OOOH-klahoma!

Another one bites the dust.

Senior U.S. Federal District Judge Terence C. Kern has struck down the amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage, saying that the ban violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. But unlike in Utah, Oklahoma’s same-sex couples won’t be rushing to marry anytime soon, as Judge Kern has stayed his ruling pending an appeal.

Fortunately, Jim Burroway has an excellent discussion of the ruling at the link, so I don't have to do any heavy analysis, but I do want to note that Judge Kern hit a couple of key points head-on:

This Court has gleaned and will apply two principles from Windsor. First, a state law defining marriage is not an “unusual deviation” from the state/federal balance, such that its mere existence provides “strong evidence” of improper purpose. A state definition must be approached differently, and with more caution, than the Supreme Court approached DOMA. Second, courts reviewing marriage regulations, by either the state or federal government, must be wary of whether “defending” traditional marriage is a guise for impermissible discrimination against same-sex couples. These two principles are not contradictory, but they happen to help different sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

Wham.

The state, of course, is appealing the decision -- and unlike Utah, they managed to do it right.

Here's the full decision. I do recommend that you read it -- Judge Kern is thorough, detailed, and remorseless in demolishing the state's "arguments."

Needless to say, the governor of Oklahama, Mary Fallin (who by all accounts is real piece of work*) has responded with predictable outrage:

In 2004, the people of Oklahoma voted to amend the state's constitution to define marriage as ‘the union of one man and one woman.’ That amendment passed with 75 percent support.

The people of Oklahoma have spoken on this issue. I support the right of Oklahoma's voters to govern themselves on this and other policy matters. I am disappointed in the judge's ruling and troubled that the will of the people has once again been ignored by the federal government.

She obviously didn't bother to read the opinion, which states quite clearly:

Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights. The Bishop couple has been in a loving, committed relationships for many years. They own property together, wish to retire together, wish to make medical decisions for one another, and wish to be recognized as a married couple with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment excludes the Bishop couple, and all otherwise eligible same-sex couples, from this privilege without a legally sufficient justification.

Emphasis added, for the Governor's benefit.

* This is from commenter Jodene at the BTB post:

Our governor had previously first refused to accept applications for benefits by same sex Guard couples. When that was found to be discriminatory she briefly just stopped accepting applications from any Guard member. In a state that is heavily military, that didn’t last. She was forced to obey federal law.

The current joke is she will soon refuse to have any marriages in Oklahoma.