home
arts
literature
social sciences
special features
discussion
about glbtq
   search

 
   Encyclopedia
   Discussion
 
 
 
 
Advertising Opportunities
Press Kit
Research Guide
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Copyright
 
site guide
search tips
research guide
editors & contributors
contact us
send feedback
write the editor
 
 
 
 
subscribe
Subscribe to our free e-mail newsletter to receive a spotlight on glbtq culture every month.
e-mail address:
 
 
 
  unsubscribe
 
 
Popular Topics in Social Sciences
Stonewall Riots Stonewall Riots
The confrontations between police and demonstrators at the Stonewall Inn in New York City the weekend of June 27-29, 1969 mark the beginning of the modern glbtq movement for equal rights.
 
Gay Liberation Front
Formed soon after the Stonewall Riots of 1969, the short-lived but influential Gay Liberation Front brought a new militancy to the movement that became known as gay liberation.
 
The Sexual Revolution, 1960-1980 The Sexual Revolution, 1960-1980
The sexual revolution of post-World War II America changed sexual and gender roles profoundly.
 
Leather Culture
"Leather" is a blanket term for a large array of sexual preferences, identities, relationship structures, and social organizations loosely tied together by the thread of what is conventionally understood as sadomasochistic sex.
 
Anthony, Susan B. Anthony, Susan B.
Although best known for her crusade for women's suffrage, Susan B. Anthony spoke out on a range of feminist issues.
 
Africa: Sub-Saharan, Pre-Independence
With reports from hundreds of sub-Saharan African locales of male-male sexual relations and from about fifty of female-female sexual relations, it is clear that same-sex sexual relations existed in traditional African societies, though varying in forms and in the degree of public acceptance
 
Androgyny Androgyny
Androgyny, a psychological blending of gender traits, has long been embraced by strong women, soft men, members of queer communities, and others who do not easily fit into traditionally defined gender categories.
 
Russia
A cultural crossroads between Asia and Europe, Russia has a long, rich, and often violent heritage of varied influences and stark confrontations in regard to its patterns of same-sex love.
 
Topics In the News
 
Federal Judge Rules Ohio Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Posted by: Claude J. Summers on 12/23/13
Last updated on: 12/23/13
 
Bookmark and Share


The decision stems from a case brought by John Arthur (right) and Jim Obergefell.

In a decision issued on December 23, 2013, Cincinnati, Ohio federal district judge Timothy Black found the state's ban on the recognition of same-sex marriages unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the state from issuing death certificates that acknowledge legal same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Although the ruling is narrow, it has very wide implications. It is certain to lead to further challenges to Ohio's statute and constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and will undoubtedly influence litigation concerning whether states may refuse to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

As Amanda Lee Myers reports for the Associated Press, Judge Black's ruling may apply only to death certificates, but "his statements about Ohio's gay-marriage ban are sweeping, unequivocal, and are expected to incite further litigation challenging the law."

In issuing a permanent order requiring the state to permit death certificates to include information about same-sex spouses, Black cited the Supreme Court's June decision in Windsor that struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

"[T]he question presented," Black wrote, "is whether a state can do what the federal government cannot--i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples . . . simply because the majority of the voters don't like homosexuality (or at least didn't in 2004). Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no."

In a statement that will have profound implications for gay and lesbian couples who married in a state that permits same-sex marriage but reside in one that does not, Black wrote that "once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away." He said the right to remain married is recognized as a fundamental liberty in the U.S. Constitution.

"When a state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex couple married in another jurisdiction, it intrudes into the realm of private marital, family, and intimate relations specifically protected by the Supreme Court," he wrote.

Black's decision stems from a lawsuit filed in July by two gay Ohio men whose spouses had recently died and wanted to be recognized on their death certificates as married. Another plaintiff in the case is a funeral director who feared prosecution if he included the surviving spouses' names on death certificates.

Black asserted that "there is absolutely no evidence that the state of Ohio or its citizens will be harmed" by his ruling but that without it, the harm would be severe for two men who filed the lawsuit because it would strip them of the dignity and recognition given to opposite-sex couples. He also pointed out that death certificates are often evidentiary in decisions regarding insurance, pension, and probate issues.

Black ordered the state not only to recognize the marriages of the two men who filed the lawsuit on their respective spouses' death certificate but also to communicate his orders to anyone in the state involved in completing death certificates.

He also questioned whether the state constitutional amendment furthered any legitimate interest, noting that "the fact that a form of discrimination has been 'traditional' is a reason to be more skeptical of its rationality."

He added, "No hypothetical justification can overcome the clear primary purpose and practical effect of the marriage bans . . . to disparage and demean the dignity of same-sex couples in the eyes of the state and the wider community."

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said the state will file an appeal with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also based in Cincinnati.

The case arose from the dramatic story of John Arthur and Jim Obergefell's marriage in July 2013. Obergefell and his terminally ill partner Arthur traveled at great expense and inconvenience via air ambulance from Cincinnati to be married in Maryland on July 11, but when returned to their home, Ohio refused to recognize their legal marriage.

Thus, on July 19, the couple filed suit in federal court asking that the state of Ohio be compelled to acknowledge their marriage. In particular, the lawsuit requested that the Ohio Registrar of death certificates be required to record Arthur's status at death as "married" and Obergefell be listed as his "surviving spouse."

On July 23, Judge Black issued a temporary restraining order against the state of Ohio that granted the request of the couple in regard to the death certificate. Subsequently, another surviving spouse and a funeral director were allowed to join the suit.

John Arthur died on October 22, 2013. His death certificate listed Jim Obergefell as his surviving spouse.

Judge Black's ruling in the case, known as Obergefell v. Wymyslo may be found here.

 
Related Encyclopedia Entries
 
browse:   arts   literature   social-sciences   discussion boards
 
learn more about glbtq       contact us       advertise on glbtq.com
 
Bookmark and Share

glbtq™ and its logo are trademarks of glbtq, Inc.
This site and its contents Copyright © 2002-2014, glbtq, Inc.

Your use of this site indicates that you accept its Terms of Service.