Discussion: Court Rules For Gay Marriage In Oklahoma

Discussion for article #225249

#Oklahoma, O-Gay!

P.s. Who thought they would ever see the day? Congratulations to all the equality-loving citizens of Oklahoma! Yee-Haw!

4 Likes

The SCOTUS can also deny cert and the bans fall.

4 Likes

I hear dominoes falling…

3 Likes

Oklahoma will certainly take steps to ban marriage between anyone as long it prevents same sex marriage

1 Like

Some welcome good news for the weekend.

1 Like

On the other hand, in Oklahoma gay cousins can now wed too, instead of just straight cousins.

4 Likes

I might have to go scroll through the Yahoo thread on this. Those bagger meltdowns are epic.

3 Likes

I honestly think that was Roberts’ plan all along. Why have another “Roe” decision when there was a means of letting the lower courts do the heavy lifting.

1 Like

I detect a little bit of snark in this order!! I love it!!! p. 54:

"First, it goes without saying (though in light of Defendant’s reductionist view of the purpose of marriage, it needs to be said) that marriage is of profound importance to couples who exchange vows of lifelong commitment to each other. For millions of Oklahomans, like millions of other Americans, those vows no doubt have consisted of the traditional and enduring pledges (or variations of them) “to have and to hold,” “for better or for worse,” “for richer, for poorer,” “in sickness and in health,” “to love and to cherish,” “until death do us part.” For no Oklahomans, it is safe to say, have marriage vows consisted of “channeling” their “presumptively procreative potential” into a “man-woman relationship” to avoid “unintended children” outside of marriage. "

Yup. I think judges are just getting tired of the same old same old that makes no sense.

4 Likes

Agreed. So far none of the appellate courts are in conflict, and it would be easier on the SCOTUS to continue to let the dominoes fall as a result of the Windsor ruling. It is very conceivable we won’t see the SCOTUS take on this issue for a while, until a ripe full-faith-and-credit case comes up. By then it might well be that the majority of states have legal same-gender marriage in place and the public is “over it all” as an issue, then a Loving v. Virginia style ruling over portability (via full-faith-and-credit clause grounds) drives the final nail into the coffin for discrimination against same-gender couples in marriage law.

Can’t remember whether it was the Windsor case or the Prop 8 case, but Roberts wrote that a sweeping ruling wasn’t appropriate “at this time.” He wants there to be a fait accompli when the Supremes finally rule. Must less blow-back.

1 Like

Anyone taking wagers on which state will be the last to enter the 20th century?

Forgive, but I believe it was Kennedy who wrote the opinion of/for the Court…

Roberts, in his dissent, said only that the federal equality question was not before the court at that time.