Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Bishop v. Smith
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided July 18, 2014No. 14-5003, 14-5006Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKelly, Circuit Judge
Plaintiffs made an unusual decision in this case.1 They challenged only the constitutional amendment concerning same-gender marriage. Okla. Const, art. II, § 35. They ignored the earlier-enacted statutory provisions which define and only recognize marriage as between persons of opposite gender. Okla. Stat. tit. 43, §§ 3(A), 3.1. They also sued the wrong defendant when it comes to non-recognition of out-of-state same-gender marriages; the clerk has no occasion to pass on the validity of out-of-state marriages. The district court noticed both of these problems, yet entered an injunction…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Turner v. SafleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Washington v. GlucksbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Loving v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Zablocki v. RedhailSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.