On Thursday, April 14, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued last year to same-sex couples in Multnomah County are void. This isn’t a surprising ruling, since Oregon voters passed Measure 36 last November, which amended the Oregon Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Still, it’s disappointing.
(There is a slim chance that Measure 36 will end up being overturned on the basis of technicalities.)
There is almost nothing positive in this ruling for same-sex marriage advocates. The only silver lining is that the Court didn’t rule on whether or not the Oregon Constitution requires that lesbians and gays be offered civil unions, leaving the matter open for another civil rights lawsuit.
Meanwhile, as The Oregonian reports, “Gov. Ted Kulongoski and a bipartisan coalition of state senators introduced legislation Wednesday allowing civil unions for same-sex couples and outlawing discrimination against gays and lesbians.” From the Oregonian’s article, it sounds like SB1000 will pass the Senate but be allowed to die in the House.
SB1000 has strong opposition from the Portland-based Defense of Marriage Coalition. “In our mind, it’s bad public policy and it’s unnecessary,” Tim Nashif, a coalition spokesman, said Wednesday.
Nashif argues that little — if any — discrimination occurs against gays and lesbians in Oregon. And he said the anti-discrimination language could put employers and landlords at risk of frivolous lawsuits. […]
The Senate Rules Committee will hold a hearing on SB1000 within a few weeks, Brown said. She and others predicted the proposal would be endorsed by the Senate.
But nobody would handicap the bill’s chances in the House.
Chuck Deister, spokesman for House Speaker Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village, couldn’t say whether SB1000 would get a committee hearing .
I love the way the “Defense of Marriage Coalition” opposes even anti-discrimination laws; what does keeping anti-queer discrimination legal have to do with defending marriage? Sometimes it seems that the marriage-movement types want to have the phrase “defense of marriage” come to be synonymous with hatred of lesbians and gays.
Portland’s One True b!X has more on the Oregon Supreme Court’s ruling.
I love my husband with all my heart, but we both agree that it’s days like this we feel shame in being associated with the members only group we once referred to as marriage. Shame on them. Shame, shame, shame.
Absolutely. That one month in Multnomah county was the only period I have been relatively free of shame at being married. The people who hate gay marriage are the same people who love coveture and decriminalized marital rape. They just don’t feel free at the moment to speak openly about what marriage means to them (okay, the Southern Baptist Convention does).
There was something I ran across, maybe it was the Times crappy obit for Dworkin, that attributed a quote to her that “Marriage was a license for legalized rape,” as though this were some ridiculously over the top radical position. If she said it in the late eighties, it was literally true in most of the country. If she said it in the late nineties, it was still true in 13 states. Today it isn’t literally true in the US, but don’t think for a moment that the plenty of the same people who think anti-discriminiation laws are unnecessary and encourage frivolous lawsuits think that laws that make raping your spouse a crime are unnecessary and encourage frivolous criminal complaints.
Nashif argues that little … if any … discrimination occurs against gays and lesbians in Oregon.
OK, I think we can safley disreguard anything this man says as utter tripe.
It’s classic 1984 Double-Speak, reminiscent of the “pro-life” and “culture of life” monikers; if they can redefine the basic terminology of the debate in their favor, they believe they can control the outcome. Anti-gay discrimination is no more “Defense of Marriage” than anti-woman and pro-gun stances are “pro-life,” but as long as the media plays along and uses their twisted definitions, they continue to win. We have to fight semantics–it’s the beachhead of the war.
Hey all – we are all sad about this ruling. Friends of mine started a mini-revolution with their Multnomah County marriage license refunds. Married couples that just had their marriages terminated are donating the $60 cost to Basic Rights Oregon to support further legislation and lobbying. If all 3,021 couple did it that would be well over $180,000! I personally did not get married but in an act to support my friends who did I donated $60.
If you are interested visit http://www.basicrights.org – there should be a donate button on the top.
Together we can really turn this terrible day into progress. Basiclly $60 – to say F off to the “Defense of Marriage Coalition”.
Regardless of homosexual marriage being right or wrong. It was illegal for those marriage licenses to be given out. I f homosexual marriage is to be truly legal, it has to be done by modifying the laws, not by ignoring the laws.
Are you even from Oregon, Brad? There was no ignoring of the laws. Something tells me you felt it was wrong – being that you had to add that qualifier to begin with.
I added the qualifier because i know people will assume I am against it due to the comment I made.
I am not from Oregon, but it is my understanding ( which could certainly be wrong) that there was nothing to say that same sex partners could be issued licenses.
Actually just the opposite. The constitution could be interpreted that couples could be same or opposite sex but must be consenting adults. The Oregon 36 Law that occurred at the hands (and lies) of the Defense Against Marriage folks changed our constitution to define marriage as one man/one woman, adding the descrimination.