Federal Judge Finds Ohio Can’t Refuse to Recognize Couple’s Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriage
by Linda Beale
Federal Judge Finds Ohio Can’t Refuse to Recognize Couple’s Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriage
Dear Readers:
This has been a much needed break for me, but now I am ready to resume daily postings on tax, economics, and the potential for a just and fair society. As you all are undoubtedly aware, Messrs Camp and Baucus continue their claim that they will accomplish “tax reform” before Baucus leaves the Senate in January 2015. I remain unconvinced that this pair will put together the kind of reform that could merit passage. Too much likelihood of favoritism for capital income at the expense of ordinary workers; too much likelihood of favoritism for multinationals and natural resource extractives, etc.
On another front, the expected surge of additional cases challenging gay-marriage restrictions is taking place. Just Monday, a federal judge in Ohio ordered the state to recognize a 20-year couple’s relationship, suggesting that at least some judges will read Windsor expansively to declare that same-sex married couple‘s marriages in one state must be recognized in other states just like any other out-of-state marriage would be. The case is Obergefell. Here’s how Salon describes the ruling.
[Obergefell’s husband] Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a progressive neurodegenerative disease. Earlier this month, the couple sued the state to have Arthur’s death certificate reflect Obergefell as his spouse, and secure Obergefell’s right to be buried in Arthur’s family plot, which is only open to direct descendants and spouses.
Al Gerhardstein, the attorney for the two husbands, argued that Ohio should recognize same-sex marriages from other states because it recognizes opposite-sex marriages from other states, including some that are banned in Ohio like first cousins or too young people marrying.
Black found that the Ohio Constitution on the issue “violates rights secured by the … United States Constitution in that same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are valid who seek to have their out-of-state marriage accepted as legal in Ohio are
treated differently than opposite-sex couples who have been married in states where their circumstances allow marriage in that state but not in Ohio.”
This suggests that the Windsor decision invalidating (at least) section 3 of DOMAmay be read more broadly a s finding the entire statute unconstitutional, including section 2’s provision permitting states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states. It also foreshadows the likely trend in cases challenging states’ statutory and constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage on the grounds that they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
cross posted with ataxingmatter
I share your pessimism about tax “reform” particularly with Baucus involved–talk about a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Now if Sanders were working on it…. Anyway, I remain hopeful that enough people are beginning to figure out that the system is rigged and that it is rigged by the rich. Arguably the New Deal saved capitalism and it has taken 70 years for the wealthy to dismantle the society built on the New Deal. The GOP has not permitted any backlash against that and it just may be that the nostrum “pigs get fat, but hogs get slaughtered” will come to pass. The idea that 60% of Americans would throw out every member of Congress suggests that you can not fool all of the people all of the time. I do know that if the teabaggers are successful in scuttling meaningful immigration legislation they will have assured the end of their influence at least in the southwest but I have no idea of whether that will play out in a more just and fair society or just one that is bilingual.