Oklahoma Must Honor Homosexual Adoptions in Other States By Order of a Judge

by Lyn Rahman
May 30, 2006

 

            On May 19, 2006, Judge Robin Cauthron of the United States District Court for Western Oklahoma issued the following Opinion:

The Court finds that the Amendment 10 Okla. Stat. §7502-1.4(A), violates the United States Constitution, that it must be set aside, and any further enforcement is enjoined.  Finally, the Court directs Defendant Crutcher and the Oklahoma Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for E., identifying Jennifer and Lucy Doel as her parents, and to issue birth certificates for S. and K., identifying Anne Margo and Heather Finstuen as their parents.

 

Finstuen v. Edmonson, No. CIV-04-1152-C (2006)(emphasis added)

            The statute deemed unconstitutional by Judge Cauthron includes an Amendment that says the State of Oklahoma will not recognize adoption decrees from another state that involve two people of the same sex.  The Judge found same to be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.

JUDGE CAUTHRON USED OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL DREW EDMONSOND’S OPINION AGAINST HIM TO REFUTE THE STATE’S ARGUMENT THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CURRENT CASE.

 

            Before continuing, it is important to know that Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson issued an Opinion directing the State Department of Health (“Department of Health”) to provide a supplementary birth certificate to two persons of the same sex because the State must acknowledge an adoption decree given in another state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  2004 AG Okla. Lexis 8.  As a result, Gregory Hampel and Edmund Swaya applied for and received a supplementary birth certificate listing both of them as parents of a little girl born in Oklahoma, but adopted in a Washington state court proceeding.  Both were parties to the case at bar; however, the Judge believed their reason for action was speculative since they already received a supplementary birth certificate in Oklahoma.    

            Ironically, as part of the argument that the claim against Oklahoma’s amended adoption statute is unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Attorney General Drew Edmondson and other Defendants representing the State argue that “Oklahoma is free to decide its own public policy.”  Id.  In other words, Oklahoma did not have to recognize this adoption decree from another state because it conflicts with the State’s public policy.  Apparently, Judge Cauthron agreed with Edmondson’s 2004 Opinion, as she states:  “…Defendant Edmondson relied on this statute...in issuing the Attorney General’s opinion that led to issuance of the birth certificate for the Hampel/Swaya family.”  Id.

JUDGE CAUTHRON APPLIES PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND DISCRIMINATION-BASED CASE LAW TO SHOW THAT THE OKLAHOMA ADOPTION AMENDMENT VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

 

            First, Judge Cauthron explains the formation of a parent-child relationship through adoption.  The Judge then contends that the State, without a legitimate interest, is attempting “to strip a child of one of his or her parents.”  Id.  After developing a rationale for the children’s right to have a relationship with their parents, Judge Cauthron moves from this argument into discrimination of an identifiable class, the homosexual adults.

            Second, as is common knowledge, certain classes enjoy protection under the law.  One cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sex.  Throughout her reasoning, Judge Cauthron uses case law where discrimination is at issue.  She concedes that Oklahoma’s adoption Amendment is not discriminatory on its face and “does not overtly target homosexual individuals.”  Id.  However, the Judge continues down the path that Oklahoma’s Amendment “likely has a disparate impact on homosexual individuals,” even though they are not a protected class under the law.  Id.

            Of the case law used to determine a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Judge Cauthron cited Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), a case controversial in and of itself.  Romer is the infamous case where the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Colorado statute rescinding “sexual orientation” from state discrimination laws violated the Equal Protection Clause because it made it “more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others…to seek aid from the government.” Id. (quoting Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996)).  The sum of the decision in Romer is that Colorado should have kept sexual orientation in its discrimination laws, even though federal discrimination laws do not include such a term.  With the current adoption case, the Judge attempts to explain that Oklahoma closed its “door to assistance…because of the adult Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation.” Id.

JUDGE CAUTHRON USES ESTABLISHED PARENTAL RIGHTS TO EXPLAIN HER FINDINGS OF A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION IN OKLAHOMA’S ADOPTION AMENDMENT.

 

            The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that parental rights are fundamental rights in this nation.  Judge Cauthron explains that Due Process is a way to identify a fundamental right.  Id.  Like the Supreme Court, the Judge reaches the conclusion that parental rights are fundamental rights; however, she goes on to relate those rights to Oklahoma’s Amendment, which excludes recognition of homosexual adoptions.  She says that the Oklahoma Amendment “clearly infringes on the fundamental right to the care, custody, and rearing of the child, [that the] Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, clearly established these parental rights [as] fundamental.”  Id.  Judge Cauthron accuses the Amendment of breaking up families with no regard to parental fitness or the best interest of the children, and that this alleged breakup “cannot survive under Due Process jurisprudence.”  Id.

CONCLUSION

            While an appeal is a possibility, the May 19^th decision is one of the many instances where judges took the opportunity to legislate from the bench.  Throughout the Opinion, Judge Cauthron states that the Plaintiffs overstate their claim of constitutional violations and that the Defendants misread constitutional provisions.  At the same time, she continues to make the case for the Plaintiffs and then finds violations.  With Attorney General Drew Edmondson’s help, the Judge was able to declare a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  She goes on only to put down the definition of family and speculated that Oklahoma’s statute targets a class of citizens based on sexual orientation, though the statute does not facially do so.  Judge Cauthron demonstrated a disregard for Oklahoma’s pro family stance and its right, as a state, to establish pro family laws that reflects its public policy.