Federal Lawsuit Challenges Oklahoma Gay-Marriage Ban

[Pah]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/110404okSuit.htm

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Oklahoma Gay-Marriage Ban
by The Associated Press

Posted: November 4, 2004 5:01 pm ET

(Tulsa, Oklahoma) Four women have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a constitutional amendment passed by voters this week that bans same-sex marriage.
The women filed a civil rights lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tulsa that seeks to do away with the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The ban also prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to unmarried couples in Oklahoma. Same-sex marriages in Oklahoma are not recognized.

Broken Arrow residents Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin and Tulsans Susan G. Barton and Gay E. Phillips filed the lawsuit.

Kay Bridger-Riley, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said she was proud to represent what she called "their really important lawsuit."

In addition to seeking to overturn the state constitutional amendment, the case challenges the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which permits states to ignore gay weddings performed in other states.

Voters in 10 other states approved bans on gay marriage in Tuesday's elections.

Bishop and Baldwin have been living in a committed relationship for eight years, while Barton and Phillips were joined in a civil union conducted in the state of Vermont in 2001, according to the suit.

The lawsuit claims the women have been denied the rights and privileges of other citizens within the state of Oklahoma and the United States of America.

The state constitutional amendment and DOMA violate the plaintiffs' right to either enter into a marriage contract or have their civil union recognized by the state of Oklahoma, according to the lawsuit.

Sen. James Williamson, R-Tulsa, the principal author of the state question, said he was not surprised the lawsuit was filed.

"The radical homosexual groups have mounted court challenges to these types of laws all over the nation. They did it in Louisiana just recently just after they passed their amendment," Williamson said. "This is their usual strategy to try to overturn the will of the people by court fiat."

Williamson said he was confident the constitutional amendment will survive any challenges filed in state court.

"This challenge has a possibility of going to the United States Supreme Court because that would be the ultimate decider over this issue," Williamson said. "It is because of the fear that this may be overturned by federal courts that the president has pushed for the national constitutional amendment."

Bridger-Riley said the lawsuit seeks the same protections afforded heterosexual couples.

"There are over 1,000 different rights and privileges and immunities that are denied to same-gender couples that are in the same situation as heterosexual couples," Bridger-Riley said.

"Our Constitution has never allowed discrimination against individuals like this. We are just doing what we can to make sure it doesn't continue."

Baldwin and Bishop said they had a commitment ceremony 4½ years ago and have spent nearly $1,300 on legal arrangements to make their relationship legal "in the eyes of the law" as a married, heterosexual couple.

"We still do not have the same rights and privileges and legal responsibilities that married couples have, and we want to have the rights and the responsibilities," Bishop said.

"And we want the recognition of our union," Baldwin said.

Barton and Phillips could not be reached for comment.

Attorney General Drew Edmondson, Gov. Brad Henry, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and President George W. Bush are all listed as defendants in the lawsuit.

©Associated Press 2004

 

[Pah]

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=19505

Lawsuit targets marriage amends. passed by voters Nov. 2
Nov 9, 2004
By Michael Foust

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Voters in 11 states on Election Day passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex "marriage," but all of them could be overturned if a lawsuit filed in federal court Nov. 3 succeeds.

Two lesbian couples filed suit in a Tulsa, Okla., federal court against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that gives states the option of not recognizing another state's same-sex "marriages." If the lawsuit is successful, then all 50 states could be forced to legalize same-sex "marriage."

It is the seventh federal lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act and it comes as the same-sex "marriage" issue is being cited as a reason for social conservative victories nationwide. The 11 amendments passed with an average of 70.1 percent of the vote.

"[T]he proponents of marriage for same-sex couples are desperate to evade democracy," Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-family legal organization, told Baptist Press. "They have no interest in democracy. They want to have the courts decide."

Homosexual activists, Lavy said, hope to prove that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of homosexuals to "marry."

"That's why it's so hypocritical for people to say, 'Well, this should be a state issue.' Yeah, it should, but the federal courts aren't going to allow it to be. And the homosexuals ce

rtainly don't want it to be," said Lavy, senior vice president of ADF's Marriage Litigation Center.

The state marriage amendments prevent state courts from legalizing same-sex "marriage" like Massachusetts' high court did. The amendments, though, are vulnerable in federal court.

The lawsuit filed in Tulsa challenges not only the federal Defense of Marriage Act but also the Oklahoma marriage amendment, which passed by a margin of 76-24 percent.

It is the second such federal lawsuit against a state marriage amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union also is in federal court challenging Nebraska's marriage amendment, which passed in 2000 by a margin of 70-30 percent.

When Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, many observers believed it was a fatal blow to the same-sex "marriage" movement. Some 38 states took advantage of the law by passing "mini DOMAs" banning same-sex "marriage. Including the 11 new states, 17 states also have passed marriage amendments to their respective constitutions.

Even though homosexual activists took a step back on Election Day, their strategy is still intact. For instance, without a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, there is nothing to prevent the Supreme Court from legalizing same-sex "marriage" nationwide.

On the federal level, homosexual activists are targeting the Defense of Marriage Act, arguing that it violates the U.S. Constitution's full faith and credit clause, which states that "full faith and credit" must be given in each state to the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state. If a court equates "public acts" and "records" with marriage licenses, then DOMA likely will be struck down.

Homosexual activists also have lawsuits pending in eight states that do not have marriage amendments -- California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington.

Their legal strategy underscores why they were discouraged but not despondent following the election. They won a major "gay marriage" victory in Massachusetts and are optimistic that they will win in other states. Their next victory seems most likely to be in California, New Jersey or Washington.

"If we don't amend the federal Constitution, I think there's a good chance that at some point they will win," Lavy said of homosexual activists. "All they have to do is find some judge out there somewhere who thinks that his opinion is more important than what the law is. We certainly had U.S. Supreme Court justices who felt that way when it came to the Texas sodomy law."

Although seven challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act are pending, the major homosexual activist groups -- such as Lambda Legal and the ACLU -- have yet to file suit. The reasoning is simple: They hope first to strengthen their case by winning several more same-sex "marriage" cases on the state level. If three or four states have legalized same-sex "marriage," then the Supreme Court may be more likely to overturn DOMA, homosexual activists argue.

The ACLU made that argument in a post-election statement: "t is important to remember that the passage of these amendments does nothing to stop the ACLU's efforts to achieve full recognition of same-sex couples."

Similarly, Matthew A. Coles, director of the ACLU's Lesbian & Gay Rights Project, argued in September that the "best way to win the marriage for same-sex couples is to win in as many states as we can before we head to the Supreme Court."

But other homosexual activists have been more blunt. After pro-family groups went 11-for-11 in passing marriage amendments on Election Day, Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force told the Associated Press: "This issue is going to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it's not going to give a [expletive] what these state constitutions say."
--30--
For more information about the national debate over same-sex "marriage," visit http://www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage

 

[Pah]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20041109-1205-brf-gaymarriage.html

12:05 p.m. November 9, 2004

ATLANTA – Gay-rights supporters sued over Georgia's newly approved constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying Tuesday the wording did not make it clear that voters were also being asked to ban civil unions.

Advertisement
The plaintiffs – including two Democratic state legislators and a University of Georgia law professor – argued that the amendment, passed overwhelmingly on Nov. 2, should be thrown out.

On Monday, Republican members of the state House vowed to fight the expected lawsuit.

"We will take all actions necessary to defend the decision of the people and will not look kindly upon any tampering with our state constitution," said Rep. Glenn Richardson.

The plaintiffs had previously tried to block the vote on the same grounds – that it was misleading – but the state Supreme Court decided it could not intervene until a vote had been taken.

Georgia was one of 11 states that approved amendments against gay marriage last week. A lawsuit has already been filed in another one of those states, Oklahoma.

 

[Pah]

It begins - the recification of ignorance, hate and fear.

 

[Jaymes]

I can only hope and cheer on the people actively fighting for their rights.

 

[linwood]

I think I told maize earlier (Before the election) that these amendments were actually a good thing because it would speed the process of allowing gays to gain their legal rights through these type of lawsuits.

Pah..you know far more about constitutional law than I.
Barring biased judges they can`t allow these amendments to stand alongside the US constitution can they?

What are the odds?

 

[retrorich]

Let's hope that this is only the start of a flood of lawsuits that will force the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn these deplorable state amendments. Unless, of course, even the U.S. Constitution is meaningless under the present George Bush theocracy.

 

[Pah]

Let's hope that this is only the start of a flood of lawsuits that will force the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn these deplorable state amendments. Unless, of course, even the U.S. Constitution is meaningless under the present George Bush theocracy.

In the absense of any other "state interest" (secular reasons) there is only "tradition" (Constitutional code word for 'religious'). There have been many cases in which the precedent established is to ignore tradition. I don't see why the US Supreme Court would not overturn the state especially with the positive secular precedents of the right to privacy (which includes the right to be yourself).

Bob

 

[Bastet]

Barring biased judges they can`t allow these amendments to stand alongside the US constitution can they?

Just cross your fingers that Dubya doesn't succeed in his wish to push through his own US constitutional amendment in his first year of this term. It's right up there on his agenda. If he does that, the lawsuits will mean nothing.

 

[Pah]

Just cross your fingers that Dubya doesn't succeed in his wish to push through his own US constitutional amendment in his first year of this term. It's right up there on his agenda. If he does that, the lawsuits will mean nothing.

The amendment process takes 38 states to ratify a proposed admendment and that could take years.

Bob

 

[linwood]

In the absense of any other "state interest" (secular reasons) there is only "tradition" (Constitutional code word for 'religious'). There have been many cases in which the precedent established is to ignore tradition. I don't see why the US Supreme Court would not overturn the state especially with the positive secular precedents of the right to privacy (which includes the right to be yourself).

Thats the way I saw it but I wasn`t sure.
Considering I`ve been running around this forum and elsewhere just daring someone to give me a secular reason for the ban and none have been able to I don`t think they can come up with one.

Thanks.

 

[Sunstone]

Considering I`ve been running around this forum and elsewhere just daring someone to give me a secular reason for the ban and none have been able to I don`t think they can come up with one.

I'd like to hear a secular reason for the ban, too, Linwood. But secular reasons for banning homosexual marriages seem to be scarcer than honesty in politics. I'm willing to frubal anyone who can offer me a secular reason that is not clearly and obviously based on a fundamental failure to grasp the nature of reality. Heck, I'll frubal them twice!