ACLU Files Lawsuit Against State, Governor, Attorney General, Other Officials

Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

Yesterday at a news conference held at Holocene (which has become something of a common location for events related to the local same-sex marriage debate), the ACLU of Oregon announced that, as expected, it had filed a lawsuit against the State of Oregon:

The nine gay and lesbian couples argued the state is violating their rights under the Oregon Constitution by not registering their marriages with the Office of Vital Statistics.

...

The lawsuit consolidates several other legal challenges to gay marriage brought by conservative leaders and Christian pastors, after Multnomah County commissioners decided three weeks ago to grant the licenses.

Opponents and supporters of gay marriage alike agreed that the ACLU's case would most directly address the constitutional issues raised by gay marriage.

According to that AP story, Oregon will file its response by April 5.

Meanwhile, the Defense of Marriage Coalition filed its motion to intervene in the case. Their existing claims against Multnomah County were dismissed "without prejudice" -- which means they can re-file them again at a later date. Via a Coalition news release yesterday, Kelly Clark, lead attorney for the group said:

What was done by the Multnomah County Commissioners was illegal and unwise. We have no doubt that the Oregon Supreme Court will affirm that the Constitution of Oregon has historically recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If the ACLU and Basic Rights Oregon want to amend the Constitution, they should do it the old fashioned way -- they should seek a constitutional amendment.

Multnomah County also is expected to file to intervene in the lawsuit (if it hasn't already as of this writing), bringing all of the relevant parties to the dispute together into one court case, as per the agreement reached recently with Attorney General Hardy Myers to speed the issue to the Oregon Supreme Court.

"Oregon's constitution doesn�t allow people to be discriminated against because they are lesbian and gay, but that�s exactly what Oregon�s marriage law does," said Jann Carson, Associate Director of the ACLU of Oregon in that organization's news release.�"The lawsuit we filed today will help us get this issue addressed by the courts as quickly as possible so that same-sex couples will no longer have to face family hardships because they are unprotected by the law."

At yesterday's news conference, the remarks of Roey Thorpe of Basic Rights Oregon encapsulate what appears to be a strategy to continue humanizing the debate:

These couples and all those like them throughout our state, are important and valuable members of our community. Their relationships do not have less value because they are made up of the same sex. Just as their responsibilities as spouses and parents should not be less. To those, who would say they should be denied the right to marry, we ask: What is it about these relationships is not a marriage?

Present at the news conference were not just the couples acting as plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state, but their children and families, providing an intentional backdrop of the personal to the ongoing political and legal battle.

Today's Oregonian coverage lays out the intended timeframe worked out for the case:

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank Bearden is expected to hold a hearing in mid-April and to try to reach a ruling on the constitutionality of the state's marriage statute by April 23.

However Bearden rules, his decision will be appealed. Whether the courts will agree to an expedited appeals process was unclear Wednesday. That process could bypass the Oregon Court of Appeals to get the case before the state Supreme Court as soon as possible. Cases typically can take years to go from a trial court decision to a final determination by the Supreme Court.

In reality, it will be up to the Oregon Court of Appeals to decide whether to send the case to a planel of its own members or to pass it along to the Oregon Supreme Court immediately upon the inevitable appeal.

(The Oregonian also reports that "the state Supreme Court denied a request by a Portland resident who asked it to order Multnomah County to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses," saying that plaintiff Bruce Broussard did not have standing to file the lawsuit.)

In its 33-page complaint (pdf), the ACLU of Oregon presents an overview of the issues at hand and the story so far, provides histories of each plaintiff, and makes four claims for relief.

Defendants named in the suit are the State of Oregon, the Governor of the State of Oregon, the Attorney General of the State of Oregon, the Director of the Department of Human Services of the State of Oregon, and the State Registrar of the State of Oregon.

Those latter two defendants are responsible for agencies or departments which have refused to certify or register same-sex marriage licenses issued by Multnomah County. Those refusals in essence are the acts of the State of Oregon which were intended to allow the ACLU to file its lawsuit and bring all of the relevant issues onto a path towards the Oregon Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs' claims for relief argue that defendants' failure to permit and record marriage of same-sex couples violates the Oregon Constitution's prohibition of "the unjustified denial of privilege or immunity based on sexual orientation or gender;" and the "fundamental right to privacy and autonomy, including the right to enter into an intimate relationship."

The lawsuit asks the Court to "grant judgement in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants as follows:

1. Declaring that the failure of the Oregon statutory code to permit marriages of same-sex couples violates Article I, section 20 of the Oregon constitution;
2. Enjoining defendants from urging Oregon counties to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or directing or counseling Oregon agencies, including the Center for Health Statistics, to refuse to recognize marriages of same-sex couples;
3. Declaring that the failure of defendants to file and register the marriage records of marriages of same-sex couples licensed and solemnized in Oregon, including those of plaintiffs Li and Kennedy, Knox and Warshaw, Burke and Doyle, and Potter and Moen, violates Article I, section 20 of the Oregon constitution;
4. Enjoining defendants from refusing to file and register the marriage records of marriages of same-sex couples licensed and solemnized in Oregon, including those of plaintiffs Li and Kennedy, Knox and Warshaw, Burke and Doyle, and Potter and Moen;
5. Awarding plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorney�s fees incurred in the prosecution of this action; and
6. Awarding such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

This entry was posted by The One True b!X on March 25th, 2004, at 4:02 PM and is filed under Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics, Same-Sex Marriage, State of Oregon. There are and .