ohio

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Featured Gay Friendly Wedding Vendor: Ludwig Photo & Video, Cincinnati, Ohio

Monday, August 3rd, 2015

Ludwig Photos

Periodically we’ll feature one of our vendors here to let our readers know about some great people who can help you plan the perfect wedding.

Around 1980 I was just starting my photography career when my cousin, who is gay, ask me to photograph a commitment ceremony. I was raised to be very accepting of people so I happily said yes. I borrowed some camera equipment from the photo studio I worked for so I could get some great images. When the photos came back through the studio I almost lost my job because my boss said I shouldn’t have used his cameras for such an event. It was difficult for me to understand why he was upset.

See the Ludwig Photo & Video Expanded Listing on Purple Unions Here

Gay Friendly Wedding Vendors in Ohio

The Four Worst Supreme Court Arguments on Marriage

Monday, April 6th, 2015

Matt BaumeMichigan says that they don’t want to let gay people get married because that would be demeaning to gay people.

Kentucky says that their marriage ban isn’t discriminatory, since LGBTs are free to get straight-married.

Ohio wants to maintain its marriage ban out of concern for the people who voted for it. And Tennessee is just fixated on sex.

By Matt Baume – Full Story at AFER

US Supreme Court Takes Four Marriage Equality Cases

Friday, January 16th, 2015

US Supreme Court Color

This is huge – the Supremes just took all four cases from the Sixth Circuit:

The Supreme Court has just granted certiorari — i.e. agreed to hear oral arguments — in the Sixth Circuit marriage cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. They were consolidated. This means that the question of whether or not the United States Constitution protects the freedom of same-sex couples to marry is likely to be decided by the end of June. The Supreme Court order, issued this afternoon at approximately 3:30 PM, contains the following instructions: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.

We should know by June if the whole US has marriage equality!

Find more articles and gay wedding resources.

New Poll Shows 43% in Ohio Support Marriage Equality Referendum

Tuesday, November 4th, 2014

titleThere’s a new marriage equality poll out in Ohio, asking Ohioans if they support or oppose a proposed referendum to legalize marriage equality.

The Columbus Dispatch reports:

By 3 percentage points — 46 to 43 percent — they oppose a gay-marriage proposal currently getting signatures to appear on the statewide ballot, probably in two years. Of course, that’s still a huge turnaround for a state that a decade ago voted 62 to 38 percent to define marriage in the Ohio Constitution as solely between one man and one woman. And the poll was taken of likely voters for today’s election, which many Democrats are skipping. Ohio’s electorate could be far different in 2016, a presidential election year.

The biggest qualifier of all is that the U.S. Supreme Court may make the Ohio petition drive moot by ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage before it ever gets on the ballot. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, currently is mulling cases from Ohio and three other states. Many experts say the ruling by that three-judge panel — especially if it upholds restrictions on same-sex marriage — could set the stage for definitive action by the Supreme Court.

The last poll we had showed 50% support for marriage equality in the state. Of course, this one is slightly different, asking for support for an initiative to repeal the state’s ban. It doesn’t tell us if some of those are opposed because they don’t think that rights should be voted on at all.

Find more articles and gay wedding resources in Ohio.

In-Depth Analysis of the Sixth Circuit Hearing

Tuesday, August 12th, 2014

Sixth CircuitSitting in the federal courtroom in Cincinnati, listening to the Sixth Circuit arguments in six same-sex marriage cases, one theme seemed especially prevalent: state defenders of same-sex marriage bans argued that the issue should be left up to “the democratic process”, and their concerns were shared by Judge Jeffrey Sutton.

Judge Sutton asked the plaintiffs’ lawyer in one case, “assuming you win,” isn’t it better and more honest to win by way of the democratic process? Sutton, whose background is in leading litigation that promoted federalism, alternatively wondered aloud whether LGBT people should win their rights by changing every person’s mind, and whether states are permitted to move one step at a time, addressing issues incrementally, even though their approach may leave some groups without protection for long periods of time.

A short and rhetorical answer to this problem is Justice Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, in which he said that “fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” That was one answer given by the plaintiffs. Judge Sutton seemed to suggest in his comments that the “dignity” that Justice Kennedy addressed in United States v. Windsor was tied to the fact that in New York, there was a decision by the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Without the state’s approval, he seemed to be saying, the win is less legitimate.

There are several problems with this line of thinking, and ultimately the Sixth Circuit may not adopt it because of those problems.

Authored By Scottie Thompson – See the Full Story at Equality on Trial

Find more articles and gay wedding resources.

Sixth Circuit Hears Marriage Equality Cases From Four States

Thursday, August 7th, 2014

Sixth Circuit

The Sixth Circuit heard marriage equality cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee yesterday.

Freedom to Marry has a nice collection of quotes from the decisions that got the cases here:

“Once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot take your marriage away, because the right t remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.” –Obergefell v. Wymyslo ruling, Ohio

“No one has offered any evidence that recognizing same-sex marriages will harm opposite-sex marriages, individually or collectively. One’s belief to the contrary, however sincerely held, cannot alone justify denying a selected group their constitutional rights.” Bourke v. Beshear ruling, Kentucky

“In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people. Today’s decision affirms the enduring principle that regardless of who finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.” Deboer v Snyder ruling, Michigan

Joe.My.God also has a couple videos from the marriage equality rally before the hearing:

During the hearing, at least one of the judges, Martha Daughtrey, openly mocked Mark Regnerus, author of a discredited study on gay parenting (from a reporter’s tweet and notes):

“Even the Texas professor’s University doesn’t believe anything this man says… What harm comes? It doesn’t look like the sky has fallen in other cases.”

Judge Daughtrey also pressed a Michigan Attorney on the comparison between bans on same sex marriage and interracial marriage.

She also pressed him to differentiate between banning same-sex marriage and prohibiting interracial marriage, which was prevalent in many states until a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia. “That was a vote by the people of many states against interracial marriage,” she said. Lindstrom countered that race doesn’t play a role in the fundamental definition of marriage.

The two GOP appointees on the panel appeared to give some weight to the “will of the people” argument, while the Democratic appointee appeared to clearly favor marriage equality:

Republican appointee Judge Jeffrey Sutton repeatedly questioned whether voters rather than courts should decide whether gay marriage is legal. Sutton is respected within legal circles and his views could help sway the five conservative members of the Supreme Court. The panel’s sole Democratic appointee, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, was the only member who clearly signaled support for plaintiffs seeking recognition for gay marriage. The third judge, Deborah Cook, gave fewer indications of where she stood. But like Sutton, Cook indicated that deference should be given to voters.

The New York Times has their own take on the three judges:

Judge Sutton did suggest that the arguments offered against marriage equality were weak, saying that marriage bans would be hard to defend if subjected to the intense “heightened scrutiny” that courts apply when fundamental civil rights are at stake. But he also wondered whether legal precedents in the Sixth Circuit and the Supreme Court should prevent the panel from declaring same-sex marriage to be a fundamental right deserving court intervention.

In often caustic questions, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, the Clinton appointee, left no doubt where she stood. When the lawyer for Michigan said that the courts should not tamper with an institution as deeply rooted as marriage, she replied that bans on interracial marriage were also deeply rooted before the Supreme Court found them unconstitutional. “That was the law across a huge swath of the Southern states,” she said.

The third judge, Deborah L. Cook, another Bush appointee, spoke little during the unusual proceeding in which one state’s case followed another without any breaks. But she seemed to favor the right of states to ban same-sex marriage.

The audio files for the hearings have now been posted.

So now we wait for a few months for the rulings. Yes, two judges were GOP appointees, but there are a number of GOP-appointed judges among those who have ruled for marriage equality over the last year.

Find more articles and gay wedding resources.

Sixth Circuit to Hear Six Marriage Equality Cases From Four States Today

Wednesday, August 6th, 2014

Sixth Circuit

The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in a series of marriage equality cases today from the jurisdiction’s four constituent states: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. It is an unprecedented coming together of marriage equality litigation that has the potential to change the destiny of marriage in the federal courts for several reasons:

First, these cases cover the entire Sixth Circuit and any decision could affect all of them directly, even if a decision is stayed pending appeal to the Supreme Court. We have seen this happen in the Fourth Circuit, where the appellate court overturns a ban on marriage equality and other states in the circuit, North Carolina and West Virginia, either stop defending their own bans or take other pro-equality actions because they see the writing on the wall even though the decision is stayed pending appeal.

Second, the three-judge panel reflects the right-of-center tilt of the circuit, consisting of a Clinton appointee and two George W. Bush appointees, one of whom has made his fiercely conservative views public.

And, third, as the third federal appeals court to hear a post-Windsor marriage case — after the Tenth (the Utah case) and the Fourth (the Virginia case), but before the Seventh (on August 26), the Ninth (on September 8), and at some point, the Fifth — the Sixth Circuit is being watched to determine if a pattern is emerging among the circuits or if there will be a split among the panels.

Authored By Ari Ezra Waldman – See the Full Story at Towleroad.com

Find more articles and gay wedding resources.

Ohio Hospital Denies Woman Her Deceased Wife’s Medical Records

Monday, August 4th, 2014

Marcia GallasA hospital in Ohio is hiding behind “state and federal privacy laws” and will not release a deceased woman’s medical records to her wife.

Towleroad.com reports:

Marcia Gallas, a woman from Blue Ash, Ohio, has been denied access to her recently deceased spouse’s medical records. While Gallas and her attorney have a federal injunction that is based on a similar case from Cincinnati, Bethesda North Hospital says they cannot release the information due to “state and federal privacy laws.” To Gallas, it seems the hospital’s rationale for this denial is that they are waiting for Ohio’s marriage equality fight to make its way through the courts. Said Gallas: I’m grieving…It’s going to take a long time to get over Barbara and I really don’t understand why they won’t recognize… what am I to think except that they have a problem with same sex marriage? Gallas is trying to obtain the records of former spouse Barbara Graham because Graham participated in an 18-year study that requires the records.

File this one under “why we need marriage equality now”.

Find more articles and gay wedding resources in Ohio.

New Ohio Marriage Equality Ad to Air

Wednesday, July 30th, 2014

OhioFor the first time in a decade, a new Ohio marriage equality ad will air in the state.

ABC6 reports:

Starting Wednesday an ad supporting gay marriage will begin running statewide. The TV spot tells the story of George and Henry – they’re two Ohioans who have been together fifty years. Although their marriage license says New York, here’s how the commercial ends: “Hopefully, Ohio will be next.” Next week, a huge rally will be held in Cincinnati. Mike Premo, of Why Marriage Matters Ohio told ABC 6, “We’re expecting a really big turnout. It’s going to be a historic day.” The rally will be held the night before a federal court hears gay marriage cases from four states.

It won’t be long now, Ohio.

Find more articles and gay wedding resources in Ohio.

Ohio Marriage Equality Ballot Initiative Cancelled for 2014

Friday, June 20th, 2014

OhioLooks like Ohio marriage equality won’t make the ballot this November.

LGBTQ Nation reports:

A key organizer in the ballot effort to overturn Ohio’s same-sex marriage ban says a revised proposal lacks the required signatures to go before voters this fall. FreedomOhio’s executive director Ian James also said Thursday the campaign would not have had enough money to run an effective statewide campaign this year… With a July 2 signature deadline approaching, James confirmed the issue won’t meet the requirements to appear on 2014 ballots.

So now it’s all up to the courts.

Find more articles and gay wedding resources in Ohio.