In 2004, Oklahoma became one of many states to place a ban on same-sex marriage, with a statewide 75% voter approval rating. The same year a same-sex couple desiring to obtain an Oklahoma marriage license brought up a case against the ruling. Nearly 10 years later, on Tuesday, January 14, a federal judge ruled that the Oklahoma law limiting marriage to only that between a man and a woman was unconstitutional, stating that the ruling is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern, the federal judge responsible for the ruling, points out that the state constitutional measure to limit marriage to just heterosexuals “purposefully (drew a line) between two groups of Oklahoma citizens–same sex couples desiring an Oklahoma marriage license and opposite-sex couples desiring [a] marriage license,” while “the Court’s rationality review reveals [that the ban provides] an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a government benefit.”
This ruling brings up a conflict between constitutionality and the voter’s right to self-government, which has been highly disputed ever since the enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court stated the federal DOMA “violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government,” which allowed the U.S. Government to recognize same-sex marriage, while still not addressing the many states that have still prohibited these marriages within their borders. This constant struggle between the conflict of constitutionality and self-government of the states is being elevated to national attention through the federal ruling in Oklahoma. This ruling brings up the question of whether or not it really is right for the federal government to rule against the self-government of state powers.
First off, the right of the states to self-governing has long been upheld to the highest importance by the federal government throughout the history of the United States. As Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin spoke out against the ruling, stating that she “support(s) the right of the Oklahoma voters to govern themselves on this and other public matters” and is “disappointed in the judge’s ruling and troubled that the will of the people has once again been ignored by the federal government.” Dissenters of the ruling believe the states’ right to govern themselves was enumerated by the U.S. Constitution, so the federal government should not be able to take away this power under any circumstances. The simple fact that the people under state governance have the ability and right to decide for themselves on matters of state ruling became indisputable since the writing of the U.S. Constitution. The state should be able to make the decision for itself on matters of state jurisdiction, as long as the majority of voters within the state agree so.
What dissenters of the federal judge’s ruling fail to view consists the basic right of people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness given to us under the U.S. Constitution. We cannot look to deprive our fellow man of these rights, no matter what sexual orientation they believe themselves to fall under. While the federal government should not infringe on the rights of the states, neither should we as individuals infringe on the rights of our fellow man. We cannot, as free people, seek to alienate a segment of a population just because they align themselves as homosexual, just as much as we cannot isolate a portion based on race or gender. Individuals have the inherent right of choosing how they align themselves sexually, and they should not be discriminated for this choice. No matter how much the federal government violates the wants of a single state’s majority, you cannot discriminate against the minority. By Judge Kern’s ruling the freedom of choice of the individual is upheld, a right that the state of Oklahoma had been violating for almost ten years.
While this ruling may not be a complete victory for homosexual rights in the state of Oklahoma, with the state still supporting Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which asserts that Oklahoma is not required to accept same-sex marriages performed in other states, the ruling does make great strides towards equality of marriage in the state. With the possibility of appeal still available, the case might be taken all the way up into the Supreme Court, which would give the ruling final standing either way. Appeal or no appeal, Oklahoma should follow the example of other states and of historical progress in equality and look to change its precedence of homosexual discrimination in marriage recognition.