Obergefell v. Wymyslo
962 F. Supp. 2d 968
S.D. Ohio2013Background
- Plaintiffs are two same-sex couples who lawfully married in other states (Maryland, Delaware) and an Ohio funeral director; Ohio refused to recognize those out-of-state marriages on death certificates.
- Ohio Revised Code § 3101.01(C) and Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11 (adopted 2004) bar recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; historically Ohio recognized out-of-state marriages valid where celebrated.
- Plaintiffs obtained temporary restraining orders requiring death certificates to list the marriages and surviving spouses; the State sought to enforce its recognition bans absent further relief.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the Ohio provisions, as applied to them, violate the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection) and a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement against them.
- The court evaluated the record (legislative history, expert testimony, and Windsor) and issued a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment limited to these Plaintiffs and death-certificate recognition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio may refuse recognition on death certificates to marriages valid where celebrated (Due Process right to remain married) | Obergefell et al.: right to remain married is a fundamental liberty interest; Ohio’s denial deprives existing marriages without sufficient justification | State: regulation of domestic relations is a traditional state function; democratic choice and deliberation justify the 2004 bans | Court: Due Process protects the liberty interest in marriage recognition; Ohio’s ban as applied to these plaintiffs is unconstitutional |
| Whether Ohio’s differential treatment of out-of-state same-sex marriages violates Equal Protection | Plaintiffs: Ohio treats similarly situated opposite-sex out-of-state marriages (e.g., cousins, minors, common-law) differently; the 2004 provisions are motivated by animus and lack a sufficient justification | State: interest in preserving traditional marriage and deferring to democratic process; avoid judicial intrusion | Court: Laws single out same-sex marriages for disfavored status; equal protection violated (animus/absence of rational relation to legitimate interests) |
| Level of scrutiny for sexual-orientation classifications | Plaintiffs: sexual orientation merits at least intermediate (quasi-suspect) scrutiny given history of discrimination, immutability, political powerlessness, and irrelevance to ability to contribute to society | State: Sixth Circuit precedent counsels rational-basis review; no controlling post-Lawrence change | Court: Intermediate scrutiny is appropriate for intrusion on established marital/family relations; court also finds the statute fails even rational-basis review on the record |
| Relief — permanent injunction and scope (funeral director, death-certificates) | Plaintiffs: ongoing irreparable harm (dignity, probate, benefits, burial) warrants permanent injunction limited to plaintiffs; funeral director seeks clarity to avoid prosecution | State: enforcement interest and fidelity to state constitutional amendment | Court: Permanent injunction and declaratory judgment granted as applied to plaintiffs; funeral director may record marital status and surviving spouse; state officials enjoined from enforcing bans against these plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (federal DOMA §3 unconstitutional; recognition of same-sex marriages required for federal purposes and animus doctrine discussed)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1996) (status-based classifications that impose a broad disability on a group for its own sake violate Equal Protection)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (freedom to marry is a fundamental right protected by Due Process and Equal Protection)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (criminal prohibitions on private, consensual homosexual conduct struck down; repudiated Bowers and diminished precedential support for denying heightened scrutiny)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (equal protection analysis: classifications without rational relation to legitimate ends and animus-based rationales unconstitutional)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1978) (marriage restrictions that burden fundamental rights require heightened scrutiny and careful justification)