BREAKING: US District Judge Rules Oklahoma’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Unconstitutional

1533120_10152162376087489_1243324883_nIt seems the party for “Constitutional values” has been once against struck down for violating our Constitution — specifically the Fourteenth Amendment — according to a U.S. District judge who ruled Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

And so the debate on the legalization of same-sex marriage continues forward.

Then again, calling it a “debate” is really kind of a joke.  Our First Amendment makes it pretty clear that our laws can not be influenced with established religion.  So being that basically the entire argument against same-sex marriage comes from religion, it’s clear that any ban on same-sex marriage is absolutely unconstitutional.

There are plenty of debates in politics where there are grey areas in which both sides make valid points.  Take abortion for instance.  “When” life begins is the debate and basically both sides have legitimate arguments.  The issue with that debate though isn’t as simple as same-sex marriage.  With abortion, it’s a more complex issue involving not just when life is created but how much control a woman has over her own body.  Which is what protect.  The right to choose, to me, is about letting the woman decide for herself what to do with her own body.

But when it comes to same-sex marriage, there’s nothing to complicate the issue.  As far as government is concerned, the only role in marriage it should have is dealing with the legal ramifications of what happens once a couple is married, how to handle the children in case of divorce and the divorce itself.  “Marriage”, as far as legalities go, doesn’t even have to be done by any religious institution at all.  A simple Justice of the Peace can legally marry a couple and Las Vegas has taken “getting married” to a whole new level of ease.

So in reality marriage, as far as it being “legal,” has nothing to do with religion — at all.

Then even if you want to say marriage is about religion (and only religion), then the government can’t impede on any particular church’s desire to marry a same-sex couple — which is exactly what states that pass bans on same-sex marriage do.

If my church wishes to marry same-sex couples, but the government of Texas (for example) forbids it, that’s unconstitutional.  You know, being that the Constitution forbids the government from making laws based on religion.  Then if the state wants to argue that their ban on same-sex marriage isn’t based on religion, then they’re admitting to discrimination against homosexuals, which is also illegal.

See, this “debate” isn’t a debate at all.  There’s no legal or logical grounds for which conservatives can continue to deny the right to marry for same-sex couples.

So like I’ve said before, it’s no longer a question of if same-sex marriage will become legal nationwide, but when.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Michael Siever

    “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,” Kern wrote in his 68-page
    opinion.

  • Gabriel Gentile

    No doubt the Lord will rain down his wrath and ruination upon us for this wickedness like he did… The Netherlands?

  • Suzie 1

    Great news! Maybe this will set a precedent whereby people can marry whoever they want such as a child under 18 or a barn animal? If the two parties consent then who is the government to say that people can’t marry whomever or whatever they want.
    Don’t like it? Then maybe you should go walk yourself into oncoming traffic:)
    haha

    • You don’t understand consent. An animal is not sentient and cannot consent to marriage, and a child is not of legal age (as in consenting ADULT). Your argument is ridiculous.

  • Pipercat

    Well, this was bound to happen Sooners or laters!!

  • Those dominoes are falling. Justice Scalia is a prophet (much to his chagrin, I’m sure). 🙂