CINCINNATI – David Pepper, Democratic candidate for Attorney General, called on Attorney General Mike DeWine to cease his effort to deny recognition of the marriage of two Cincinnati citizens, one of whom is in hospice and will likely pass away soon.

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Tim Black issued an order in support of recognizing the marriage of Cincinnati residents John Arthur and James Obergefell, who were married on July 11 in Maryland, where same-sex marriage is legal.

Mr. Arthur is battling ALS, a debilitating, terminal illness, and is in hospice. The couple filed suit so that Mr. Arthur’s death certificate will read that he and Mr. Obergefell were married. Judge Black, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court cases striking down anti-gay laws, ruled in favor of the couple.

The court rejected arguments made by DeWine’s office that the case was not an emergency, noting that Mr. Arthur’s “death is imminent.” And the court added: “Dying with an incorrect death certificate that prohibits Arthur from being buried with dignity constitutes irreparable harm.”

Al Gerhardstein, the attorney for the two husbands, argued that Ohio should recognize same-sex marriages from other states because it recognizes opposite-sex marriages from other states, including some that are banned in Ohio like first cousins or too(sic) young people marrying.

I don't really care what is on his death certificate. I'm more worried about it setting a precedent to overturn what a majority of ohio voters support.

You all (society) keep telling me that homosexual unions are about letting people do what they want, and not imposing on the beliefs of others. Yet I keep see cases like this, where people are trying to stick it people that believe homosexualitly, like other forms of improper sexual attraction, is immoral.

Ohio, specifically in having a law that recognizes other marriages that are banned in the state needs to now **** off and suck up the fact that their own laws require them to acknowledge the marriage since it is legal in the place the men married.

Usually you're pretty reasonable on stuff like this, Rori. This comment surprises me.

When have people tried to force those who believe homosexuality is immoral to have homosexual relationships?

Morality is personal. Forcing you to accept someone else's homosexuality is not forcing their believes on you, at all. There's no such thing as "Tyranny that won't let us oppress those who we feel need to be oppressed." A live and let live, let people do what they want approach, means you accept homosexuals and don't oppose them, and they accept you and don't oppose you not being homosexual.

So are we ignoring Müs' post? You know, the one that establishes that Ohio has already created a precedent where they recognize marriages they don't allow in-state?

The issue here is a citizen of one state using the laws of another state to make an end run around his own. The fact that same sex marriage a fugitive slave law is involved is irrelevant.

Given that change, would you still argue that the substantive content of the law in question is irrelevant and that the only important issue is that someone (i.e. the escaped slave) used the law in one state to make an end run around the law in his "home" state?

Given that change, would you still argue that the substantive content of the law in question is irrelevant and that the only important issue is that someone (i.e. the escaped slave) used the law in one state to make an end run around the law in his "home" state?

I actually rather approve of using another state's laws that are more beneficial to your cause to try to impose change upon the other state by force.

As long as I agree with the issue