Skip to main content

View Diary: Terminally ill man and his husband fight to force Ohio to recognize their marriage, and judge agrees (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Procedural point: because this isn't a final (6+ / 0-)

    judgment, but an order for a temporary restraining order, the judge only ruled that there was a "strong likelihood of success on the merits" at trial.  

    "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

    by Inland on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:14:24 AM PDT

    •  In fact, the order is only good for two weeks. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      litho, LilithGardener, Avilyn

      So it will likely be converted to a preliminary injunction soon, which is the same as a TRO but it can remain in place indefinitely.

      Of course, a "trial" is about disputed facts, which there are none of here, unless Ohio tries to argue that the marriage in Maryland is void because the couple was not domiciled there (some of the commenters at the Volokh Conspiracy have raised this point), but I think that is a weak argument.

      In any case, there probably won't be a trial because there are no disputed facts. This will be decided as a purely legal issue, and the plaintiffs will no doubt have significant legal resources at their disposal.

      •  Unlike most of the frontpagers at Volokh (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HappyinNM

        some of the commenters there are not exactly great legal minds. People marry in states other than where they're domiciled all the time; divorces are finalized in states other than where the marriages were solemnized and those divorces are seldom contested (except when they happen to involve same-sex couples). You are probably giving those folks far more credit than they deserve by calling their argument "weak." It is essentially non-existent.

        •  That's because (0+ / 0-)

          there's Article IV of the US Constitution.  Which states like mine conveniently ignore unless it might help with a reciprocal concealed carry law or something.

          I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

          by mojo11 on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:36:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  IL divorce requires domicile, (0+ / 0-)

          but marriage?  I don't think so.

          "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

          by Inland on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 10:05:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So to get divorced in IL you had to have been (0+ / 0-)

            married there? I don't think most states (other than perhaps Nevada still) are interested in granting quickie divorces, so most have residency requirements; in general I think they're relatively modest. But those requirements don't pertain to where the original marriage took place. If you go to another state to get married and you're heterosexual, I can pretty much guarantee you that the state you live in will recognize your marriage.

            •  That's not what domicile means. (0+ / 0-)

              It only means where you live and intend to remain.

            •  No, just live there for some 30 or 60 or 90 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sfbob

              days prior to filing.  

              "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

              by Inland on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 12:10:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's what I presume (0+ / 0-)

                I do think that recognition of out-of-state marriages however doesn't rely on the couple having lived in the state they were married in, when they were married. Couples marry in states other than the ones where they live for various reasons. My sister was a California resident when she first married but her marriage took place in New York because that was where our parents and the groom's parents lived.

                Questioning James and Arthur's marriage based on domicile is really not going to win as an argument.

      •  The point they raised (0+ / 0-)

        was not that the marriage wasn't legally valid, but that it was a "stunt" to attract sympathy; I think those bigots would acknowledge that the couple possess a valid MD marriage certificate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site