...and the truth will set you free." The sad thing is that some of the young and impressionable are believing the lie that 2 men or 2 women should have the same rights as a Husband and Wife. God gave Marriage to a couple so they could experience the miracle of birth, and the natural experience of Love resulting in a new life. It also resulted in the continuation of Mankind, and two Parents who could teach a child the male / female perspectives. Sure, some decide in today's world to not have kids, but that's not how God planned it. His plan had wisdom, while man's plans often don't. Man's plans often have sin in them, and unintended consequesnces.

trawl Jan 27, 2014 2:56 PM

I guess you're all apoplectic over the Grammys.

trawl Jan 27, 2014 2:54 PM

"~~Black wrote that "once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away," "

Apparently the 2004 vote still holds, homosexual marriage still isn't legal in Ohio.

So what's the issue?

Only thing the ruling means is that if your marriage is recognized in the place you got married the marriage isn't void simply because you find yourself in Ohio.

Whats more, at one time in this country, and still in some parts of this world, interracial and inter religion marriages weren't seen as valid.

So do you really want to turn the clock back or turn America into some third world country by behaving this way?


trawl Jan 27, 2014 2:45 PM

Back in '04 when the Republican needed an issue to get their voter to the polls (Because Dubya sure wasn't doing it) they created the Anti-Gay marriage amendment.

And I remember hearing all this stuff about "If gays are allowed to get married what does that mean for /  do to my marriage?" or "Gays getting married means my marriage means less" or some such "stuff".

I still hear that ... stuff ... today and my answer now is the same as my answer then:

If anything happening in any other marriage has a negative impact on your own marriage then you had best look at and blame your own marriage because it must not be much.


trawl Jan 27, 2014 2:33 PM

~~rareearth wrote: "~~*** it not oppression to force the homosexuals views on ordinary people"

It really is a pity that there are people who have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked into believing that someone having a Right is the very same as that Right being forced upon them.

I don't know how to force a Right on someone but apparently these people think you can.

The whole thing about forcing views onto others is rather funny coming from the people who want to masquerade creationism as a science and have it taught in public schools.

I'm sure they'll have numerous excuses for that one.




redleg6 Jan 27, 2014 2:07 PM

Most Americans are completely unaware that the “Father of our country,” George Washington, who would also be considered this country’s first “Commander-in-Chief” approved the dismissal from the service at Valley Forge in 1778 of Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin. Why did he do this? According to the orders, which are held at the Library of Congress, Enslin was “attempting to commit sodomy” with another soldier. Under the title of “Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778” there is the following entry:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

What’s even more interesting is that Enslin’s dismissal came less than two weeks after another soldier, Ensign Anthony Maxwell, was acquitted of the charge of “propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin” on Feb. 27, 1778. Penny Star cites the transcription of the court martial dated March 3, 1778: “At a Brigade Court Martial whereof Colo. Burr was President (Feby. 27th. 1778,) Ensign Maxwell of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin. The Court after maturely deliberating upon the Evidence produced could not find that Ensign Maxwell had published any report prejudicial to the Character of Lieutt. Enslin further than the strict line of his duty required and do therefore acquit him of the Charge.”

Note that our first President viewed “sodomy” or homosexual relations with “Abhorrence and Detestation.” He was not a spineless, wishy washy, panty waisted man like the current occupant of the White House, who claims his views have “evolved.” He was a man that recognized perverse behavior for what it was, perversion. He was not alone either. In all thirteen colonies homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense and eventually that grew to encompass each and every one of the fifty states. By the way, that fell under “equal treatment under the law.”

The law was based upon Leviticus 20:13:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.”

This verse was “adopted into legislation and enforced by the colonies of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut.” Oh the irony that 2012′s GOP Mormon nominee for President Mitt Romney was the one to “legalize” homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts. Here are just a few of the states and the punishments they executed for sodomy.

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. NEW YORK

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT

Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. GEORGIA

That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. MAINE

That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. 13 [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. PENNSYLVANIA

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT

Ah, but some will say, “Thomas Jefferson would have never stood for this. He wanted liberty and equal rights for homosexuals to get married.” Not according to the record he didn’t. In Notes on the State of Virginia by Matthew Carey (1794) Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, “dismemberment” of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. I’m guessing there weren’t too many sodomites wanting that to take place. You might say that is Jefferson’s home state, but not Jefferson’s thoughts on the issue. Not so fast. Jefferson actually authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 226-227, from Jefferson’s “For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments)).

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/what-the-founders-believed-about-homosexuality/#QTC97ykcyOc4vtvh.99

little_r_republican Jan 27, 2014 11:43 AM

rare earth...I certainly respect your opinion.

rareearth57 Jan 27, 2014 8:50 AM

B y the way Judge black it was NOT some voters, it was the majority of the people.

Where do these judges get off overturning the votes of the people?

rareearth57 Jan 27, 2014 8:49 AM

B y the way Judge black it was NOT some voters, it was the amjority of the people.

Where do these judges get off overturning the votes of the people?

rareearth57 Jan 27, 2014 8:44 AM

President Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in his first inaugural address, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

*** it not oppression to force the homosexuals views on ordinary people, even though we are the majority?

Todays judges are using the Bill of rights loosely to say the least.

Independent judicial protection of rights by judges who are appointed and serve for life helps to ensure justice and the protection of individual rights. Citizens can also practice the civic values of consideration and respect in their daily lives in order to further ensure that the rights of the minority are respected.

An early example of legislation designed to protect minorities is the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed to protect the political and civil rights of women and ethnic minorities.

Their has not been nor has their ever been an act amended to the constitution to recognize the rights of homosexuals.

I for one of the majority do not want this perversion in the great State of Ohio.

I do not want my children to ever say " not that there is anything wrong with it".

My children will be taught as I was that homosexuality is a sin. It is morally, biologically, and religiously‎ wrong.

It is reasonable to expect marriage to be between one man and one woman. It is Unreasonable for any one man to rule that the majority must adhere to an unreasonable and unnatural act!

May God Bless America