UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MICHELLE GIBSON, et al. :
:
Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:14-CV-347
:
v. : J udge Michael R. Barrett
:
LANCE HIMES, et al. :
:
Defendants. :

ANSWER OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
INTERIM DIRECTOR LANCE HIMES (DOC NO. 1)

In Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint in this action, Defendant Lance Himes, Interim
Director of the Ohio Department of Health (Defendant), hereby states as follows:
1. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiffs challenge Ohios marriage laws as
being unconstitutional. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiffs assert that they are six same-
sex couples who want to get married in the state of Ohio. Further answering, Defendant states
that to the extent that the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 are legal conclusions, no response
is required here and that Article XV, Section 11 of Ohios Constitution and Ohio Rev. Code
Section 3101.01 speak for themselves. Defendant denies for lack of information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth any remaining allegations.
2. Defendant states that the decisions in Henry v. Himes, 1:14-cv-129, 2014 WL
141385 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014), Obergefell v. Wymyslo, No. 1:13-cv-501, 2013 WL 6726688
(S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013), and United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (J une 26, 2013), as well
as the decisions referenced in footnote 1 to Paragraph 2, speak for themselves. Further
answering, Defendant states that to the extent that the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 are
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/21/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 81

2
legal conclusions, no response is required here, and Defendant denies any remaining allegations
of paragraph 2 of the complaint.
3. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 3 describing Plaintiffs
view of this case.
4. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.
5. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 5.
6. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 6.
7. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 7.
8. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 8.
9. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 9.
10. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 10.
11. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 11.
12. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 12.
13. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 13.
14. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 14.
15. Defendant does not dispute that Michelle Gibson and Deborah Meem would like
to be married in Ohio but deny for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 15.
16. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 16 as to what Plaintiffs
believe, and otherwise denies for want of knowledge the allegations in Paragraph 16.
17. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 17.
18. Defendant denies for lack of information sufficient to form a belief the allegations
in Paragraph 18.
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/21/14 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: 82

3
19. Defendant denies for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief the allegations
set forth in Paragraph 19.
20. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 20.
21. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 21 that Ohio law does not
authorize or recognize same-sex marriages.
22. Defendant denies for want of knowledge the allegations in Paragraph 22.
23. Defendant does not dispute that these Plaintiffs want to be married in Ohio as
alleged in Paragraph 23.
24. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 24.
25. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 25.
26. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 26.
27. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 27.
28. Defendant does not dispute that Ronald Kastner adopted a son with the diagnoses
and therapy as described in Paragraph 28.
29. Defendant denies for want of knowledge the allegations in Paragraph 29.
30. Defendant does not dispute that David Beck adopted a son as alleged in Paragraph
30.
31. Defendant denies for want of knowledge the allegations in Paragraph 31.
32. Defendant denies for want of knowledge the allegations in Paragraph 32.
33. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 33.
34. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 34.
35. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 35.

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/21/14 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: 83

4
36. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 36.
37. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 37.
38. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 38.
39. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 39.
40. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 40 that Plaintiffs Andrew
Hickman and Ethan Fletcher want to be married in Ohio.
41. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 41.
42. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 42.
43. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 43.
44. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 44.
45. Defendant denies for want of knowledge the allegations in Paragraph 45.
46. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 46.
47. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 47.
48. Defendant denies for want of knowledge the allegations in Paragraph 48.
49. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiffs believe as described Paragraph 49.
50. Defendant does not dispute what the Plaintiffs Rhonda Craig and Kendra Dukes
believe as alleged in Paragraph 50.
51. Defendant does not dispute the allegations in Paragraph 51 that Plaintiffs Kendra
Dukes and Rhonda Craig want to be married in Ohio.
52. Answering paragraph 52 of the complaint, Defendant states that Article XV
Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution and Ohio Rev. Code Section 3101.01(A) speak for
themselves.
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/21/14 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: 84

5
53. Answering paragraph 53 of the complaint, Defendant states that Ohio Rev. Code
3105.12(B)(1) speaks for itself.
54. Defendant states that Paragraph 54 states a legal conclusion to which no response
is required here. Further answering, a marriage license issued in Ohio is recorded pursuant to
law and is accorded by other states whatever recognition the laws of such other jurisdiction
affords it.
55. Defendant states that Paragraph 55 states a legal conclusion to which no response
is required here.
56. Defendant states that Ohio Revised Code Sections 2921.13, 3101.99 and
3101.05(B) speak for themselves. Further answering, Defendant states that to the extent that the
remaining allegations in Paragraph 56 are legal conclusions, no response is required. Further
answering, Defendant denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 56 of the complaint.
57. Defendant states that Ohio Rev. Code Sections 3101.08 and 3101.13 speak for
themselves.
58. Defendant states that Paragraph 58 contains a legal conclusion for which no
response is required, and further answering denies that all common law marriages are not
recognized in Ohio.
59. Defendant denies that he is responsible for issuing marriage licenses as alleged in
Paragraph 59. Further answering, Defendant states that Ohio law speaks for itself.
60. Defendant states that Paragraph 60 states legal conclusions for which no response
is required.
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/21/14 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: 85

6
61. Defendant does not deny that the Plaintiffs want to marry in Ohio but denies for
want of information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief the remaining allegations in
Paragraph 61.
62. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 62.
63. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 63.
64. Defendant denies for want of information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
the allegations in Paragraph 64. Further answering, Defendant states that Ohio law speaks for
itself, and Plaintiffs assertions about Ohio law are their legal conclusions to which no response
is required. Further answering paragraph 64, to the extent that Plaintiffs characterizations of
Ohio law are inaccurate, Defendant denies them.
65. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 65.
66. Defendant does not dispute the significance of marriage as a societal foundation,
and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 66.
67. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiffs seek to be married in Ohio, and
otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 67.
68. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 68.
69. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 69, and states that court decisions
and appeals in other cases speak for themselves.
70. In response to Paragraph 70, Defendant states that United States Supreme Court
decisions speak for themselves.
71. Defendant will work with Plaintiffs to stipulate to the appropriate consideration
here of the full record from the Obergefell case referenced in Paragraph 71.

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/21/14 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: 86

7
72. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 72.
73. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 73.
74. Defendant denies Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek or to any other
relief.
75. Defendant denies all allegations not expressly admitted or specified as not
disputed.
WHEREFORE, having answered Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant raises the following
defenses, including affirmative defenses.
FIRST DEFENSE
This Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims.
SECOND DEFENSE
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

THIRD DEFENSE
Article XV, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution, as adopted by vote of the People of the
State of Ohio, does not violate Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution. Provisions
of Ohios Constitution may not be set aside without warrant in law.
FOURTH DEFENSE
Ohio Revised Code 3101.01(C)(2) does not violate Plaintiffs rights under the United
States Constitution. Duly adopted provisions of Ohio statute may not be set aside without
warrant in law.

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/21/14 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: 87

8
FIFTH DEFENSE
Defendant reserves the right to add defenses, including affirmative defenses, as may be
disclosed during the course of this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL DeWINE
Ohio Attorney General

/s/ Bridget E. Coontz
BRIDGET E. COONTZ (0072919)*
*Lead and Trial Counsel
ZACHERY P. KELLER (0086930)
Assistant Attorneys General
Constitutional Offices Section
30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Tel: 614-466-2872; Fax: 614-728-7592
bridget.coontz@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
zachery.keller@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Counsel for Lance Himes, Interim Director of the
Ohio Department of Health


Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/21/14 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: 88

9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing was electronically filed with the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Ohio, on May 21, 2014, and served upon all parties of record via the courts
electronic filing system.

/s/ Bridget E. Coontz
BRIDGET E. COONTZ (0072919)
Assistant Attorney General
Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/21/14 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: 89