We start out the New Year with an interesting decision issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on December 23, 2013 in the case of Obergefell, et al. v. Wymslo, M.D. et al, 2013 WL 6726688. The primary issue before the Court was whether the refusal to issue a death certificate violated the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs legally married in other states.
The Plaintiffs were same-sex spouses, who entered legal same-sex marriages in Maryland and Delaware, and an Ohio funeral director. The Defendants were the officials responsible for issuing death certificates in the State of Ohio. The State officials denied recognition of spouses’ same-sex legal marriages after death of their partners on the basis of Ohio’s constitutional and statutory bans on recognition of legal same-sex marriages granted in other states.
The Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that, as applied to them, Ohio’s ban on the recognition of legal same-sex marriages granted in other states was unconstitutional. They also requested a permanent injunction compelling Defendants and their officers to recognize Plaintiffs’ marriages on Ohio death certificates that were required to be issued under the constitutional law and the evidence. The Ohio funeral director Plaintiff sought a declaration of his rights and duties when preparing death certificates for individuals in same-sex marriages.
After a hearing on December 18, 2013 the Court issued its opinion in favor of the Plaintiffs stating:
“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.”
The Court went on further to state that its opinion was based on a recently issued decision of the Supreme Court of the United States as follows:
“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—the lower courts are applying the Supreme Court’s decision, 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…”
While this decision only applies in Ohio, it is clear that the Judge followed established constitutional laws. It is probable that a federal or even a state Court in another state would reach a similar conclusion.