Gay Couple to Get Legally Married Within Borders of Oklahoma, Thanks to Tribal Laws

The latest in gay marriage recognition news

Fox 25

Gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma. Not even a little bit. But one gay couple does plan to tie the knot in such a way that will be recognized within the state, though not by the state. Jason Pickel and Darren Blackbear have snagged a marriage license from the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribal Court in Concho, Oklahoma. Blackbear is a member of their tribe, and their marriage laws do not specify gender.

Fox's Oklahoma City affiliate interviewed the couple, and you can watch the story here. They're planning for a wedding on Halloween, so that should be an entertaining reception. Their marriage will not be acknowledged by the state of Oklahoma, but because of the partial strike-down of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government will recognize it.

In other related news, New Mexico's Supreme Court is hearing arguments today about whether the state should recognize same-sex marriages, and for the first time ever, the court is allowing the proceedings to be live-streamed. You can watch the arguments here. In Illinois, gay marriage supporters rallied at the capitol in Springfield, but they still don't seem to have the votes to pass a law, even through its Democrat-controlled state legislature, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

We call it maizel tov.

[Death Rock and Skull]

Isn't an injun reservation inside Oklahoma not Oklahoma, in the same way that San Marino inside Italy is not Italy?

[Paul.]

I believe so. Like the Vatican isn't Italy, or how my house is sovereign territory.

[Eduard van Haalen]

I thought there was something like this somewhere on the Internet, and I finally found it.

"Vatican City" to the tune of "Paradise City"

http://www.spaff.com/poesy/vatican_city.html

[Zeb]

I think that's the idea. Though somehow states still get to have a say in how casinos and such on reservations operate. I'm not sure how that all works.

[Agammamon]

Pretty much the same way it works for you and me - the state simply walks in, gun in hand, and says 'obey' and that particular tribe doesn't want to go through the hassle of fighting back.

I've seen state police get away with completely illegal raids on stores that sell cigarettes on tribal lands simply because state 'cops' did the raid - if it had been some regular schlubs robbing the place the tribal police would have stepped in but they weren't willing to stand up to 'official' authority and so got that authority imposed on them.

[Ornithorhynchus]

Technically, Tribal lands in Oklahoma are not reservations (except for the Osage), but they're still sovereign. I've lived here all my life and I still haven't figured out how Indian law works here. Tribes can issue licence plates to members, even when they don't live anywhere near the Tribal territory, for example.

[Eduard van Haalen]

"In other related news, New Mexico's Supreme Court is hearing arguments today about whether the state should recognize same-sex marriages"

Hmmm...isn't that the same NM Supreme Court which says a wedding photographer can be forced to help out at same-sex weddings? Not that the issues are connected or anything.

[frzcvjo efjsckr]

Reason's left libertarianism is shown by what it emphasizes. Cop's behavior and the drug war are legitimate libertarian issues but they get far more press than do non-PC causes like opposing affirmative action and the disparate impact principle, which are almost never mentioned.

[Paul.]

Never mentioned?

http://reason.com/24-7/2013/09.....-gay-weddi

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09.....-to-scotus

[Paul.]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08.....les-rights

[frzcvjo efjsckr]

Show me a source it was mentioned in the context of race. I'm sure you will be able to find one, but it will take you a long long time.

[Paul.]

I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for, here. Stories on affirmative action in the 'nay' column?

[Eduard van Haalen]

Google site:reason.com affirmative action

is that what you're looking for?

[Paul.]

I'm not sure, but if you do google that, Reason talks quite a storm about Affirmative action.

[Zeb]

Oh for fuck's sake. We'd better not allow interracial marriage either because a mixed race couple might use anti-discrimination laws to force some racist asshole to make them a cake.

This is exactly the argument you are making.

[Eduard van Haalen]

"allow"

Same-sex marriage is *already* allowed, even in Alabama. You can have a ceremony and everything! Of course, you can't get access to the levers of government to compel others to do business with you, which is a key purpose of SSM recognition.

[Calidissident]

Because that's the only reason people get marriage licenses? This is especially hypocritical coming from you, because IIRC, you're not one of those "I won't support anything besides abolishing marriage licenses" people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you not support state-granted marriage licenses, but only for straight couples? If I'm wrong, I apologize

[Eduard van Haalen]

(1) I would say "opposite-sex" instead of "straight"

(2) I would not say "state-granted" as if the state were doing a favor, but "state-issued" as a matter of duty for any qualified man/woman couple which seeks one - but the "license" IMHO can only be justified for record-keeping purposes, and if a couple is married without a license the only consequence should be that the officiant pays a small fine - the marriage ought still to be valid. Because -

(3) IMHO the state's only role in marriage is to recognize marriages an support the institution - I don't think it has the *authority* to invent new definitions. State redefinition of marriage has had bad results, from "miscegenation" laws to no-fault divorce to SSM.

[Calidissident]

What purpose does the state recognizing marriage serve in that scenario? Just to give symbolic support to your preferred social unit? Do you think the tax code should be marriage-neutral? Should gay people be allowed to sponsor same-sex partners in immigration?

As I've said many times, I do prefer elimination of marriage licenses and non-arbitrary enforcement of private contracts by the government. Absent that, I don't think it's fair or just to restrict marriage licenses to only straight (or opposite-sex if you prefer) couples

[Eduard van Haalen]

"symbolic support"

I would hope the state's support would be more than symbolic.

"your preferred social unit"

It's not *my* preference that matters. My preference would be a series of young mistresses, as our age gap gets bigger and bigger.

But neither that preference, or the preference of racist anti-miscegenation legislatures, or the preferences of no-fault divorce supporters, or the preferences of SSM crusaders, should affect public policy.

The definition favored by "Nature and Nature's God" - or if you don't like Jefferson's phrasing, just nature - is the union of a man and a woman, and in Western civilization (until a recent date) the definition has involved permanence and exclusivity.

[Eduard van Haalen]

"I do prefer elimination of marriage licenses"

I wouldn't mind eliminating them either so long as the officiant keeps some kind of record which can be consulted in case of doubt.

[Eduard van Haalen]

"Do you think the tax code should be marriage-neutral?"

No.

"Should gay people be allowed to sponsor same-sex partners in immigration?"

No.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Addendum re the second question - if they can sponsor their lovers on some other immigration category - employee, essential worker, or who knows, even relative - then that would be fine.

[Christophe]

I find it funny that you think that "opposite-sex" is a core defining feature of marriage, but "same-race" isn't. It is true that that's the social norm now, but you do realize that it only has been the case for a very short time right?

What I'm getting at is that you elevate a very specific definition, that's restrictive in only the ways that you consider justified, as having some kind of historical consensus, when most people in history would reject it as overly permissive.

[Azathoth!!]

Actually, official proscriptions on exogamy were a short-lived abberration. Humans have mixed races since the dawn of the species--the neanderthaloid traces some modern humans bear giving impetus to that fact.

Getting rid of those laws simply restored the status quo.

[Tony]

WTF does nature have to do with the ritual of marriage?

[Calidissident]

Yeah, Eddy, I'm sure that a non-discrimination ordinance passed in 2003 was caused by the New Mexico Supreme Court hearing arguments on gay marriage a decade later.

[Paul.]

If there was anywhere I'd wanna be gay married, it'd be Oklahoma.