Oklahoma lawmaker's 'clergy only' policy for marriage licenses aimed at stopping same-sex unions

While the battle over same-sex marriage in Alabama is heating up, it has already reached a boiling point in Oklahoma. And the fight there could very well signal what's ahead here.

Oklahoma legislator Rep. Todd Russ - an Assemblies of God minister- has filed a bill requiring that only "an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination" be allowed to sign marriage certificates.

County judges would be prohibited from performing weddings and no clerks could issue marriage licenses.

No religious officiant? You're out of luck, though you can file an affidavit of common law marriage which, by the way, isn't always recognized in Oklahoma. And what if you choose not to have a religious ceremony at all? Too bad, you're still forced to find a clergy member to sign your certificate.

The Republican lawmakers' explanation is simple: "Oklahoma voted overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage, and yet the Supreme Court stuck it down our throats," he told the Daily Oklahoman.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Oklahoma in October. In 2004, however, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

That's the same sort of amendment that's in place in Alabama. It's also the same type of amendment that's been tossed out by a growing number of judges.

Other lawmakers in Oklahoma are trying different tactics. One would bar state and local employees from recognizing or granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples under penalty of losing their jobs. Another would allow businesses to refuse to serve LGBT residents.

As mentioned in related threads, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay agenda issues like gay marriage. So regardless that pro-gay activist judges are hiding behind a PC interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC) to argue that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, there is actually nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state’s legal majority voters from exercising their 10th Amendment (10A)-protected power to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage.

Regarding pro-gay interpetations of the EPC, note that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that 14A added no new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthens those protections expressly amended to the Constitution by the states.

“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

Again, activist justices and judges have no constitutionally enumerated gay rights protections to apply to the states via 14A. Sadly, the reason that judges are getting away striking down legitimate state prohibitions on gay marriage, imo, is because parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally unprotected “rights.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.