43
Mahoning County court prepares for Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage
YOUNGSTOWN
In gigantic volumes of records that date back to 1852, Mahoning County marriage licenses have two words typed side-by-side above the couples’ names: “groom” and “bride.”
That soon might change.
As early as today, the United States Supreme Court could issue a landmark opinion about the right of same-sex couples to marry.
The case addresses same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan, but the decision will have a national impact.
One possible outcome is that the court strikes down state bans.
That scenario is one for which courthouses across the state, and here in the Valley, have been preparing.
In cities such as Cleveland, the Associated Press reported, that has meant preparing for a flood of couples who wish to get married as soon as possible.
Judge Robert N. Rusu Jr. of Mahoning County Probate Court doesn’t see that happening here, but says he thinks there will be more traffic than usual coming through the county courthouse.
“I think it’s going to be an increase in volume, but I don’t think it’ll be people camping out on the stairs,” he said.
His office already has made some changes in case the ban is struck down.
“What we’ve been doing recently is just changing the actual [marriage-license application] forms,” he said. “We’ve had to order new applications that don’t say ‘husband’ and ‘wife.’”
The decision also could affect the wording of state law.
“You see many references to ‘husband and wife’ [in the Ohio Revised Code]. So we believe that’s going to have to change,” Judge Rusu said.
The legal matters that will come into play should the court rule in favor of marriage equality, however, go far beyond words on a form, he said. Married same-sex couples would have a whole new host of legal rights, such as being able to adopt children together and the rights given to someone when their spouse dies.
“By being a spouse, you automatically get certain rights, just by virtue of being a spouse,” he said.
It’s the desire for those rights that took Kelly McCracken, 32, who originally is from Warren and now resides in the Cincinnati area with her wife, Kelly Noe, and their one-year-old daughter, Ruby, to the Supreme Court.
McCracken and Noe, who became pregnant with Ruby via artificial insemination, joined the case as plaintiffs after McCracken’s name could not be listed on Ruby’s birth certificate.
“It’s just about having the right that everybody else has as far as medical, Social Security benefits and the basic things,” said McCracken’s mother, Pam Politsky Bernard of Warren. “And also to have every right to make decisions, should something happen to [Ruby] medically or in an emergency situation.”
The family is eagerly awaiting the decision.
“We’re certainly hopeful. I have a gut feeling the ruling will be in our favor, but of course, anything is possible,” McCracken said in a text message Wednesday. “If it is, we will breathe a gigantic sigh of relief because now our government and all states will have to recognize our marriage.”
“And more importantly, me, as Ruby’s mother!” she said.
If the court does not strike down same-sex marriage bans, it will be a devastating blow to McCracken and her family.
“If it’s not in our favor, it will be overwhelmingly disappointing but we will never stop fighting until we have the rights and recognition we deserve,” she said. “Ruby will always be my daughter, even if the government doesn’t think so.”