This is what happens when you start playing games with the redefining of what marriage is and start allowing those who should be punished for crimes against nature to continue to go unpunished in the society. A U.S. district judge ordered a clerk in the state of Ohio to recognize a same-sex “marriage” that was conducted in another state, because, in his estimation, the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman does “likely violate the U.S. Constitution.”
Ben Johnson writes:
U.S. District Magistrate Timothy Black declared in his opinion on Monday that the “purpose served by” the amendment in “treating same-sex married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples is the same improper purpose that failed in Windsor and in Romer: ‘to impose inequality’ and to make gay citizens unequal under the law.”
Judge Black ordered a registrar in Cincinnati to affirm the partner of a terminally ill homosexual as his “husband” after their seven-minute “marriage” in Maryland, where same-sex “weddings” became legal last year.
The homosexual pair, James Obergefell and John Arthur, filed a lawsuit saying Ohio’s marriage amendment violates the U.S. Constitution.
In his ruling for James Obergefell and John Arthur, the two practicing homosexuals who filed the lawsuit, claiming that Ohio’s marriage amendment violates the U.S. Constitution, Judge Black, an Obama appointee, wrote, “This is not a complicated case. According to Black if the state of Ohio has recognized heterosexual marriages in other states that do not perfectly comply with state law, it must also recognize another state’s homosexual “marriage.”
The two men flew to Maryland to engage in a ceremony where Arthur’s aunt, Paulette Roberts, who was ordained on the internet of all places pronounced them “husband and husband.” Seriously, the theological twists in all of this is mind-blowing.
“We still want our government to say, ‘You matter, you exist, and your relationship of 20 years – one year, whatever it is – matters as much as anyone else’s,’” Obergefell said.
Well, it does matter and frankly it should have been nipped in the bud when it began, but this is the result of a culture that has lost its way and leaders who will do anything to get elected by not taking stands against such perversion. I’ve written on how our Founders dealt with homosexuals so there would never be talk of bastardizing the institution of marriage. Shea Bernard has written on the fact that homosexuality is a behavior that one chooses to engage in, not that they are born with. His article demonstrates there is an argument from nature, not just a religious argument from Scripture (though that really is all one needs). Our own Pulbius Huldah has also addressed how there has been judicial abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment to advance sexual orientation and homosexual “marriage.”
Arthur, by the way, is dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease and basically said this was all merely “symbolic.” Ultimately this is what this entire lawsuit is about; getting Obergefell listed as Arthur’s husband on his death certificate. Though he called it a “union,” nothing could be further from the truth. The union God upholds is a “one flesh relationship” between a man and a woman. Two men cannot experience that. They can only pervert it.
The Judge gave an order to Cincinnati Health Department Registrar Camille Jones to list Obergefell as Arthur’s “husband” on his death certificate. Though Black believes the state’s amendment to be unconstitutional, his decision only applies in this case. Yet local activists believe this is merely a stepping stone to invalidate all state laws against same-sex “marriages” nationwide.
Pendra Lee Snyder, the owner of a Christian marketing and publishing company in Ohio and an active member in the Value Action Committee in Columbus, told LifeSiteNews.com “This is, in my opinion, a calculated effort at the chipping away of states’ rights and in particular all states that voted to protect marriage as a union of one and one woman.”
Should the amendment be challenged legally, Attorney General Mike DeWine would have to decide whether or not to defend the law in court. DeWine is a moderate Republican and former U.S. Senator, who opposed the amendment in 2004 along with then-U.S. Senator George Voinovich, then-Governor Bob Taft, and then-Attorney General Jim Petro, all Republicans.
So far, Governor John Kasich has provided no comment on the case, except to state his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost and a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline.