Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
1:14-cv-00347 #5

1:14-cv-00347 #5

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 5 - Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
Doc 5 - Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Apr 30, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Michelle Gibson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Lance Himes, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : Case No. Judge:
 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65, Plaintiffs hereby move for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting the Defendants from enforcing Ohio Rev. Code §3101.01(C) and Art. XV, §11 of the Ohio Constitution as applied to their requests for Ohio marriage licenses. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants to issue marriage licenses to the Plaintiffs upon their application, duly record their marriages once properly solemnized, and extend to Plaintiffs all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under Ohio law. A proposed order is attached as Exhibit 1.  Notice will be provided to the Defendants but due to the daily violation of Plaintiffs
constitutional rights, Plaintiffs request an expedited hearing and an expedited ruling on the merits. Plaintiffs request that bond be set at $1.00.
This civil rights case is facial challenge to the Ohio constitutional and statutory  provisions that restrict same-sex couples from marrying. Marriage is the most important
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 5 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 1 of 22 PAGEID #: 24
: -cv-Michael Barrett
2 commitment many adults make in their lives. Marriage forms the foundation of families, and secures spousal and parental rights and duties. Marriage supplants the state as the primary financial safety-net for the married couple and their children. By purposefully denying same-sex couples the ability to get married, Ohio attacks the dignity of those couples and imposes life-long harms on their families. This Court should act to stop this unjust discrimination now. Plaintiffs include six same-sex couples who range widely in age, race and in other respects. They mirror the diversity of opposite-sex couples in Ohio. Only because all of these relationships are between two people of the same-sex, Ohio will not issue them marriage licenses or extend to them the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. This lawsuit seeks to compel Ohio to allow these couples access to marriage and declare the marriage ban facially unconstitutional in all respects. As set out in detail below, this Court should follow the lead of the Supreme Court in
 and the ten district court decisions since that ruling and hold the marriage ban unconstitutional as a violation of due process and equal protection. Through this lawsuit this court should open the door to marriage to all same-sex couples across Ohio.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Michelle Gibson and Deborah Meem
Plaintiffs began dating in 1995 and have had a loving and fulfilling relationship ever since. They are both professors at the University of Cincinnati, where they met. They would like to be married in Ohio, where they live, as do their family and friends. Michelle and Deborah have two grandchildren and they believe it is particularly important for their grandchildren to see their relationship treated equally with opposite-sex couples.
 Declaration of Michelle Gibson.
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 5 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 2 of 22 PAGEID #: 25
3 In October, 2008, Michelle was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. In 2011, she began using a wheelchair. For the past two years, she has used a wheel chair full time. She has recently had some health issues that required her to spend time in a rehabilitation facility. Although she has returned home, it is very likely that at some time in the future, she may need 24 hour home-care or even need to live in an extended care facility.
Because of Michelle‟s illness, it
is important that their relationship be legally recognized very soon. They have drafted documents so that Deborah can care for Michelle and make health care and financial decisions for her if she is unable, but they worry that those documents may not be honored. Given the wide range of health care staff and others who must refer to these wordy, technical documents, their fear is very reasonable. Deborah and Michelle need the protections that a state-recognized marriage would provide.
B. Heather Apple and Mary K. Koehler
Heather Apple and Mary K. Koehler (“Mary Kay”) began dating in 2004, soon fell in
love, and moved in together in 2006. They discussed raising children together but wanted to get married first, so they had a commitment ceremony in 2008. It was the best they could do  because Ohio bans same-sex marriage. In 2009, they began the fertility process, and in 2010 Heather gave birth to their first daughter. Mary Kay gave birth to their second daughter in 2012. Heather and Mary Kay would like to be legally married. They want their family to have the same legal and financial stability that opposite-sex married couples enjoy. This is especially important because they are raising children together.
 Declaration of Heather Apple.
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 5 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 3 of 22 PAGEID #: 26

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->