March 13, 2004
(Updated) Same-Sex Marriage News Potpourri
What We Missed In The Rush And Tumble
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
In all the breaking news carnage and random occasional stabs at catching up with other news, there are some items on Oregon's same-sex marriage debate that we passed over.
In Tuesday's installment of the Portland Tribune "color commentary" panel, participants answered the question, "Will Multnomah County's decision to permit same-sex marriages be good or bad for Portland?" Opinions ranged from cries of hypocrisy to calls for celebration. Oh, and one panelist claimed it was a vigilante act and labelled it "tyranny."
This week's Willamette Week provided a timeline, and some broader historical context for the process Multnomah County went through to arrive at its move to issue same-sex marriage licenses. In many ways, it's a story about Basic Rights Oregon and how it managed to thrust itself -- for better or worse, depending on who's talking -- into the center of local civil rights history.
While many of the Oregon weblogs we reference here are actually limited to the Portland area, a retired and disabled Air Force veteran (who is also a degreed environmental engineer with a masters in international relations) from southern Oregon on Friday chastized local activists and argued that homosexual rights should have been left to the "combination of legal changes and a gradual evolution of societal attitudes" which eventually (at some unspecified point in the future, we suppose) would have eroded prejudices and changed traditional beliefs.
Also on Friday, Betsy compared the legal situation to a game of roshambo "as various lawyers wrestle with just how to deal with the thorny issue of same-sex marriage here in Oregon" which has placed everything into a holding pattern.
Elsewhere, still on Friday, Jeff Alworth takes a look at the Attorney General's opinion that same-sex marriage in Oregon is illegal but constitutional and says of Multnomah County: "To remedy the situation they made a political, not legal, decision. In terms of advancing civil rights, I'm prepared to say it was a good one. This issue should be clarified soon."
Staying on the subject of the Attorney General's opinion, and again on Friday, Torrid Joe weighs in as well, calling the positions of Governor Kulongoski and Attorney General Myers "politically safe" and their path to resolution "rational." Also said is this: "But it seems kind of strange to admit as the state's lawyer that rights are being unfairly denied, and then to say, 'But even though I'm 90% sure, we probably should keep denying those rights until that other 10% comes in.'"
Today there was an Associated Press article which detailed the constitutional crux of the matter and says that legal scholars and experts tend towards believing that the Oregon Constitution (and perhaps even that of the United States as well) will be shown to protect same-sex marriage rights. It also includes an AP photograph which reportedly got picked up around the country.
And today's Oregonian checks the immediate aftermath of the release of the Attorney General's legal opinion that same-sex marriage in Oregon is legal but likely unconstitutional, and also examines the legal landscape now that this opinion has been added to the mix. Elsewhere in the paper, the editorial board takes another opportunity to slam Multnomah County.
Finally, just today, Isaac Laquedem points out the folly of putting the genie back in the bottle and taking away the rights which already have been granted to the thousands of same-sex couples who have obtained marriage licenses and gotten married: "Lots of them got married in Multnomah County. That omelet is too big for the governor and the courts to unmake."
Update
We did forget one rather important item from today's Oregonian. After both the Governor and Attorney General expressed their preference that Multnomah County stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses until the courts resolve the clear constitutional conflict, we began to wonder if political considerations would factor into the County's decision on what to do next.
Specifically, we began to wonder if Chair Diane Linn in particular might consider this an opportunity for a political "get out of jail free card" move, in which she might calculate that some of the falout could be undercut if she decides to heed the Governor and Attorney General's advice.
In the article we forgot to mention, The Oregonian offers some insight into what went on at the Multnomah Building on Friday afternoon:
By 1:15 p.m., a series of heated exchanges could be heard coming from Linn's office. Linn was worried about the political fallout. She -- along with Naito -- is facing a recall attempt over her decision. And how would it look standing up to Kulongoski, someone she considers to be a political ally?
Combined with the sense we get from media reports that County Attorney Agnes Sowle appears to feel somewhat vindicated by the Attorney General's opinion (and was quoted elsewhere in the paper as saying, "It was unconstitutional yesterday to not issue the licenses, and it's still unconstitutional today.") we wonder if there's something of a schism going on inside the County as to proper next steps.
To our thinking, there's no reason not to continue issuing same-sex marriage licenses. While the Governor and Attorney General say the proper place for this to be decided is in the courts -- ultimately in the Oregon Supreme Court -- the County currently is involved in legal proceedings which, presuming they aren't dismissed, will almost inevitably be decided in precisely that manner