Unsurprisingly, Anti-Marriage Forces Focus On Oregon Constitution
"Change In Tactics' Likely The Plan All Along
There's a KGW story today about the Defense of Marriage Coalition and its plans to focus on amending the Oregon Constitution
But in seeking an amendment, the coalition may withdraw another initiative that would define marriage in state statutes as between a man and a woman. The initiative also sought a change in state law that would forbid recognition of same-sex unions.
The change in tactics came after Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on March 3. Also driving the push for an amendment were opinions by Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers and the Oregon Legislature’s top lawyer that the current state marriage statute may be in violation of the state constitution’s guarantees of equal protection under the law.
We wouldn't be so quick to call this a "chance in tactics" on the part of the Coalition and other opponents of same-sex marriage. As we've argued before, the group's lawsuit has always smelled at least a little funny.
It's been increasingly clear, and was fairly clear from the start, that there is a constitutional defect in Oregon's statutory definition of marriage -- and just as clear (outside the courtroom at least) that the Coalition and its attorneys have known it all along.
We wrote before that we didn't see the lawsuit as anything other than "a campaign of public visibility, intended to stoke the flames of prejudice, keep impassioned opinions boiling, generate attention, and energize the base of support for the statewide ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage."
So this allegedly-new focus on Initiative Petition #150 hardly is some sort of surprise. Actually, even if you don't believe the lawsuit was just political and public relations strategy, the focus on the amendment is still not a surprise.
Elsewhere, the article says that same-sex marriage opponents may drop their work on the other initiative to make a statutory change, given the prevailing constitutional issue. This should also not come as any particular surprise.
(That initiative's draft ballot title recently received three comments, although none appear to be from the ACLU of Oregon, as stated in the article.)
Meanwhile, as indicated by KGW and our just-linked item from yesterday, comments on the draft ballot title for the constitutional change are due by March 24.