Dying Man's Last Wish To Be Buried Next To His Husband, But Ohio Attorney General Wants To See That Doesn't Happen
Ian Milhiser writes at The Good Men Project:
John Arthur is dying. He is in the terminal stages of Lou Gehrig's disease and has entered hospice care. Arthur is also gay, and in a 20 year relationship with a man named Jim Obergefell. Because the couple's home state of Ohio will not allow them to marry, Arthur and Obergefell recently flew to Maryland together and were legally married on the tarmac -- just weeks after the Supreme Court's landmark marriage equality decision in United States v. Windsor. Arthur was unable to rise from his hospice bed.In his final days, Arthur wants to honor his commitment to his husband. He wants his own death certificate to list Obergefell as his "surviving spouse." And he wants to die knowing that his partner of 20 years can someday be buried next to him in a family plot bound by a directive that only permits his lawfully wedded spouse to be interred alongside him. And, on Monday, a federal judge ruled that Arthur should indeed have the dignity of dying alongside a man that Ohio will recognize as his husband.
And now, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) wants to take that dignity away from Mr. Arthur. The day after a judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring Ohio to list Arthur's husband as his "surviving spouse" on his death certificate, DeWine announced that he would appeal this decision and try to strip a dying man of his final wish.
There are marriage equality cases with sweeping national implications. This is not one of them. The judge's order is limited exclusively to Arthur and Obergefell. Indeed, as the judge explains, "there is absolutely no evidence that the State of Ohio or its citizens will be harmed by the issuance" of an order requiring Ohio to acknowledge the two men's marriage. "No one beyond Plaintiffs themselves will be affected by such a limited order at all."
There are also marriage equality cases where a great deal of money is at stake. But this is not one of those either. In Windsor, plaintiff Edith Windsor sought $363,053 in estate taxes she was forced to pay because the federal government would not acknowledge her marriage to a woman. Arthur, by contrast, hardly has an estate to tax. He and his husband had to raise donations to cover the cost of their flight to Maryland.
At HuffPo, Tom Bartolomei writes (to DeWine):
Please explain to me how it is in the interest of the state for you to defend Ohio's constitutional amendment that defines "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. It's not. That is the simple truth. This amendment wasn't driven by a desire for justice, equality, or what's in the best interest of the state. It was driven by fear, intolerance, ignorance, hate, and religious belief. None of these reasons justifies denying rights to a group of citizens.
20 years together? How many married straight people do you know who've broken up long before 20 years? Long before 10? Do you think it was because of teh gayz?
I'm going to reserve comment on approval based on the information needed by the this sentence:
Are those burial plots in a church cemetery or a nominally public one? Does this cross the First Amendment about ordering a Church to do something.
I understand it was declared it was not done a case law, but I want to judge the decision on what is right.
Jim P. at July 26, 2013 11:10 PM
Jim P, all your questions are answered at this link, http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/07/23/same-sex-marriage-case-becomes-election-issue/ that Amy included, along with a google of the cemetery.
Absolutely none of this has anything to do with a first amendment separation issue, and no one has claimed that at any point -- the cemetery is a non profit non affiliated with any religion open to all, and the issue is that the grandfather of one that bought the plots says it can legally be "occupied" by only the family’s direct descendents and their spouses.
The is truly only a case of Attorney General Mike DeWine being a complete and utter jackass and wasting the time and money of his constituents to badger and harass a family. Hopefully they will do the right thing at the next election and run this asshole out of town on a rail.
jerry at July 27, 2013 12:30 AM
I didn't see the follow-on link originally. I didn't know about the arrangements of the grandfather. It is a civil issue and not a constitutional issue then.
I guess I'm going to have to write another letter to Dewine. He is quickly losing any credit in my eyes.
Jim P. at July 27, 2013 6:11 AM
The State has no business here, however, non-profit status is not helping them out is it?
Disgusting.
Feebie at July 27, 2013 8:24 AM
Must be me - but, I for one, wouldn't want to be buried in a boneyard that doesn't allow me my choice of plotmates unless I lived my life the way they see fit.
And if it was family dictating this - then they aren't worthy of having my bones buried with them - I'll be buried elsewhere, thank you very much.
Charles at July 27, 2013 4:12 PM
It is cases like this that are why I cannot believe the Supreme Ruled the way it did. I have heard of a bunch of other scenarios that cause all kinds of tricking situations --mainly around taxes.
I see that there is more here. The federal court ruled to grant an exception to the laws on the books because that is what someone wants -- and it won't affect others. That doesn't sound like a pattern we wanted started.
It also may ignore the will of the owner of the plots. Of course since said person is dead (as I understand it). To bend the laws for a specific case without a reason other than one party wants its to fit in the requirement seems wrong to me.
I can certainly see there being cases that it makes senses...if they lived in Maryland and got married there and now were just happening to be driving through Ohio when someone died.
The SCOTUS recently made a decision saying the states have the right to honor gay couples. Which means they also have the right night too. Now a lower court says a state has to in affect honor - so does that mean SCOTUS was wrong in their reasoning?
The Former Banker at July 27, 2013 6:23 PM
Charles, in my limited experience family burial plot invitations are not issued on a "plus one" basis. My guess is that the cemetery sold the "family plot" space to someone a long time ago, and in that transaction the cemetery defined "family" and the purchaser accepted the definition and other terms, probably in an era when no on imagined that two men would openly declare their love for one another, much less get legal recognition for the union. I don't think this union was considered and rejected - I think this scenario was beyond imagination.
My partner and I marked our fifth anniversary by writing our wills and medical directives. Shortly thereafter we selected cemetery plots and chose our epitaph. We live in a city with park-like cemeteries filled with trees and beautiful sculptures. We have made a point of spending time at that space in great weather and good moods, so that it will be imbued with good memories. It has been moving to see the spaces around ours fill up with the names of people we know. We have been together for almost 19 years, and even during the rocky times it has been grounding - provided some solidity - to know that those arrangements are handled. I hope these men are given this peace.
As for AG DeWine, when an incumbent who is of the prevailing political party whacks this hornet's nest, I'm just left with: lazy, thoughtless, and banking on people's lesser natures.
Michelle at July 27, 2013 6:41 PM
I'm pretty sure the ruling was made as a specific case because no one wants to get into the the 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 14th Amendment Federal Constitutional issues versus the Ohio Constitution over whether a couple of guys can be buried next to each other in a private cemetery as Michelle describes above.
Jim P. at July 27, 2013 8:30 PM
Mike DeWine is a career politician having held a variety of public offices. I'm sure he is acting in the best interest of his campaign contributors.
Goo at July 28, 2013 7:07 AM
The is truly only a case of Attorney General Mike DeWine being a complete and utter jackass and wasting the time and money of his constituents to badger and harass a family.
Or, you know, they could just get buried somewhere other than the family plot.
But that's just silly talk, I know.
The federal court ruled to grant an exception to the laws on the books because that is what someone wants -- and it won't affect others.
If you go read the newspaper article, that's completely countered by the lawyer for the men
Gee, why might the AG possibility think there might be a reason to argue this?
The AG is supposed to defend the laws. If he didn't, he wouldn't be doing his job - as California exhibited with the Prop 8 court arguments.
No matter where you agree or disagree with the men, you should understand the problem with the lawyers deciding if they like a law - this time - or not.
Unix-Jedi at July 30, 2013 12:36 PM
Leave a comment