Quick Fact(s): Utah and Ohio - Same Sex Marriage Back in the Courts

Utah
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby refused the state's request for an emergency stay on his decision to allow same sex marriages in the state of Utah.  His original decision, which he voiced last Friday, said that denying same sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional under Utah law.  Judge Shelby told state attorneys on Monday that they had offered no new evidence and were only repeating the same arguments they had used during the original trial.  The state's attorneys will now take their case to the U.S 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There are 20 justices serving on the 10th Circuit.  Eleven were appointed by Republican presidents, (five of those eleven by Ronald Reagan, one by George Bush and five more by W).  Nine were appointed by Democratic presidents, (one by Johnson, two by Carter, three by Clinton and the last three by Obama.)  It's an interesting mix.

While hundreds of same sex marriages are going forward in Utah, there won't be any same sex marriage licenses issued in Cache County.  As a matter of fact, there won't be any marriage licenses issued there--period.  The Cache County clerk's office closed its doors completely in order to avoid abiding by Judge Shelby's ruling.  Expect Jill N. Zollinger (R), Clerk of Courts for Cache County, to be in court herself soon.  Federal court rulings are not optional.  By closing her office and refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses, she is breaking federal law.


Ohio
In July of this year, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black ruled on a case brought in Cincinnati against the state of Ohio by a same sex married couple who had been legally married in Maryland. One of the men was dying and wanted his spouse listed as such on his death certificate.  At that time, Judge Black ruled in favor of the couple, but stated that his decision was very narrow and only applied to this one specific case.

This month, a similar case is before Judge Black.  This one has been brought by two widowed, same sex men who want the Judge's earlier ruling applied to them.  There is more at stake here than a name on a piece of paper.  A legally recognized surviving spouse can be eligible for state survivor benefits and life insurance payouts that could otherwise be denied.

State Attorney Bridget Coontz argued that the U.S. Supreme Court left it to individual states to decide whether they would recognize same sex marriages.  She argued that in 2004 the people of Ohio voted in favor of a state constitutional amendment banning such unions. 

So much has changed in nine years that I cannot help but wonder what the outcome would be if that same issue were put before Ohio voters today.   

Though Judge Black's decision is not due for another two weeks, indications are that he will once again rule against my home state of Ohio.  In examining the state's case, Judge Black asked Ms. Coontz:  "If the United States Supreme Court said the federal government cannot fail to recognize valid same-sex marriages, why can the states?"

It is important to note that this case still has a narrow focus.  Judge Black is only being asked to decide whether a same sex couple, legally married in another state, has the right to have a surviving spouse listed as such on a death certificate.  But Judge Blacked noted that "in the real world out there, the stakes are larger."

And every brick that gets removed from Ohio's anti-same sex marriage amendment brings us one brick closer to seeing that amendment crumble completely.  That day can't come fast enough.