March 11, 2004

(Updated) Breaking News: Groups Ask Oregon Supreme Court To Halt Same-Sex Marriages

And Local Judge Orders County To Justify Actions

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

Atop KGW's website this afternoon is the following:

Oregon high court asked to halt gay marriages: Two national religious groups plan to ask the Oregon Supreme Court to order Multnomah County to stop issuing gay marriage licenses. More to come...

Who? Well, for one thing here's the news release from the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which was recently consulted by John Belgarde, director of the Christian Coalition of Oregon.

From the release:

Today, Johny Belgarde filed suit in the Oregon Supreme Court against Multnomah County, seeking to bar county officials from issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Mr. Belgarde is represented by Brian Fahling, Senior Trial Attorney of the AFA Center for Law and Policy, and Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel.
...
Attorney Fahling of the AFA Center for Law and Policy stated, "Multnomah County officials are not above the law. Marriage is a matter of statewide policy, a matter for the people and their legislature to decide. County officials have no authority to alter marriage law. Their actions should be seen for what they are -- an illegal exercise of power."
Attorney Staver of Liberty Counsel stated, "Marriage between one man and one woman is fundamental to our society. Local county officials have no right to change millennia of human history by secretly concocting illegal maneuvers to rewrite marriage law and policy. State and local enforcement agencies are ignoring their duties to uphold the law. They should immediately and swiftly put an end to this illegal activity."

At first glance, this new lawsuit appears to follow the Defense of Marriage Coalition appproach of pretending there is no constitutional conflict when it comes to Oregon's statutory definition of marriage.

More to come as the day progresses.

March 11, 2004

Update

As this post was being saved, KGW posted their full story as well.

March 11, 2004

Update

Meanwhile, locally, Judge Dale Koch has ordered the County to explain its actions. The order was prompted by a "writ of mandamus motion" filed by the Defense of Marriage Coalition.

March 11, 2004

Update

Following up on the OPB story on the local matter, we quarrel with OPB's opening line: "Opponents of gay marriage won a minor victory in court Thursday."

While the judge may have accepted the motion and said the County must explain itself, the basis for the County's decision is sound, and they should certainly be able to present its case. Koch has been described as "even-handed" and there's not necessarily anything to be read into his granting of the motion and asking for the County's explanation.

March 11, 2004

Update

Actually, looking into the definition for 'writ of mandamus' what appears to have happened is that Judge Koch has responded to the filing of said writ by asking for the County to explain itself in a hearing on their actions. Only after that hearing, it would seem, would Judge Koch rule on the writ of mandamus itself, and whether or not to order the County to cease -- which he has not done while awaiting the County's explanation. That further tends to underscore that this technically is not yet a "victory" for the plaintiffs.

March 11, 2004

Update

See this item for information which corrects what turned out to be an inaccurate OPB story.

March 11, 2004

Update

According to the full AP story on the Oregon Supreme Court matter:

[Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel] said he realized the Oregon Supreme Court may be reluctant to intervene while a trial court lawsuit in the gay marriage matter is pending in Multnomah County.

So this move is just another element of the publicity campaign of the opposition. If the Supreme Court refuses to intervene, they will crow about activist judges out of touch with mainstream America.

Posted at 03:32 PM | PermalinkComments (4) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics, Same-Sex Marriage, State of Oregon

« Previous Next »

Comments (4)

  1. michael on 13 Mar 2004

    On the present gay marriage situation, I think those seeking results by a
    mandamus action are totally up the creek. The writ applies when a public entity
    has a duty and has not peformed that duty or refuses to perform it.

    In the early 70's I demanded that Oregon State University allow inspection of
    specific public documents, and they refused. I filed a petition for a writ of
    mandamus, I explained why it was their duty to allow inspection and I won - they
    allowed inspection.

    In the gay marriage context, the only clear duty I can see is for the
    Commissioners to do their duty in defense of the Oregon Constitution. This might
    be appropriate for the gay folk to ask for, but what the anti-gay marriage folk
    need to ask for an Injunction requiring the commissionewrs to stop doing
    something.
    That's Totally different.

  2. michael on 13 Mar 2004

    On the present gay marriage situation, I think those seeking results by a
    mandamus action are totally up the creek. The writ applies when a public entity
    has a duty and has not peformed that duty or refuses to perform it.

    In the early 70's I demanded that Oregon State University allow inspection of
    specific public documents, and they refused. I filed a petition for a writ of
    mandamus, I explained why it was their duty to allow inspection and I won - they
    allowed inspection.

    In the gay marriage context, the only clear duty I can see is for the
    Commissioners to do their duty in defense of the Oregon Constitution. This might
    be appropriate for the gay folk to ask for, but what the anti-gay marriage folk
    need to ask for an Injunction requiring the commissionewrs to stop doing
    something.
    That's Totally different.

  3. The One True b!X on 13 Mar 2004

    And there is, in fact, two motions locally, filed by the Defense of Marriage Coalition: One asking for an injunction, the other for a writ of mandamus. Both will be heard on April 2.

  4. The One True b!X on 13 Mar 2004

    The whole mandamus thing is interesting, so perhaps we should have some discussion of just what the law -- part of Chapter 34 of the Oregon Revised Statutes -- says about writs of mandamus:

    34.110 When and to whom writ issued. A writ of mandamus may be issued to any inferior court, corporation, board, officer or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; but though the writ may require such court, corporation, board, officer or person to exercise judgment, or proceed to the discharge of any functions, it shall not control judicial discretion. The writ shall not be issued in any case where there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

    One supposes the argument is that the act which the County should be compelled to perform (in the eyes of the same-sex marriage opposition) is the issuance of marriage licenses in compliance with the statutory definition of marriage. The County will argue, presumably, that they cannot do so, given Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution.

Trackbacks (1)

  1. Groups Ask Oregon Supreme Court To Halt Same-Sex Marriages on 11 Mar 2004

    The One True b!X's PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE is reporting that two national "religious" groups are asking the Oregon Supreme Court to halt gay marriage in Multnomah County. Click below for the full story: The One True b!X's PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE: Breaking News: