Update

For some background, see our item from May 6. Amongst other things, it includes a portion of the reason the State asked for this stay:

... Without a stay, the licenses will be registered while the appeals proceed, leading to confusion and uncertainty as to the validity and legal effect of those licenses. The court gave the legislature the first opportunity to craft remedial legislation that gives same-sex couples the same legal privileges that Oregon law currently provides married couples of the opposite sex. Although the court recognized that registering a marriage record is essentially an administrative act that carries with it few attendant legal rights, the recipients of those licenses -- and private employers, insurance companies, local governments and others -- could believe that the act of registration itself confers some specific legal rights and benefits even before the legislature acts.

A stay would eliminate this uncertainty, and avoid the potential difficulty of "un-registering" the licenses if that portion of this court's order is reversed on appeal. ...

In some ways then, this could be an important element of the attempt to make this debate about real people and not an amorphous hypothetical.

Update

Various outlets have now posted the breaking news, all apparently picking up this very brief AP item from 12:15 PM which simply states: "Court of Appeals denies state's request to stay lower court's order that more than 3,000 same-sex marriage be registered, attorney general's office says." Nothing more there than we have either.

Update

A slightly longer AP item is now up, reporting that the ruling "[sets] the stage for a showdown in the state's highest court."

Kevin Neely, spokesman for Attorney General Hardy Myers, said the ruling could mean the state soon will have to begin officially registering the gay marriages licenses issued this spring in Oregon's largest county.

So far that's the only report we've see beyond the BRO alert and the earlier AP notice.

Update

More coverage is kicking in now. First, this KOIN item says the State may try a quick appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, and also says: "State recognition of the licenses would presumably entitle gay couples to the same state benefits accorded to heterosexual married couples -- from taxes to legal protections."

That's not really a presumption at this point, since it's still undetermined whether or not the registration is anything more than a procedural issue unconnected to actual recognition. In fact, it's disingenuous for KOIN to use the word "recognition" rather than "registration" at this point.

Meanwhile, KATU has a longer item up now, with comment from Basic Rights Oregon and the Defense of Marriage Coalition.

Update

It's been brought to our attention that the court's media release is available. The State had asked for a stay of the earlier order to register the licenses pending its appeal of that order. Today's ruling denies that stay pending appeal. In other words, the situation in theory could change again when the appeal itself is actually heard by whatever court hears it. The open question is: In the meantime, will the State register the marriages?

Meanwhile, we've still not seen the Court's order itself. Elsewhere, County Commissioner Lisa Naito issued a statement in which she says of the ruling: "It is one more step towards equal privilege in granting marriage licenses regardless of gender."

Update

That KOIN item we linekd earlier appears to be drawn uncredited from this new AP piece, which uses the "presumably" line but nonetheless goes on to quote the ACLU of Oregon as making the same point we've been making here:

David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the practical impact of the appeals court action is an open question.

"We won't know for a long time exactly how significant the registration of the licenses is," Fidanque said. "The state argued it is a critical step in legal recognition of the marriages. We don't know whether the appeals court agreed with that."

This new AP piece also has comment from a local gay father which further helps illustrate the practical, real-world effects of denying basic equality.

Update

There's also finally an OPB News report on this, although a very brief one.

Update

Continuing with the responses is a statement from Commissioner Serena Cruz (pdf), in which she calls the ruling "another important court victory in the advancement of civil rights" and urges the State of Oregon to "end the uncertainty" caused by its refusal to register same-sex marriages.

Update

And finally, the current version of KGW's story reports that the State will not be appealing today's ruling:

Instead, the state will look to the Oregon Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of the state's marriage law, which proponents and opponents have used either to justify or argue against gay unions.

"We believe any appeal from (Friday's) order by the Court of Appeals would be denied by the (state) Supreme Court and would unnecessarily delay the final decision on these critical constitutional issues," Myers said.

The story also includes some further comment and spin from the Defense of Marriage Coalition, in which Tim Nasif complains that the Court of Appeals should have simply deferred to the eventual vote on the Coalition's anti-marriage initiative. And further demonstrating the opponents of same-sex marriage's propensity for coming a little unhinged, Nasif charged that the Court of Appeals ruling was some sort of "backroom decision."

We suppose that bigotry and paranoia tend to go hand in hand, and the local right-wing simply feels that any decision that doesn't conform to their beliefs and desires must necessaerily be some sort of conspiracy of godless heathens.

We do find ourselves in the unfortunate position of partially agreeing with attorney Kelly Clark, however, when he points out that the ruling "does not make these marriage licenses valid" and in reality is more of a procedural matter. Although we disagree when he calls it "utterly unremarkable," since we do believe it has rhetorical value at the very least.

Update

Oh dear. Then there's the brilliance of KPTV, which got two elements of the story wrong. First, they also insisted on calling it "recognizing" the marriages rather than just "registering" the licenses. Second, they reported the now-contradicted possibiltiy that the State would appeal the ruling.

And those people make an actual living off of reporting the news.