Bishop v. United States: Oklahoma gay marriage

[Conan71]

Lawyers for Oklahoma official: Marriage is for procreation potential

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Marriage exists for its procreative potential, not just as recognition of a loving relationship between two people, and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees, lawyers for an Oklahoma clerk said in a new court filing.

The 63-page brief filed Tuesday is the latest volley in a battle between a lesbian couple of 17 years and Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith, who refused to grant them a marriage license in 2009.

Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin subsequently sued to be allowed to marry in their home state, where voters had approved a ban on same-sex marriage in 2004. U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled in Bishop and Baldwin's favor in January this year, and Smith appealed.

Lawyers for Smith argued that marriage is about furthering "potentially procreative sexual relationships into stable unions" rather than recognizing the love and commitment of two people.

"They (plaintiffs) reduce marriage from an institution that exists to benefit children and society, and relegate it to a mere stamp through which the government approves loving, emotional unions between adult couples," they said in the brief filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

They further argued that the Supreme Court has found repeatedly that marriage is fundamental to the survival of the human race. In one of the cases cited, Loving v. Virginia in 1967, the court ruled that the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional.

Lawyers for Bishop and Baldwin didn't immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment, but they argued in a brief last month that the marriage ban demeans same-sex couples and their children because it sends the message that their relationships are secondary to those built in traditional families.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for later this month in the Denver appeals court. The same panel will hear a similar appeal out of Utah on April 10.

Tuesday's brief was the second filed by the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Smith.

———
http://newsok.com/lawyers-for-oklahoma-official-marriage-is-for-procreation-potential/article/3949533

Damn, sure wish I'd known that before MC and I got married.  I hope they don't come seek us out and make us procreate so that our marriage will be valid. 

I'm trying to figure out why our local court clerk is fighting this so hard.  Don't we have better things to be spending money on than legal fees for unnecessary legal work?

[cannon_fodder]

The state Attorney General is handling the case, and any case challenging a state law.  The Court Clerk is the figure head state employee whose "action" gave rise to the suit.  Jurisdiction and standing issues abound... but that's the non law nerd version.

[Dspike]

Neither the Attorney General nor his Solicitor General is involved in the Bishop case. After the first appeal (several years ago), the district court dismissed the State as a defendant. The county clerk, Ms. Smith, was defended by a district attorney and a public interest group - Alliance Defending Freedom. The appeal is also being handled by the same two entities with ADF taking the lead. Here is the ADF press information about the oral argument:

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8880

And here is Ms. Smith's opening brief:

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/US-BishopOpeningBrief.pdf

The AG is doing a lot of things, but this is not one of them.

[cannon_fodder]

Thank you Spike.  I should have clarified at the District Court level...

In argument the State is hanging their hat on "procreation" as the grounds to discriminate.  As far as ibam aware, that argument has always failed since:

1) straight couples are not required to procreate
2) couples incapable of having children can get married
3) people have children out of marriage
4) gay couples can and do have children, and
5) if "think of the children" is the priority and children are better off in a two person household, then allowing gay couples to wed actually furthers that state interest.

Many previous gay marriage cases have destroyed this argument.

[Townsend]

Court: Utah Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional; No Ruling Yet on Oklahoma's Ban

http://kwgs.com/post/court-utah-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-no-ruling-yet-oklahomas-ban

DENVER (AP) — A federal appeals court for the first time says a state cannot prevent gay people from getting married.

A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver found that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. The judges upheld a lower court ruling that struck down the ban in December.

They immediately put their ruling on holding so it could be appealed.

The case has been closely watched because it represents the first ruling on gay marriage at the appellate level since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013.

The ruling likely will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The panel has not yet ruled on a similar ban in Oklahoma.

[Conan71]

Maybe the term "unconstitutional" is going to finally sink in at some point:

DENVER -- A federal appeals court Friday struck down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriages.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law for everyone.

The ban was challenged in 2004 in lawsuits by two Tulsa-area lesbian couples, the day after Oklahoma voters approved adding it as an amendment to the state constitution. The ban passed by a 76 percent landslide.

The federal appeals court had ruled last month that a similar ban on same-sex marriages in Utah is unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to have the final say on the dispute.

Plaintiffs Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin sued for the right to be be married in Oklahoma, while Susan Barton and Gay Phillips were suing to have their legal California marriage recognized in Oklahoma. Bishop is a Tulsa World editor.

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern in Tulsa in January struck down the Oklahoma's marriage amendment. It declares that marriage "shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." His decision has been on hold pending Friday's outcome.

Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith appealed Kern's ruling. She was a defendant because her duties include issuing marriage license.

Attorneys defending the amendment argued to the appellate judges that states have the power to define marriage and that the court should defer to the democratic process. Those attorneys contended that the ban preserves "marriage's efficacy in accomplishing the procreative institution and child-related interests."

Attorneys representing the lesbian couples told the appellate judges that they wish to "share in" and "uphold" the instruction of marriage.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-s-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional-federal-appeals-court/article_b6675f9d-bef3-501f-b10f-6243e53fbaf3.html

[patric]

Maybe the term "unconstitutional" is going to finally sink in at some point:

Knowing a proposed law would never pass a constitutional test has never stopped opportunistic career politicians from scoring points with ignorant voters.

[Townsend]

Knowing a proposed law would never pass a constitutional test has never stopped opportunistic career politicians from scoring points with ignorant voters.

The day SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional, there will be a minimum of five bills in the OK legislature to try again.

[Conan71]

The day SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional, there will be a minimum of five bills in the OK legislature to try again.

Only five?  That will just be "Teh Kern's" contribution.



She might be a closet case.  She looks pretty butch.

[Townsend]

Oklahoma Governor Decries Same-Sex Marriage Ruling



http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-governor-decries-same-sex-marriage-ruling

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin says a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage is an example of federal courts trampling on the rights of states to govern themselves.

Fallin made the comments in Tulsa after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver struck down Oklahoma's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Fallin says she voted for the amendment that was approved by 76 percent of Oklahoma voters in 2004. Now, she says, two federal judges have acted to overturn a law supported by most Oklahomans.

Fallin says she hopes the decision is eventually overturned. She says she will continue to fight the federal government when it seeks to ignore or change laws written and supported by Oklahomans.

[patric]

Oklahoma Governor Decries Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

At least she reduced the minimum age of the bodyguards she can seek consolation from...

[AquaMan]

How did this woman become governor with such a limited understanding of government? States rights people. Geez.

Ok guvnr. The states may pass quite popular laws that are simply not in line with the federal constitution. When that happens the judicial system is there to protect the rights of others as enunciated in the constitution. We all signed on to that to gain admission to the Union. Remember taking some kind of oath of office that mentioned allegiance to the USofA? Check your VCR. You may have a difference of opinion as to whether they made the correct decision and you may appeal to a higher court but they are doing their job as laid out by our founding fathers. You will need to secede to get the powers you think the state deserves.

No doubt that would also pass with a 76% margin and you would vote for it.

[guido911]

This just in.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-s-same-sex-marriage-ban-heads-to-u-s/article_b962cc0c-f740-5ac2-b628-90b36d55ad7c.html

[cannon_fodder]

Misleading headline...

It isn't heading to the Supreme Court.  Its being appealed to see if they will take it.  As far as I know, all circuits are in agreement.  The Court may not want to take the case to avoid the inevitable as National law.

[guido911]

Misleading headline...

It isn't heading to the Supreme Court.  Its being appealed to see if they will take it.  As far as I know, all circuits are in agreement.  The Court may not want to take the case to avoid the inevitable as National law.

I will wait and see if the Supremes take it before I comment on the merits. I wouldn't rule anything out before it decides cert. Remember, the law of the land up until a few years ago was DOMA. So if the circuits agree or not is in part meaningless.