Oklahoma

[Rick]

10th Circuit Appeals Court to Hear Arguments in Oklahoma Same-Sex Marriage Case

 

This coming Thursday, 17 April 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver will hear oral arguments in Bishop v. Smith, a federal lawsuit that seeks the freedom to marry in Oklahoma. The hearing, which begins at 10:00am Mountain Time, comes one week after oral arguments in a similar case, Kitchen v. Herbert, out of Utah. Both cases entered into the appeals court with a victory at the district court under their belt.

 

The Bishop v. Smith case, which had been pending for nearly ten years before a federal judge ruled in January that anti-marriage laws in OK are unconstitutional, as well as the Utah case, could have far-reaching impact on the state of the freedom to marry in the country. The appeals will certainly impact marriage laws in both states, but they could also have a wider reach. Because the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals covers six states - Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming - a broader ruling could potentially impact these other four 10th Circuit states, as well as UT and OK.

 

These 10th Circuit hearings kick off what well may be the penultimate chapter in the campaign to win the freedom to marry nationwide: This spring, a wave of activity will sweep through the federal appellate courts, as nine different marriage cases face consideration in five different appellate courts. One of these cases "“ or any one of the 62 active lawsuits in 30 different states/territories seeking the freedom to marry or respect of legal marriages "“ could make its way to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would then have the chance to provide national resolution on marriage for same-sex couples.

 

The number of active lawsuits continues to increase. Since my previous tally, new lawsuits have been filed in both Nebraska and Puerto Rico seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

10th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Ruling Striking Down Utah's Ban

 

Today, 25 June 2014, a 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled in favor of same-sex couples' freedom to marry, upholding a marriage ruling rendered in December of 2013 in Utah. It is the first ruling by a federal appellate court since last year's victory in the Supreme Court overturning DOMA, and unless reversed, will pave the way for the freedom to marry throughout the 10th Circuit, an area which includes Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

 

The ruling is stayed pending further action, which could include an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

 

The ruling, written by Judge Lucero, reads:

 

"Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not deny a citizen the benefit or protection of the laws of the State based solely upon the sex of the person that citizen chooses to marry. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state's marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union."

 

This appellate decision upholds the lower court's decision reached in Kitchen v. Herbert, the original Utah suit brought by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and private counsel, on behalf of a number of Utah same-sex couples.

 

Presumably, in due course, this same 3-judge panel will further issue their ruling in the second same-sex marriage case before them, an appeal of the decision overturning Oklahoma's ban, Bishop v. Smith . However, since the grounds for appeal in both instances were identical, this one decision, just rendered, ought to suffice for both.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

On 25 June 2014, in the first federal appellate level consideration of same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act last year, the 10th Circuit has agreed with the lower court that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. In a 2-1 decision, the panel ruled that the US Constitution guarantees that "those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as it is recognized by persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex."

 

The ruling was immediately stayed, recognizing that the Supreme Court had stayed the district court's original ruling earlier this year. Still, this was the third consecutive adverse ruling against the State of Utah in this matter within the past 6 months.

 

A federal appeals court today ruled for the first time that states must allow gay couples to marry, finding the US Constitution protects same-sex relationships and putting a remarkable legal winning streak across the country one step closer to the US Supreme Court.

 

The three-judge panel in Denver found it "wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of the love and commitment between same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples."...

 

"Having persuaded us that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty, plaintiffs will prevail on their due process and equal protection claims unless appellants can show that Amendment 3 survives strict scrutiny. ... Instead of explaining why same-sex marriage qua same-sex marriage is undesirable, each of the appellants' justifications rests fundamentally on a sleight of hand in which same-sex marriage is used as a proxy for a different characteristic shared by both same-sex and some opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriage must be banned, appellants argue, because same-sex couples are not naturally procreative. But the state permits many other types of non-procreative couples to wed. ... We emphatically agree with the numerous cases decided since Windsor that it is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of the love and commitment between same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples. ..."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

County Clerk in Colorado Issues Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

 

BOULDER, Colo. - Today, 25 June 2014, the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's Office reportedly began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. A short time later, Colorado's Attorney General issued a statement indicating the licenses issued were not valid.

 

The clerk and recorder, Hillary Hall, stated licenses would be available in Boulder Wednesday, 25 June 2014, and that on Friday, 27 June 2014, they would be available in the Lafayette and Longmont offices as well. At least two same-sex marriage licenses were issued by the Boulder office today.

 

In a 2-1 decision, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Utah's Amendment Three, which defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. The court granted a stay pending an appeal by Utah to the U.S. Supreme Court, which means same-sex marriages have not resumed in Utah.

 

The statement from the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's office offered the following explanation: "Because 10th Circuit decisions are binding in the State of Colorado, the precedent established by Kitchen v. Herbert is applicable to the same-sex marriage ban contained in the Colorado Constitution."

 

"Couples across Colorado have been waiting a long time to have their right to marry the person they love recognized," said Hall in a statement. "I want to act immediately to let them carry out that wish."

 

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers issued a statement a short time later, which reads as follows:

 

"Colorado's constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriages remains in effect. Today's decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was stayed by the Court and has not gone into effect even in Utah, let alone in Colorado. Any marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in Colorado before a final court resolution of the issue are invalid."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

BOULDER, Colo. - Today, 26 June 2014, more same-sex couples were obtaining marriage licenses and getting married in Boulder County even though gay marriage remains illegal in Colorado.

 

Clerk Hillary Hall began issuing licenses yesterday, Wednesday, 25 June 2014, after a federal appeals court ruled that Utah's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. More couples showed up today to get licenses and some were quickly married by simply signing their certificates, a process allowed under Colorado law.

 

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver put the ruling on hold in case of a possible appeal, so Utah's ban is still in place. Colorado also has such a ban.

 

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and legal analysts say the decision has no legal impact until the case is settled.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Utah to Appeal Circuit Court Decision to Supreme Court

 

On 9 July 2014, Utah's Attorney General Sean Reyes announced that he intends to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the legal battle over that state's same-sex marriage ban. In a statement, his office said it plans to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari - a formal request to intervene - with the US Supreme Court in the coming weeks. If the court does so, it may issue a ruling that could affect same-sex marriage policies nationwide as soon as next year, which advocates for same-sex marriage are hopeful could be to their advantage.

 

Statement issued by the chief communications officer for the Utah Attorney-General:

 

"To obtain clarity and resolution from the highest court, the Utah Attorney General's office will not seek en banc review of the Tenth Circuit Court's decision in Kitchen v. Herbert, but will file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the US Supreme Court in the coming weeks. Attorney-General Reyes has a sworn duty to defend the laws of our state. Utah's constitutional Amendment 3 is presumed to be constitutional unless thr highest court deems otherwise."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Permanent Stay in Evans v. Utah Denied

 

If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't intervene, married same-sex couples may apply for spousal benefits in 10 days.

 

A federal appeals court Friday, 11 July 2014, denied Utah's request for a permanent stay that would have indefinitely halted all movement toward providing gay and lesbian spouses in-state benefits, pending the state's appeal of a lower court's ruling that ordered Utah to honor those unions in Evans v. Utah.

 

A three-judge panel at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the state's request late Friday, but also extended a temporary stay through July 21, giving the state time to ask the US Supreme Court to intervene.

 

That gives Utah 10 days to appeal to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees the circuit, and reiterate its argument that allowing same-sex couples to receive spousal benefits before a federal appeals court has ruled on whether the state is legally obligated to do so would undermine the legal system and the state's right to an appeal.

 

In a statement released by the attorney general's office, Utah announced its intention to promptly file an application for a stay with the US Supreme Court "to avoid uncertainty."

 

"The State recognizes that pending cases regarding same-sex marriage in Utah impact the lives of many individuals and families and is diligently seeking uniform certainty through proper and orderly legal processes until Kitchen v. Herbert is resolved," the statement said, referencing Utah's other pending same-sex marriage appeal aimed at reviving a voter-approved ban on gay and lesbian unions.

 

While the state's intentions were not surprising to Jonell Evans, for whom the marriage recognition suit is named, or her wife Stacia Ireland, the women said, it doesn't make it easier to accept.

 

"It feels like [marriage] was ours for a few days and then it was ripped away from us. Now we might get to have it back," Evans said, her voice cracking with emotion. "We have to celebrate each victory before we cry over each delay."

 

Ireland, who has suffered heart problems and worries Evans won't be legally protected should her health again take a turn for the worse, added there are Utah families who can't afford more delays.

 

Lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union, who represent the four plaintiff couples in the case, said they are prepared to respond to the state's request with a brief opposing any further delay granting same-sex couples married in Utah with rights and benefits of their opposite-sex counterparts.

 

"The 10th Circuit Court set a pretty tight schedule, and we're happy for the expedience to get more resolution for the hundreds of couples who are affected," ACLU attorney Leah Farrell said. "These are families and marriages that are being lived every day. Letting them proceed with their lives and have the protections that marriage allows can only be a benefit for our community."

 

In order to persuade the 10th Circuit Court judges to grant a stay in the first place, Utah was required to demonstrate how allowing married same-sex couples to apply for spousal benefits would have caused "irreparable harm." The state also had to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success in its appeal - demonstrating that U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball had abused his discretion by ordering Utah to recognize gay and lesbian marriages performed in the state.

 

The court ruled Friday that the state had not done so.

 

"We conclude that [utah has] not made showings sufficient to warrant a stay pending appeal," the order stated.

 

The decision in Evans v Utah came from the same three judges who last month affirmed that Utah's ban on same-sex unions in Kitchen v Herbert violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution and denied citizens their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

 

But as in last month's ruling, the judges were divided.

 

Judges Carlos F. Lucero and Jerome A. Holmes, who authored the majority opinion last month, outlining why Utah's gay marriage ban was deemed unconstitutional, also seem to have authored the court's denial of Utah's request for a stay.

 

Judge Paul J. Kelly, who wrote a dissent that took issue with the characterization of marriage as a "fundamental right," issued another dissent Friday, in which he argued allowing same-sex couples to apply for spousal benefits would add to "the chaos begun by the district court in Kitchen v. Herbert."

 

Kelly wrote there would be multiple types of harm done to Utah should gay and lesbian spouses begin to apply for in-state benefits before the appeal had been settled.

 

"In denying a stay pending appeal, this court is running roughshod over state laws which are currently in force. It is disingenuous to contend that the state will suffer no harm if the matter is not stayed; undoing what is about to be done will be labyrinthine and has the very real possibility to moot important issues that deserve serious consideration," he wrote. "A stay would simply maintain the status quo until this case ... comes to a resolution via the normal legal process."

 

If the US Supreme Court does not act to impose a stay in the Evans v. Utah lawsuit come 8 AM on July 21, gay and lesbian couples married in Utah may begin to apply for in-state benefits, which includes the right to adopt.

 

More than 1,000 couples married in Utah during a 17-day window when such unions were legal following U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby's landmark ruling in Kitchen v Herbert on 20 December 2013. The marriages stopped when the US Supreme Court intervened and issued a stay in that case, halting any further same-sex marriages.

 

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had denied Utah a stay in that case, too, before ruling against the state in that same case five months later.

 

Utah has announced its intent to appeal Kitchen v herbert to the U.S. Supreme Court, making it the first challenge of a state ban on same-sex marriage to come before the nation's nine justices.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Utah Requests Stay from Supreme Court in Evans v. Utah

 

SALT LAKE CITY - Utah has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to extend a stay, thus preventing more than 1,000 same-sex couples from getting state benefits.

 

Utah filed its request seekig a stay in Evans v. Utah on 16 July 2014, arguing that benefits should be delayed while the larger issue of the marriage ban makes its way through the courts.

 

Utah's same-sex marriage ban was struck down in December and many couples got married before the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a halt in January.

 

This past May, a different federal judge, in Evans v. Utah, ruled Utah must grant benefits "“ such as child custody "“ to those couples, but the decision was put on temporary hold.

 

Last week, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Utah's request for an indefinite delay in this case and gave Utah until 21 July 2014 to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in.

 

This case is separate from the ongoing judicial review of the constitutionality of the state's same-sex marriage ban. The 10th Circuit Court recently upheld the December opinion from a federal judge in Utah who overturned the ban. Utah state officials also plan to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The gay and lesbian couples awaiting benefits tied the knot during the 17-day window when same-sex marriages were legal before the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay.

 

Utah officials argued they had no choice but to hold off on benefits until an appeals court ruled on same-sex marriage. That triggered this current lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four couples.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

10Th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Ruling Striking Down Oklahoma's Ban

 

On Friday, 18 July 2014, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier District Court ruling that struck down Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban.

 

"The Court has been vigilant in striking down impermissible constraints on the right to marriage," the ruling says.

 

The federal appeals court today ruled Oklahoma must allow gay couples to marry, marking the second time this same appeals court has found the U.S. Constitution protects same-sex marriage.

 

The decision from the 3-judge panel in Denver upholds rulings that earler struck down Oklahoma's gay marriage ban. The 2-1 ruling comes after the same panel ruled on 25 June 2014 that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage also violates the Constitution. That earlier ruling was the first time an appellate court determined last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act means states cannot deny gays the ability to marry.

 

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel put both its Oklahoma and Utah rulings on hold pending appeals. Utah's attorney general has said he plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. Same-sex marriage in the two states will remain on hold.

 

Still, the decisions give increased momentum to a legal cause that has compiled an impressive string of lower court victories. The rulings have come in 17 states, with Florida being the latest, just yesterday.

 

Still, two of the most striking of those decisions were in conservative Utah and Oklahoma, which saw their voter-approved gay marriage bans struck down in December 2013 and January 2014, respectively. In Utah, more than 1,000 same-sex couples married before the Supreme Court issued a stay.

 

It's unclear whether the two cases will be the first to reach the Supreme Court. The high court could choose from cases moving through five other federal appellate courts, and it won't consider a case until next year at the earliest.

 

Attorneys representing Utah and Oklahoma argued voters have the right to define marriage in their states, and unions between a man and woman are best for children.

 

Gay rights lawyers countered that voters cannot define marriage in a way that deprives gay people of their fundamental rights, and say there is no proof that gay couples make inferior parents.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

OKLAHOMA CITY - Gay rights groups are planning celebrations across the state after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

 

Two separate rallies were planned this evening in Oklahoma City, with other events scheduled in Tulsa and Norman.

 

A "Decision Day Gathering" is set for 7 p.m. Friday night, 18 July 2014, at the Mayflower Congregational Church in northwest Oklahoma City and is expected to draw hundreds of people.

 

One of the event's organizers, Troy Stevenson of The Equality Network, says there is a tremendous sense of relief for members of Oklahoma's gay and lesbian community, but he also noted the case ultimately must be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Today's ruling was put on hold pending any appeal, which means gay marriages won't immediately take place in Oklahoma.

 

This Oklahoma case, first filed back in 2004, has been dragging on back and forth between District Court and Appeals Court for 10 years, and is, without question, the oldest pending lawsuit on the subject of same-sex marriage. Finally, on its third hearing before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, it received an affirmative ruling, upholding the lower court, which has also had to wrestle with assorted issues concerning this case on three separate occassions.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Oklahoma Same-Sex Marriage Case will Go to Supreme Court

 

Bishop v. Smith, the challenge to Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban, is headed to the Supreme Court. The announcement came late Friday night, 1 August 2014, in a statement to "The Oklahoman."

 

Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Alliance Defending Freedom, told "The Oklahoman" that the (Tulsa County) clerk, (Pat Key, who the ADF has been representing,) will ask Supreme Court justices to review the 18 July 2014 decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In that 2-1 decision, the court ruled that Oklahoma's ban violates 14th Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.

 

Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, the Tulsa County couple who sued the court clerk when she refused to issue them a marriage license, issued a joint statement:

 

"Although we aren't surprised by the Alliance Defending Freedom's decision to appeal our victory from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, neither are we disappointed," the couple said.

 

The Oklahoma case, in which the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state's ban is unconstitutional, will join two other cases at the Supreme Court in the coming weeks: Bostic v. Rainey, a case from Virginia, on appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; along with Kitchen v. Herbert, the case from Utah, also on appeal from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Petitions are expected to be filed in all three cases within three months.

 

In addition, at least eleven cases will be heard in appeals courts over the next two months. Six cases ((from Ohio (2), Michigan, Kentucky (2), Tennessee)) are scheduled for oral arguments in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals next Wednesday, 6 August; then, four cases ((from Indiana (3), Wisconsin)) will be heard in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on 26 August. Following that, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in three cases ((from Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada)) on 8 September.

 

Any of those cases could be decided in time for the losing party to file a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the decision.

 

This past week, the opening brief was filed in a challenge to Texas' marriage ban with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled for this case.

 

It's important to note that this same organization, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), representing Pat Key, the appellant Tulsa County clerk in the Oklahoma case; is also representing Michele Mc Quigg, the appellant Prince William County clerk in the Virginia case; has also represented Theresa Santai-Gaffney, the unsuccessful appellant Schuylkill County clerk in the Pennsylvania case; and have been granted co-defendant status, along with the state of Arizona, in the Arizona case, Connolly v. Roche.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[RodEnuf]

Don't you just love the group's name -- Alliance Defending Freedom? Whose freedom? Certainly not mine. I guess it's 'freedom to discriminate' that they're defending.

 

 

Alan G

[Guest]

Don't you just love the group's name -- Alliance Defending Freedom? Whose freedom? Certainly not mine. I guess it's 'freedom to discriminate' that they're defending.

 

 

Alan G

 

And freedom to impose their views upon others.

[Rick]

Here's a second opinion, one which points out the correct name of the Tulsa County clerk being sued, while also explaining why the Utah case, Kitchen v. Herbert, is the strongest case, and why the Oklahoma case, Bishop v. Smith, is the weakest.

 

This Oklahoma case has several faults, not the least being its vintage. It's 10 years old, and pre-dates the DOMA decision by many years. Also Pat Key is the current Tulsa County clerk, and has nothing to do with this case. Her predecessor from 10 years back, Sally Howe Smith, is the actual person being sued, and she no longer holds the position. Very, very quietly, the state of Oklahoma has also not lifted a finger to appeal.

 

Instead, a single county clerk in Oklahoma is planning to take this same-sex marriage case to the Supreme Court, the third such case on the way to the Justices, probably in time for a reaction during the Term that opens this October. Lawyers for Tulsa County Clerk Sally Howe Smith (that is, the ADF) announced Friday, 1 August 2014, that they will seek to go directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing any chance for further review in the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

 

When the Tenth Circuit on 18 July 2014 struck down Oklahoma's ban, it put its ruling on hold pending a petition for review that it apparently assumed would be filed with the Supreme Court. Now, Clerk Smith's attorneys have confirmed that she will be pursuing such an appeal.

 

The Oklahoma clerk is represented by attorneys with a legal advocacy group, Alliance Defending Freedom. That same group also represents the Prince William County clerk in Virginia, and they announced last week that they will be filing that case with the Supreme Court in coming weeks. They have asked the Fourth Circuit to postpone a decision against the Virginia ban, to give the clerk time to go to the Supreme Court.

 

The state of Utah had announced earlier that it would appeal to the Supreme Court from a separate Tenth Circuit decision that nullified that state's ban. Other federal appeals courts are now reviewing similar provisions in other states, so there could be additional appeals.

 

Although the Supreme Court has complete discretion to choose which, if any, case it would agree to review on the same-sex marriage question, the chances are that the Justices would prefer a case that is appealed by state officials, (that is, the Utah case), rather than by a clerk for a single county (that is, either the Virginia or Oklahoma cases). A petition by a state would ordinarily be regarded as a more important test case, because of the respect the Court ordinarily shows to state governments. After all, it is their laws that are at stake.

 

Furthermore, the Oklahoma ruling is somewhat narrower in scope than the rulings in the cases from Virginia and Utah, because the only part of the Oklahoma ban that was struck down was a prohibition on new in-state same-sex marriages. In the other cases, appeals courts also found unconstitutional the state provisions that deny recognition to same-sex marriages that were legally performed out-of-state.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Oklahoma Same-Sex Marriage Appeal lands at U.S. Supreme Court

 

TULSA, Okla. - Voters should decide how to define marriage, not federal judges, said attorneys who filed an appeal Wednesday, 6 August 2014, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Oklahoma's ban on gay marriage is constitutional.

 

The 47-page appeal was filed by lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization representing Tulsa County Clerk Sally Howe Smith, who was sued after refusing to grant a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

 

In Bishop v. Smith, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the suing couple last month, upholding a federal judge's ruling that found the ban unconstitutional. However, those rulings were put on hold as the case makes its way through the courts, meaning same-sex couples haven't yet been allowed to marry in Oklahoma.

 

The ban was approved by more than 75 percent of voters in 2004.

 

"The 10th Circuit Court negated the exercise of this fundamental right (of voting) by more than 1 million Oklahomans and millions of voters in other states," Wednesday's appeal filing stated. "Invalidating the people's voice on an issue as profound as the definition of marriage presents an important question that warrants this court's review."

 

ADF senior counsel Byron Babione further said, "The people of every state should retain the freedom to preserve marriage if they so choose. Courts shouldn't decide the legal destiny of marriage in any state, let alone in every state." (This point regarding "the people retaining the freedom to preserve marriage" makes no sense, and certainly has no legal basis, as courts can and do decide when matters are deemed unconstitutional.)

 

The couple who sued the Tulsa County clerk challenged the ban shortly after the law was approved. After an appeals court ruled in 2009 that Sharon Baldwin and Mary Bishop lacked standing, they filed an amended complaint listing Smith as the defendant, since her office issues marriage licenses.

 

Smith said Wednesday she doesn't make the laws, but added that it's her responsibility under the oath of office she took "to follow the constitution and the state laws of Oklahoma."

 

"Therefore, until the laws are changed, by those with the power to change the law, I can only do what the law dictates me now to do, which is, I can't issue same-sex marriage licenses," she said.

 

Baldwin said she wasn't surprised the appeals court ruling was challenged. She said the day will come when marriage equality "is not an 'if' but a 'when'" throughout the U.S.

 

"For far too long, we have had second-class citizens living within our borders," she said.

 

On Tuesday, 5 August 2014, Utah state officials also filed an appeal of their case, Kitchen v. Herbert, with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to uphold that state's marriage ban for same-sex couples.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Utah Same-Sex Couples Ask Supreme Court to Hear Appeal

 

SALT LAKE CITY - Even though they scored a key victory at the 10th Court of Appeals, attorneys for three Utah gay and lesbian couples said today, 7 August 2014, they plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take Utah's appeal of a favorable same-sex marriage ruling.

 

It is vital that the justices weigh in about whether state same-sex marriage bans violate the Constitution to settle the matter for a nation that needs an answer, said Kate Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights executive director. The group is representing the couples alongside private attorneys in Utah.

 

"Because we understand the tremendous importance of this issue, and that the ultimate question can only be finally resolved at the Supreme Court, we agree with attorneys for the state of Utah that the court should take the case and provide a final resolution," Kendell said.

 

Utah filed its request on Tuesday, 5 August 2014, for the justices to hear an appeal of a June ruling from the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found states cannot deprive gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry.

 

The state argued a high court review is necessary for an issue that has been "percolating" for four decades, with current court rulings across the country causing legal chaos.

 

Utah became the first state to ask the justices to review a state same-sex marriage ban since the high court struck down a major part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last year.

 

An appeal of Virginia's case also will be before the Supreme Court soon. Virginia Attorney-General Mark Herring said earlier this week he would ask the top court to review a decision from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban, even though he supports the lower court's decision.

 

It is rare, but not unheard of, for winning parties to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal, Kendell said. She said it shows that people on both sides of the issue agree on one thing: It's imperative that the justices weigh in.

 

The high court is under no obligation to take Utah's case, and legal scholars say the justices could wait for more rulings from other appellate courts with same-sex marriage cases pending.

 

"The court could take the Utah case, they could take the Virginia case, they could take a combination of cases," Kendell said. "What we all want to see is the court determine sooner rather than later whether it's constitutionally permissible to deny to same-sex couples, and only same-sex couples, the rights, protection and security of marriage."

 

Kendell's organization also announced today, 7 August 2014, that it is bringing aboard a former U.S. solicitor general, Neal Katyal, to help litigate the case. Katyal has handled 19 cases before the Supreme Court in the past five years, his bio shows.

 

Utah state officials also have brought in outside attorneys to work the case. The state's three-man team is led by Gene Schaerr of a Washington, D.C., law firm and former Michigan solicitor-general John Bursch.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

10th Circuit Court of Appeals Extends Stay of Colorado Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

 

DENVER - Today, 21 August 2014, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals extended a stay on a ruling from the District Court level in Burns v. Hickenlooper that found Colorado's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

 

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the court has stayed similar rulings in other states. The US Supreme Court stayed an analogous ruling from Virginia earlier this week.

 

Same-sex couples had sued hoping to take advantage of recent rulings to immediately invalidate Colorado's same-sex marriage ban. But the trial judge in District Court, Raymond P. Moore, in issuing his judgment on 23 July 2014, declined to let his decision striking down the ban go into immediate effect. Instead, he issued a temporary stay of the injunction, valid until 25 August 2014.

 

Today's extension of the stay by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals makes clear the federal courts will wait until the US Supreme Court has final say.

 

Another separate lawsuit against the ban is presently before the Colorado Supreme Court.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

More on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' stay in Burns v. Hickenlooper:

 

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an order granting a stay in a federal challenge to Colorado's same-sex marriage ban. The order notes that the Tenth Circuit has issued stays in other marriage cases, and says "in the interest of consistency" this case will be stayed as well.

 

A federal judge had issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ban in July. The court then halted proceedings in the case, pending issuance of the mandate in Kitchen v. Herbert, the challenge to Utah's same-sex marriage ban in the Tenth Circuit Court. A request to halt the injunction was denied, but a temporary stay, until August 25, was granted so that the state could ask the appeals court for a stay pending appeal.

 

Without this new stay, same-sex marriages could have begun in Colorado on August 25.

 

The Utah case is in the Supreme Court, and the Justices are likely to have their first opportunity to grant review during their conference on October 10. The mandate in the Kitchen case wouldn't issue until the Supreme Court denies review or rules on the merits.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Kansas County Granting Divorces to Same-Sex Couples Married in Other States

 

LAWRENCE, KS - Same-sex couples who marry in other states won't find many places in Kansas to divorce if the relationship fails.

 

The "Lawrence Journal-World" reports that Douglas County (Lawrence) is currently the only county in Kansas that has issued divorces for same-sex couples.

 

Gay rights advocates say many same-sex couples in Kansas get married in Iowa, where the marriages are legal. However, Iowa requires all couples to live in the state for at least a year to establish residency before they can file for divorce in Iowa.

 

Attorney David Brown says he knows of only three same-sex divorces that have been granted in Kansas, and those all occurred in Douglas County.

 

Brown says at least two other counties, Shawnee (Topeka) and Johnson (Olathe/Overland Park/suburban Kansas City), will grant an annulment to end the marriages. Other Kansas counties find the marriage is invalid and dismiss the divorce petitions.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Today, 18 September 2014, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals put on hold a pending federal appeal by the state of Colorado, in Burns v. Hickenlooper, with the delay in that case to continue until the Supreme Court acts on two prior rulings by the 10th Circuit Court striking down other states' same-sex marriage bans, that is, in the Utah case, Kitchen v. Herbert, and in the Oklahoma case, Bishop v. Smith.

 

Colorado's ban has been overturned by a federal trial judge in district court. In asking that the state's appeal be "held in abeyance," the state's attorney-general noted that these other two 10th Circuit Court of Appeals marriage cases had now reached the Supreme Court.

 

In the meantime, the consolidated state case on marriage equality in Colorado, Brinkman v. Long, is still presently pending before the Colorado Supreme Court.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

10th Circuit Court Rules Tulsa County to Pay Legal Fees for Same-Sex Couple

 

TULSA "“ On 29 October 2014, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Tulsa County will have to pay the legal fees for Mary and Sharon Bishop-Baldwin. The plaintiff couple was the first in Tulsa County to get their marriage license and was the face of the fight for marriage equality in Oklahoma for a decade.

 

"The jurisprudence system in the United States in civil lawsuits allows a prevailing party to seek compensation for its legal expenses and time and effort and that's what our lawyers have done," Sharon Bishop-Baldwin said. She added that while an exact dollar isn't yet known, and may not be known for some time, the legal fees pertain to representation from 2009-2014. The representation during that time-period also covers Gay Phillips and Susan Barton, whose fees aren't going to be covered by Tulsa County, according to court documents. Phillips and Barton sued to have their out-of-state marriage recognized, but were unsuccessful.

 

Bishop-Baldwin says she hopes the county can find a way for the state to pay the legal fees. She says state lawmakers who put an unconstitutional marriage ban on the ballot years ago are the ones deserving the blame. "The take-away from this is if we elect competent lawmakers, who don't write unconstitutional laws, we won't keep finding ourselves in this situation."

 

Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith, the defendant in Bishop v. Smith, says the county shouldn't pay the couple's fees and that the county was upholding the state constitution when it didn't issue marriage licenses.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

More Than 3200 Same-Sex Couples Marry in Oklahoma Since Legalization

 

TULSA, OK - More than 3,200 marriage licenses have been issued in Oklahoma since they became available to same-sex couples in the state, according to the head of a gay advocacy group, Oklahomans for Equality.

 

As reported in the "Tulsa World," marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples in 23 of Oklahoma's 77 counties since 6 October 2014, the date when the US Supreme Court refused to reconsider an Oklahoma judge's ruling that struck down the state's ban on marriage between same-sex couples. Of those, about 2,200 marriage licenses have been issued in the state's two most populous counties, Oklahoma and Tulsa counties. A secondary spike has been noticed in counties bordering Texas.

 

As soon as Oklahoma began issuing licenses to same-sex couples, advocacy groups had referrals in place for officiants, venues, photographers, and other wedding-related businesses, said Toby Jenkins, executive director of Oklahomans for Equality. "We always had a network where people can go to get information," Jenkins said. "We have had a real strong infrastructure in place."

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Same-Sex Texan Couples Flock to Bryan County, OK; Marriage Licenses Double

 

DURANT, BRYAN COUNTY, OK - More than 3,000 same-sex couples have married in Oklahoma since overturning the ban on marriage between same-sex couples. Many have taken place in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties, but one Texoma town, Durant, has become a hot spot for gay weddings, and it's doubled the number of marriage licenses issued.

 

"Since we started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it's probably nearly doubled the number of licenses we issue every month," said Donna Alexander, Bryan County District Court Clerk. "We've had some local couples, but most of them are from Texas," Alexander said. Durant is a quick drive for those in love from the Lone Star state, where a ban on same-sex marriage still stands.

 

Oklahomans for Equality surveyed most of the state, and found Bryan County issues a disproportionate number of marriage licences to same-sex couples like Carla Nelson and Liz Blackwell. "We had to come here because in Texas, they do not support same-sex marriage," Blackwell said.

 

Hundreds have been adding their names to a century of records in Bryan County that used to read bride and groom, but now simply says applicant one and two.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Tulsa County to Pay $300K in Fees in Same-Sex Marriage Case

 

TULSA, OK - Tulsa County will pay nearly $300,000 in attorney fees that were incurred in the case, Bishop v. Smith, during its unsuccessful defense of Oklahoma's ban on same sex-marriage. The "Tulsa World" reports on Friday, 8 May 2015, that a district court judge has awarded attorneys for a lesbian couple almost $300,000 in fees and costs related to the county's appeal of a lower court ruling. Three attorneys for the couple had requested almost $400,000 in attorney fees and nearly $2,000 in costs. Attorneys for Tulsa County argued that a more appropriate amount would be just over $100,000.

 

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October 2014 that Tulsa County would have to pay the legal expenses for the couple. The couple sued Tulsa County Clerk Sally Howe Smith, who was barred from issuing marriage licenses because of Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had overturned the ban on 18 July 2014.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Oklahoma Supreme Court Expands Same-Sex Parental Rights

 

On Tuesday, 17 November 2015, in Ramey v. Sutton, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling increasing the rights of non-custodial parents who have been in same-sex relationships. The decision acknowledged the rights of a non-biological parent in a same-sex relationship who has acted as a parent:

 

"ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE JUDGE HOWARD HARALSON, PRESIDING

 

Same sex couple planned to have a child and co-parent. Upon the termination of their relationship and following almost ten years of co-parenting, the biological mother denied plaintiff's status as a parent and sought to end all interaction between plaintiff and child. Couple did not have a written agreement regarding parenting. Plaintiff petitioned the District Court in Oklahoma County seeking a determination of parental rights and custody. The District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed and this Court issued an Order granting plaintiff's motion to retain this appeal.

 

DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT REVERSED;

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS"

 

Rick