Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
At noon on this day, May 19, 2014, a ban on same-sex marriage in the Oregon constitution was overturned.
Hat tip, Teacher of the Year:
Sat May 18, 2024: "If you say you are gay in public you will be shot in the head." My bittersweet anniversary.
Same-sex marriage in Oregon
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Oregon since May 19, 2014, when Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Oregon ruled in Geiger v. Kitzhaber that Oregon's 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A campaign that was then under way to win voter approval of a constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage was suspended following the decision. In July 2015, Governor Kate Brown signed legislation codifying same-sex marriage in various Oregon statutes. The law change went into effect on January 1, 2016.
Oregon began recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions in October 2013. Domestic partnerships, providing a subset of the rights and benefits of marriage, have been recognized since 2008.
In March and April 2004, Multnomah County issued marriage licenses to more than 3,000 same-sex couples until ordered by a state judge to stop doing so. In November, Oregon voters approved an amendment to the State Constitution that made it state policy to recognize only marriages "between one man and one woman". The validity of the licenses issued the previous spring was disputed, and the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in April 2005 that the newly adopted constitutional amendment had invalidated them.
{snip}
Federal lawsuit
Main article: Geiger v. Kitzhaber
On October 15, 2013, two couples, an unmarried lesbian couple and two men already married in Canada, filed a lawsuit, Geiger v. Kitzhaber, in U.S. district court in Eugene, challenging the Oregon Constitution's ban on same-sex marriage. This made Oregon the 20th U.S. state to have a federal lawsuit challenging its ban on same-sex marriage filed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor in June 2013 invalidated part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Two more couples and the Basic Rights Education Fund filed another same-sex marriage case on December 19, 2013, with this latter case captioned Rummell and West v. Kitzhaber.
{snip}
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Oregon since May 19, 2014, when Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Oregon ruled in Geiger v. Kitzhaber that Oregon's 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A campaign that was then under way to win voter approval of a constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage was suspended following the decision. In July 2015, Governor Kate Brown signed legislation codifying same-sex marriage in various Oregon statutes. The law change went into effect on January 1, 2016.
Oregon began recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions in October 2013. Domestic partnerships, providing a subset of the rights and benefits of marriage, have been recognized since 2008.
In March and April 2004, Multnomah County issued marriage licenses to more than 3,000 same-sex couples until ordered by a state judge to stop doing so. In November, Oregon voters approved an amendment to the State Constitution that made it state policy to recognize only marriages "between one man and one woman". The validity of the licenses issued the previous spring was disputed, and the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in April 2005 that the newly adopted constitutional amendment had invalidated them.
{snip}
Federal lawsuit
Main article: Geiger v. Kitzhaber
On October 15, 2013, two couples, an unmarried lesbian couple and two men already married in Canada, filed a lawsuit, Geiger v. Kitzhaber, in U.S. district court in Eugene, challenging the Oregon Constitution's ban on same-sex marriage. This made Oregon the 20th U.S. state to have a federal lawsuit challenging its ban on same-sex marriage filed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor in June 2013 invalidated part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Two more couples and the Basic Rights Education Fund filed another same-sex marriage case on December 19, 2013, with this latter case captioned Rummell and West v. Kitzhaber.
{snip}
Geiger v. Kitzhaber
Court: United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Argued: April 23, 2014
Decided May 19, 2014
Geiger v. Kitzhaber is a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon that requires Oregon to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions. The decision arose from two consolidated cases that alleged that Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Article 15, § 5, and all related marriage statutes, violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Among the several defendants, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed appearances in the case to defend Oregon's position, but declined to defend the constitutionality of the bans and ordered state agencies to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages established elsewhere.
U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane ruled on May 19, 2014, that Oregon's constitution and statutes restricting marriage rights for same-sex couples violate the U.S. Constitution and ordered an immediate end to their enforcement.
The National Organization for Marriage, an organization opposed to same-sex marriage, tried without success to intervene in the suit, to stay enforcement of the district court decision, and to appeal that decision.
{snip}
Oral arguments
On April 23, 2014, Judge Michael McShane heard oral arguments on the motions for summary judgment in the consolidated lawsuit. While all parties present supported same-sex marriage, Judge McShane questioned whether there was a role for Oregon voters who had approved the amendment defining marriage in 2004 and considered whether to implement his ruling immediately or stay his ruling and await guidance from related cases pending in the U.S. courts of appeal. The court scheduled another session of oral arguments for May 14, where the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM"
, an organization that opposes same-sex marriage, tried without success to qualify for intervention in the case. McShane ruled that the group was unreasonably late in filing its request to intervene and that it failed to convincingly demonstrate that it should be allowed to intervene on behalf of three anonymous Oregon-based members of NOM.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on May 19, resulting in the immediate legalization of same-sex marriage in Oregon.
Judge McShane departed from the common descriptor of "same-sex" throughout his opinion, using instead the terms same-gender marriage and same-gender couples. His opinion included several paragraphs designed for the public:
Minutes after the decision was announced at noon, officials in at least four counties were fulfilling requests for marriage licenses from same-sex couples. Multnomah County issued 96 licenses the first day, and judges officiated at wedding ceremonies at six altars set up in a Portland ballroom. Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson were the first to marry after Judge McShane's ruling.
Appeals
On May 4, 2014, while the Geiger case was still pending in district court, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) filed an appeal of the district court's denial of intervenor status in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Once Judge McShane released his May 19, 2014, order, NOM immediately sought a stay of that order from the Ninth Circuit, which denied that emergency motion that same day. The state defendants, including Governor Kitzhaber, joined by the plaintiffs, moved the next day to dismiss NOM's appeal as moot. They argued that Judge McShane was correct in denying NOM intervenor status, and that therefore NOM lacked standing and its appeal was moot. On August 27, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, consisting of U.S. Circuit Judges Schroeder, Thomas, and N.R. Smith, agreed and granted the motion dismissing the appeal.
On May 27, 2014, NOM filed an application for an emergency stay with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit. On June 4, Justice Kennedy referred the application to the full U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the request for a stay without comment or recorded dissent on June 4.
On November 24, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied NOM's request for an initial hearing en banc. On December 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued the mandate finalizing its August 27 decision to dismiss NOM's appeal.
On April 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied another NOM petition for review.
{snip}
Court: United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Argued: April 23, 2014
Decided May 19, 2014
Geiger v. Kitzhaber is a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon that requires Oregon to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions. The decision arose from two consolidated cases that alleged that Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Article 15, § 5, and all related marriage statutes, violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Among the several defendants, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed appearances in the case to defend Oregon's position, but declined to defend the constitutionality of the bans and ordered state agencies to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages established elsewhere.
U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane ruled on May 19, 2014, that Oregon's constitution and statutes restricting marriage rights for same-sex couples violate the U.S. Constitution and ordered an immediate end to their enforcement.
The National Organization for Marriage, an organization opposed to same-sex marriage, tried without success to intervene in the suit, to stay enforcement of the district court decision, and to appeal that decision.
{snip}
Oral arguments
On April 23, 2014, Judge Michael McShane heard oral arguments on the motions for summary judgment in the consolidated lawsuit. While all parties present supported same-sex marriage, Judge McShane questioned whether there was a role for Oregon voters who had approved the amendment defining marriage in 2004 and considered whether to implement his ruling immediately or stay his ruling and await guidance from related cases pending in the U.S. courts of appeal. The court scheduled another session of oral arguments for May 14, where the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM"
, an organization that opposes same-sex marriage, tried without success to qualify for intervention in the case. McShane ruled that the group was unreasonably late in filing its request to intervene and that it failed to convincingly demonstrate that it should be allowed to intervene on behalf of three anonymous Oregon-based members of NOM.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on May 19, resulting in the immediate legalization of same-sex marriage in Oregon.
Judge McShane departed from the common descriptor of "same-sex" throughout his opinion, using instead the terms same-gender marriage and same-gender couples. His opinion included several paragraphs designed for the public:
I am aware that a large number of Oregonians, perhaps even a majority, have religious or moral objections to expanding the definition of civil marriage (and thereby expanding the benefits and rights that accompany marriage) to gay and lesbian families. It was these same objections that led to the passage of Measure 36 in 2004. Generations of Americans, my own included, were raised in a world in which homosexuality was believed to be a moral perversion, a mental disorder, or a mortal sin...On a darker level, that same worldview led to an environment of cruelty, violence, and self-loathing. It was but 1986 when the United States Supreme Court justified, on the basis of a "millennia of moral teaching," the imprisonment of gay men and lesbian women who engaged in consensual sexual acts. ...
It is not surprising then that many of us raised with such a world view would wish to protect our beliefs and our families by turning to the ballot box to enshrine in law those traditions we have come to value. But just as the Constitution protects the expression of these moral viewpoints, it equally protects the minority from being diminished by them. ...
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.
Minutes after the decision was announced at noon, officials in at least four counties were fulfilling requests for marriage licenses from same-sex couples. Multnomah County issued 96 licenses the first day, and judges officiated at wedding ceremonies at six altars set up in a Portland ballroom. Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson were the first to marry after Judge McShane's ruling.
Appeals
On May 4, 2014, while the Geiger case was still pending in district court, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) filed an appeal of the district court's denial of intervenor status in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Once Judge McShane released his May 19, 2014, order, NOM immediately sought a stay of that order from the Ninth Circuit, which denied that emergency motion that same day. The state defendants, including Governor Kitzhaber, joined by the plaintiffs, moved the next day to dismiss NOM's appeal as moot. They argued that Judge McShane was correct in denying NOM intervenor status, and that therefore NOM lacked standing and its appeal was moot. On August 27, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, consisting of U.S. Circuit Judges Schroeder, Thomas, and N.R. Smith, agreed and granted the motion dismissing the appeal.
On May 27, 2014, NOM filed an application for an emergency stay with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit. On June 4, Justice Kennedy referred the application to the full U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the request for a stay without comment or recorded dissent on June 4.
On November 24, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied NOM's request for an initial hearing en banc. On December 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued the mandate finalizing its August 27 decision to dismiss NOM's appeal.
On April 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied another NOM petition for review.
{snip}