Laws around marriage equality have rapidly changed over the past decade, leaving some families in a legal gray zone. A case before the Ohio Supreme Court highlights the ways laws defining parenthood can fall short for people who have children and are in same-sex relationships.

In the early 2000s, Priya Shahani and Carmen Edmonds began a long-term romantic relationship—but they were banned from marrying under Ohio law. Nonetheless, according to a legal brief filed by Edmonds, their relationship resembled a marriage in meaningful ways: They lived together, had children, and gave their children hyphenated last names that included both their surnames. Shahani gave birth to and was the biological mother of their kids, who were conceived using sperm from an anonymous donor.

Shahani and Edmonds broke up in early 2015. Their entire relationship—including the birth of their kids—took place before the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges that bans on same-sex marriage violated the U.S. Constitution.

In 2018, Edmonds filed a petition for parental rights over the couple’s children. A lower court ruled she did not meet the definition of “parent” under Ohio law because she is not a biological parent of the children and was not married to Shahani when they were born. That decision was reversed on appeal. Edmonds can be recognized as a legal parent, the appellate court held, if she can prove that she and Shahani would have been married when the kids were conceived absent the same-sex marriage ban.

On appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, Shahani argues that a “would have been married” standard violates separation of powers principles because the test effectively amends state laws that do not recognize common-law marriage—which only the legislature has the power to do. The court’s rewriting of legislation, she........

© Slate