Federal judge orders marriage licenses to be made available to same-sex couples immediately
U.S. District Judge Michael McShane has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in two consolidated marriage cases challenging Oregon’s ban on marriage equality, known as Measure 36. Judge McShane’s is the latest in a string of rulings striking down state laws or constitutional amendments that ban marriage for same-sex couples.
In today’s ruling citing the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Judge McShane wrote, “Expanding the embrace of civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples will not burden any legitimate state interest… The state's marriage laws unjustifiably treat same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. The laws assess a couple's fitness for civil marriage based on their sexual orientation: opposite-gender couples pass; same-gender couples do not. No legitimate state purpose justifies the preclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage.”
He goes on to write,
"At the core of the Equal Protection Clause, however, there exists a
foundational belief that certain rights should be shielded from the
barking crowds; that certain rights are subject to ownership by all and
not the stake hold of popular trend or shifting majorities...
“My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this
issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our
differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and
sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our
own families. Families who we would expect our Constitution to protect,
if not exalt, in equal measure. With discernment we see not shadows
lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather,
we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and
service to the greater community.
"Where will this all lead? I know that many suggest we are going down a
slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To those who truly
harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to
see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other ... and rise.”
Marriage licenses will be available to same-sex couples in Oregon
today. Oregon law requires a three day waiting period before a ceremony
can take place after a license has been issued. However, this waiting
period may be waived by county clerks and many counties have indicated
they will wave the wait period. Click here to learn more about the licensing process at Oregon United for Marriage.
The cases were both filed in late 2013 in District Court for the District of Oregon. Geiger v. Kitzhaber
was filed by Lake James Perriguey of Law Works LLC and Lea Ann Easton
of Dorsay & Easton LLP on behalf of two couples, one seeking to
marry in Oregon and the other legally wed in Canada seeking for their
marriage to be recognized by the state. Rummell v. Kitzhaber
was filed by attorneys with Perkins Coie LLP, the ACLU of Oregon, and
the ACLU on behalf of three couples, two of which are seeking to marry
in Oregon. The third couple was married in Oregon in 2004, but the
Oregon Supreme Court and Measure 36 invalidated their marriage a short
time later. In January 2014, the cases were consolidated.
On Wednesday of last week, Judge McShane rejected an attempt to intervene by the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in defense of the marriage ban. The judge said NOM hadn’t adequately made its case that it should be allowed to intervene on behalf of three Oregon members who would remain anonymous, in place of Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum. In February, Rosenblum announced she would no longer defend Oregon's ban.
On Wednesday of last week, Judge McShane rejected an attempt to intervene by the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in defense of the marriage ban. The judge said NOM hadn’t adequately made its case that it should be allowed to intervene on behalf of three Oregon members who would remain anonymous, in place of Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum. In February, Rosenblum announced she would no longer defend Oregon's ban.
