March 19, 2004

Update

Apparently, what has come about is something called a "case management agreement." Just in via email is a statement from Kelly Clark on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Coalition regarding the development:

On behalf of those concerned about both the process and the substance of Multnomah County�s actions in licensing same-sex couples, we are pleased at the agreement that has been reached to consolidate and expedite the legal and constitutional issues involving same-sex marriage licenses. Under the agreement, my clients will be assured a voice in the legal debate through the trial court and into the appellate courts, and will be assured that their concerns about the illegal process Multnomah County used as well as the constitutional questions concerning same-sex marriage, will be addressed fully, and that all sides to the dispute will be heard. It is important to us that we are on track for an early decision from the trial court on the merits, a prompt and thoughtful resolution to the appellate courts, so that the ultimate constitutional questions can be place before the people in light of court rulings. It is our position that the constitutional questions will ultimately be for the people to decide, since, after all, while the courts may be guardians of the Constitution, the people are its owners.

Presuming we get ahold of the details of the agreement, as well as statements from the other involved parties, we will pass them along here as further updates.

Update

And according to OPB News: "Opponents and supporters of gay marriage agreed today to consolidate several lawsuits into one, in order to expedite the case through the courts." Their story also says that the lawsuits in Multnomah County and Benton County "are on hold" while this ACLU challenge comes into play.

We're not entirely certain, at the moment, what this means, or how it impacts the above-mentioned previously-scheduled hearings in the local case.

Update

According to the ACLU of Oregon news release (pdf), "attorneys representing parties to the current lawsuits in Multnomah County and the Oregon Attorney General�s office met this week and agreed on an expedited briefing schedule for the Circuit Court Judge Frank Bearden."

That schedule is as follows:

• The ACLU plaintiffs will file their complaint against state officials on March 24;
• ACLU and the State will not oppose intervention in the case by Multnomah County and the Defense of Marriage Coalition;
• Once the Court grants the motions to intervene, the Defense of Marriage Coalition will dismiss without prejudice their existing cases in Multnomah County;
• All of the written briefs on the constitutional issues will be filed with the circuit court no later than April 14;
• Judge Bearden will hold a hearing on the constitutional issue on or about April 16.

So this single court case will in essence replace the existing Defense of Marriage Coalition cases against Multnomah County, and will gather together all of the relevant issues and involved parties into one consolidated case. For the purposes of this lawsuit, the ACLU of Oregon will be filing suit "on behalf of a number of samesex couples who have been denied marriage licenses, who want to obtain a license in the future, or who have already obtained a license."

Update

WWP weighs in with a political lesson in this development:

There are many reasons to think that once the state's marriage statute is contested, the supreme court will toss the limits on gay marriage, as the attorney general has suggested. The problem is that this approach normally takes months, if not years. Folks in this camp "oppose" gay marriage not on the merits, but because they know they can be outmaneuvered in a judicial process that measures injunctions by days, but constitutional changes in years.

Today, supporters of gay marriage and the "other opponents" have dreamed up a pretty clever way around this problem of timing. And not only that, they managed to leave the original, conservative opponents out of the discussion altogether.

As we pointed out in comments over there, the real opponents (as represented by the Defense of Marriage Coalition) are not left out altogether, since they will be allowed to enter the case as an intervenor.

But they are quite obviously out-flanked and out-maneuvered. What we're left with as this "case management agreement" goes into effect is a constellation of involved parties which includes the ACLU of Oregon as paintiff and Multnomah County as intervenor teaming up with the State of Oregon despite its being the defendant in the case. Which leaves the Coalition to intervene for who knows what purposes but in essence surrounded on all sides.

As a final thought, we think it remains debatable whether or not this "fast-track" arrangement would ever have been possible without the political decision of Multnomah County to issue same-sex marriage licenses immediately rather than discussing it while opponents sought an injunction. So we're not quite convinced that this new solution exists in some sort of bubble, divorced from the County's process with which so many people continue to be displeased.

Update

The current version of the KGW story offers a rough sense of how the legal process works from here:

Kevin Neely, spokesman for Myers, said all legal briefs in the case must be submitted to Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Frank Bearden by April 14.

Fidanque said he hopes Bearden will hear the constitutional arguments on same-sex marriages on April 16 and that a ruling will be issued before the end of the month. That sets the stage for an immediate appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

The appellate court can then decide to rule on same-sex marriages or bump it to the Oregon Supreme Court, Fidanque said.

Of course, this also appears to mean that Multnomah County will continue to issue same-sex marriage licenses for the remainder of March and, possibly, considerably into April and beyond, depending on whether or not Bearden issues any injunctions.