Obergefell v. Wymyslo

Citation962 F.Supp.2d 968
Decision Date23 December 2013
Docket NumberCase No. 1:13–cv–501.
PartiesJames OBERGEFELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Theodore E. WYMYSLO, M.D., et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Unconstitutional as Applied

Ohio Const. Art. 15, § 11; Ohio R.C. § 3101.01.

Recognized as Unconstitutional

1 U.S.C.A. § 7; Colo. Const. Art. 2, § 30b.

Validity Called into Doubt

28 U.S.C.A. § 1738C

Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Jacklyn Gonzales Martin, Jennifer Lynn Branch, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, Lisa Talmadge Meeks, Newman & Meeks Co. LPA, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiffs.

Aaron Mark Herzig, Terrance A. Nestor, City of Cincinnati Law Department, Cincinnati, OH, Bridget C. Coontz, Zachery Paul Keller, Ohio Attorney General's Office, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

FINAL ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.

This civil case is before the Court for final decision on Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 53), the record evidence (Docs. 34, 42–47, 61; see Appendix at pp. 49–50 i), Defendants' memorandum in opposition (Doc. 56), Plaintiffs' reply (Doc. 62), and oral argument held on December 18, 2013. Plaintiffs include two individuals who entered into legal same-sex marriages in states that provide for such marriages and have been denied recognition of those legal marriages on their spouses' death certificates by the State of Ohio. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that, as applied to them, Ohio's ban on the recognition of legal same-sex marriages granted in other states is unconstitutional; and, therefore, that a permanent injunction compelling Defendants and their officers to recognize Plaintiffs' marriages on Ohio death certificates is required under the law and the evidence. Also present as a Plaintiff is Robert Grunn, an Ohio funeral director, who seeks a declaration of his rights and duties when preparing death certificates for individuals in same-sex marriages. Defendants are the local and state officers responsible for death certificates.

OVERVIEW

The Court's ruling today is a limited one, and states simply, that under the Constitution of the United States, Ohio must recognize valid out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples on Ohio death certificates, just as Ohio recognizes all other out-of-state marriages, if valid in the state performed, and even if not authorized nor validly performed under Ohio law, such as marriages between first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages.

That is, once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Moreover, as this Court held in its initial Orders this summer and reaffirms today, by treating lawful same-sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages ( e.g., marriages of first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, violates the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal protection: that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Therefore, under the Constitution of the United States, Ohio must recognize on Ohio death certificates valid same-sex marriages from other states.

This conclusion flows from the Windsor decision of the United States Supreme Court this past summer, which held that the federal government cannot refuse to recognize a valid same-sex marriage. United States v. Windsor, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013). And now it is just as Justice Scalia predicted 1—the lower courts are applying the Supreme Court's decision,2 as they must, and the question is presented 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, as follows.3

I. ESTABLISHED FACTS
A. Marriage Law in Ohio

The general rule in the United States for interstate marriage recognition is the “place of celebration” rule, or lex loci contractus, which provides that marriages valid where celebrated are valid everywhere. (Doc. 44–1 at ¶ 7). Historically, Ohio has recognized marriages that would be invalid if performed in Ohio, but are valid in the jurisdiction where celebrated. This is true even when such marriages clearly violate Ohio law and are entered into outside of Ohio with the purpose of evading Ohio's unwillingness to grant them. ( Id.). Ohio departed from this tradition in 2004 to adopt its statutory and constitutional prohibitions on the recognition of marriages between two individuals of the same sex (“marriage recognition bans”). ( Id. at ¶¶ 7, 32, 60). Prior to 2004, the Ohio legislature had never passed a law denying recognition to a specific type of marriage solemnized outside of the state. ( Id. at ¶¶ 32, 51).

Ohio Revised Code Section 3101 was amended in 2004 to prohibit same-sex marriages in the state and to prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. Sub-section (C) provides the following:

(1) Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state.

(2) Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.

(3) The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio ...

(4) Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, country, or other jurisdiction outside this state that extends the specific benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.

Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3101.01.

Also adopted in 2004 was an amendment to the Ohio Constitution, which states:

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11.

At the time of the passage of these provisions, Governor Robert Taft stated that their purpose was “to reaffirm existing Ohio law with respect to our most basic, rooted, and time-honored institution: marriage between a man and a woman.” He went on:

Marriage is an essential building block of our society, an institution we must reaffirm. At a time when parents and families are under constant attack within our social culture, it is important to confirm and protect those environments that offer our children, and ultimately our society, the best opportunity to thrive.

(Doc. 41–1 at ¶ 72).

During the 2004 floor debates over the legislation, Senator Jeff Jacobson stated that the legislation would not interfere with “the way adults choose to order their lives” because [a]dults can form household relationships” after the passage of the legislation even though those relationships “don't have all the bells and whistles,” [p]erhaps don't have all the opportunities,” and do not appear “equal to everyone else's.” ( Id. at ¶ 59).

The primary sponsor for the 2004 Ohio constitutional amendment, Citizens for Community Values (“CCV”), described as its core principle its goal to protect Ohio from the “inherent dangers of the homosexual activists' agenda.” ( Id. at ¶ 82).

CCV sent letters to school boards and superintendents in Ohio warning them, erroneously, that they would face criminal and “daunting” civil liability if they took measures to protect lesbian and gay students from violence and harassment. ( Id. at ¶ 84). In one of CCV's campaign publications, the organization misled Ohio voters about the need for the amendment, stating that marriage equality advocates sought to eliminate age requirements for marriage, advocated polygamy, and sought elimination of kinship limitations so that incestuous marriages could occur. ( Id. at ¶ 85). CCV warned Ohio employers that [s]exual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span.” ( Id. at ¶ 86). The television and media campaign in support of the amendment contained misleading statements, such as [w]e won't have a future unless [heterosexual] moms and dads have children,” and that [e]very major social science study tells us time and again: families are stronger with a wife and a husband; children do better with a mother and a father.” ( Id. at ¶ 88). 4

B. Plaintiffs James Obergefell, John Arthur (now deceased), David Michener, and Robert Grunn

Longtime Cincinnati residents James Obergefell and ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Bd. of Educ. of the Highland Local Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • September 26, 2016
    ...courts in the Sixth Circuit have done the same. Bassett v. Snyder , 951 F.Supp.2d 939, 961 (E.D.Mich.2013) ; Obergefell v. Wymyslo , 962 F.Supp.2d 968, 986 (S.D.Ohio 2013). After applying the four-factor test, two of these courts also concluded that heightened scrutiny should apply to class......
  • Bassett v. Snyder
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • November 12, 2014
    ...that decision, several courts in this Circuit have applied heightened scrutiny to such classifications. See Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F.Supp.2d 968, 986–87 (S.D.Ohio 2013) (finding that the Sixth Circuit “no longer” has “sound precedential authority for the proposition that restrictions on......
  • Jernigan v. Crane
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • November 25, 2014
    ...omitted)); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296, 1303 (8th Cir.1988) ; Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F.Supp.2d 968, 981 (S.D.Ohio 2013).Likewise, Separate Defendants' fourth rationale—stability, uniformity, and continuity of laws—provides no rationale......
  • McGee v. Cole
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • January 29, 2014
    ...holding that Ohio must recognize valid same-sex marriages from other states on Ohio death certificates. 962 F.Supp.2d 968, No. 1:13–CV501, 2013 WL 6726688 (S.D.Ohio Dec. 23, 2013). Defendant Clerks filed a joint motion to strike this notice of supplemental authority. ECF No. 45. They argue ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • U.S. Supreme Court Holds Same-Sex Marriage To Be A Fundamental Right
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 13, 2015
    ...LEXIS 102077 (S.D. Ohio 2013). The district court issued a permanent restraining order on December 23, 2013 in Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F.Supp.2d 968 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (the health department director was substituted for the governor as the named James Obergefell and John Arthur were in a c......
2 books & journal articles
  • Breaking the Binary: Desegregation of Bathrooms
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 36-2, December 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...in a variety of settings, transgender people are a politically powerless minority group."); see also Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968, 989 (S.D. Ohio 2013) ("[L]ack of political power is caused by a number of factors, including small population size and dispersion.").81. Adkins, 1......
  • The House of Windsor: Accentuating the Heteronormativity in the Tax Incentives for Procreation
    • United States
    • University of Whashington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 89-4, June 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...id. at 1236 n.2. 36. Id. at 1237. 37. Id. at 1237-38. 38. Id. at 1238. 39. Id. at 1238-39. 40. Id. at 1240. 41. Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968, 994 (S.D. Ohio 2013). 42. Id. at 995. 43. Id. at 995-96. 44. Henry v. Himes, No. 1:14-CV-129, 2014 WL 1418395 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT