OKLAHOMA: County Clerk Files Marriage Ban Defense Brief With Tenth Circuit

Alliance Defending Freedom yesterday a filed a brief in defense of Oklahoma's gay marriage ban on behalf of Tulsa County Clerk Sally Smith.  The ban was overturned by a federal court in January and that ruling was immediately stayed pending an appeal, which was filed two days later by the ADF.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals should uphold Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that states have the power to define marriage, attorneys defending the law said in a brief filed Tuesday night. If the appeals court rules that the Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, the ruling “would permanently install a genderless-marriage institution as federal domestic-relations policy nationwide. In that world, the People could never recapture the man-woman marriage institution, regardless of what the best interests of society might dictate,” according to the brief filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group representing Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith in the case.

More from the brief:

The Christian legal group defending the Tulsa County Court Clerk also takes the position in the new brief that the U.S. Supreme Court was right to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act provision. The brief says “DOMA’s effect on same-sex couples was entirely gratuitous and unwarranted because it resulted from the federal government’s meddling with a topic, the definition of marriage, over which it has no authority. “Here in contrast, the (Oklahoma) Marriage Amendment’s effect on same-sex couples is the incidental result of the State’s exercising its essential authority to maintain the man-woman marriage institution and thereby preserve marriage’s efficacy in accomplishing the procreative and child-related interests it has always served. “In other words, while the federal government had no legitimate interest in enacting DOMA, the State (as demonstrated) has legitimate and compelling reasons for affirming the man-woman marriage institution.”

Oral arguments are scheduled for April 17th.