of legal out-of-state same-sex marriages. To the contrary, as an Ohio district court recently found when confronted with the same question, the only “purpose served by treating same-sex married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples is the same improper purpose that failed in Windsor and in Romer: ‘to impose inequality’ and to make gay citizens unequal under the law.” Obergefell v. Kasich, 2013 WL 3814262, at *6 (S.D.Ohio July 22, 2013). Therefore, the Court finds the argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry will undermine procreation is nothing more than an unsupported “overbroad generalization” that cannot be a basis for upholding discriminatory legislation. See Plyler, 457 U.S. at 217-18, 102 S.Ct. 2382. (3) Tradition While Defendants do n 69139, at *20 (<HOLDING>); Kitchen, 961 F.Supp.2d at 1211-12, 2013 WL
holding that the agency must articulate rational connection between the facts found and the choice made holding the connection is an element holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction holding that the jury need not be specifically instructed to find whether there is a connection between the defendant the weapon and the crime holding there is simply no rational connection between ohios samesex marriage recognition bans and the asserted goal of responsible childrearing given that ohios ban does not prevent gay couples from having children