Via The Volokh Conspiracy, Gawker is reporting that an Obama-appointed Democrat politician masquerading as a federal judge in the Southern District of Ohio has decided that the state's definition of marriage as a one man-one woman relationship is unconstitutional. "Judge" Timothy Black slapped a preliminary injunction to Sec. 11 of Article XV of the Ohio Constitution, passed by Ohio voters in 2004, along with Sec 2. of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), where states would not have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (this is on top of the now-overturned Sec. 3, having to do with federal benefits). At the same time, "Judge" Black has invalidated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the 1st Amendment, along with the 10th Amendment.
James Obergefell and John Arthur of Cincinnati, OH claimed to have been in a loving relationship for 20 years. Mr. Arthur is dying of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and will pass away soon. Because Ohio doesn't recognize same-sex "marriages", the couple went to Maryland earlier this month to be "married" there, then returned to Ohio. Mr. Obergefell wants to force the state of Ohio to indicate that his partner is "married" on the death certificate, even though the state isn't allowed to do so under Ohio law. The city of Cincinnati is refusing to defend the previously-mentioned section of the Ohio Constitution; however, the registrar responsible for recording death certificates is legally obligated under Ohio law to indicate on Mr. Arthur's death certificate that he is unmarried (failure to do so could subject the registrar to prosecution).
I'm sorry Mr. Arthur is dying and I sympathize with Mr. Obergefell. But it's ridiculous to throw out the 1st and 10th Amendments, not to mention the will of the voters of Ohio and the will of Congress, just so Mr. Obergefell can claim he and his partner are "married" on a death certificate in a state that doesn't recognize his "marriage". At some point, Ohio may recognize same-sex "marriages"; Sec. 3705.22 of Ohio's Revised Code states death certificates may be amended to note changes, in this case Mr. Arthur's marital status. But that day isn't today.
"Judge" Black claims Ohio's marriage amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause, citing Justice Kennedy's ridiculous and hate-filled majority opinion in Windsor, along with saying the state of Ohio has no legitimate state purpose in denying same-sex couples the "right" to be "married" under Ohio law. He mentions that Ohio recognizes out-of-state marriages when the couple are first cousins or one of the spouses is a minor under Ohio law. Under Black's warped thinking, a same-sex "marriage" is no different, despite the fact that even those married under the conditions he mentions requires one man and one woman. Even though it doesn't apply, Black cites Kennedy's majority opinion in the recent Windsor case; Black even has the gall to cite Justice Scalia's brilliant dissent:
Indeed, just as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, “the state-law shoe” has now dropped in Ohio.
And darn it, Black the Democrat politician masquerading as federal judge is going to make sure the American people are forced to recognize same-sex "marriage", and no vote by the people is going to prevent it.
These Democrat "judges" (and some Republicans) have taken the whole "no legitimate state purpose" argument to the hilt in these same-sex "marriage" cases. Just about every single state Constitution bars discrimination against those with the religious belief that a same-sex "marriage" will never be recognized. By it's very nature, this means states have a most definitive legitimate state purpose in not recognizing same-sex "marriage", especially when it's the voters who have made that determination. But these "judges" would have it appear that these anti-discrimination laws don't exist, whereas discrimination against sexual orientation is paramount and anything that seems to be discriminatory against this Democrat identity group du jour is to be tossed. Of course, we are talking about a political party whose politicians (which includes "judges" like Black) promote deviancy, lust, and irresponsibility. And then they get Republican squishes like Anthony Kennedy to help them with this promotion. On top of that, "Judge" Black illegitimately cites Loving even though laws recognizing a marriage as between one man and one woman aren't anything like the anti-miscegenation laws thrown out by the Supreme Court in 1965. Again, no freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution, not even the 10th Amendment, let alone the 1st, is going to get in the way of forcing same-sex "marriage" down our throats.
How does "Judge" Black come to his conclusions? By illegally denying what is a marriage on page 2 [bold emphasis mine]:
By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins and marriages of minors), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, likely violates the United States Constitution which guarantees that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."
Up until ten years ago, every state and the federal government understood that a marriage could only be between a man and a woman. By making the emphasized distinction, as other "judges" have, "Judge" Black has illegally taken it upon himself to decide what is a marriage under federal law. So on top of sending the 1st and 10th Amendments into the abyss, they are followed by Article I, Section 1 (only Congress can make federal law). Along with Ohio law, every other states' laws, and the will of those who do not recognize same-sex "marriage".
So where will this go? Technically, this is an injunction to prevent those who record death certificates in Ohio from being forced to note someone claiming to be "married" as unmarried because Ohio law doesn't recognize the marriage, not a ruling on the merits. Given the indication, there is no doubt Black the Democrat would nullify the specified section of the Ohio Constitution, the relevant Ohio statutes, and Sec. 2 of DOMA; remember also that Ohio law does allow for amendments to a death certificate, something "Judge" Black neglects to mention. It is likely that Gov. John Kasich (the defendant) will appeal the injunction all the way to the Supreme Court, even if he has to fast-track it considering one of the plaintiffs is near death.
Eventually, there will be a ruling on the merits. Considering the twisted logic, I have no doubt the Supreme Court will illegally force everyone to accept same-sex "marriage". Because, apparently, preventing "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts and allowing the federal government to promote homosexuality (and promoting kids to have sex and abortions) is more important than all those other silly rights we Americans thought were protected.
But you know what is really funny? According the same-sex "marriage" advocates, they believe what they want via the Equal Protection Clause will in no way allow for plural marriages. Considering the "judges" and Justices who have ruled for same-sex "marriage" tend to ignore the Constitution anyway, they may be right; unless and until Democrats adopt and promote plural marriage advocates as the new identity group du jour, equal protection will not be extended to those who want polygamy to be legal, even though logic dictates that it must.
To add to this, Kennedy's Windsor ruling is very, very dangerous. Not because it opens the door to having the federal government usurp state authority; it's worse than that. Kennedy makes it a point to bear false witness against those who passed DOMA in 1996 despite the fact that no state recognized any same-sex "marriage" and sodomy laws were still considered constitutional (under the 1986 Bowers ruling, which was overturned by Kennedy's Lawrence ruling in 2003). Kennedy claims animus against homosexuals was the reason for the decision, even though it is every American's right under the Free Exercise Clause to believe the homosexual act is a sin. At some point, and it will happen, same-sex "marriage" advocates will bring discrimination charges against religious institutions who would never be accepting of something that goes against religious teaching; and, there will eventually be enough "judges" and "Justices" in the federal Judicial Branch who will agree.
In previous posts and comments, I issued a warning that government at every level needs to get out of the marriage business or the federal government will use the Constitution against the American people to force its beliefs upon us. I fear it is too late, especially since no majority of politicians seems to have the courage to stop it to go along with those politicians who want to control us.
I don't recognize this country anymore.