And Other News From The Same-Sex Marriage Front

Earlier today, the Defense of Marriage Coalition today filed a lawsuit against Benton County in attempt to stop the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, scheduled to begin there on March 24.

According to the KGW story, the ACLU of Oregon is weighing various options:

"Our focus up to now has been in Multnomah County and at the state level, but obviously, we're very concerned," he said. "I personally urged (the Benton County) commissioners to do what they did. I was there on Tuesday, so we want to surely be of any help we can in that legal action."

The ACLU is considering filing suit in the Oregon Appellate Court so that the court can address the state's marriage statutes on its constitutional merits, Fidanque said. The group is also pondering whether to file suit against counties refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples or against state officials -- including the governor -- who aren't recognizing same-sex marriages.

Fidanque also says that his organization is concerned that none of the lawsuits filed thus far have raised the constitutional issue, which is clearly the crux of the matter.

Also reported by KGW today is news on the recall petitions against County Chair Diane Linn and Commissioner Lisa Naito, an effort spearheaded by recall-happy John Belgarde of the Christian Coalition of Oregon:

"There are those of who oppose the homosexual agenda on a moral and historical basis," Belgarde said. "Anybody who's watched the fall of civilization knows it starts with the degradation of the family."

"...Mostly, (people are angry) about the way the (commissioners) did it. If this is such an important issue to you, why didn't you take it to the voters? Why cause all this grief?"

(We always thought such differences of opinion were what elections were for, but Belgarde's grasp of proper political procedures must be greater than ours, what with his experience in previously being fined for recall filing irregularities and all.)

An amusing aspect of the recall, according to the report, is that the filing against Naito only applies to her current term. If she is successfully recalled but is also elected to a new term, she would only be out of office from August through December.

Recal backers have until the end of business on July 7 to turn in enough valid signatures to force a recall election.

Meanwhile, Tuesday's "color commentary" panel in the Portland Tribune offered more responses to the question, "Will Multnomah County's decision to permit same-sex marriages be good or bad for Portland?" One panelist decried the possibility that it will prevent businesses from locating here due to having to extend benefits to same-sex couples.

(Nothing like a worldview in which commerce is meant to trump civil rights.)

A series of online commentaries on aspects of the same-sex marriage issue were published on OregonLive yesterday.

An assistant professor of law at Willamette University College of Law argues against the idea that only the courts are permitted to evaluate constitutionality:

If the notion of the Constitution as the People's law has any vitality left, it must permit -- indeed, require -- the citizens of the state to engage in thoughtful discussions regarding their understanding of the constitution and what it means for same-sex unions.

A Portland lawyer and chair of the State Professional Responsibility Board echoes this argument:

The Supreme Court has the last word on questions of state constitutional law, but the court emphasizes that it does not have the first or the only word. "Governors, legislators and other public officials are responsible in the first instance for determining their constitutional duties."

A former Oregon labor commissioner expresses the view that the Tanner decision points towards civil unions:

Now suddenly we have three government attorneys claiming, in effect, that the Court of Appeals ruling in Tanner was wrong. Specifically, they are claiming that there are privileges and immunities bestowed upon married couples that are not available to same-sex couples, which violates Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution. Tanner, on the other hand, held that because gay couples can't marry, Article I, Section 20 requires that same-sex couples be granted the same privileges and immunities as a married couple.

A lawyer from Lake Oswego challenges the approach of Multnomah County:

Thus, within our system of laws it remains the obligation of governmental entities to enforce and uphold the laws our legislators enact. But not for Multnomah County, which believes that it alone may declare those state laws by which it will abide.

And another Portland lawyer weighs in on the role of religion in the debate over same-sex marriage, and poses some process questions:

Does the oath taken by every Oregon lawyer to support and defend the Oregon Constitution prevent lawyers from advising their clients to continue to violate the Oregon Constitution until a lawsuit is brought (if ever) and a court orders them to change their unconstitutional ways?

Meanwhile, today's Oregonian examines the differences between Oregon and other states in terms of the authority of the Governor or Attorney General to stop actions such as those of Multnomah County:

In California, the attorney general's authority is pretty clear. The state constitution requires political subdivisions to abide by the law.

Oregon has no such provision, acknowledges Peter Shepherd, Oregon's assistant attorney general.

The paper also provides an update on the ballot initiative petitions, reporting that opponents of same-sex marriage likely will drop the statutory change in favor of focusing their efforts on the constitutional amendment, and that churches opposed to same-sex marriage are busily registering new voters.

Finally (and despite the assertions last night of associate editor Mary Pitman Kitcsh at the City Club of Portland forum on marriage that the paper's editorial board has been trying to represent Oregonians in the middle when it comes to these issue) one of today's editorials hurls the invective they've been reserving for Multnomah County in the direction of Benton County.

This entry was posted by The One True b!X on March 18th, 2004, at 3:52 PM and is filed under Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics, Same-Sex Marriage, State of Oregon. There are five comments (most recently on March 18th, 2004, at 10:46 PM) and .