I agree. This judge has no jurisdiction over a state constitution. The power to define marriage is NOT mentioned in the Constitution of the united States. Therefore it is reserved to the people or to the States.
His argument as with all other such decisions is that the OK constitution violates the 14th amendment. I am no lawyer.
But it seems passing strange that so many laws set up classes of people who are eligible for one bennie or another at the expense of others. Welfare is one such example I can think of. You either qualify or you do not.
Homosexuals do not have their civic right denied: they can vote, participate in all the political functions of a democracy. Their rights are not violated.
Marriage is a man made institution that has its definition designated as being between a man and a woman. Period. This is no different than any other law that defines a personal condition or state. For example, there are specific laws that apply to women against men. Can I not argue that as a man I am being denied the same protections since women are more protected?
I cannot. Judges won’t hear of such.
And that is where I have an issue with some federal judge trying to change the explicit definition of what marriage is. It is in the state’s constitution. It was put there deliberately. It is a set of conditions which must be met to meet the definition, just like any other law that is enacted protecting or describing a segment of the population.
The same people who defend those states that have voted to permit homosexual marriage as within states rights are the ones going to the federal courts to overturn decisions by states to oppose homosexual marriage. Either this is a state matter or it’s not. Unfortunately, the judges distort the law to fit with their political agenda.