A three-judge panel on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Thursday in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex nuptials.
%22The%20state%20cannot%20define%20marriage%20in%20any%20way%20that%20would%20trample%20constitutional%20rights%2C%20right%3F%22′
The hearing marks the second time a marriage equality case has reached the appellate level since June, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two landmark victories for the movement. Exactly one week ago, the same three judges presented a divided front during questioning over Amendment 3, Utah’s voter-approved definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
As with oral arguments last Thursday, Judge Jerome Holmes — a 2006 President Bush appointee — appeared to once again be the swing. Holmes had tough questions for the plaintiffs, but hinted that he agreed marriage equality amounted to a constitutional right based on Supreme Court precedent. Last June, the nation’s highest court struck down a central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of same-sex nuptials, on the grounds that it violated basic equality and human dignity. No argument for prohibiting gay couples from marrying has survived in state or federal court since.
“The state cannot define marriage in any way that would trample constitutional rights, right?” asked Holmes.
Defense attorneys conceded that voters had “limitations” in their right to define marriage, but argued that “the sex of the spouse is directly relevant to the government’s interest in procreation and child rearing.”
Following the hearing, Oklahoma attorneys said that reading into the judges’ questions was “a dangerous game,” according to Eric Ethington, communications director at Political Research.
There is no clear timeline on when the judges will issue their decision on either case, but it’s likely the Tenth Circuit will continue to treat them in an expedited manner. It’s also likely that whatever they rule will be appealed.
Like in Utah, Oklahoma’s Constitution prohibits gay couples from marrying and prevents the state government from recognizing such unions performed anywhere else. Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex nuptials passed in 2004 with 76% of the vote.
Shortly after a federal judge struck down Utah’s ban last December, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern – a President Clinton appointee – ruled that Oklahoma’s version violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unlike in Utah, however, Kern’s ruling was immediately stayed pending an appeal, keeping gay couples from the altar in that state ever since.
The Tenth Circuit fast-tracked both the Utah and Oklahoma cases. But before Judge Kern’s ruling in January, nothing had happened with that suit for years. The two plaintiff couples – Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, and Gay Phillips and Susan Barton – began their legal battle a decade ago, immediately after Oklahoma approved its same-sex marriage ban. As state after state began to legalize marriage equality at warp speed, however, their case seemed stuck in slow motion.
“We were surprised at the timing; it totally caught us off guard,” said Baldwin Wednesday of Kern’s ruling. “We joked after the Utah ruling came down in December that all we wanted for Christmas was a ruling. And it didn’t happen. Then it’s the New Year, and by that time you’re feeling kind of deflated, like it’s just never going to happen. Then totally out of the blue – January 14. Since then, it’s been a beehive of activity.”









