Judge rules Oklahoma's gay marriage ban unconstitutional

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
I love the sound of equality in the morning.


OKLAHOMA CITY —A U.S. District judge has ruled that Oklahoma’s ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional.

Judge Terence Kern made the ruling on Tuesday. The ruling was immediately put on hold, pending appeals.

“Judge Kern has come to the conclusion that so many have before him – that the fundamental equality of lesbian and gay couples is guaranteed by the United States Constitution,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a statement. “With last year’s historic victories at the Supreme Court guiding the way, it is clear that we are on a path to full and equal citizenship for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. Equality is not just for the coasts anymore, and today’s news from Oklahoma shows that time has come for fairness and dignity to reach every American in all 50 states.”
http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/okc/judge-rules-oklahomas-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/-/11777584/23927684/-/wiwnyuz/-/index.html?absolute=true&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=koconews
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
them terrible rights only if it is freedom of religion or guns are the only ones that matter.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Colour me shocked and surprised. I surely did not see this one coming. I would have suspected Oklahoma, Texas, and a few other states in the South to be last for something like this, but wow.. I am truly shocked.

I assume there is a delay in implementing this for appeal?

BL.
 

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
869
1,093
Looks like Oklahoma won't have to go through the same legal mess as Utah--with SSM possibly being legal only for a short time--since the judge was smart enough to put the ruling on hold immediately pending the appeals process.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Looks like Oklahoma won't have to go through the same legal mess as Utah--with SSM possibly being legal only for a short time--since the judge was smart enough to put the ruling on hold immediately pending the appeals process.
Let's flip the boat on this one, going back to Prop. 8.

When Prop. 8 was passed, same-sex marriage was legal. Prop. 8 was passed, which right after that, a lawsuit was filed. If you like the logic here, shouldn't Prop. 8 have been put on hold pending the appeal to the courts?

Because it wasn't. You should have been outraged at that as well.

BL.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
Let's flip the boat on this one, going back to Prop. 8.

When Prop. 8 was passed, same-sex marriage was legal. Prop. 8 was passed, which right after that, a lawsuit was filed. If you like the logic here, shouldn't Prop. 8 have been put on hold pending the appeal to the courts?

Because it wasn't. You should have been outraged at that as well.

BL.
Simple logic dictates that the answer is no.

If prop8 had been put on hold, then there would have likely thousands of couples who got married in the meantime. Then what happens when they find out after the ruling that their marriages were invalid if that were to happen?

The stay is designed to prevent that scenario
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Simple logic dictates that the answer is no.

If prop8 had been put on hold, then there would have likely thousands of couples who got married in the meantime. Then what happens when they find out after the ruling that their marriages were invalid if that were to happen?

The stay is designed to prevent that scenario
Wouldn't that be the same thing that has happened in Utah? Marriages were performed are now invalid..

But absolutely nothing happened to heterosexual marriages in California while Prop. 8 was in effect while being appealed.

We can't have it both ways, or we live in a world of double standards.

BL.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
Wouldn't that be the same thing that has happened in Utah? Marriages were performed are now invalid..

But absolutely nothing happened to heterosexual marriages in California while Prop. 8 was in effect while being appealed.

We can't have it both ways, or we live in a world of double standards.

BL.
Marriages that were performed in Utah are invalid at the moment. They will either be permanently invalidated if Utah's appeal goes through, or they will be acknowledged by the state if the state loses.

It's a mess, and it wouldn't have been the case if a stay had been granted because those marriages wouldn't have been performed until the matter was sorted.

Which is exactly why the judge in the Utah case was in the wrong to not grant a stay.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Marriages that were performed in Utah are invalid at the moment. They will either be permanently invalidated if Utah's appeal goes through, or they will be acknowledged by the state if the state loses.

It's a mess, and it wouldn't have been the case if a stay had been granted because those marriages wouldn't have been performed until the matter was sorted.

Which is exactly why the judge in the Utah case was in the wrong to not grant a stay.
This could be interesting considering the language of the court regarding DOMA:

"The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States," Kennedy wrote of DOMA. He concluded that states must be allowed by the federal government to confer "dignity" on same-sex couples if they choose to legalize gay marriage. DOMA "undermines" same-sex marriages in visible ways and "tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition."
Could be an interesting SCOTUS case if the court goes into this on the side of states rights first.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Marriages that were performed in Utah are invalid at the moment. They will either be permanently invalidated if Utah's appeal goes through, or they will be acknowledged by the state if the state loses.

It's a mess, and it wouldn't have been the case if a stay had been granted because those marriages wouldn't have been performed until the matter was sorted.

Which is exactly why the judge in the Utah case was in the wrong to not grant a stay.
And everything should have been the opposite for California.

  • Prior to the 2008 election, SSM marriage was legal.
  • During the 2008 election, Prop. 8 was passed, banning SSM.
  • Lawsuit was filed to repeal Prop. 8.
  • During the appeal process no stay to stop the enforcement of Prop. 8 was issued.

By your logic and Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there should have been just as equal outrage over no stay for the 5-year enforcement of Prop. 8 as there was for Utah's immediate enactment of SSM without a stay.

But there wasn't. So again, I ask "why no outrage over the enforcement of Prop. 8 when there was an appeal for it pending, but there was outrage during Utah's enabling of SSM with no appeal/or appeal pending?"

Or is it only because heterosexual marriage wasn't impacted?

You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, back to Oklahoma. Fallin spoke, and cited the typical outrage, "will of the people" schtick; the same rhetoric that was said in California. I'll let some dead people respond to that:

Leo Tolstoy said:
“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”
Chief Justice Moalusi Tlotlo said:
“Not always majority are correct sometimes it goes with a lack of understanding.”
Ayn Rand said:
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
Cornel West said:
“Of course, the aim of a constitutional democracy is to safeguard the rights of the minority and avoid the tyranny of the majority.”
James Madison said:
In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.
I think those say it all.

BL.
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351


Maybe by the end of this year the US as a whole, will join the rest of us in the 21st Century.:D
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
By your logic and Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there should have been just as equal outrage over no stay for the 5-year enforcement of Prop. 8 as there was for Utah's immediate enactment of SSM without a stay.

But there wasn't. So again, I ask "why no outrage over the enforcement of Prop. 8 when there was an appeal for it pending, but there was outrage during Utah's enabling of SSM with no appeal/or appeal pending?"

Or is it only because heterosexual marriage wasn't impacted?
You're going to need to do a little better than that bradl, are we seeing more of the winter quarters type tactic here?

Cite a source demonstrating this "outrage" in Utah over SSM's done before the appeal was filed. I follow local Utah news quite closely and I have yet to see much of any outrage at all, much less in the few days between the ruling and the appeal.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
By your logic and Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there should have been just as equal outrage over no stay for the 5-year enforcement of Prop. 8 as there was for Utah's immediate enactment of SSM without a stay.
It causes a lot more problems to have a stay that gives a new right rather than one that keeps things how they are. If a stay in the enforcement of prop 8 had been granted and then it had been upheld then you would have had 5 years of SSM that are just suddenly invalidated. That's a lot more complicated to deal with and a lot worse for the couples involved than if they just have to wait to get married.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
You're going to need to do a little better than that bradl, are we seeing more of the winter quarters type tactic here?
If you want to start that again, open a thread, and we'll have it out.

Also, I was going to take the higher ground and reply back to your PMs. Now, I think I'll just delete them and move along. It's obvious you want to call me out, and I'm not taking your bait. Nice try though.

Back on topic.

Cite a source demonstrating this "outrage" in Utah over SSM's done before the appeal was filed. I follow local Utah news quite closely and I have yet to see much of any outrage at all, much less in the few days between the ruling and the appeal.
Look no further than back to the Utah thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=18612119&postcount=112
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=18612353&postcount=115

It wouldn't be termed an 'emergency order' if there weren't any outrage about their SSMs going into effect.

Now, do you have anything more to say about Oklahoma's issue? If so, please continue it here, or open up another Utah SSM thread and we'll discuss this there.

BL.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
If you want to start that again, open a thread, and we'll have it out.

Also, I was going to take the higher ground and reply back to your PMs. Now, I think I'll just delete them and move along. It's obvious you want to call me out, and I'm not taking your bait. Nice try though.


I see how it is ;)


Look no further than back to the Utah thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=18612119&postcount=112
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=18612353&postcount=115

It wouldn't be termed an 'emergency order' if there weren't any outrage about their SSMs going into effect.

Now, do you have anything more to say about Oklahoma's issue? If so, please continue it here, or open up another Utah SSM thread and we'll discuss this there.

BL.
Both those links prove my point, there would have been no need for an emergency stay by the Supreme Court had the initial request to judge Shelby been granted. It was the Supreme Court, not the state of Utah, who labeled it an "emergency stay"

Still how does that constitute "outrage" on the part of Utah or it's citizens?
 

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
869
1,093
It causes a lot more problems to have a stay that gives a new right rather than one that keeps things how they are. If a stay in the enforcement of prop 8 had been granted and then it had been upheld then you would have had 5 years of SSM that are just suddenly invalidated. That's a lot more complicated to deal with and a lot worse for the couples involved than if they just have to wait to get married.
+1

Judge Kern understood the gravity of his ruling and appropriately stayed it immediately.

In my opinion, Judge Shelby in Utah was a little too giddy about what his ruling would entail and enjoyed/is enjoying the fireworks that have ensued.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
It causes a lot more problems to have a stay that gives a new right rather than one that keeps things how they are. If a stay in the enforcement of prop 8 had been granted and then it had been upheld then you would have had 5 years of SSM that are just suddenly invalidated. That's a lot more complicated to deal with and a lot worse for the couples involved than if they just have to wait to get married.
+1

Judge Kern understood the gravity of his ruling and appropriately stayed it immediately.

In my opinion, Judge Shelby in Utah was a little too giddy about what his ruling would entail and enjoyed/is enjoying the fireworks that have ensued.
In short, to paraphrase Leonard Nimoy, "The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few".

Which all leads back to why the rights of the minority should never by usurped by the tyranny of the majority.

Thank you for providing that wonderful example to corroborate the quotes I provided.

BL.
 

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
869
1,093
In short, to paraphrase Leonard Nimoy, "The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few".

Which all leads back to why the rights of the minority should never by usurped by the tyranny of the majority.

Thank you for providing that wonderful example to corroborate the quotes I provided.

BL.
Regardless on where you lie on this issue, there is still the rule of law that must be followed. With a dramatic change in law as seen in Utah and Oklahoma, it is entirely appropriate to stay those laws until the appeals process can run its course. And if the Utah or Oklahoma rulings are upheld by the Circuit Courts--and potentially the SCOTUS--then SSM will be legal and those that want to get married will be able to. Allowing SSM prior to the appeals process running its course only creates confusion and legal chaos if said rulings are subsequently overturned and if the original law is reinstated. Even if you believe SSM will be the law of the land and the appeals in Utah and Oklahoma have zero chance of success, a stay is still the appropriate court action.