Mayor, muni judges no longer marrying

MANSFIELD – Betty Gumm and her partner, Jane, waited 30 years for the United States Supreme Court to recognize their commitment to each other.

When the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage came down June 26, they decided to make it official. They applied for their marriage license and selected July as their wedding month. All that was left to do was to solemnize the union.

Neither Gumm nor Jane, who is an administrator at a local college and asked not to have her last name printed, wanted a fancy wedding. A quick, simple civil ceremony would do.

Per Ohio Revised Code, their options for officiants were limited: licensed ministers — not likely, the superintendent of the state school for the deaf — they didn’t apply, a county judge — Richland County doesn’t have one, a probate court judge — Judge Phil Mayer is not typically available, or some other ordained officiant — time consuming.

The only options left were Mayor Tim Theaker and Municipal Court Judges Frank Ardis Jr. and Jerry Ault. And according to probate court’s website, they were available for weddings.

After days of calling all three numbers and leaving at least one message with the Theaker’s office — the only office with an answering machine, they said — they still hadn’t heard back.

The couple found out later the city officials had recently stopped performing marriages.

Theaker, Ardis and Ault have denied accusations their decision was related to the legalization of gay marriage, but Gumm said the proximity to the ruling still leads her to see it as an attack. She wasn’t going to fight the matter until she saw Theaker quoted in a Mansfield News Journal article on diversity claiming the community needed to be more tolerant of differences.

“Nobody told us that they didn’t perform them, we just knew we couldn’t get ahold of anybody,” Gumm said. “If it’s a public service — having elected officials perform civil services, and they’ve stopped doing it, either because of the (gay marriage) ruling or not, then they should say that. It should be known.”

A national trend

It’s an issue communities across the U.S. are facing in the wake of the court decision.

Officials in more than a dozen states have found ways around upholding gay marriages by opting out of performing them completely. In Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Nebraska, judges have abstained from marrying anyone. In Arizona, judges could choose to marry only friends and relatives.

Toledo Municipal Court Judge C. Allen McConnell refused to marry a same-sex couple earlier this month, saying he declined because of “his personal and Christian beliefs established over many years.” He planned to continue only “traditional marriages.”

McConnell has asked the Ohio Supreme Court’s board of professional conduct to clarify if he must perform marriages for gay couples. Board attorneys are researching those questions and could announce their answers as early as next week, director Richard Dove said.

Language in Ohio Revised Code hasn’t been much help either, allowing enough wiggle room for judges to enforce their own interpretations until further guidance is provided.

ORC 2101.27 says a probate judge has the “jurisdiction and authority” to solemnize marriages. Performing marriage ceremonies is a municipal judge’s first “power and duty,” according to ORC 1901.14.

But which is it, an ability or an obligation?

That’s the question Athens County Municipal Court Judge William Grim, as president of the Association of Municipal and County Judges of Ohio, says needs answered.

“Is there a duty to perform marriage ceremonies, is it a personal duty of every authorized judge or is it the duty of the presiding judge in each court to insure the court provides this service?” Grim asked the board.

Richland County judges weigh in

Richland County officials are divided on how they answer the question.

While Theaker, Ardis and Ault have denied their decision to stop marrying couples was related to the legalization of gay marriage, the question remains whether marriages are a duty they’re required to perform period.

Theaker said he decided to opt out back in April. His last marriage was scheduled April 8 and performed July 10. In total, he’s performed 25 to 30 weddings in 2015, he said.

“I just decided not to perform weddings, all weddings,” Theaker said. “I felt uncomfortable doing weddings.”

For Ardis, it became too cumbersome to maintain the service regularly. Over the past five years, his window for performing marriages dwindled from specific days to just hours to sometimes not at all, he said. The strain led him to officially drop the ceremonies two months ago.

“I’m not saying I wouldn’t do it on a special occasion, but I can’t do it regularly,” Ardis said. “I thought, I can’t keep this up.”

Marrying is not a judge’s obligation, Ardis said.

And if it was, it’s one Judge Ault has not performed for the past decade, except for close friends and family, Ault said. He has yet to perform a marriage this year, he said.

“I quit for a number of reasons,” Ault said. “Sometimes people didn’t show up and I just formed the opinion that some of the marriages were not well thought out.”

Probate judge Mayer has also cut marriages from his duties as a result of his busy schedule, but he continues to issue all marriage licenses.

His office has filed 416 weddings in the county through July 30 of this year, which is trending to equal the 737 total marriages performed in 2014, according to probate court records. But Mayer can only claim a handful of them, he said.

“Personally, I have performed few marriage ceremonies due to time constraints of the Court,” Mayer said. “It’s not that I don’t do marriages, I just don’t do them often.”

That is not to say he wouldn’t perform one, traditional or otherwise, he said, noting he changed the marriage license application to be more neutral by listing “applicant one and two” rather than gender specific titles.

“The best way I can answer that is I support the constitution,” Mayer said. “According to the Supreme Court they have the constitutional right to be wedded.”

That was something Ardis agreed to, as well.

“My personal belief is if you’re going to do them, you should do them for everybody,” Ardis said.

Shelby Municipal Judge Jon Schaefer had a different view after attending a recent conference for judges. Judges upset by the ruling were under the impression if they opted not to perform any marriages then they couldn’t be criticized for not performing same-sex marriages, he said.

“But I don’t know how they get around the word duty,” Schaefer said. “I have the power to do it and a duty to do it, whether I agree or not. The people decide and I perform. I don’t council and I don’t give a blessing, it’s strictly a civil ceremony.”

Schaefer is the only municipal judge in the county still performing marriages, though he has yet to receive a request for a same-sex marriage, he said.

Still fighting for equal rights

In the end, Gumm has not been denied the right to marry. She and Jane tied the knot in a private backyard ceremony at their home on July 17. Jim Pierce, who performed Richland County’s first gay marriage, was their officiant.

“The ceremony was so meaningful,” Gumm said. “There was so much about God in it, which I wanted. I’m a Christian; I believe in God.”

But they worry about the implications of not only having elected officials discriminating against part of the population, but also denying mandated services to all.

Gays aren’t the only ones seeking civil ceremonies. Traditionally, the courts have been sought as a quick, low cost alternative to extravagant weddings with all of the bells and whistles. Most officials offer the service free, asking only for a nominal monetary or canned goods donation.

Pierce charges a small fee. So do three other officiants whose contact information is supplied to couples through probate court: Adam Withrow, Rob Nelson and Meghan Renner. All of them recognize same-sex marriages, they confirmed.

“If these sources are cut off, they don’t have anyone — a public servant — who will marry them without charging?” Pierce asked.

For Gumm and her now wife, Jane, their battle has already been won. They’re married. Gumm has a son from a previous marriage, and the couple has two grandchildren to spoil.

But the fight for equality hasn’t changed, Gumm said. Others should have the right to officially recognize their relationship, too.

“(Gay marriage) is about being with who you want to be with,” Gumm said. “We’re just regular people.

“In a few years it will be like everything else and people are going to say, ‘Really? We used to discriminate against that?’”

kdurbin@gannett.com

419-521-7205

Twitter: @njKaitlinDurbin

Ohio Revised Code 3101.08 : Who may solemnize marriages.

An ordained or licensed minister of any religious society or congregation within this state who is licensed to solemnize marriages, a judge of a county court in accordance with section 1907.18 of the Revised Code, a judge of a municipal court in accordance with section 1901.14 of the Revised Code, a probate judge in accordance with section 2101.27 of the Revised Code, the mayor of a municipal corporation in any county in which such municipal corporation wholly or partly lies, the superintendent of the state school for the deaf, or any religious society in conformity with the rules of its church, may join together as husband and wife any persons who are not prohibited by law from being joined in marriage.

Effective Date: 04-11-1991

Ohio Revised Code 1901.14 : Additional powers of judges - fees - rules - annual report.

(A) Municipal judges have the following powers and duties:

(1) To perform marriage ceremonies anywhere in this state, take acknowledgment of deeds and other instruments, administer oaths, and perform any other duties that are conferred upon judges of county courts.

All fees, including marriage fees, collected by a municipal judge when not connected with any cause or proceeding pending in the municipal court, shall be paid over to the clerk of the municipal court to be paid to the city treasury, except that, in a county-operated municipal court, the fees shall be paid to the treasury of the county in which the court is located.

(2) To adopt, publish, and revise rules for the regulation of the practice and procedure of their respective courts, and for the selection and manner of summoning persons to serve as jurors in the court;

(3) To adopt, publish, and revise rules relating to the administration of the court;

(4) On or before the last day of March of each year, the court shall render a complete report of its operation during the preceding calendar year to the legislative authority and to the board of county commissioners of each county within its territory. The report shall show the work performed by the court, a statement of receipts and expenditures of the civil and criminal branches, respectively, the number of cases heard, decided, and settled, and any other data that the supreme court, the secretary of state, the legislative authority, and the board of county commissioners requires.

(B) Any rule adopted pursuant to division (A)(2) or (3) of this section does not apply to the housing or environmental division of the municipal court if the judge of the housing or environmental division has adopted rules pursuant to division (C) of this section, unless the rules adopted pursuant to division (C) of this section do not regulate the subject regulated by the rule adopted pursuant to division (A)(2) or (3) of this section.

(C) Judges of the housing or environmental division of a municipal court, other than the judge of the environmental division of the Franklin county municipal court, may adopt, publish, and revise rules for the regulation of the practice and procedure of the division, for the selection and manner of summoning persons to serve as jurors in the division, and for the administration of the division.

Effective Date: 10-31-1996

Ohio Revised Code 2101.27 : Probate judge has authority to solemnize marriage within county.

(A) A probate judge has jurisdiction and authority to solemnize marriages within the county and may charge a fee for providing the service in accordance with division (B) of this section. The fee charged is subject to disposition in accordance with division (C) of this section.

(B)

(1) If a probate judge intends to charge a fee for solemnizing any marriage in accordance with division (A) of this section, prior to doing so, the probate judge, by rule, shall establish a reasonable fee for providing the service.

(2) Division (B)(1) of this section does not do either of the following:

(a) Require a probate judge who, by rule, has established a reasonable fee for solemnizing marriages to charge that fee for every marriage that the probate judge solemnizes;

(b) Affect specific fees to which the probate judge is entitled under section 2101.16 or any other section of the Revised Code for issuing marriage licenses, recording returns of solemnized marriages, providing certified abstracts of marriages, or performing any other task related to a marriage other than its solemnization.

(C) If, in accordance with division (B) of this section, a reasonable fee is charged by a probate judge for solemnizing any marriage, the probate judge shall not retain any portion of that fee and instead shall pay the entire fee into the county treasury. The county treasurer shall credit the fee to the general fund of the county.

Amended by 129th General AssemblyFile No.52, SB 124, §1, eff. 1/13/2012.

Effective Date: 04-11-1991