LGBTQ news and entertainment
Judge Michael McShane has announced he intends to file his ruling in Oregon’s marriage equality case today at noon.
Several county clerks have indicated they’ve prepared for a positive outcome by already tweaking marriage license forms, etc…
Stay tuned…
Via press release, NOM chairman John Eastman says the Washington DC based organization will appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene in the recent Oregon ruling on same-sex marriage.
“We are disappointed in the ruling today denying the National Organization for Marriage the ability to intervene in this case.
“We believe that our members in the state and the people of Oregon are entitled to a vigorous defense of the marriage amendment adopted overwhelmingly by Oregon voters.
“We disagree with the Judge’s finding that our motion was untimely. Although her unwillingness to defend Oregon’s law has been known for some time, the state Attorney General made clear only in April that she would not appeal a ruling invalidating the marriage amendment.
“We believe it is imperative that a party be able to appeal any adverse ruling and that we are entitled under the law to intervene to defend the measure and appeal any adverse ruling. For this reason, we will be filing an appeal of today’s ruling with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a reversal of this decision.”
Remember kids – all these folks talk about “state’s rights.” So why is a Washington DC based organization interfering in an Oregon lawsuit?
Things that make you go hmm…
A U.S. District Court judge has denied a request by the ironically named National Organization for Marriage to intervene in Oregon’s gay marriage case.
Judge Michael McShane’s decision Wednesday morning, made from the bench after an hour of oral arguments, may still be appealed by the group.
McShane consolidated two lawsuits into one case and heard oral arguments last month.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year striking down a federal ban on gay marriage, said she would not defend Oregon’s prohibition.
The National Organization for Marriage filed a motion to intervene in the case in defense of Oregon’s ban but Judge McShane decided the Washington DC based organization does not have standing.
McShane has not indicated when he could decide the larger case. If he decides to overturn Oregon’s ban, he could also decide to let gay marriages proceed immediately, or he could stay gay marriages pending appeals of his decision.
The anti-gay Oregon Family Council along with Friends of Religious Freedom have announced they will not be moving forward with IP 52 – the proposed ballot measure that would allow businesses in the state to turn away LGBT people as an “exercise of religion.”
The AP reports:
The campaign sought to portray the issue as one that frees business owners from having to violate their religious beliefs by abiding by Oregon law.
“But the certified ballot title does not acceptably state this,” Friends of Religious Freedom said in the release issued late Friday afternoon. “Indeed, it states it as intolerant instead of protecting equal rights of conscience.”
The ballot language approved said a “Yes” vote “creates ‘religious belief’ exceptions to anti-discrimination laws,” language the measure’s supporters said unfairly prejudiced voters against them.
The anti-gay proponents original text read as follows:
“This 2014 Initiative shall be known as the Protect Religious Freedom Initiative and is intended to exempt a person from supporting same-sex ceremonies in violation of deeply held religious beliefs.”
|
| Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum |
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has filed a brief urging U.S. District Judge Michael McShane to reject the National Organization for Marriage’s attempts to intervene in a case challenging the state’s ban on gay marriage.
Seen as some kind of delaying tactic, although NOM had months to file it’s intentions, the folks at NOM didn’t file papers until a week before the initial hearings when it realized there were no parties defending the anti-gay law.
The Oregonian reports:
NOM filed a motion to intervene in the case less than 48 hours before McShane held oral arguments on April 23 on why the parties in the case believe that Oregon’s prohibition on same-sex marriage violates federal constitutional protections.
At the time, John Eastman, NOM’s chairman and attorney, said his group wanted to intervene to to represent voters who approved the 2004 state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. He said the intervention request came as late as it did because the extent of Rosenblum’s legal reasoning wasn’t made clear until mid-March and it took his group time to round up Oregon NOM members who could serve as parties in the case.
Rosenblum scoffed at that reasoning, noting that she held a Feb. 20 press conference announcing that she would not defend Oregon’s ban on gay marriage. She noted that NOM also knew of her decision since it issued a press release condemning her.
[snip]
Rosenblum also said that “NOM and its members have no right to substitute their voice or their judgment for that of the Attorney General simply because they disagree with the chief law officer’s conclusions.”
NOM has until Friday to respond to Rosenblum. Judge McShane set a date of May 14 to hear oral arguments regarding NOM’s motion.
You can read Rosenblum’s brief below.
Yesterday, standing before Judge Michael McShane, four couples who have filed a challenge to Oregon’s same-sex marriage ban asked the court to strike down the discriminatory law. The state of Oregon, having found the law unconstitutional, agreed with the plaintiffs and asked for the same resolution.
From ABC News:
No comments were made in favor of the ban, so lawyers on both sides of the case were in the rare position of asking for the same ruling from the judge. Oregon’s attorney general, Democrat Ellen Rosenblum, has said the ban is legally indefensible and has refused to offer arguments in favor of keeping it.
Judge Michael McShane did not say which way he was leaning. His questioning focused heavily on how he should apply precedents from higher courts and whether he should delay implementation of his ruling until appeals courts sort out gay marriage cases pending around the country.
The judge is deciding two parallel cases. The couples who filed suit are asking him to declare the ban unconstitutional and allow same-sex couples to wed. They also want an order that same-sex marriages performed in other states must be recognized in Oregon.
McShane has agreed to hear a petition from the Washington DC based National Organization for Marriage, who request standing to defend the anti-gay law. The hearing will be on May 14th. McShane has said he will not rule until that hearing. Should he grant standing to NOM, there will be a second hearing for oral arguments.
The lawsuit challenging Oregon’s marriage equality ban begins today as Federal Judge Michael McShane hears oral arguments at 1:30pm PST.
Of note in this lawsuit, both sides agree the ban should be struck down. The Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has already stated that in her opinion the ban is unconstitutional on grounds of federal equal protection laws, and therefore won’t defend the law. In light of that, the petitioners have asked the judge to issue a summary judgment immediately on the issue.
BUT – late Monday night, the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (based in Washington, DC) filed a motion requesting to intervene in the case, simultaneously urging the judge to delay Wednesday’s oral arguments as he considers the last-minute motion. Judge McShane ruled that he will hear the petition on May 14th regarding whether or not NOM can defend the law, but oral arguments will proceed as planned today.
McShane says he won’t make a ruling on the lawsuit until after NOM’s hearing on May 14. But it’s possible we could get a sense of how or what McShane is thinking by what he may or may not say today.
Backers of a gay marriage initiative would like to see the judge rule by May 23. If he strikes the law down before then, the proponents of the initiative say they won’t have to take their measure to the November ballot.
But if NOM gets to intervene, there will need to be another hearing for them to present their “case” in the lawsuit.
The judge has no official time table that requires a deadline on his ruling. AND, he could decide to stay his ruling while seeing what happens in possible appeals
Stay tuned.
A federal judge will hear two cases Wednesday that aim to strike down Oregon’s anti-marriage equality law, but no party has stepped in to defend the voter-approved constitutional amendment.
From The Republic:
Oregon’s attorney general, Democrat Ellen Rosenblum, says the state’s ban is legally indefensible. Her office filed a lengthy brief urging judge U.S. District Judge Michael McShane to throw it out. There have been no legal arguments submitted for upholding the ban.
Federal judges in five states have thrown out voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage on constitutional grounds since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year, and many other challenges are pending.
For Oregon’s ban, oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday at U.S. District Court in Eugene.
“The ban on same-sex marriage serves no rational purpose and harms Oregon citizens,” lawyers for the state wrote. “This case presents that rare case in which there simply is no legal argument to be made in support of a state law.”
The U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause prohibits the government from treating a group of people differently from others unless there’s sufficient justification that furthers a legitimate public interest.
In this case, much of the legal analysis surrounds how high the bar should be for the government to prove it has an interest in treating gays and lesbians differently with respect to marriage.
Four students in Oregon City decided to make clear that a day to raise awareness against bullying and unity wasn’t going to include them. Instead of being a part of the Day of Silence, the four students wore t-shirts that read “Gay Day is no OK.”
From KPTV:
“I just made it say ‘Gay Day is not OK,’ because I don’t believe that it’s OK,” Oregon City High School student Alex Borho said.
He and just a few of his friends wore the shirts at the school where there are more than 2,000 students.
For some there, today was a day of silence. It’s part of a national movement that only about 40 kids at Oregon City High School participated in.
It ends the much larger unity week that all the students there partake in. It’s meant to be a time of dropping labels and breaking down social barriers.
“I don’t have a big problem with gay people. It’s just when they start parading around the school about how we have a day of silence for gays, lesbians and transvestites,” Borho said. “We don’t have a straight day.”
Borho said he doesn’t like the message associated with the day, intended to draw attention to bullying of gay students.
(h/t JMG)
Last month, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced, like many state attorneys general, she would not defend the state’s same-sex marriage ban in court.
Rosenblum has now filed a response brief in the state’s same-sex marriage case stating, in part:
“The state defendants in this case recognize that the ban on same-sex marriage serves no rational purpose and harms Oregon citizens. This case presents that rare case in which there simply is no legal argument to be made in support of a state law.”
Oregon United For Marriage released this statement:
“We are literally counting down the days until all loving and committed couples in Oregon have the freedom to marry, and we are thrilled that the attorney general is on the right side of history. No one should be told it is illegal to marry the person they love. Freedom means freedom for everyone.”
(via JMG)