Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Ohio Supreme Court limits impact of gay marriage ban
01.06.2009 3:04pm EST
(Columbus, Ohio) The Ohio Supreme Court has let stand an appeals court ruling that said the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage cannot be used to terminate a child custody agreement between partners.
“The Court has expressly shut down arguments that Ohio’s antigay amendment impacts parenting and child custody relationships, rights, and responsibilities,” said Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor.Lambda represented Therese Leach in her fight to uphold a court-approved joint custody agreement signed by both her and her former partner, Denise Fairchild, the child’s birth mother.
The dispute over custody began in 2005 after the women ended their relationship.
After their son was born in 1996, both women parented him. In order to ensure that Leach had a protected legal relationship with the child, the two women signed a joint custody agreement. Such agreements were approved by the Ohio Supreme Court in 2001.
That same year, an Ohio court approved the joint custody agreement stating they would share custody.
After Leach and Fairchild broke up, Fairchild sought to terminate the custody agreement, citing the 2004 amendment to the Ohio constitution limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
In addition to banning same-sex marriage the amendment, known as Issue 1, says the state “and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”
Lawyers for Fairchild argued that the amendment extends to adoption.
The appeals court not only dismissed the case, it also said that Fairchild should never have been permitted to attack the enforceability of a shared custody agreement with Leach.
“The Court correctly declined an invitation to treat gay and lesbian Ohio parents differently from other families, and to deprive the children of these families of the protections and support other children receive,” said Taylor.
In upholding the appeals court ruling the state Supreme Court decision is the final word on the matter.
This is reason to celebrate.
I’m very, very proud of the Ohio Supreme Court!
More educated justices will always appropriately interpret the constitutions of each state as protecting all portions of their citizenry. The real issue is reminding the majority that the justices have the authority to do so. Additionally, all members of society are a minority in some fashion, so to go against a minority (especially one that does not impact society in a negative manner) is to set as standard the rule that we may go against anyone.
Wonderful news. So logical and open. Hope lawyers slapped with nuisance charges.
There is a very special place in hell for queers who use anti-gay laws and bias against their exes. Yeah, Denise Fairchild will be sharing her afterlife with assholes like Lisa Miller who set horrifying legal precendents that damage their community (as well as their kids) just because they want to hurt their ex. These people are scum.
“…Approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage”, read the language on which the fundies were pinning their desperate hopes.
Well… this amendment failed because of straightforward constitutional interpretation. In Ohio, one is not required to be married in order to serve as an adoptive parent – therefore, the ability to raise an adopted child simply is not a “design, quality, significance or effect” OF MARRIAGE.
If the fundies think their crusade entitles them to circumvent the plain language of the law… well, then they’re even crazier than we thought, aren’t they.
To play Devil’s Advocate here, isn’t adoption a “marriage quality”? Isn’t one of the features “built” into marriage the rights of adoption by both would-be parents?
Is this the first test of that Amendment in the courts? I know a lot of groups were interested with how the courts were going to deal with an amendment so generic and widespread.
It is shocking that a lesbian, Ms. Fairchild was willing to use a bigoted amendment to further her own selfish goals instead of thinking what would be best for the child. It is sad that a acrimonous ending to a domestic partnership could’ve led to more disastrous setbacks for LGBT folks in Ohio had the ruling been otherwise. Luckily, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on the right side of the argument.
Technically, as far as I can understand from reading it, this amendment does NOT limit marriage to “one man, one woman” as so many others do. It merely says that UNmarried couples don’t get the same legal recognition as married couples. That said, somebody may want to, you know, file suit to “inform” the courts about this little detail.
“It is shocking that a lesbian, Ms. Fairchild was willing to use a bigoted amendment to further her own selfish goals instead of thinking what would be best for the child.”
Yes it’s only one of the many examples of the stupidity that’s prevalent out there amongst gays and lesbians.
Oh, so mature, Little Red. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s the straight people that are involved in the majority of child abuse, neglect and abandonment cases. I work in the field and if breeders like you continue to spawn more of your kind, no wonder our states and our federal government can’t balance their budgets. Straight people need to close their legs so that the rest of us don’t pick after the pieces of your discarded children. And this is about two people who are went through divorce and need to sort things out. Have a little empathy for the kid. But your sterling contribution to this thread is typical of ignorant buffoons like you.
Oh, so mature, Little Red. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s the straight people that are involved in the majority of child abuse, neglect and abandonment cases. I work in the field and if breeders like you continue to spawn more of your kind, no wonder our states and our federal government can’t balance their budgets. Straight people need to close their legs so that the rest of us don’t pick after the pieces of your discarded children. And this is about two people who are went through divorce and need to sort things out. Have a little empathy for the kid. But your sterling contribution to this thread is typical of ignorant buffoons like you who resort to name calling when it is undeserved. In this case, my implying you’re a buffoon & ignorant is well deserved.
Little Red is right – how many times have we seen this in custody cases where one parent uses the arguements of the homophobe to keep the other parent from the child? Hundreds over the years – hundreds. Gay people who do that are worse than any bible thumping homophobe.
It’s about time indeed.
Why the [heck] did they allow it in the first place ?
As a matter of fact someone in Ohio’s constituence must be going crazy.