Chrissie Thompson

The Cincinnati Enquirer

CINCINNATI — A federal judge gave notice Friday that he will require Ohio officials to recognize any gay marriages performed in other states for Ohio's 20,000 same-sex couples.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Black made the statement after final arguments in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban.

"Ohio's recognition bans that have been relied upon to deny legal recognition to same-sex (marriages) validly entered in other states ... violate the rights secured by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," he said.

Black will issue the ruling April 14 prohibiting Ohio officials from enforcing the ban, but it will not mean Ohio must allow same-sex couples to marry in the state.

By announcing his intention ahead of his ruling, Black gives time for the state to prepare an appeal that can be filed as soon as he rules. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine confirmed that the state will appeal.

No federal court has upheld a ban on same-sex marriage since two Supreme Court decisions this past summer. In United States of America v. Windsor, the high court ruled the federal government's failure to recognize same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. The court also dismissed a case on California's Proposition 8, allowing the governor to reinstate same-sex marriages.

But the Supreme Court has yet to rule on recognition or licenses for same-sex marriage in individual states.

"Ours is a narrow case, but I don't think there's any secret that basically the United States Supreme Court is going to get the broader question on gay marriage," DeWine said. Lawyers for the state have argued that it is Ohio's sole province to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The case before Black involves four same-sex couples married outside of Ohio who seek to be recognized as parents on their childrens' Ohio birth certificates.

One of the couples, Pam and Nicole Yorksmith of Cincinnati, were married in California in 2008, have a 3-year-old son and are expecting another child.

"We're teaching kids of future generations that all families are different, and just because our family doesn't look like your family doesn't mean that ours shouldn't be recognized," Pam Yorksmith said.

Ian James, leader of a group trying to get a gay-marriage amendment on Ohio's ballot as early as this year, called Black's upcoming ruling "a step in the right direction" but said his group will continue to gather signatures.

James expects the Supreme Court to either rule that same-sex marriage is law across the USA or that individual states may set their own rules. If it is the latter, he said he'll be ready.

The Cincinnati-based legal team that filed the February lawsuit asked Black to declare Ohio's gay marriage ban "facially unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable." The lawyers indicated that following such a ruling, the window would be open for additional litigation seeking to force Ohio to allow gay couples to marry in the state.

"Ohio has made its own decision regarding marriage, deciding to preserve the traditional definition," state's lawyers argued in court filings ahead of Friday's hearing. They argued that prohibiting the state from enforcing its marriage ban would "disregard the will of Ohio voters and undercut the democratic process."

Almost 62% of voters approved a state constitutional amendment in 2004 that not only says marriage is a union of one man and one women but also prohibits the state from creating or recognizing a legal status for relationships of unmarried couples that approximates marriage.

Black's official ruling in a week and a half will follow a narrower ruling the judge made last year in which Ohio authorities were ordered to recognize gay marriages on death certificates.

In December, the judge wrote that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and that states cannot discriminate against gay couples simply because some voters don't like homosexuality.

"For the second time Judge Black has affirmed that the marriages of committed and loving same-sex couples must be recognized by the state of Ohio," said President Chad Griffin of the Human Rights Campaign.

Black's December decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed in July by Jim Obergefell of Cincinnati and another gay Ohio man whose spouses recently died. Each wanted to be recognized on the spouses' death certificates as married. In Obergefell's case, John Arthur, his partner of more than 20 years, died in October just three months after they were legally wed in Maryland.

Ohio officials already have appealed that ruling.

"There's no surprise that Timothy Black would rule for same-sex marriage based on his history of extreme liberal rulings over the years," said President Phil Burress of Sharonville, Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values. Burress is a longtime opponent of same-sex marriage. "What's just ruled against is the will of the people of Ohio."

Same-sex marriage advocates contend Ohio's constitutional amendment prevents committed couples from taking advantage of benefits such as joint filing of tax returns and family health insurance policies and also requires gay couples to contend with complicated legal paperwork to make sure they can take part in medical decisions and other milestones in life.

"We've been together 15 years. That's a long time to wait to get married," Jeff Caywood of Cincinnati said of his partner, Rob Neel. "We shouldn't have to travel somewhere else to get married. We're from here. We grew up here. We want to get married here."



The present lawsuit is one of more than 50 marriage equality cases working their way through courts across the country, the Human Rights Campaign said.

To date, 18 states, not including Ohio, have legalized same-sex marriage. Judges in several other states have said that their states must recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

Contributing: Jessie Balmert, Kimball Perry and Cliff Peale, The Cincinnati Enquirer; and The Associated Press