Skip to comments.U.S. District Judge Rules Oklahoma Ban on Marriage Equality Unconstitutional
Posted on 01/14/2014 2:33:09 PM PST by BurningOak
Today U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled that Oklahomas ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional. His ruling is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in the Sooner State.
The ruling comes on the heels of a year-long string of electoral, judicial and legislative victories for marriage equality. In recent weeks both the New Mexico Supreme Court and a federal district judge in Utah have ruled in favor of marriage for lesbian and gay couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at hrc.org ...
Oklahoma judge legalizes same sex marriage in the state. Ruling on hold pending appeal. Same story as Utah, liberal judge forces homosexual marriage on a conservative state and issue goes to appeal and onto Supreme Court. The Kennedy decision in Windsor case this summer emboldened the judiciary around the nation to overturn the marriage protections in state constitutions. If forced to make a decision, current Supreme Court will likely legalize gay marriage nationally.
God is still in control.
So is Texas next or Arizona?
It is going to be decided nationally one way or another, state Constitutions are merely toilet paper to federal judges.
That would depend; where are there pending lawsuits in Federal Court?
Is there a site tracking that?
One of the reasons I truly, truly am looking at secession as being the only recourse left.
Oklahoma may have to become the firewall of Gay Marriage and thus we must make sure that the states more conservative than Oklahoma continue to protect traditional marriage.
That's what I'm afraid of.
time to start making imperial judges disappear
Good question. I have no idea, to be honest.
The article says federal district judge. The sodomites always go to the profligate federal courts first, now.
I’ll look around later.
Notice the abuse of language. Marriage has always been between man and woman. The language twisters alter the meaning of the word and then claim there is “inequality” because their altered meaning is not in force. Altering the meaning of words is how the left re-frames an issue. Don’t let them get away with it.
“Two plaintiff couples, Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin and Gay Phillips and Susan Barton,”
You got to love the plaintiffs names: we have a Mary, a Gay and a Bishop.
Traditional marriage is illegal in all 50 states.
Louisiana tried to offer "almost traditional" marriage, as an option, and it was ruled unconstitutional and contrary to public policy.
If you notice, they’re striking the conservative heartland and most religious states first, just to be wickedly spitefully.
All it takes is one judge apparently, the voice of the people matters not
Secession means armed revolution against the federal government. It means canyons filled with corpses and large parts of the nation turning into Syria or Somalia. I just can’t see it happening in this day and age, the average person is living well on some kind of federal subsidy, they aren’t going to cut off their own paycheck.
The solution is to just not heed the judge’s ruling
Queers that think they are married should be sternly advised to move to California
“ban on marriage equality”
Well, when you put it that way, it sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? Gotta love the typical leftist manipulation of language.
they should know better. 0bama and crew are about to erect their monument to satan in the state capital. of course homos are welcome
“Just-us” Kennedy will make it so.
It’s not marriage.
But let’s push this out to its logical conclusion... There are NO relationships that the government can ban and must recognize.
It is all rather insidious as all the gays need to do is find a federal judge appointed by Clinton or Obama, go to court and cite the 14th Amendment as well as the SCOTUS DOMA decision and the judge will rule in their favor.
Unfortunately, it’s just a matter of time. They have been able to brainwash all young people, so they’re just waiting for enough of the old people to die off.
“The solution is to just not heed the judges ruling
Queers that think they are married should be sternly advised to move to California”
Doesn’t work that way. Oh, state governments can cry and moan and bloviate and appeal and postpone and otherwise buy time. However, sooner or later the Supreme Court will declare for the federal government (as always) and the governor of the obstinate state will get a polite phone call from the White House. For decades states have leeched millions from the federal government, faced with the threat of financial retribution, state governments will fold like cheap lawn chairs.
>> For decades states have leeched millions from the federal government
Their chain of enslavement. It must be broken. WE must take back control of the states from the Uniparty.
As someone who has suffered through two bad marriages and would never do it again, I believe in everyone’s right to subject themselves to that misery.
Excellent point. My hat is off.
This is one Leftist's opinion, against tens of millions of citizens.
FR really needs a “like” button.
My question is, why hasn’t the Oklahoma state guard (or the equivalent) been activated for war?
“This is one Leftist’s opinion, against tens of millions of citizens.”
That is 50% true. Sure its one judge against millions. But it is one judge against millions of people who are too busy playing games on their mobile phones, watching sports, trolling for online pornography, and reading gossip sites. Judge knew his ruling would be met with a collective shrug. No Russian judge would dare pull something like that.
And Obastard is busy packing the courts with pro-homosexual activists who will decide that 98% of the country must bend over for the 2% in the name of “fairness”.
I somewhat agree with you. Most Americans have been lulled into a terminal malaise.
A federal government that regards two perverted homos as a genuine married husband-and-wife is a federal government I view as without any legitimacy. I’ll happily see the country burn to the ground first. And I’d even do my best to lend the matches to get it started.
Hell, the US Constitution is toilet paper to federal judges.
“My question is, why hasnt the Oklahoma state guard (or the equivalent) been activated for war??”
Yes it has. They faxed Obama and are awaiting instructions from their master. All large state level law/paramilitary organizations are federally owned, and mercenaries answer to whoever pays them. When you accept federal funding for your national guard units, you also accept the strings attached.
Apparently, nearly everybody has to try it for some reason.
Because the President can take over the state guard "to execute the Laws of the Union." (U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 15). The last time I can remember where a state refused to enforce a federal court order was when the federal courts ordered the desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The federal judge sent U.S. Marshals to enforce the order; the Governor called out the National Guard to block them; so President Eisenhower federalized the National Guard and the school was desegregated.
Then we need to un-federalize the guard.
I’ll supply the accelerant.
If this be the logical conclusion, then a state should come out and flatly say that NO relationships will be recognized. If one wants a ‘marriage’ then find some religious institution to perform it. If you want the legal/economic benefits that used to come with state recognized marriage then obtain a civil contract to meet those needs.
Decision is up: http://www.scribd.com/doc/199722739/4-04-cv-00848-272
The meat of it:
The Supreme Court has not expressly reached the issue of whether state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution. However, Supreme Court law now prohibits states from passing laws that are born of animosity against homosexuals, extends constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals, and prohibits the federal government from treating opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently. There is no precise legal label for what has occurred in Supreme Court jurisprudence beginning with Romer in 1996 and culminating in Windsor in 2013, but this Court knows a rhetorical shift when it sees one. Against this backdrop, the Courts task is to determine whether Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment deprives a class of Oklahoma citizens namely, same-sex couples desiring an Oklahoma marriage license of equal protection of the law. Applying deferential rationality review, the Court searched for a rational link between exclusion of this class from civil marriage and promotion of a legitimate governmental objective. Finding none, the Courts66 Case 4:04-cv-00848-TCK-TLW Document 272 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/14/14 rationality review reveals Part A as an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit. Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights. The Bishop couple has been in a loving, committed relationships for many years. They own property together, wish to retire together, wish to make medical decisions for one another, and wish to be recognized as a married couple with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment excludes the Bishop couple, and all otherwise eligible same-sex couples, from this privilege without a legally sufficient justification.
I go back and forth between faint optimism and maximum negativity.
It was only 3-4 years ago that, every referendum except 1, voted to outlaw homosexual marriage. This even included California.
Now liberal and progressive judges are destroying the will of the people.
If they can do this, they can do anything they wish, take any freedom.
There is no Republican, Conservative, Constitutionalist or Libertarian that is going to save us.
I believe we are down to our final destruction. Only a massive Revolution will save us. Or a Spiritual Renewal.
I agree with you. I think the best possible scenario at this point would be the break-up of the country.
We already have universal marriage equality. Anyone can be married as long as they follow the rule that everyone else has to follow, namely marrying someone of the opposite sex. They don’t want equality. They want special privledges that go above and beyond the privledges of others. I guess some animals really are more equal than others.
“ban on marriage equality”
I’ll say one thing about progressives. they sure do know how to spin the language.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.