Q: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Ohio’s ban on same-sex marriage was under siege yesterday by a federal judge who said the state must recognize same-gender couples legally married elsewhere, and by a gay-rights group planning to challenge it at the ballot box. 
  
 U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black sent out shock waves with a verbal announcement in his Cincinnati courtroom that, within 10 days, he will issue a written ruling requiring Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. Black gave no indication that he would strike down the state’s gay-marriage ban overall, but the big-picture effect on marriage in Ohio remains unclear. 
  
 “I intend to issue a written decision and order by April 14 striking down as unconstitutional under all circumstances Ohio’s bans on recognizing legal same-sex marriages from other states,” Black said in a statement released by his court. 
  
 >> Follow @OhioPoliticsNow for more political news from The Dispatch 
  
 Despite the uncertain impact, gay-marriage advocates began celebrating. 
  
 “Ohio’s marriage ban is about to suffer a huge blow,” said Michael Premo, executive director of Equality Ohio. “In just ten days or less, we will take a landmark step towards winning marriage equality in Ohio once and for all.” 
  
 A couple of hours earlier, FreedomOhio, another advocacy group which has been collecting signatures for a constitutional challenge, announced it would not try to put the issue on the November ballot. Instead, it will “hold its original petition for marriage equality in a state of readiness for filing” while gathering signatures for another petition with “revised language” likely for the 2016 ballot. 
  
 That revised language, requested by national gay-rights groups, eliminates a provision saying that “no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage.” 
  
 The new ballot language, submitted to the state yesterday says, “No religious house of worship or the religious house of worship’s clergy shall be required to perform a marriage. All legally valid marriages shall be treated equally under the law. For the purposes of this section, a religious house of worship is one where the primary activity is religious worship.” 
  
 FreedomOhio also simultaneously began circulating an initiated statute petition for an Equal Housing and Employment Opportunity Act to prohibit discrimination against gay and transgender individuals in housing and employment. The group must collect 116,000 valid signatures of registered Ohio voters to submit the measure to the General Assembly in January 2015. The legislature would have four months to act; if it didn’t, the group could gather another 116,000 signatures to win a spot on the ballot, likely in 2016. 
  
 Neither development was welcome news to Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, the conservative Cincinnati-based group that spearheaded the same-sex marriage amendment. 
  
 “The people of Ohio voted 62-38 percent in 2004 defining marriage as one man and one woman,” Burress said in a statement. “The only way homosexual activists have any chance of forcing upon all Americans same-sex marriage is through the courts.” 
  
 The case Black will decide involves Ohio rules on whose name can go on Ohio birth certificates when legally married gays adopt a child. 
  
 Cincinnati attorney Al Gerhardstein, who represented several gay couples in the case, told The Dispatch that the judge said he will rule that it is “unconstitutional for Ohio not to recognize out-of-state marriages. … The case does not deal with the right to marry in Ohio. We didn’t ask for that.” 
  
 However, it would require Ohio to recognize marriages performed in 17 states and the District of Columbia, Gerhardstein said. 
  
 Attorney General Mike DeWine said once the ruling is filed he will immediately appeal it to 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. DeWine agreed that the case deals with recognition of out-of-state gay marriages only. 
  
 “This is a very narrow case. ... It does not totally strike down Ohio’s ban. There is no order that tells ‘Ohio, you have to start marrying people.’ The key is what he says in his order. Until we see the order, we don’t know the breadth of it or the narrowness of it,” the attorney general told The Dispatch. 
  
 “The question of what happens with Ohio’s law in general will have to be left to another day,” he said. “There’s going to a lot more court action.” 
  
 Much of the reaction to Black’s announcement was supportive. 
  
 State Rep. Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said the issue is “Does every citizen in the state of Ohio have full citizenship or not? I’m a legislator, and because I’m a lesbian, I don’t have full citizenship rights.” 
  
 As for ballot issues, Antonio said might be “a good moment to press pause. I don’t think there’s any one group, entity or legislature that has a magic answer to all of this. … This isn’t just about politics. People’s lives are at stake.” 
  
 Antonio and her partner of 20 years have been “holding out for Ohio” to allow same-sex marriage before they wed, she said. 
  
 An anti-discrimination law similar to what FreedomOhio will propose has been introduced as House Bill 163, sponsored by Antonio and Ross McGregor, R-Springfield. 
  
 Gov. John Kasich declined to comment on the court case. His likely Democratic opponent, Ed FitzGerald, said the ruling will be “an important first step to full marriage equality. … Who you love and commit yourself to should not be prohibited by governments.” 
  
 ajohnson@dispatch.com 
  
 @ohioaj ||||| CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal judge said Friday that he will order Ohio to recognize out-of-state gay marriages, a move that strikes down part of the state's ban on gay marriages but stops short of forcing it to perform same-sex weddings. 
  
 Attorney Al Gerhardstein, left, stands with several same-sex couples at a news conference, Friday, April 4, 2014, in Cincinnati. Civil rights attorneys are arguing in Federal Court on Friday that a federal... (Associated Press) 
  
 Nicole Yorksmith, right, kisses her three-year-old biological son while he is held by her spouse, Pam Yorksmith, during a news conference, Friday, April 4, 2014, in Cincinnati. Civil rights attorneys... (Associated Press) 
  
 FILE - In this April 2009 file photo photo provided by the Cincinnati Bar Association, federal Judge Timothy Black accepts an award from the bar for his involvement in the community. Black on Friday,... (Associated Press) 
  
 Judge Timothy Black announced his intentions in federal court in Cincinnati following final arguments in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the marriage ban. 
  
 "I intend to issue a declaration that Ohio's recognition bans, that have been relied upon to deny legal recognition to same-sex couples validly entered in other states where legal, violates the rights secured by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Black said. "(They're) denied their fundamental right to marry a person of their choosing and the right to remain married." 
  
 Black said he'll issue the ruling April 14. The civil rights attorneys who filed the February lawsuit did not ask Black to order the state to perform gay marriages, and he did not say he would do so. 
  
 Gay marriage is legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia. Federal judges have also struck down bans in Michigan, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia, and ordered Kentucky and Tennessee to recognize out-of-state gay marriages, though stays have been issued pending appeals. 
  
 Pam and Nicole Yorksmith, a Cincinnati couple who married in California in 2008 and have a 3-year-old son, were among the four couples who filed the lawsuit challenging the gay marriage ban and said Black's comments Friday gave them validation. 
  
 "It also validates to our kids that we're bringing into our marriage that their parents are recognized by the state that we live in, and that's extremely important," Pam Yorksmith said. "We're teaching kids of future generations that all families are different and just because our family doesn't look like your family doesn't mean that ours shouldn't be recognized." 
  
 Nicole Yorksmith is pregnant through artificial insemination with the couple's second child and is due in June. 
  
 The Cincinnati-based legal team asked Black to declare that Ohio's gay marriage ban is "facially unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable," and indicated that following such a ruling, the window would be open for additional litigation seeking to force the state to allow gay couples to marry in Ohio. 
  
 "This is a serious problem at the basic level of human dignity," said civil rights attorney Al Gerhardstein, who argued that Black should strike down the entire marriage ban as well. "That human dignity is denied by the way Ohio treats same-sex couples. This is central to our whole commitment as a nation to equality." 
  
 Dan Tierney, a spokesman for Ohio's attorney general, said the state will appeal Black's order when it comes out but declined to comment further. 
  
 Attorneys for the state argued that it's Ohio's sole province to define marriage as between a man and a woman, that the statewide gay marriage ban doesn't violate any fundamental rights, and that attorneys improperly expanded their originally narrow lawsuit. 
  
 "Ohio has made its own decision regarding marriage, deciding to preserve the traditional definition," state's attorneys argued in court filings ahead of Friday's hearing. 
  
 They argued that striking down the law would "disregard the will of Ohio voters, and undercut the democratic process." 
  
 Black didn't say why he made the announcement on his ruling before he issues it. But by stating his intention ahead of his ruling, Black gave time for the state to prepare an appeal that can be filed as soon as he does. 
  
 In December, Black issued a much narrower ruling that forced Ohio to recognize gay marriage on death certificates. He indicated at that time that the marriage ban was unconstitutional and discriminatory. 
  
 The state appealed that ruling, and the case is pending in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. |||||
A:
Gay rights advocates are poised to win at least a partial victory in Ohio. A federal judge in Cincinnati says he will issue an order by April 14 that the state must recognize gay marriages performed in other states, reports the AP. But Judge Timothy Black is not expected to go further and strike down Ohio's own 2004 ban on same-sex marriage, reports the Columbus Dispatch. The exact implications won't be clear until the ruling actually comes out. Black will declare that it's “unconstitutional for Ohio to not recognize out-of-state marriage," says an attorney who represented gay couples before the judge. "The case does not deal with the right to marry in Ohio. We didn’t ask for that.” The state's attorney general says he will appeal once the ruling comes out, but agrees on the narrowness of its scope. “There is no order to that tells Ohio, 'You have to start marrying people,'" says Mike DeWine.