Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Ohio supports Supreme Court review in marriage case

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Ohio state sealThe Washington Blade reports:

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine signaled on Friday he believes the U.S. Supreme Court should take up litigation seeking recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages in Ohio, but for the purposes of determining that states have a right to prohibit marriage rights for gay couples under the U.S. Constitution.

In a 34-page filing, DeWine and State Solicitor Eric Murphy make the case for review the consolidated case of Henry v. Hodges and Obergefell v. Hodges following a decision to uphold Ohio’s ban on same-sex marriage from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is thus far the only federal appeals court that found such laws were constitutional among four others.

Even though the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the state, DeWine says the Supreme Court should consider the case to issue a nationwide ruling overruling other courts that have determine the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit states from banning same-sex marriage through the democratic process.

“The country deserves a nationwide answer to the question — one way or the other,” DeWine writes. “For its part, Ohio asks the Court to answer the legal question in favor of a dynamic view that permits the democratic debate over proper policy to continue now and going forward, rather than a wooden view that takes that policy question out of the hands of this generation and all future generations.”

You can read the filing here.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

17 Comments

  • 1. Rick55845  |  December 12, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    “The country deserves a nationwide answer to the question — one way or the other,” DeWine writes. “For its part, Ohio asks the Court to answer the legal question in favor of a dynamic view that permits the democratic debate over proper policy to continue now and going forward, rather than a wooden view that takes that policy question out of the hands of this generation and all future generations.”

    Denial of a constitutional right is not a policy question. The wooden view would be one that held that a state may continue to deny such rights without a compelling governmental interest, or that the enjoyment of a constitutional right could be subject to majority rule.

    But I do agree that a nationwide answer to the question is deserved by all and is past due.

  • 2. RnL2008  |  December 12, 2014 at 4:48 pm

    So, this idiot wants SCOTUS to OVERTURN all of the other positive rulings and accept the one negative ruling from the 6th…..umm, that AIN'T gonna happen and in fact…I am of the opinion that SCOTUS has basically already shown their hand on how they are going to rule going forward…..and this idiot is NOT going to agree with it.

  • 3. RnL2008  |  December 12, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    But will these same folks agree with the ruling from SCOTUS when it DOESN'T go their way?

  • 4. RnL2008  |  December 12, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    I wonder if Dewines would have wanted to take that same approach with interracial marriages? It appears that he is okay with discriminatory actions denying one's fundamental right to marry…..just not gonna happen!!

  • 5. hopalongcassidy  |  December 12, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    DeWine is a magnificent example of the old adage, "Some people are just fucking nuts"

  • 6. Zack12  |  December 12, 2014 at 5:36 pm

    Keep in mind Mike Dewine was a major anti-gay homophobe when he was in the Senate so hm pushing SCOTUS to gut marriage equality nationwide is NOT a surprise at all.
    It fits right in with his bigotry.

  • 7. RQO  |  December 13, 2014 at 5:44 am

    Rose & Zack – Clearly DeWine has strong anti-ME views, but I would not be at all surprised if he (and Ohio officials generally) quickly implement any SCOTUS decision. I don't think Ohio is radically more conservative than Colorado, and I do see R Governor Kasich is becoming a viable Presidential candidate. In Colorado almost all the R politicians stayed out of the debate except the Attorney General, and when SCOTUS denied Utah & OK cert on October 6, he cleared up all the paperwork to proceed with ME in both state and federal cases in about 24 hours flat. DeWine really could mean he just wants, and will accept, a SCOTUS decision.

  • 8. RnL2008  |  December 13, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Okay, I can see your point, but just like the AG from South Carolina…..there is a chance that they will continue to violate the ruling or make some new legislation if they can…….my fear is that they will try other ways to not follow the ruling.

  • 9. guitaristbl  |  December 13, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Same old same old, nobody cares about their "arguments" at this point. Glad they filed, that leaves Tenneessee officials, who should file their answer soon enough I suppose.
    I do hope SCOTUS does not wait for cases such as the ones from South Carolina or ,now, North Carolina (Berger and Tillis will also petition for cert) to be fully briefed before they take on a case.
    All 4 6th Cir. cases should be before the judges by January 9, there are no excuses not to grant one then IMO. No time should be left to the 5th to rule.

  • 10. franklinsewell  |  December 14, 2014 at 8:56 am

    Guitarist – Tennessee's brief is due by Monday.

  • 11. Sagesse  |  December 13, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    Watch this. Not sure if it's been posted before, but the full video of the CATO Institute presentation (1 hour 20 mins) on the 1954 One Inc. vs Olesen cast is here. This is the almost lost to history, original LGBT rights decision from the US Supreme Court.
    http://www.cato.org/events/free-speech-minority-r

  • 12. F_Young  |  December 14, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    State of LGBT Rights: Married on Sunday, but Fired on Monday
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/14/

    Where state laws protect against discrimination based on marital status, but not sexual orientation, would that not offer legal protection against someone being fired for getting married, even if it is a same-sex marriage?

    According to Wikipedia, Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska and North Dakota prohibit discrimination based on marital status, but not sexual orientation, in their state laws.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimin

    In addition, there are likely many counties and cities throughout the US that prohibit discrimination based on marital status.

    Does anybody know of a city, county or state where it has been confirmed that protections against marital status discrimination extend to same-sex marriages?

  • 13. DACiowan  |  December 14, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    The amicus brief in DeBoer by the Eagle Forum is here . The gist of it is that the lower courts didn't have jurisdiction because federalism (translation: we like these laws so you guys tell the lower courts to stay away).

  • 14. hopalongcassidy  |  December 14, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    They skipped over Windsor as if it was a footnote to a parking ticket violation…

  • 15. F_Young  |  December 14, 2014 at 6:42 pm

    Parts of Montana lack legal protections while acceptance grows for LGBT community
    http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local

    This is a lengthy and surprisingly well informed and sympathetic review of the legal issues facing LGBT Montanans after marriage equality, published by the newspaper of a very conservative small Montana city.

  • 16. jpmassar  |  December 15, 2014 at 7:10 am

    ScotusBlog tweet: No new grants today.

    #SCOTUS orders this morning: no new grants, 1 CVSG, a supplemental decree in original case US v CA. Cert. denied in AZ medical abortion case

  • 17. F_Young  |  December 15, 2014 at 7:47 am

    Off-topic: Russia: Impunity for Anti-LGBT Violence | Human Rights Watch
    http://m.hrw.org/news/2014/12/15/russia-impunity-

    This is an extensive and authoritative overview of pervasive anti-gay violence in Russia today, by Human Rights Watch.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!