Decision is up: http://www.scribd.com/doc/199722739/4-04-cv-00848-272
The meat of it:
The Supreme Court has not expressly reached the issue of whether state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution. However, Supreme Court law now prohibits states from passing laws that are born of animosity against homosexuals, extends constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals, and prohibits the federal government from treating opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently. There is no precise legal label for what has occurred in Supreme Court jurisprudence beginning with Romer in 1996 and culminating in Windsor in 2013, but this Court knows a rhetorical shift when it sees one. Against this backdrop, the Court’s task is to determine whether Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment deprives a class of Oklahoma citizens – namely, same-sex couples desiring an Oklahoma marriage license – of equal protection of the law. Applying deferential rationality review, the Court searched for a rational link between exclusion of this class from civil marriage and promotion of a legitimate governmental objective. Finding none, the Court’s66 Case 4:04-cv-00848-TCK-TLW Document 272 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/14/14 rationality review reveals Part A as an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit. 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.
They didn't search far. William Blackstone gave the rational link in his first book of Commentaries - THE legal textbook for the first 100 years from the country's founding. That reason is to protect the right of a child to have a mother and a father, and to protect the tax payers from having to support other people's children.
Against this backdrop, the Court’s task is to determine whether Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment deprives a class of Oklahoma citizens – namely, same-sex couples desiring an Oklahoma marriage license – of equal protection of the law.
Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.
A couple is not an individual. An individual having a right to marry (someone of the opposite sex) does not imply that a couple has a right to be married to each other.
A SCOTUS decision upholding these rulings would be the final nail in the coffin for the Constitutional rule of law, and 226 years of legal precedent. I don't think they will do it.