March 15, 2004
Examining Multnomah County's Options
With less than twleve hours to go (or less if some media outlet gets the early word) before we learn what Multnomah County intends to do regarding same-sex marriage licenses in the wake of Friday's release of Attorney General Hardy Myers' legal opinion, we find ourselves pondering what options are available. So far, we've thought of three.
Continue issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Standing by the County Attorney's assessment that denying same-sex couples access to the privilege of civil and secular marriage is unconstitutional, the County could remain on its original path. Their policy thus far has already found its way into the courts, which is where the matter eventually will be resolved, and there don't appear to be any additional lawsuits on the immediate horizon.
Stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Heeding the advice of Attorney General Myers and Governor Ted Kulongoski, the County could halt its current policy. Doing likely would result in lawsuits brought by same-sex couples being denied marriage licenses, who would argue that this violates their constitutional rights to such licenses, potentially with the aid of the ACLU of Oregon, which has already threatened to file such lawsuits in other counties.
Stop issuing marriage licenses to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Combining the advice of the Attorney General and the Governor to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses until the courts resolve the matter with the assessment of the County Attorney as to the unconstitutionality of granting marriage licenses in a discriminatory fashion, the County could freeze the issuance of all new marriage licenses, regardless of the orientation of the couples involved. This likely would result in lawsuits from opposite-sex couples who would argue that this violates their statutory right to such licenses.
In our view, it seems that the most sensible option would be to opt for the choice which introduces the fewest new variables into the County's legal situation -- which of course would be to continue the non-discriminatory marriage license policy that's been followed since March 3.
So far, although it is very late, and we rousted ourselves from bed just to post this item, these are the only three possibilities that have come to mind. Any readers have any others? Or, for that matter, an analysis of the political ramifications of each?
Comments (4)
Scott on 15 Mar 2004
Would Option #3 move it through the court system faster since there is a more easily definable 'harmed party', i.e. the opposite sex couples?
Bob R. on 15 Mar 2004
I'm reposting my comments from another thread here, because this thread seems more appropriate... Here's what I posted earlier:
One move Diane Linn could make, if she wants to play some political football, is to call the bluff of the "public process" folks and state that the county will now hold public hearings. Lots of public hearings. Weeks and months of hearings... To decide whether or not they should stop issuing licenses. In the meantime, the licenses would continue to be issued.
- Bob
Bob R. on 15 Mar 2004
Marriages to CONTINUE! See story on KGW.com:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_031504_news_multnomah_marriages.8a212cd0.html
brett on 15 Mar 2004
I think they made the right choice. It's not inconsistent at all with the AG's opinion; the County can rely on the constitutional argument, which they appear to be doing. Continuing the marriages is also likely the quickest way to get the matter to the Supreme Court.