Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Broad arguments made in Oklahoma case challenging marriage equality ban and the federal DOMA

DOMA trials LGBT Legal Cases

A broad argument in favor of marriage equality is being presented to a district court in Oklahoma. In Bishop v. United States, plaintiffs are challenging Sections 2 and 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Oklahoma’s ban on marriage equality and its refusal to recognize married same-sex couples. After the Supreme Court issued its decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA in United States v. Windsor, the plaintiffs asked the district court to rule in their favor on the Section 3 claims, since the statute is no longer valid.

In a new filing, the plaintiffs suggest that Windsor‘s reasoning applies to their other claims as well.

The brief points out that the Court in Windsor struck down Section 3 of DOMA on due process and equal protection grounds, while at the same time strongly suggesting that the opposite-sex definition at issue in Windsor affected the equal dignity and equal treatment that same-sex couples are entitled to. Windsor, they write, recognized the dignity in all marriages, not only those where spouses are of the opposite-sex.

The plaintiffs write that the same rationalizations the Supreme Court disavowed in Windsor are used to defend Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage: defending traditional marriage, preventing the redefinition of marriage, expressing moral disapproval of homosexuality, and other rationales similar to the ones at issue in the challenge to the federal definition of marriage. And they write that since Windsor held that discrimination that’s especially unusual and seems to be based on a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group (quoting prior precedent using the most lenient rational basis test to strike down a federal law) this necessarily means that the reasons given to defend Oklahoma’s marriage ban should be viewed as more suspect.

Also, along with the more animus-based rationales, the plaintiffs here point to the Windsor Court’s rejection of even the benign rationalizations offered in defense of Section 3 of DOMA. The Supreme Court rejected child-rearing, uniformity, and other rationales as a defense of the statute, holding instead that because Section 3 of DOMA is so unusual, it could only have been enacted to harm an unpopular group. And this is so even under rational basis review: the Supreme Court in Windsor only addressed heightened scrutiny in one sentence, suggesting that the debate on the level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation is still ongoing in the appeals courts; since the Court didn’t apply a higher level of scrutiny, it’s assumed that these laws wouldn’t withstand even rational basis review without a legitimate, non-animus-based purpose.

As other courts are beginning to note, DOMA Section 3’s demise means that same-sex married couples are now entitled to at least 1,138 federal rights that were blocked before the Supreme Court rendered its decision. Because of Windsor, same-sex couples living in states where same-sex marriage is banned remain excluded from receiving any of these rights, benefits, and responsibilities. The plaintiffs write that only striking down Oklahoma’s ban will remedy the violation of equal protection and allow same-sex couples the right to marry and receive these benefits just as opposite-sex couples can.

Last, the plaintiffs write that it “defies legal logic” to assume that Windsor‘s holdings can’t be applied to Section 2 of DOMA – the section that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it is legal. Oklahoma’s non-recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, they suggest, is a “double standard” that implicates equal protection questions just as Section 3’s discriminatory and animus-based treatment did. The two sections of DOMA work together as a legislative scheme to deny equal protection to same-sex married couples, and thus should both be invalidated.

The remaining filings in this case are due the last two weeks of August.

h/t Kathleen Perrin for this filing

4:04-cv-00848 #262 by EqualityCaseFiles


  • 1. papierosy elektroniczne sklep  |  August 5, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    Have you ever considered about including a little bit more than just your articles?
    I mean, what you say is fundamental and everything. But imagine if you added some great pictures or video clips to give your posts more, “pop”!
    Your content is excellent but with pics and videos, this blog could definitely be one of the greatest in
    its field. Amazing blog!

  • 2. Lorrie  |  October 2, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    Excelente P

  • 3. zestaw ratunkowy  |  October 13, 2013 at 4:20 am

    I all the time used to read piece of writing in news papers but now as I am a user of net
    so from now I am using net for articles, thanks to web.

  • 4. _ysienie  |  November 3, 2013 at 9:34 am

    Great article! This is the type of info that are meant to be shared around the web.
    Disgrace on the seek engines for not positioning this submit
    higher! Come on over and talk over with my web site .
    Thank you =)

  • 5. depilatory  |  November 14, 2013 at 12:56 am

    I like the helpful info you provide in your articles.

    I’ll bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly.

    I’m quite sure I will learn many new stuff right here!
    Best of luck for the next!

  • 6. Marriage Equality: You&hellip  |  January 16, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    […] Bishop v. Oklahoma has languished in the federal court system for nearly a decade. Oklahoma, arguably one of the most conservative states in the country, wasn’t on anyone’s radar as remotely likely to recognize the rights of its gay citizens to marry any time soon, let alone to be one of the first nearly twenty states to do so. I assumed Oklahoma would only allow gay marriage after kicking and screaming at the bitter end of the pack. Governor Fallin’s predictable and ill-informed response that Judge Kern ruled contrary to the will of the majority of Oklahomans is un-compelling, to say the least. If a law is unconstitutional, it doesn’t matter how fervently opposed its citizenry are to it. Many states also condemned interracial marriage and advocated segregation, but the states gradually overturned those laws realizing that when individual’s Constitutional rights are ignored, we all lose. […]

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!