Federal Judge OKs Gay Marriage in Oklahoma

Based on the Supreme Court decision last summer, marriage is supposed to be something that the states can define. It seems that US District Court Justice Terence Kern does not agree with this.

He overturned the definition of marriage which is found in the Oklahoma State Constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. This definition of marriage was ratified by over 80% of the voters in 2004. So, what the Judge did was to overturn a direct vote of the people and at the same time overturn a Supreme Court ruling that took place just last summer.

Gay marriages will not be happening in Oklahoma immediately. Judge Kern’s ruling is stayed, pending circuit appeal.

To read a copy of the ruling, go here.

 

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Its a disgrace. Federalism has disappeared. This is no longer the country it once was. I continue to live as a man without a country. Can one be in exile and still live on the land of his nation? Can I be an expatriate and still be living in New York?

    • Bill S

      Manny,

      I think you should just suck it up and ride this one out. Years from now you will look back and see how foolish your concerns about gay marriage were back in 2014.

      • SisterCynthia

        Do you mean he’ll think of this as the good old days when not only polygamy (recall how gay “marriage” folks insisted they would NEVER end up opening the door to those “weirdos”?) has become legal/”normal,” but polyamorous group “marriages” have become acceptable and lauded on tv as the Brave New Normal–who needs two mommies or two daddies when you can have multiple moms AND dads and not know biologically who your progenitors are for sure? When the stigma of interspecies love is erased? When consenting (incestous) adults proudly proclaim their love and marry with the promise to abort any deformed offspring? You are probably laughing at this as preposterous, but just as polygamy is riding the coattails of homosexual unions, there are no inherant reasons, aside from what you would otherwise call “cultural prejudices,” to deny ALL adults their unique, preferred sexual expression as long as no animals are harmed and/or the humans are all of age to consent. Unless there is real pushback against this, things will only continue to devolve. And for that reason, I doubt anyone who believes in traditional marriage will look at 2013/2014 as a wonderful turning point in American history and “no big deal.”

        • Dave

          Oh, SisterCynthia, don’t tell me you are still holding to that outdated “age of consent” tradition?!? I have it on good authority from pedophiles that children are capable of consenting and enjoying it!

          (This is sarcasm, but it is no joke that pedophiles are advocating for this. The only thing holding it back from acceptance is cultural norms.)

          • JohnH2

            Dave, Bridges and Animals can’t consent but people have gotten married to them.

          • Sus_1

            The gay marriage advocates I’m aware of are not advocating for pedophilia or polygamy. I think it’s unfair to equate these issues.

            • Dave

              I’m not equating the issues, but they can all be justified with the same basic argument. If the gender doesn’t matter, why does the number? In fact, there would be a better argument to be made in favor of “poly” marriage than for same sex marriage.

              The “loophole” that allows same-sex marriage (and incidentally, it started with contraception) allows anything in the realm of sexuality, i.e. that there is no intrinsic natural purpose for sexuality that must be respected and followed – it is simply a matter of consent. If you throw away that idea, then the only thing that makes a sexual practice “right” or “wrong” is cultural acceptance.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              The American Psychiatrists Association is who started this whole mess, and yes, right now they are advocating for pedophilia, just like they were advocating for homosexuals back in the 1970s.

              • Sus_1

                The APA is not advocating for pedophilia. It looks like you missed something.

                http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/10/pedophilia-mental.aspx

                “The American Psychological Association maintains that pedophilia is a mental disorder; that sex between adults and children is always wrong; and that acting on pedophilic impulses is and should be a criminal act. The American Psychological Association has worked for many years to prevent child sexual abuse and will continue to do so.”

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/pedophilia-sexual-orientation_n_4183482.html

                “A mainstream Christian news site and a number of smaller, right-wing blogs published stories this week alleging that the American Psychiatric Association, or APA, had classified pedophilia as a sexual orientation.

                The only problem is, the report wasn’t true. The APA appears to have made a seemingly small mistake that set off a rapid chain reaction of confusion and hate.”

                • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                  I didn’t say they had classified it as a sexual orientation yet. I said they were writing the white papers that *will* eventually cause yet another sea change in our understanding of what sexual orientation is. They have published plenty of those white papers already, so the press release is no different than a tobacco company saying that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

                  http://www.virped.org/ is the primary organization pushing at the moment.

                • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                  In other words, they got caught at it and retracted after the fact. For now, of course, just like they did with homosexuality in 1968 right before the DSM-III-TR in 1974 changed it.

                  http://www.virped.org/ is the main organization currently pushing for pedophilia to be a sexual orientation.

                  • Sus_1

                    Where’s the proof? Where are the white papers endorsed by the APA that says pedophilia is a sexual orientation? The only articles and papers I’ve found are written by people with insane ideas like the US moon landing was faked. I haven’t found one credible source for what you are saying.

                    Rebecca, I don’t understand why you allow hateful and untrue comments like this.

            • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

              No, but the same cultural left advocates that have been trying to redefine society and to some degree have already been successful are pushing for all those.

            • Bill S

              I agree.

            • SisterCynthia

              It is NOT about equating the issues (they are not the same thing, for multiple reasons that I’m not going to bother going into), but it IS about the fact that the same legal arguments that are good for the goose (here gays) ARE good for the gander (polygamists and others). Legal judgements have consequences, they create prescedents. The results may have nothing to do what the “goose” wanted, but that does NOT stop the “gander” from utilizing the same trail once blazed.

            • pagansister

              I agree with you.

        • Pofarmer

          Parts of Europe have had legal gay marriage for 15 years or so. They would be the Canary in the Coal mine, so to speak? What does the experience there tell us?

          • Dave

            “What does the experience there tell us?”

            They are dying nations, and given demographic trends, look like they will become Muslim nations within the next 20-50 years?

            I am not saying this is a consequence of gay marriage, but it’s more like two sides of the same coin. In any event, what does anyone expect to happen within 15 years? Asteroid strike? Plague? Spontaneous national combustion? I would expect some social consequences will be pretty evident within 30 to 50 years (a couple of generations) though.

            • Sus_1

              So gay marriage means the Muslims are going to take over the world?

              • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                No, just Europe.

              • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                It might. You don’t see them going for gay marriage.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            That gay marriage creates an immoral society that can’t even keep birth rates at replacement rate, so that the Islamics immigrate in, take over, and start cutting off the heads of gay people anyway.

        • Jeff

          That’s a nice slippery slope you’ve got there.

        • EdmondWherever

          Polygamy should be at least considered, as it seems wrong to have the government defining what a family may be. However, marriage presently has 1,138 rights and benefits that only function when one party applies all of them to one other party, and that party applies them all back. Attempting to apply them, as they are, to multi-party relationships, will result in inequalites for some of the participants. Each of these rights would require a re-write to make them functional for unlimited numbers of people. No re-write is necessary for these rights to be applied to two persons of the same gender.
          Also, if polygamy were legal, imagine this scenario: A man marries a woman, who also marries another man, who also marries another woman, who marries another man, who marries another woman, who marries…. how long can that legally go on? Until an entire city is one big marriage, and then making its own laws to the advantage of the married clan and no other citizens? Polygamy is highly problematic, and has many issues to solve. Not to mention that it seems to be largely used for one man to build his own private harem of meek and timid women.
          Yes, some of your suggestions are a bit preposterous. Interspecies? The cornerstone of ANY legal contract is the ability to give consent. And incest? The very foundation of providing marriage benefits is so that two previously unrelated persons can call each other family. People who are already family have no need of this.
          I can’t imagine any reason to seek to block gay people from being able to marry other gay people, except that you think that they are “lesser” people in some way. Their marriages don’t raise ANY of the issues I’ve discussed.

          • baal

            To the issue of federalism, the various States still control many of the details about marriage such as no-fault vs fault divorce.

            @EdmondWherever:disqus

            “Polygamy is highly problematic, and has many issues to solve. Not to
            mention that it seems to be largely used for one man to build his own
            private harem of meek and timid women.”

            That’s not my experience. I’ve known high status women to set up harems of men. The many sister-wife thing seems to be mormon only and absent that faith, it’s much more even.

            Also, Your poly chain example is far from unworkable. I know folks who live in those arrangements but don’t have marriage rights. In practicality, it tends to max out at about 5 people in a cluster with 1-3 people per household. The practical limit is imposed by the hours in a day on how many intimate people you can keep up close relationships with.

            • EdmondWherever

              I’m sure that there are plenty of cases of polygamy that are not reflective of the whole “sister-wives” thing, but I still see plenty of problems. I would be happy to see it legally recognized, providing that these problems can be solved. Marriage bestows approximately 1,138 rights and benefits onto the married parties. Many of these cannot currently be applied properly onto multiple people. They would either cause an inequality within the marriage, forcing some spouses to accept fewer benefits than other spouses, or they could cause inequalities OUTSIDE the marriage, allowing polygamists to “game the system” and receive better benefits than 2-person marriages receive. However, I do believe that the government shouldn’t really be in the business of defining people’s families FOR them. With 1,138 rewrites, polygamous marriage could become more functional.
              Though I still see problems with the “poly chain” (thanks for that convenient term, btw, it hadn’t occurred to me). Sure, in “practicality” it might max out at about 5. But is that enforceable? What if someone wants 6? or 10? or 106? At what point is a limit set? On what basis is that limit decided? Why should the level of daily intimacy matter? Some married people live far apart.
              In short though, my main point is that same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamous marriage on some slippery slope. Marriage between two people of the same gender raises exactly ZERO of these questions. No changes to the functions of marraige benefits are made. No limits need to be considered. No hypotheticals will lead to any situations that require some convoluted solution. Same-sex marriage is just as cut and dried as opposite-sex marriage. Polygamous marriage requires a LOT of solving work.

          • SisterCynthia

            You presume I think those attracted to the same sex are lesser somehow. I do not. The best bosses I’ve had have often been homosexual (male or female). Some have been rowdy, some quiet, some liberal, some conservative, some atheists, some agnostics, some who are Christian but will not/cannot submit their desires to the teachings of the church. Doctors, cooks, nurses, teachers, most very good people, and no worse than anyone else. You are mistaken if you think I don’t wish them well in their lives, or believe they may live with and engage with sexually whoever they want (free country and all). I AM sad for them that they do not find opposite sex partners attractive, because yes, I do believe that is the Creator’s intent for us. And no, I do not believe it is appropriate to call their arrangements marriage, primarily because that is NOT how it was defined by God, or civilizations throughout history (even the ones that had no problem with homosexual behavior/partnerships), but also because when you throw off restraints they ALL tend to come off eventually, and that WILL lead to chaos. It is the inconvenient truth of where the logic leads on this.

            It is not insurmountable to rewrite a thousand little laws to reflect multiple partners, tho annoying and will lead to courtcases to iron out the details over the next decade or so, but “inconvenient” is not a reason to not follow thru on what has been legally determined to be an “equal right under the law as it now stands,” should the decision coming out of Utah NOT be overturned by the Supreme Court (because no matter what is decided in lower courts, the loser will push it all the way to the top). Animals are not required to offer consent for being raised for food, for being ridden, for providing wool and fur, so there is really no NEED for “informed consent” for other purposes–the only thing that has prevented “sexual” uses being okayed has been societal beliefs that it is “weird/perverted/unhygenic” to copulate with non-humans. Marriage will probably not be allowed, you are right, but the activity itself cannot be banned if one wishes to look at “right of sexual self-expression as the starting point. Considering all the rights to self that animals do NOT have, there is no logical reason to deny a person the “right” to use their own animal, or to pay for the temporary use of another’s animal, in a sexual manner except for societal squeamishness. Nor can one argue that “marriage creates a family and those who are already family members wouldn’t need to apply for married status” when the relationship between parent/child, siblings, aunt/nephew, uncle/nephew, aunt/niece, uncle/niece, grandparent/grandchild, is NOT the same thing as a spousal arrangement in the eyes of the law, and it does not come with those benefits which gays and now polygamists have laid claim to. Again, this will NOT stop with just homosexuality, nor polygamy, unless there is a hellacious uproar from the general population.

            • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

              Oh we know polygamy is next. We know it.

              • Bill S

                See my response to SisterCynthia.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          Thanks Cynthia. The world has gone crazy.

        • http://avengah.wordpress.com Matt Davis

          Don’t forget that there are eight types of “traditional marriage” in the Bible. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines! Search for an image called something like “eight kinds of biblical marriage”.

          • hamiltonr

            This one is too easy. I’m sure any number of Public Catholic readers can deal with it. Go for it guys. :-)

            • http://avengah.wordpress.com Matt Davis

              There’s also a video you might find entertaining and interesting, regarding traditional marriage. It’s by Betty Bowers.

          • SisterCynthia

            Christians don’t base their belief of what marriage should be on the behavior of those in the Old Testament, not even those God used for His purposes. King David was called a man after God’s own heart for many things he did right, but he also committed adultry with another man’s wife and had her husband killed when the affair was going to come to light. Adultry and murder are clearly forbidden! Finding that someone “important” engaged in particular practices doesn’t make them somehow acceptable.
            That being said, we Christians DO base our view of marriage on Scripture, in particular the words of Jesus. When asked by some Pharisees if divorce was okay for any ol’ reason the man came up with, He replied “Haven’t you read, that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6) This passage teaches us multiple things: divorcing for any ol’ reason is NOT what God would have people do, marriage is between male and female partners, it was instituted between only TWO people in the beginning, and the new couple is to be a unit.
            While more could be said, this is at rock bottom the basis for the Christian understanding of marriage as “one man, one woman, til death do they part.”
            (Rebecca or anyone else, feel free to add on if I’ve missed anything!)

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        Given the way gay marriage supporters act, all of my fears about gay marriage have already been realized.


        I don’t know if JT’s comment below will be allowed to stand, so I’m going to respond to it.

        How gay marriage supporters have acted:
        http://sfpride.org/

        http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/dec/05121302

        http://www.policymic.com/articles/77455/femen-s-protest-in-bethlehem-shows-just-how-clueless-they-are

        http://www.catholicleague.org/gays-vandalize-san-francisco-church-2/

        http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/

        http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/

        In other words, like Nazis.

        • JT Rager

          How do gay marriage supporters act? Do they impose on your right to marry? Do they impose on any of your rights?

          • Dave

            That would be a good point, assuming that there really is a right to marry whomever you please, with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            They impose on a lot of people’s rights, it seems to be their main method of protest to impose on other people’s rights.

            There is no such thing as a “right to marry”, or consent would not be a legal concept.

          • FW Ken

            How gay marriage supporters act, from Ted’s links above:

            In 2009 angry homosexual activists terrorized the Park Street Church in Boston while it was holding an ex-gay religious training session inside. They demonstrated next to the doors and windows with signs, screaming homosexual slogans. One of them held a bullhorn against the window outside the meeting, bellowing at the participants inside. Police did nothing to stop them, even though they were standing inside the historic cemetery adjacent to the church.

            In 2006 dozens of screaming homosexual activists drowned out the speakers at an outdoor pro-marriage rally in Worcester organized by Catholic Vote, yelling “Bigots” and disgusting chants. Police did not stop them, even though the rally had a permit. When one of the rioters rushed the stage and started shouting, a rally organizer tried to lead her to the side. She subsequently sued that organizer for assault! He went through a four-day trial and was acquitted by a jury. But no charges were filed against any of the rioters.

            In 2006 a group of homosexual activists with signs taunted and screamed at people entering and leaving the Tremont Temple Baptist Church in downtown Boston, which was holding a nationally televised pro-marriage event inside.

            In 2005 hundreds of homosexual activists terrorized the Tremont Temple Baptist Church with makeshift coffins, screaming obscenities through loudspeakers as the national pro-family group Focus on the Family held a religious conference inside. The crowd was so threatening that attendees could not leave the church for the lunch break. The Boston riot police stood in front of the church doors, but did nothing to disperse the protesters who were also completely blocking the street.

            • CarysBirch

              Sounds exactly like how anti-abortion protesters act. Funny how when you agree with them it’s a rescue operation and when you disagree with them it’s terrorizing.

              • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                I give my money to Mother and Child Education Center, not Operation Rescue, because the best way to save a child’s life is to feed, clothe, educate and shelter a mother.

    • Dave

      You’re darn right it’s a disgrace. It started the first time we let the federal government exceed its enumerated powers, and now it’s gobbling up everything in sight.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Eight down arrows! Wow, did I get a response to what I thought was an innocuous comment…lol. Thanks Dave.

    • raytheist

      If you are living in New York, (1) the Oklahoma ruling has no effect on you, and (2) New York already has marriage equality.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        So that means I can’t support the rule of Federalism? If they can impose on Oklahoma, they can then impose on NY.

    • kenofken

      You can always feel alienated in New York! It was the epicenter of the Beat movement and Andy Worhol!

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Haven’t times of shifted? I was thinking similar not too long ago. The dissenting opinion used to be the radicals. Now it’s tradition that has become the disenting opinion.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      In the days when men were fighting and dying to free and unite Italy, none were braver and more patriotic than Carlo Cattaneo, He was among the first to take up arms in 1848, and among the last to yield in 1849, He was a firm believer in popular sovereignty and, what is more rare, completely consistent with his beliefs in his daily political action. What is more, he was probably the most learned man of his day, an astounding polymath who wrote treatises on India and Aztec Mexico for fun, whose writings on the Italian language are fundamental, and who with all that was a very practical man – a Milanese, after all – who could give any municipality good advice about daily administrative matters such as drainage. And this great and stainless hero, after spending a lifetime fighting and thinking in the service of Italy, spend the last nine years of his life in exile in Switzerland because he could not stomach the means by which Italy had been united, or the people who united it. So yes, you can be a patriot without a country.,

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        That’s fascinating. I had not heard of him. I’ll look him up. Grazie!

  • CrissCross

    Your headline is WRONG.
    He is (as your article points out) a District Court Judge.

    • hamiltonr

      Judge Kern is a federal judge. He was nominated by President Bill Clinton.

      • CrissCross

        My bad.
        & apologies.
        Will spend the rest of the day removing foot from mouth… or whatever the digital equivalent is these days.

        • hamiltonr

          Happens to all of us CrissCross. No problem at all.

  • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

    Not a lawyer, but it looks like the ruling says that DOMA would be relevant if the OK Amendment was being challenged on Full Faith And Credit; but instead, the OK Amendment fails a challenge (ruling part VI D) as violating their Amendment XIV equal protection and substantive due process rights — which even a direct vote of 80% of the people of Oklahoma does not allow (without the aid of sufficient other states to ratify a Federal Amendment), any more than the people of the state may decide to repeal the ban against slavery. Federal Supremacy (in the form of Article VI of the federal Constitution) is what the people of Oklahoma voted to accept in 1907, including the principle of judicial review (implicit in Article III). Or, as the judge puts it:

    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.

    I presume that even if the SCOTUS upholds this ruling, and while you might be inclined to support seeking a federal Amendment to explicitly return the question of marriage to the states, you still would consider it beyond the pale for anyone in Oklahoma to push to ratify the Corwin Amendment?

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    In the old days, that was a hanging offense.

    • Obazervazi

      Isn’t it great we no longer execute people for traits they were born with?

      (Of course, you’re going to say “no,” because you are a terrible person.)

      • hamiltonr

        Obazervazi, I understand how you might sometimes get confused. Ted is a long-time member of this on-line community. I am certain that he is not a terrible person.

        He sometimes expresses his thoughts in ways that are not obvious to everyone. I haven’t read the comment you are referring to. It’s possible that he was joking, or maybe that he simply misspoke.

        But I don’t think that he was advocating killing people.

        • Obazervazi

          He’s comparing gay rights activists to Nazis elsewhere on this thread; that’s not a good indication.

          Nevertheless, I will apologize if I see any indication that he thinks killing minorities is a bad thing.

          • hamiltonr

            You don’t need to apologize. Just cut Ted a little slack. He’s a good guy.

          • FW Ken

            Gay rights activists act like Nazis, as documented further down the thread. That doesn’t justify the death penalty (almost nothing does).

            Of course, gays are only a numerical minority. There is no evidence that same-sex attraction is an inborn trait, and even if it was, so is anencephaly.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Even homosexuals have a right to life. Even Nazis have a right to life.

            Even though they do not believe in the right to life for others.

            The way gay right activists have acted has given me reason to believe that they do not have the interests of common good at heart. They’re selfish, greedy adolescents having a rather violent protest. In that they are by no means alone.

            • Sus_1

              Remember that not all gay people are activists.

              • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                True enough- and I’d welcome with open arms those who are not- those who, while unable to procreate themselves, advocate for the right to life, advocate for families, recognize the need for heterosexual monogamy and the reasons to promote heterosexual monogamy in our culture.

                I could handle those asking for “a place in the Church” a lot better if I knew for sure they weren’t trying to destroy the family.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        What trait was the judge born with that caused him to ignore democracy?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X