“Same-sex marriage became legal”
Uh, no, actually false (although a common enough mistake).
What happened was a court of uncertain jurisdiction and authority enjoined Oklahoma from ENFORCING its law because of a supposed conflict with the Federal constitution.
This court order does not (cannot) change the law in Oklahoma. That law, unless repealed by the legislature, is still the law and same sex “marriages” are still illegal in Oklahoma.
To the extent that the chief law enforcement officer recognizes the AUTHORITY of a court to issue this injunction, and to the extent that said officer AGREES with the interpretation of this court, he may allow these relationships to be called “marriages”. But, just as a court cannot repeal Oklahoma’s law, neither can the governor nor can the Attorney General.
Please stop using “became legal” to describe injunctions against ENFORCING perfectly valid acts of legislatures.
“Please stop using “became legal” to describe injunctions against ENFORCING perfectly valid acts of legislatures.”
I fully understand the technical legalities. My simple language was directed at the effect of the various jurisdictions and rulings. The effect of a state being enjoined by a federal court from enforcing a state law is something other than the plain language of the law, to wit, that sooner or later people of the same sex are going to be married.
This is exactly why I have the position that I do: we must remove from government the power to declare and regulate marriage and instead only recognize marriages that people declare (ex post) to the state. If this means that the State must adjust some of its other laws and taxes, that is the price for returning marriage to the private sphere, and thus out of the hands of people who are hostile to godly marriage and who are “hell bent” (to borrow a phrase) at using the state to destroy it.