Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage was under siege yesterday by a federal judge who said the state must recognize same-gender couples legally married elsewhere, and by a gay-rights group planning to challenge it at the ballot box.

Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage was under siege yesterday by a federal judge who said the state must recognize same-gender couples legally married elsewhere, and by a gay-rights group planning to challenge it at the ballot box.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black sent out shock waves with a verbal announcement in his Cincinnati courtroom that, within 10 days, he will issue a written ruling requiring Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. Black gave no indication that he would strike down the state's gay-marriage ban overall, but the big-picture effect on marriage in Ohio remains unclear.

"I intend to issue a written decision and order by April 14 striking down as unconstitutional under all circumstances Ohio's bans on recognizing legal same-sex marriages from other states," Black said in a statement released by his court.

>> Follow @OhioPoliticsNow for more political news from The Dispatch

Despite the uncertain impact, gay-marriage advocates began celebrating.

"Ohio's marriage ban is about to suffer a huge blow," said Michael Premo, executive director of Equality Ohio. "In just ten days or less, we will take a landmark step towards winning marriage equality in Ohio once and for all."

A couple of hours earlier, FreedomOhio, another advocacy group which has been collecting signatures for a constitutional challenge, announced it would not try to put the issue on the November ballot. Instead, it will "hold its original petition for marriage equality in a state of readiness for filing" while gathering signatures for another petition with "revised language" likely for the 2016 ballot.

That revised language, requested by national gay-rights groups, eliminates a provision saying that "no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage."

The new ballot language, submitted to the state yesterday says, "No religious house of worship or the religious house of worship's clergy shall be required to perform a marriage. All legally valid marriages shall be treated equally under the law. For the purposes of this section, a religious house of worship is one where the primary activity is religious worship."

FreedomOhio also simultaneously began circulating an initiated statute petition for an Equal Housing and Employment Opportunity Act to prohibit discrimination against gay and transgender individuals in housing and employment. The group must collect 116,000 valid signatures of registered Ohio voters to submit the measure to the General Assembly in January 2015. The legislature would have four months to act; if it didn't, the group could gather another 116,000 signatures to win a spot on the ballot, likely in 2016.

Neither development was welcome news to Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, the conservative Cincinnati-based group that spearheaded the same-sex marriage amendment.

"The people of Ohio voted 62-38 percent in 2004 defining marriage as one man and one woman," Burress said in a statement. "The only way homosexual activists have any chance of forcing upon all Americans same-sex marriage is through the courts."

The case Black will decide involves Ohio rules on whose name can go on Ohio birth certificates when legally married gays adopt a child.

Cincinnati attorney Al Gerhardstein, who represented several gay couples in the case, told The Dispatch that the judge said he will rule that it is "unconstitutional for Ohio not to recognize out-of-state marriages. … The case does not deal with the right to marry in Ohio. We didn't ask for that."

However, it would require Ohio to recognize marriages performed in 17 states and the District of Columbia, Gerhardstein said.

Attorney General Mike DeWine said once the ruling is filed he will immediately appeal it to 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. DeWine agreed that the case deals with recognition of out-of-state gay marriages only.

"This is a very narrow case. ... It does not totally strike down Ohio's ban. There is no order that tells 'Ohio, you have to start marrying people.' The key is what he says in his order. Until we see the order, we don't know the breadth of it or the narrowness of it," the attorney general told The Dispatch.

"The question of what happens with Ohio's law in general will have to be left to another day," he said. "There's going to a lot more court action."

Much of the reaction to Black's announcement was supportive.

State Rep. Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said the issue is "Does every citizen in the state of Ohio have full citizenship or not? I'm a legislator, and because I'm a lesbian, I don't have full citizenship rights."

As for ballot issues, Antonio said might be "a good moment to press pause. I don't think there's any one group, entity or legislature that has a magic answer to all of this. … This isn't just about politics. People's lives are at stake."

Antonio and her partner of 20 years have been "holding out for Ohio" to allow same-sex marriage before they wed, she said.

An anti-discrimination law similar to what FreedomOhio will propose has been introduced as House Bill 163, sponsored by Antonio and Ross McGregor, R-Springfield.

Gov. John Kasich declined to comment on the court case. His likely Democratic opponent, Ed FitzGerald, said the ruling will be "an important first step to full marriage equality. … Who you love and commit yourself to should not be prohibited by governments."

ajohnson@dispatch.com

@ohioaj