High Court Legalizes Same-sex Marriage in Oklahoma
Because the Supreme Court justices had earlier issued stays blocking the appeals court rulings in Utah and Virginia which would have immediately allowed gay marriages, it was thought the high court would take up the cases. The appeals court decisions in the other three states had been stayed by the appeals courts themselves pending resolution by the high court. But in September, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has officiated at a same-sex wedding, remarked that there was no urgency for the high court to act unless a federal appeals court upholds a state-ban on same-sex marriage. Apparently a majority on the justices see no need to intercede as long as the lower courts continue to rule in favor of gay marriage. The Supreme Court accepts a case for review if at least four of the nine justices vote to hear the appeals. The justices rejected the appeals as part of a list of orders released as they formally opened their 2014-15 term.
Advocates on both sides had urged the justices to settle the issue. While gay marriage advocates were pleased that same-sex marriage is now legal in more states, they had hoped the court would make a decision to legalize the marriages in all states. Now, same-sex couples in the remaining states will have to wait for additional court rulings. Those who oppose gay marriage had hoped the court would decide to leave the issue for each state to decide. The next day after the Supreme Court action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, struck down bans in Idaho and Nevada. This brings the number of states where same-sex marriages are allowed to 34.
Within hours of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver removed the stay on their earlier ruling, paving the way for gay marriages to begin in Oklahoma. The Tulsa County Court Clerk's Office immediately issued a marriage license to Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, the couple who were the plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case. The couple was married later that day in Tulsa.
The Oklahoma case was first filed in 2004 by Baldwin and Bishop, of Tulsa County. After a decade in the courts, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled in January that Part A of the constitutional amendment approved by 76% of Oklahoma voters in 2004, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Oklahoma constitutional amendment says marriage in the state consists of "the union of one man and one woman." Judge Kern said the measure violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause by precluding same-sex couples from receiving an Oklahoma marriage license. He described the ban as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit." The plaintiffs had sued the Tulsa County Clerk for not issuing the couple a marriage license.
On January 15, Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith responded to Judge Kern's ruling by filing the appeal. She was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal group. On July 18, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Kern's ruling and declared Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. In the 2-1 decision, the Denver court affirmed its June ruling in a similar case from Utah. Judges Carlos Lucero, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, and Jerome Holmes, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, voted to strike down the law. Judge Paul Kelly, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, dissented.
ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione responded to the July court ruling: "In his dissent, Judge Kelly correctly noted that "any change in the definition of marriage rightly belongs to the people of Oklahoma, not a federal court.' We are consulting with our client and considering her options. Ultimately, the question whether the people are free to affirm marriage as a man-woman union will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the high court remains consistent with what it held in its Windsor decision, the states will ultimately be free to preserve man-woman marriage should they choose to do so." The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Numerous lawsuits and rulings regarding same-sex marriage bans followed the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in its Windsor ruling that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Congressman James Lankford responded to the latest ruling saying that the Supreme Court had engaged in "judicial gymnastics" when it declined to revisit same-sex marriage. Lankford, who is the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Tom Coburn, said that the Supreme Court's decision effectively prevents states from implementing their own laws regarding same-sex marriage: "The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the federal government cannot deny marriage recognition to any person, if the state recognized the marriage, because marriage is a state institution. The Windsor case detailed the majority opinion of the Supreme Court by stating, "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate states.' Now, through judicial gymnastics the Supreme Court has allowed federal court decisions to stand that directly conflict with the clear will of a state on marriage. The Court should not in one year say a state can make the decision on marriage and then in the next year allow a local federal judge to reject a state's definition of marriage. The implications of forcing any state to redefine marriage have far-reaching effects on our American society, business operations and religious practice."
Governor Mary Fallin responded harshly to the high court decision: "The people of Oklahoma have the right to determine how marriage is defined. In 2004, Oklahomans exercised that right, voting by a margin of 3-1 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The will of the people has now been overridden by unelected federal justices, accountable to no one. That is both undemocratic and a violation of states' rights. Rather than allowing states to make their own policies that reflect the values and views of their residents, federal judges have inserted themselves into a state issue to pursue their own agendas. Today's decision has been cast by the media as a victory for gay rights. What has been ignored, however, is the right of Oklahomans -- and Americans in every state -- to write their own laws and govern themselves as they see fit. Those rights have once again been trampled by an arrogant, out-of -control federal government that wants to substitute Oklahoma values with Washington, D.C. values."
State Representatives Mike Ritze (R-Broken Arrow) and Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City) reached out to Gov. Mary Fallin and Attorney General Scott Pruitt requesting they take any action "available to [them] to have this issue considered by the . . . Supreme Court."
"The Cout's refusal to take action has done nothing but raised more questions for states on how to deal with this issue," said Ritze,. "The Court is essentially shirking its responsibilities and leaving state lawmakers and court clerks with little guidance on what to do. Our position on this issue is clear, and, frankly, the Court owes the nation a final decision so we can move forward."
"The citizens of Oklahoma overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman," said Kern. "The people of this state have spoken, and the Supreme Court needs to have the courage to make a decision. Seventy-six percent of Oklahomans are in agreement on this issue, and I hope Gov. Fallin and Attorney General Pruitt will use the power of their offices to seek a review by the Court."
Meanwhile, the ADF says it will continue to defend the rights of states on the marriage issue as cases evolve in the states that are not impacted by the high court decision. If the courts rule differently in other appellate jurisdictions, the Supreme Court may yet have to consider the issue.
Latest Commentary
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024