Bishop v. U.S. ex rel. Holder, --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2014)
© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1
2014 WL 116013United States District Court,N.D. Oklahoma.Mary BISHOP, Sharon Baldwin, SusanBarton, and Gay Phillips, Plaintiffs, v.UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Eric H.HOLDER, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States of America; and Sally Howe Smith, in her official capacity as Court Clerk for Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, Defendants,Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S.House of Representatives, Intervenor–Defendant.No. 04–CV–848–TCK–TLW. | Jan. 14, 2014.
Lesbian couples brought action against variousgovernment officials claiming that Defense of MarriageAct (DOMA) section which functioned to deprive same-sex married couples of federal benefits, and amendmentto Oklahoma constitution limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated due process and equal protection.Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part anddenied in part, 447 F.Supp.2d 1239. State appealed. TheCourt of Appeals, Terrence L. O'Brien, Circuit Judge,333 Fed.Appx. 361, 2009 WL 1566802, reversed in part.On remand, plaintiffs filed amended complaint adding theAttorney General and county's court clerk as defendants, andthe complaint was dismissed as to state of Oklahoma, 2009WL 4505951. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment andfor entry of final judgment, court clerk moved for summary judgment, and Attorney General moved to dismiss.
The District Court, Terence C. Kern, J., held that: plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge DOMA's non-recognition provision; plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief regarding DOMA'sdefinition of “marriage” was moot; plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge amendment toOklahoma constitution prohibiting recognition of same-sexmarriages; but plaintiffs had standing to challenge amendment toOklahoma constitution defining “marriage”; Oklahoma constitution's definition of “marriage”intentionally discriminated between groups of persons; state's interest in promoting morality did not justifyOklahoma constitution's definition of “marriage”; and Oklahoma constitution's definition of “marriage” was notrationally related to state's other interests.Ordered accordingly.
West CodenotesHeld Unconstitutional
Okla.Const. Art. 2, § 35(A).
Recognized as Unconstitutional
1 U.S.C.A. § 7.
Don G. Holladay, James E. Warner, Holladay & Chilton
PLLC, Laura Lea Eakens, Jennings Cook & Teague PC,
Oklahoma City, OK, Timothy P. Studebaker, Studebaker &Worley PLLC, Phillip Craig Bailey, P. Craig Bailey, Tulsa,
OK, for Plaintiffs.Austin R. Nimocks, Alliance Defense Fund, Judson OwenLittleton, W. Scott Simpson, Washington, DC, Brian W.
Raum, James A. Campbell, Byron J. Babione, Holly
L. Carmichael, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale,AZ, Dale Michael Schowengerdt, Alliance Defense Fund,Leawood, KS, John David Luton, Tulsa, OK, for Defendants.Kerry W. Kircher, U.S. House of Representatives Officeof General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Intervenor–Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
TERENCE C. KERN, District Judge.
This Order addresses challenges to state and federallaws relating to same-sex marriage. The Court holds that
Case: 14-1341 Document: 006111998376 Filed: 03/21/2014 Page: 1
(1 of 31)