US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban


TULSA, Okla. (AP) — A federal judge struck down Oklahoma’s gay marriage ban Tuesday, but headed off any rush to the altar by setting aside his order while state and local officials complete an appeal.

It was the second time in a month that a federal judge has set aside a deeply conservative state’s limits on same-sex marriage, after Utah’s ban was reversed last month.

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern described Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage as “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit.”

The ruling drew criticism from the governor, attorney general and other elected officials in this state known as the buckle of the Bible Belt. A state lawmaker who once said gay people posed a greater threat to the nation than terrorism blasted rulings from “activist judges.”;_ylt=AwrTWfyb3dVSjQoAMKPQtDMD
The judge’s sixty-eight page ruling is here. If upheld, it would add Oklahoma to the expanding list of states where same-sex marriage has become legal, either by court ruling, state legislation, or ballot measure.

Without counting Oklahoma, and without counting Utah, where a judge issued a similar ruling last month, 17 states and Washington, D.C., now allow such marriages. The Utah ruling has been blocked by the Supreme Court while an appeal in that case goes ahead in the Tenth Circuit Court. Judge Kern noted, in delaying the Oklahoma ruling, that he was following the Supreme Court’s lead.

“Equal protection,” Judge Kern wrote, “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.”

Like it or not, the SCOTUS set the table for these rulings last summer. Now they will have to take up the cases and rule.

Judge Kern took note of a string of decisions by the Supreme Court favoring gay rights, between 1996 and 2013, and said that, while “there is no precise legal label for what has occurred,” his court “knows a rhetorical shift when it sees one.”


The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.


Actually that was penned by Laurence J. Peter in the 1970s.


It’s as though the activist judges have only just discovered a previously unknown constitutional problem with the heterosexual marriage law we have had for decades/centuries.


SCOTUSBlog link


It was? Gosh! The quote sites have it as Aristotle!


This amendment was passed in 2004. Depending on exact dates, it was literally just a decade.


Exactly what I expected given the decisions on DOMA and Prop 8. States are free to define marriage as they choose, so long as that definition has the approval of the federal government. Why do we bother with state laws and government anymore? :mad:


There is no such thing as gay marriage. A consummated marriage is only between a
man and woman approved by God with procreation desires.

“Equal protection,” Judge Kern wrote, "is at the very heart of our legal system, " etc…
That so, then why does this “Equal protection” not apply to our unborn babies?

All so call “gay marriage” will be declared immoral, unlawful and unconstitutional one day.
Only a matter of time but come it will. At present there is a war between good versus evil.
Evil seems to be winning. Take courage, pray,keep the faith. Evil has won many battles,
but since the beginning of time has never and never will triumph over good. In the end, good will triumph over evil. A heavy price the world will pay but in the end God and good will win.


get ready for another uproar, as we seen with Utah. This is another heavily conservative state, and people will not give that easily, and I hope they put up a good fight. If states can’t set their own laws in regards to this matter, then there is no point in having states. I have heard people say that we may be headed for another civil war, because the civil war was about the state’s rights, and this completely disregards the rights of the state of Oklahoma. Don’t give into this mandate, Oklahoma. Maybe you can team up with Utah and tell the federal government you WILL NOT recognize same sex “marriages”.:thumbsup:


The judge has been sitting on this for about 9 years. The SCOTUS decisions caused him to move on it.


Good site for these discussions.


I wouldn’t quote Aristotle on this subject. Not exactly a paradigm of virtue in this area.




then Polygamy will have to be legalized!!!


"U.S. District Judge Terence Kern described Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage as “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit.”
And yet persons of any conceivable sexual orientation have the exact same right to marry, under the same conditions as anyone else.

As far as I know, “sexual orientation” is not a question asked of anyone applying for a marriage license.


Another judge making assumptions about how they think SCOTUS will rule. What ever happened to judges ruling based on law and not on a preconceived outcome?


They have discovered a new meaning in the phrase “equal protection of the law.”

No doubt the authors of the 14th amendment did not realize that they were authorizing same sex marriage. The judges have drawn out from it more than was put in.

Still, equal protection is not applied everywhere. As noted above, it is not applied to unborn children. It is not applied to polygamy. And if marriage “equality” is to be universal, marriage must not be denied to anyone. There will be more cries for equal protection on the horizon.


Little off topic but this is in relation to homosexual marriage.

Support the State Marriage Defense Act of 2014, contact your legislatures.

Archbishop Cordileone said he “strongly encouraged” Congress to support Weber’s legislation’ and it would ‘prevent the federal government from unjustly disregarding, in certain instances, state marriage laws concerning the definition of marriage’

If you live in Indiana, support HJR3, which would ban homosexual marriage.


Equal protection didn’t apply to women until the Constitution was amended to do so either.

Interesting that this new meaning never presented itself in the last 200+ years.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit