Menu

Same-sex marriage (SSM) in Ohio: Out-of-state
SSMs recognized in OH, but only for dead people.
2014-APR: Will be recognized for live people too.
Federal lawsuit "Henry v. Wymyslo" recognizes
out-of-state SSMs.
2014-AUG: Lawsuit heard by 6th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals. Court upholds the ban!

On this web site:

"SSM" refers to same-sex marriage.
"LGBT" refers to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Transsexual community.

Contrasting quotations:

	"If marriage means everything, it means absolutely nothing." Dr. James C. Dobson, of Focus on the Family.
	"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?" From a posting to an Internet mailing list; used by permission of the author.

Timeline concerning same-sex marriage in Ohio:

• 2004: The state constitution was modified to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. Loving, committed same-sex couples are to be continued to be treated as "legal strangers" -- as roommates without any recognition of their relationship or protections for themselves and their children.
  
  
• 2013-APR: Poll shows that 54% of Ohio adults support a proposal to repeal the constitutional ban on SSM. This is very similar to national polls at the time.
  
  
• 2013-JUL: A couple, John Arthur, 47 and Jim Obergefell, married in Maryland, returned to Ohio, and launched a lawsuit to have their death certificates indicate that they had been married. They needed that in order to be buried together in the family cemetary plot. They won their case. The judge in federal District Court issued a temporary injunction ordering that their death certificates indicate that they were married. This temporary injunction was made permanent for all same-sex marriages by residents of Ohio who had solemnized their marriages outside of Ohio. Working on the basis that one married same-sex couple is too many in Ohio, the state is appealing the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  
  
• 2014-FEB: Four same-sex couples who married out-of-state filed a lawsuit "Henry v. Wymyslo" in federal District Court to have their marriages recognized so that they could obtain normal birth certificates for their about-to-be born children.
  
  
• 2014-APR to AUG: District Court Judges issues ruling in "Henry v. Wymyslo" case supporting recognition of their marriages. The case is appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, along with similar cases from three other states.

Sponsored link.

• 2014-NOV-06. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found same-sex marriage bans in 4 contiguous states to be constitutional! This came as a surprise to many observers because dozens of federal courts had ruled the state bans to be unconstitutional since the high court's ruling in Windsor v. United States during mid-2013.

  U.S. District courts had declared SSM bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee to be unconstitutional because they violate the due process and/or equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. All four cases were appealed to a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who declared the bans constitutional by a 2:1 vote.

  This ruling is expected to be resolved in the future by an appeal to the full 6th Circuit Court or to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the high court had refused to hear appeals from the 4th, 7th and 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals one month previously, they are much more likely to accept an appeal from the 6th Circuit Court. That is because the U.S. Supreme Court is now faced with a conflict among the Circuit Courts: three have ruled in favor of marriage equality and the 6th has now ruled against. As long as there is agreement among the lower courts, the high court is often reluctant to interfere. But if there is a conflict, the Justices often feel that they have an obligation to intervene to resolve the conflict.

Topics covered in this section:

• Part 1: 2004-NOV: SSM Ban added to Constitution. 2013-MAR: Saperstein opinion poll. Comments
  
  
• Part 2: 2013-MAR: Readers' comments on poll article. APR: Quinnipiac poll. JUL: Obergefell v. Kasich case
  
  
• Part 3: 2013-JUL: Obergefell v. Kasich case: final ruling
  
  
• Part 4: 2013-JUL: Obergefell v. Kasich case (Cont'd)
  
  
• Part 5: 2013-JUL/DEC: Obergefell v. Kasich ruling made permanent. Reactions to the ruling
  
  
• Part 6: 2014-FEB: Lawsuit Henry v. Wymyslo filed by 4 same-sex couples
  
  
• Part 7: 2014-APR to NOV: Judge issues ruling on out-of-state SSMs. 6th U.S. Court of Appeals hears cases from 4 states and issues a surprise ruling
  
  
• Part 8: 2014-NOV to now: Reactions to the ruling by the 6th Circuit affecting Ohio, as well as Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee
  
  

• 2014-NOV to now:

  • Part 1: Ruling by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Reactions
    
    
  • Part 2: More reactions to the 6th Circuit Court's decision. Cases appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court!
  • Part 3: The U.S. Supreme Court accepts repeals of SSM cases from KY, MI, OH, & TN. Reactions [6 parts, A to F]

Copyright © 2013 & 2015 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2013-JUL-25
Latest update: 2015-JAN-17
Author: B.A. Robinson

Sponsored link

Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Page Translator: This page translator works on Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only After translating, click on the "show original" button at the top of this page to restore page to English.