Judge to Order Ohio to Recognize Other States’ Gay Marriages

[happyg]

Nothing says "true love" like close-up pictures of hands.Credit: Chrishowey | Dreamstime.com
A federal judge in Ohio is warning the state in advance that he’ll be ruling later in April that the state cannot refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. The same judge had previously ruled the state must recognize same-sex marriages for the limited purpose of listing relationships in death certificates. Some of the headlines out there on this latest development are a bit problematic. The judge will not be requiring Ohio to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some headlines give the strong suggestion this is the case. Instead, like recent rulings in Tennessee and Kentucky, the judge is saying Ohio will have to recognize gay marriages from states like New York and California, which now issue licenses to gay couples. Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed  notes:


This case, brought in February on behalf of Brittani Henry and Brittni Rogers, initially was about birth certificates, and being able to have parents’ marriages recognized on them, but, per Friday’s docket entry, the decision will be finding the recognition ban unconstitutional “under all circumstances.”

Presuming the state will appeal this coming ruling as well, expected by April 14, the case would join the other Ohio recognition case, as well as Tennessee and Kentucky cases about marriage recognition and the Michigan case about full marriage equality in that state, on appeal before the 6th Circuit.

 I noted earlier when a similar ruling was handed down in Tennessee that requiring states to recognize other states’ gay marriages could ultimately bring about the end of gay marriage bans without the Supreme Court having to make a big, broad ruling.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/04/judge-to-order-ohio-to-recognize-other-s
Scott Shackford

[Oceander]

Full faith and credit has to have some meaning

[EC]

Another chip away at the 10th Amendment.

[mountaineer]

Gee, it's almost as though the legislative branch is irrelevant anymore.

[Oceander]

Another chip away at the 10th Amendment.

how so?

[EC]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The key word there is respectively.

What this judgement is doing - in my sight, at least - is giving the state of New York a say in the inner workings of the state of Ohio.

[Oceander]

The key word there is respectively.

What this judgement is doing - in my sight, at least - is giving the state of New York a say in the inner workings of the state of Ohio.

Nope.  Article VI, Section 1:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.  And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Can't be unconstitutional if it's in the Constitution

[jmyrlefuller]

Nope.  Article VI, Section 1:
Can't be unconstitutional if it's in the Constitution

Pistol permits, for instance, that are issued in one state do not have to be universally recognized in all 49 of the others.

What makes a marriage license any different? If anything, the state of New York would have to have "full faith and credit" in the laws of Ohio, where such a marriage is unlawful.

[EC]

Then why have state legislatures at all?

Does this mean a Texan can walk around NYC with a weapon with a 15 round magazine? Texas is open carry, and as much ammo as you can physically carry is fine (some might say expected  ). It is the law in Texas, so New York has to accept that, by your reading of it.

Or take recreational pot use. If you are from Colorado, you can't be busted for possession anywhere else in the US? Simply because it is legal in your state.

Fake edit: Damn, Myrle. You type fast.

[Oceander]

Pistol permits, for instance, that are issued in one state do not have to be universally recognized in all 49 of the others.

What makes a marriage license any different? If anything, the state of New York would have to have "full faith and credit" in the laws of Ohio, where such a marriage is unlawful.

Because a marriage is a public act, a pistol license is not, it's the granting of a mere privilege to an individual.

[EC]

Because a marriage is a public act, a pistol license is not, it's the granting of a mere privilege to an individual.

If they were privileges, I would agree with you. Both are rights. No one can grant them or remove them.

[jmyrlefuller]

Because a marriage is a public act, a pistol license is not, it's the granting of a mere privilege to an individual.

What makes marriage any less of a 'mere privilege'?

[Oceander]

What makes marriage any less of a 'mere privilege'?

I really don't feel like going into the differences, because I'm sure you'll object at every turn.  go do some research and come back with an open mind.