Oklahoma!

Federal District Judge Terence Kern struck down Oklahoma's constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. He also immediately stayed the ruling pending appeal, so no gay marriages yet. Yes, this amendment was passed with 75% of voters approving it back in 2004. Almost immediately it was challenged. The state sat on the case for nine years, making lots of people think nothing was happening. Then this ruling popped up. Perhaps we should be pleased with the last year of the delay because it allowed the Supremes to rule in gay relationships last summer.

The reasoning behind the ruling are becoming blessedly familiar -- our opponents have only so many reasons for their discrimination and each is easily refuted. Is a defense of traditional marriage only a guise for impermissible discrimination? Kern pulled it apart this way:

The amendment targets only same-sex couples. The effect is not small; it is "a total exclusion of only one group." That exclusion was not an unintended consequence. It was the reason advertised when the amendment was sold to the voters.

Moral disapproval is not a permissible justification for a law. The state has shown no other reason for the law.

There is no evidence of a rational link between the goal of promoting responsible procreation within marriage and excluding same-sex couples from marriage.

Permitting same-sex couples to receive a marriage license does not harm, erode, or somehow water-down the "procreative" origins of the marriage institution, any more than marriages of couples who cannot "naturally procreate" or do not ever wish to "naturally procreate."

And…

Same-sex couples are being subjected to a "naturally procreative" requirement to which no other Oklahoma citizens are subjected, including the infertile, the elderly, and those who simply do not wish to ever procreate.

Barrring gays from marriage does not make it more likely that same-sex couples raising children will switch to marry an opposite-sex partner. The ban also does not make it more likely that opposite-sex marriages will stay together.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage has done little to keep Oklahoma families together thus far, as Oklahoma consistently has one of the highest divorce rates in the country.

A threat to marriage? It may be a threat to one view of marriage, a view based on procreation, an "ideal" parenting model, and fidelity. But the marriage clerk (the defendant in the case) doesn't ask opposite-sex couples whether they intend to be faithful, if they intend to procreate, or if they might consider divorce, leaving children to be raised by a single parent. Calling same-sex marriage a threat is only another way of declaring moral disapproval.

Thus, the amendment is "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit." And, "Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights." For these reasons the amendment is unconstitutional.

Gov. Mary Fallon, apparently not reading the conclusion, declared "I support the right of Oklahoma’s voters to govern themselves on this and other policy matters." So, yes, she is in favor of tyranny of the majority over the constitution. A commenter responds that Fallon has been divorced twice, her daughter divorced twice, and her son divorced once. Another wonders if straights have botched marriage so badly shouldn't we let gays have a try? A third notes that if this was a case of gun control she would be screaming about constitutional rights.