March 03, 2004
(Updated) Breaking News: State Attorney General Releases Statement On Same-Sex Marriage
No Action Yet, As Department Of Justice Begins Analysis
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
This afternoon, the office of Attorney General Hardy Myers released a statement in response to Governor Ted Kulongoski's request for an opinion from the Department of Justice. In the release, Myers outlines the questions his office will seek to answer in their analysis.
"Answering these questions requires careful analysis of Oregon law and the Oregon Constitution," Myers said. "We will endeavor to address these issues as quickly as we can."
The statement gives no indication of Myers' timeline for issuing the Department's analysis. The questions Myers says he must answer will be based upon analyzing state statutes, the Oregon constitution, the legal effect of same-sex marriages carried out in other jurisdictions, and possible remedies in the event he determines that Multnomah County is acting unlawfully.
Update
To back up for context. OPB News reports on the Governor's response:
Governor Ted Kulongoski says he does not believe that state law permits gay marriage, but that he favors civil unions for same-sex couples. Kulongoski says when Oregon marriage laws were written, lawmakers were thinking of a man and a woman.
However, according to OPB, the Governor said Hardy Myers is the one who must issue a legal opinion on the matter.
Update
KGW now reports that Attorney General Myers' opinion could be available next week.
Posted at 04:01 PM | PermalinkComments (13) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics, Same-Sex Marriage, State of Oregon
Trackbacks (1)
-
Reactions from local bloggers to today's news on 03 Mar 2004
Since I've friends from other states keeping up with our local happenings, I thought I'd provide references to commentary and insights provided elsewhere by local Oregon bloggers: worldwide pablo questions the clandestine-ness and obvious political mac...
Comments (13)
brett on 03 Mar 2004
Gov. Ted (and all the others who have made this point) is no doubt correct that when the Legislature wrote that statute, they intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. And under Oregon case law, since the text is unclear, construction of the statute will depend on the context and legislative intent. (PGE v. BOLI for law nerds.) Under that standard, there's little question that the Legislature did not intend for this statute to authorize same-sex marriage. So it will ultimately likely be overturned. I think reliance on the Oregon Constitution might have been a better way to go.
The One True b!X on 03 Mar 2004
The County's analysis relies on both a statutory interpretation as well as a constitutional argument. IN essence saying that regardless of how one reads the statutory definition of marriage, the question of "privileges" cannot be read in a way to discriminate -- meaning that if the statutory defintiion is discriminatory, it would have to be unconstitutional.
brett on 03 Mar 2004
..and now I see that they did so rely.
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/marriage/county_attorney_opinion.pdf
Bob R. on 03 Mar 2004
I agree with Brett's analysis of the current marriage law and how courts might interpret the intent and wording.
However, the county's actual decision bases it's final conclusion on the constitution, not the vaguery of the statute, and actually mentions this possible plain-language interpretation and some precedents for it. However, it goes on to say that the constitution overrides any question of gender requirements in the statute.
The county decision goes on to state reasons why they believe they are called upon to change their behavior as they have done, rather than refer it to a court or the legislature. (Rightly or wrongly, but they did mention it.)
You can get a PDF of the county decision on kgw.com
- Bob
Noah on 03 Mar 2004
Actually, the opinion of the county Attorney General Agnes Sowle almost completely relies on the fact that Article 1 Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution prohibits favortism. It pretty much says that the statute does not specifically prohibit the practice of giving a license to a same-sex couple, but that the constitution requires that the county give them out.
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/marriage/county_attorney_opinion.pdf
Noah on 03 Mar 2004
Wow, 3 responses before I was able to even post mine. I am definately a bit slow on the draw today. :)
The One True b!X on 03 Mar 2004
No. It's just that things are moving very, very fast today.
brett on 03 Mar 2004
Yep. I was at the Presiding Ct update with Judge Koch this afternoon and he called it an "historic day". Apparently a reporter from KGW was at ex parte all day anticipating that someone would file a TRO, but no one did.. I think all this comes as a surprise to the opponents of same-sex marriage.
Olivia Newbury on 03 Mar 2004
Keep up the good work. Help gay and lesbian marriage spread across this nation! Go for it! IF we have equality under the law...it makes no sense to say, "equality under the law EXCEPT..." ...that is ridiculous! No...I'm NOT a gay or a lesbian...but equality is equality. You cannot have one meaning for homosexuals and another for everyone else.
Begin challenging that "EXCEPT" word and ridicule the whole idea. After all, one time women could not vote! and one time blacks could not vote! and one time whites and blacks could not marry each other! Your challenging of the marriage laws is LONG overdue. Go for it NOW. Get marriage rolling in EVERY state NOW. NEVER give up or give in.
Olivia on 03 Mar 2004
Keep up the good work. Help gay and lesbian marriage spread across this nation!!! Go for it! IF we have equality under the law...it makes no sense to say, "equality under the law EXCEPT..." ! that is ridiculous! No...I'm not a gay or a lesbian.
Begin challenging that EXCEPT word and ridicule the whole idea. After all, one time women could not vote! and one time blacks could not vote! and one time whites and blacks could not marry each other!!! Your challenging of the marriage laws is LONG overdue! Go for it NOW. Get marriage rolling in EVERY state.
Oh live! on 03 Mar 2004
We want to export democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don't want it for 10% + of our own people! Would you please explain to me how we developed our arrogance and our logic?
Melt on 24 Jul 2004
To the last two posters: A quick 5 minute review of constitutional law will help you understand that (a) there is no ubiquitous standard for "equality" and "equal rights," but rather your "right" depends on what class/group you belong. Homosexuals are not a suspect class, like race or alienage, and are therefore not entitled to the same kind of "equality" that the latter two classes are given. Just grouping people into a group and demanding that they have "equal rights" to perform whatever act they choose to do, is ludicrious. Think about it. If priests organized and said they wanted to start marrying altar boys, you'd have a cow. What about their "equal rights?" And as for the last comment, since when is the inability of ten percent of a population (your number, and extremely overstated, but we'll use it) to get it's way a case against democracy? Excuse me? Think about that one for a minute. And please, engage brain before mouth/fingers.
The One True b!X on 24 Jul 2004
Homosexuals are not a suspect class, like race or alienage, and are therefore not entitled to the same kind of "equality" that the latter two classes are given.
This may or may not be the case -- it cannot at this time be stated definitively. In Oregon, there is a very real possibility, as indicated by the Tanner decision, that they very well could be a suspect class for the purposes of various legal issues. Methinks you might need to harken to your own brain/mouth/fingers crack.