Quoting the Supreme Court Ruling:

The foregoing cases demonstrate that the state and, more specifically, the legislature, is the locus of power over marriage-related matters in Oregon. If that power is broad enough to preempt other states' contrary marriage policies, it inescapably is broad enough to preempt similar policies generated by a political subdivision of this state, such as the county. It is true that nothing in ORS chapter 106 expressly reserves exclusive authority over marriage to the state; however, we cannot ignore this court's jurisprudence that expressly recognizes that exclusive authority, absent some clear legislative directive to the contrary. We conclude that Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state's legislative power..

Guess they'll have to worry about staffing the jails and repairing the bridges now.

The interesting thing is that the Court didn't rule whether civil unions are required to be offered under the equal protection clause.

"whether ORS chapter 106 confers marriage benefits in violation of Article I, Section 20, of the Oregon Constitution is not properly before the court."

However unpleasant for the 3,000+ couples involved (and I am sympathetic with their cause if not their methods) this does seem like a pretty solid ruling. And it has the beneficial side effect beyond the gay marriage issue of clarifying that it's not the job of every government official at every level in the state to be deciding questions of constitutional law and fashioning their own remedies.

I had wondered at the time of M36 passing how the potential conflict between two parts of the constitution would be resolved. Obviously this ruling explains (I'm sure lawyers already knew this) that the more recently approved section of the constitution takes precedence. Alas.

But I have a question that arises from that premise. The language of Measure 36 made absolutely no reference to Article I, Section 20. With good reason, of course, since to make explicit that M36 was an exception to that prior section of the constitution would also be to effectively acknowledge that M36 represented a form of discrimination, and might make its passage less likely.

So given that M36 does not make itself an explicit exception to Article I, Section 20 -- and given that M36 takes precedence over that section -- could the case be made that by extension M36 effectively nullifies Article I, Section 20?

The basic logic is summarized as follows: First, we say that it's illegal to discriminate against anyone. Subsequently, we say that it's legal to discriminate against some people (this is one interpretation of M36) without making clear that this is a narrowly defined exception to the previous ban on discrimination. Therefore, since it in fact is now legal to discriminate against some people, the earlier general ban on discrimination is no longer operative at all.

Of course this would hinge on the interpretation of Measure 36 actually being discriminatory (which I believe to be the case and which was not addressed by the OSC today).

Anyhow, seems to me that the courts worked the way they were supposed to work. For all the blather from the far right about "activist judges" here we have a prime example of judicial restraint, right here in Oregon, the Land of the Blue (or so the Germans would have us believe...) <nobr>  ;-)</nobr>

The opinion does not seem to create much hope that Oregon's privileges and immunities clause has much life left in this debate. The specific measure, Measure 36, would generally trump more general constitutional provisions. And given that the Court specifically found that the word "policy" in Measure 36 was a directive, not just a piece of helpful advice (or to quote Justice Gillette, not "hortatory"), it sure feels like the Court would conclude that Measure 36's implicit restriction on equal benefits would trump Article 1, section 20. But I'm sure we'll have a chance to read that opinion in a couple of years.

b!X: My comment was based on the following section of the ruling:

"Today, marriage in Oregon -- an institution once limited to opposite-sex couples only by statute -- now is so limited by the state constitution as well. As the later-enacted (and more specific) constitutional provision, Measure 36 resolves any prospective claims that plaintiffs may have had under Article I, section 20, to obtain marriage licenses. The claims of the five same-sex couples that they are entitled as a matter of state law, now or hereafter, to obtain marriage licenses and to marry thus fail." (Added emphasis mine)

Sounds to me like they plainly say, regardless of what Article I, Section 20 says, Measure 36 takes precedence over it as far as it goes.

There may be other reasons the measure is invalid, and I sincerely hope it is ruled invalid, but it sounds like Article I, Section 20 is not going to be an accepted basis for such an argument.

In regards to Jeff Alworth's: "Is there any case when the document can be so contradictory that the court would have to rule?"

The Quick Answer: Yes, there is such a possible situation, but we really don't want to go there.

The Long Answer: When interpreting legal documents like contracts, statutes and constitutions, courts are guided by established norms of interpretation. For example, courts will read and apply the terms according to their plain meaning (unless another meaning is given, or implied, or required b/c no other meaning would make sense).

Courts are supposed to interpret terms in a way which will give effect to what they mean (i.e., a court is supposed to assume that terms were put in there for a reason and that the terms actually mean something). So if a court has a choice between a) interpreting a document (constitution, statute, contract, whatever) to give effect to the drafter's intent, or b) to nullify it as self-contradictory, the court is supposed to choose interpretation a) as the one that "makes sense" ... even if the terms are contradictory and don't seem to make plain sense. There are also a few corralaries, such as that courts prefer to interpret statutes in a way that gives them effect (i.e., to find that they ARE constitutional as opposed to UN-constitutional).

Clear as mud? If the document you are interpreting is so self contradictory that you're asking a court to invalidate the document, you're going to need a new document. In the case of a constitution, nobody wants to do that. Also, no precedent immediately jumps to my mind of a U.S. court deciding that a state constitution is so contradictory as to make it null and void. That's the type of argument courts love to avoid, b/c of its head spinning possibilities (i.e., you'd sort of be asking the court to invalidate its own institutional legitimacy).

The fact that the Court says M36 resolves future claims of a right to marry does not resolve the Article 1, section 20 issue about whether it is unconstitutional to then deprive unmarried people of the benefits associated with marriage ... the Court specifically was not ruling on the benefits question, even though the trial court ruled based on that issue.

In case anyone's interested, the statements of the various County Commissioners are on the web.

As is a statement from Karen Minnis.

We're in the New York Times, ABC News, etc. Big news, big news.

It reads as though the Court is telling folks that the premise the case began with was off.

That is, it reads as if the case argued that statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, and instead should have argued that the statutes providing benefits to married folks were unconstitutional, under the equal-protection law.

Of course, the court tries to distinguish between benefits and marriage itself (which the county and others argued were intertwined) and then conflates the two in saying it won't rule on whether "Chapter 106 confers marriage benefits [!!!] in violation of the [equal protection clause]"

Ugh. The other key part of the case is the finding that the County shouldn't have acted, as marriage is a state-defined issue.

Make sure to not miss out on Tim Nashif's thrilling quote.

Tim Nashif, head of the Oregon Family Council and the Defense of Marriage Coalition, said, "We're pretty thrilled and pretty relieved at the opinion."

What a thrilling day it was.

Who would have imagined the Oregon Supreme Court upholding the law. Sadly, the majority of the commissioners of Multnomah County seem it is more important to administer the county based on emotion than law. Crying discrimination and fairness because we have determine to restrict this inappropriate behavior is a bit much. Why don't they say prostitutes, pedophiles or necrophiliacs are discriminated, because we don't allow them to practice their inappropriate behavior. Why don't we say minors are discriminated due to their age, because we won't allow them to drink nor drive cars. We used to not regulated either issue.
There are laws that restrict a variety of issues, based on age, behavior and common good. Commissioners Linn, Rojo de Steffy, Cruz and Naito need to administer the law vice using emotion in the execution of their duties. Multnomah County was the laughing stock on this issue long before the OSC decision. It isn't called the People's Republic of Multnomah Country for nothing. Thankfully, the OSC applied the rule of law, vice activism from the bench.

Ok, K. Sudbeck, I'll take the bait...

Who would have imagined the Oregon Supreme Court upholding the law.

Most of us, actually.

You'll find few same-sex marriage supporters decrying the court today. Although disagree with the decision, it is a possible, defensible, respectable decision.

Sadly, the majority of the commissioners of Multnomah County seem [sic] it is more important to administer the county based on emotion than law.

The Commissioners sought an outside legal opinion before proceeding.

In the Court's ruling today (you did read it, didn't you?), they acknowledged that in Oregon, public officials are required to uphold the Constitution. They just ruled that Multnomah County overreached in it's choice of actions, as this was a statewide issue.

You may remember that Benton County took a different approach. But you probably didn't like their idea, either.

Crying discrimination and fairness because we have determine [sic] to restrict this inappropriate behavior is a bit much.

Tell me, what is appropriate behavior for gay people? How do you know what my behavior is? 'Fess up. Tell me where the hidden cameras are.

Why don't they say prostitutes, pedophiles or necrophiliacs are discriminated, because we don't allow them to practice their inappropriate behavior.

Ahh, the tired litany. You just love to associate gay people with some laundry list of activities. The list varies from wingnut to wingnut, but is never absent.

But let's take on your list, why don't we...

• 1. Prostitutes - ALLOWED TO MARRY
• 2. Pedophiles - ALLOWED TO MARRY (except priests...)
• 3. Necrophiliacs - ALLOWED TO MARRY (the living...)
• 4. Gay People - NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY

But since we're on a useless diversion, let's take this exploration all the way, in reverse order:

1. Gay Couples - The same-sex couples at issue in Oregon are consenting adults. They are human beings capable of being informed on an issue, and making a responsible choice, and (this is important), entering into contracts. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not change the basic structure of the terms and conditions of marriage, as marriage laws are generally gender-neutral (once you get past the initial hurdle.)

2. Necrophiliacs - Necrophilia is illegal for any number of reasons. First of all, a corpse cannot consent to sex. In our society, we do at least try to honor the wishes and the dignity of the dead, following their wills (a legal document, hey!). We also follow some basic procedures and rules. Even if you don't have a will, you can expect that your corpse will be handled in a responsible manner and that you will not be raped before going into the ground. Further, necrophiliacs (such that there are any) would likely practice their acts on the corpses of strangers, as a regular supply of dead people known directly to you would be difficult to come by. Therefore, widespread necrophilia would defile corpses near and dear to many living families.

3. Pedophiles - Our society holds that children are not capable of giving informed consent to sexual activity. Further, sex acts between an adult and a child can (for a variety of reasons) leave long-last emotional scars on a child. But, oddly so, as we have recently seen in the news, a pedophile and his or her victim CAN MARRY EACH OTHER, once the victim reaches 18, for whatever twisted reason they may have to be together. However, an adult, law-abiding gay couple CANNOT get married EVER under current law.

4. Prostitution - This is illegal in part because society views the prostitute as a victim, and we outlaw the practice to prevent continued, long-term victimization. Strangely, though, we arrest and punish the prostitutes as well as the johns. If the prostitute is a victim, why the arrest? And, just to rub it in some more, even on the same day as an arrest, a prostitute CAN MARRY HER JOHN. Legally. Today. In Oregon. As long as they are a mixed-sex couple. Gay couples who have never engaged in prostitution, however, may not marry.

Your little laundry list of sins is a big distraction, not germane to the issue of marriage.

I do credit you, however, with not bringing up dogs. You have a bit more class than Sen. Santorum, I guess.

But, just in case you're about to ask, "What about dogs?", note that dogs can't enter into contracts, nor give legal consent to sexual activity.

But, strangely, PET OWNERS HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN GAY COUPLES. A pet owner can make medical decisions for their pet. Automatically. When a pet dies, the pet's possessions become the owners. (OK, that's a joke - can you spot the logical error?) A gay person usually cannot make medical decisions for their partner. Even with agreements in place, there is no guarantee that such an agreement would be honored.

Why don't we say minors are discriminated due to their age, because we won't allow them to drink nor drive cars. We used to not regulated either issue.

Article I, Section 20 (hey, that's the section of the Constitution that was at issue when Mult. Co. started issuing licenses) (have you read it?) says:

"No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."

Guess what? We are ALL minors for the first 18-21 years of our lives. Laws that affect minors do affect all citizens.

But you seem to think that straight citizens are better than gay citizens. You have every right to believe that. But don't expect us to sit quietly and let you use state power to interfere in our relationships.

There are laws that restrict a variety of issues, based on age, behavior and common good.

Yes, there are. Good for you for recognizing that. You get a cookie.

Commissioners Linn, Rojo de Steffy, Cruz and Naito need to administer the law vice using emotion in the execution of their duties.

Yeah. Right. They should have used no emotion and instead have gotten in tune with the idea that gay people are icky. That's purely rational, right?

Oh, and they should've forsworn their oath to uphold the Constitution, just to make you happy.

Multnomah County was the laughing stock on this issue long before the OSC decision.

I saw the anti-gay mobs outside the Mult Co. meetings. They weren't laughing. They were shouting and spitting and kicking and cursing. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It isn't called the People's Republic of Multnomah Country for nothing.

Power to the people, baby! Whose republic should it be, then?

Thankfully, the OSC applied the rule of law, vice activism from the bench.

Good for them. If it had gone any other way, the right wing would howling "activism" and some would be threatening to kill the justices. (Ref: Schiavo.) The left has shown dignity, patience, and yes, restraint through this whole process. The right has shown only lies, anger, and threats.

So, what are you going to do now?

Now you have your marriage free of homos. Divorces will cease immediately. All will be glorious.

Can we expect your backing on Civil Unions?

I'll offer you up a compromise: We'll take Civil Unions (for now), but we won't let pedophiles have civil unions with dead animal underage prostitutes. Except in Utah.

Most respectfully, Bob R.

Bob R. et al:

My straight marriage is not threatened by gay marriage. I don't believe in discrimination: I think gay/lesbian couples should be as unhappy as the rest of us (humor!). Seriously though, if straight marriage is "good for society"; why not extend the same rights to everybody? Simply put: because the law is not written that way.

The Oregon Supreme Court clarified five points for me:

1. They acknowledged the explicit discrimination conveyed by the words "husband and wife" which remain lawful and gender specific.

2. They dismissed the semantic argument which many proponents knew was a straw-man ("males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age) BUT IT DOESN'T SAY ONE OF EACH Come on: we all know it meant one of each.

3. They told Multnomah County to simply follow the law; an executive body in a municipality doesn't legislate or adjudicate State Law, they simply administer the law as an Agent of the State ("ministerial function").

4. They make implicit reference (first footnote) to the makeshift manner in which Multnomah County Chair Dianne Linn subjugated her fellow members of the Board of Commissioners.

5. They told the trial judge to use his spine: just interpret the law, don't fashion a politically correct remedy (when is Bearden up for reelection? must be soon).

Imagine if the Coos County Board started serving alcohol to 19 and 20 year old Marines on their way to Iraq (if they're old enough to fight, they're old enough to drink). Wouldn't you expect the OLCC, a few parents, and (eventually) the Supreme Court to weigh in on behalf of the established law? Are we discriminating against 19-20 year olds? You bet. Is that right? It doesn't matter whether it right, or unjust, or even narrow minded: it's simply the law.

Can't we all just get along?

Two interesting things about the Commishes responses: 1. While the activist four all expressed sadness, all managed to threaten the court or decry activist judges; 2. Lonnie Roberts, lone dissentor and lone male, issued a third-person press release.

From the Oregonian article this morning, a couple more pretty interesting reactions:

"While Naito defended her support after the court ruling, Rojo de Steffey and Cruz literally ran from reporters Thursday."

Yes, there are. Good for you for recognizing that. You get a cookie.

Bob R.: I think David W.(scholarly and thoughtful) and W. Bruce (plain spoken; but considerate) deserve a cookie.

P.S. What's a cookie?

I don't care what they say, or how badly she handled it, Diane Linn is still a hero to me on this issue. For more on why, please visit: www.kazablog.com

For Sudbeck, who wrote: "Crying discrimination and fairness because we have determine to restrict this inappropriate behavior is a bit much."

If by "this inappropriate behavior" you mean sexual relations between two people who are not a man and a woman, you should perhaps be alerted that THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT RESTRICTING THAT BEHAVIOR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! I know, that crazy U.S. Supreme Court, where 7 of 9 were appointing by Republican presidents ... a bunch of wild-eyed radicals. Or, just maybe, that's a better label for those that believe in restricting consensual acts arising from love and healthy desire.

Corrected link! http://www.kazablog.com/2005/04/diane-linns-short-lived-legacy.html

I warned the Portland liberals about the coming backlash last year when they started conducting these "marriage" ceremonies, but they refused to listen.

Oh well.

Jim -

I warned the Portland liberals about the coming backlash last year when they started conducting these "marriage" ceremonies, but they refused to listen.

What backlash?

Anti-marriage initiatives had ALREADY BEEN FILED before Mult. Co. did anything. Something like Measure 36 was coming no matter what. Anti-gay bigotry is the craze that is sweeping the nation!

Mult. Co. provided a new avenue to approach this issue, and the images of 3,000 happy loving couples (and their children!), aside from being a great and wonderful thing, were the kind of good press and reframing of the issue that were needed to move the debate forward.

We now have a bipartisan civil unions bill on the table that would not have been coming anytime soon if it were not for the proactive push of marriage supporters.

Suppose, just for a moment, that back when Rosa Parks had taken a seat on that bus, if the management of the bus company or city officials had said "Hey, you're right, it is wrong for us to force you to the back of the bus. We're sorry, and we'll change the policy to reflect the constitution.". The coming battles probably would not have changed that much, but how would those public officials be remembered today?

What does our choice boil down to?

Scenario A: Mult. Co. doesn't marry same-sex couples. Voters pass anti-gay iniative. Pro-marriage movement has no momentum and civil unions don't get going for years.

Scenario B: Mult Co. does marry same-sex couples. Voters pass anti-gay initiative. Pro-marriage movement (that's us fags and dykes) has momentum, visibility, our stories told far and wide, and a civil unions push that starts sooner.

Progressive politics has too long been dominated by fear and defensiveness. We've been slowly losing ground for years. We can no longer be ruled by a fear of proactive effort.

• Bob R.

PS... "Portland Liberals"? Do you mean to tell me that no liberals outside of Portland supported this action? I went down and met many of the couples who were being married. Most that I met were from out-of-town.

M36 means nothing more than that only civil unions between a man and a woman may be labeled as a marriage.

The current marriage statute defines a marriage, in a tautology, as a civil union.

Strip the word marriage from the entirety of the statutes, inclusive of removing the tautology labeling a civil union as a civil union. This will fully and completely neutralize any effect of M36 to that of the labeling of civil unions, based on gender configurations. The marriage versus civil union thing is nothing more than straight-civil-union and gay-civil-union. All that is left is the matter of the public announcement of sexual orientation (for which folks must be taken at their word) for the purpose of obtaining public money. Strip out any sexual relation stuff and you have only a household of two, without any reference to sex whatsoever . . . but why only two and why strip out references to sex entirely?

Could the legislature prescribe that the preferred household structure resembles that of the old Indian long-house where an extended family of perhaps 30 total individuals share a common roof. Any which way one slices the efficiencies of such a structure it is far more cooperative and far less wasteful. I suppose only an areligious kind of guy could dare call the two person head-of-household thing a bunch of religious poppy-cock; and call both the gay and straight marriage and civil union folks religious thugs, all of them. Must I have a whole bunch of kids just to have the companionship of a bunch of folks, so as to conform to the religious folk's belief in something unworldly? The state, hand in hand with religious folks, want to attack other forms of households other than one and two person households, as other forms of structure would be incompatible with both state control and religious control. (How would we tax people in such a group? Gosh it would be impossible unless we can divide and conquerer each individual, or two-person household, in isolation. Any group that is larger might have too much autonomy, and liberty.)

It seems that even the famed outside counsel needs a view from an outsider with what I believe to be a fuller and more genuine civil liberties perspective.

Bob and Jon, Thanks for taking the bait, as it provides a good discussion. I have read all the items, thank you google. But, I just don't agree. Jon, I will have to look up your arguement concerning the Supreme Court Decisions and get back to you. Now Rosa Parks was African-American, and science can find the genetic code that makes her black. Just like women are genetically different from men. So until Scientific America shows up with the article on finding the Gay gene, it will be an inappropriate behavior. Now let's continue our discussion using this topic from Mr Anderholt: "Imagine if the Coos County Board started serving alcohol to 19 and 20 year old Marines on their way to Iraq (if they're old enough to fight, they're old enough to drink). Wouldn't you expect the OLCC, a few parents, and (eventually) the Supreme Court to weigh in on behalf of the established law? Are we discriminating against 19-20 year olds? You bet. Is that right? It doesn't matter whether it right, or unjust, or even narrow minded: it's simply the law."

How is the above action any different than the actions of Benton and Multnomah county. I'm a military officer from Oregon, why can't I just serve the Sailors and Marines beer prior to going to war, in violation of the law. In my opinion, it's the right thing to do!

So what would Coos county do to me if they caught me. Would I get a free pass? I feel the current laws are wrong and underage Sailors and Marines are being discriminated. So as you can see, my biggest complaint is that the Commissioners didn't follow the law.

So Bob, what are your arguements in this debate that would cause me to write my state Senator and Congressman to support a law authorizing civil unions. Because, as you know, the Legislature makes the laws. The Judiciary interpets them, as aptly illustrated yesterday.
I'm a card carrying Republican, but I am not part of the mob. If you throw in that I am threatening judges, lying to the people or that the left is showing dignity and patience, you have lost me. Specifically for the last item, my brother and sister-in-law are residents of Multnomah County, the first five minutes of last nights call was about the lying Republicans, Bush lied about the War and the vast right wing consipiracy. This is my brother, so if he can't be civil to me, what am I to expect from a liberal Democrat from the People's Republic.
But, at least we don't disagree on all the issues, I concur with that Utah thing.

Andrew Caza wrote,

I don't care what they say, or how badly she handled it, Diane Linn is still a hero to me on this issue.

The ability to filter our beliefs/passions through the dispassionate lens of reason (codified in the rule of law) underpins our democractic government. If great passion (Diann Linn "felt they were doing the right thing") were left unchecked, then zealotry would rule, rather than law.

Dianne Linn can still be your hero, but she did a great disservice to this cause, and to the balance of powers necessary for limited government. What if Bill Sizemore had been the County Chair, and unilaterally annouced the repeal of the I-Tax, because he "felt strongly" that it violated Oregon Statutes. Like Bill Murrays said, "Cats and dogs, sleeping together" and sheer pandemonium would follow.

On a more pedestrian note, I wish County/City elected officials would let go of the soap-box issues over which they have little control (global warming, foreign policy, international trade, social engineering), and focus on the important tasks within their purview. For example, the city and county make a list of unfunded/backlogged infrastructure and maintenance task for roads, bridges, buildings, water/sewer process, etc. Rather than just update last years list, how about we start funding the unfunded, and strategize a program to reduce the backlog.

There won't be as many sattellite vans in the parking lot, and Geraldo and Larry won't be asking for interviews, but these are the core functions of local government.

The author of the outside counsel opinion to the MC4 offerers the money quote in admitting tactical error, as reported in The Oregonian.

"It boomeranged," said Charles Hinkle, a Portland lawyer who also filed one of 16 supporting briefs on behalf of the county. "They gambled and they lost. If a judicial route had been pursued, it might have resulted in a complete victory."

What he means is that had the marriage licenses been denied rather than granted then it would have been the court system itself that would have declared the statue in violation of the constitution. But that declaration would have resulted in the proper remedy of declaring the marriage statute void; void for all. This remedy, for example, was recently used in the other context of PERS just a few days ago, declaring certain portions of statutes as null and void as a violation of constitutional rights.

In defense of the MC4's belief in their broad scope of authority is a line of cases dealing with individual complainants of government action where the door to reach the merits of a claim of unconstitutional behavior is slammed shut by the judicial acceptance of the argument that such action was public policy, for which a simple citizen often cannot obtain standing to object. The Utsey case would be an example of non-justiciability, often upon standing. Go read some of these hits.

So, who was complaining about the actions of the Multnomah County 4, anyway, and what interest is it of theirs that the court is vindicating? Neither Multnomah County nor the recipients of the marriage certificates is complaining. The Defense of Marriage folks would be left begging, at the courthouse steps, for an airing of their grievance, and told to get lost because, under the reasoning of Utsey and similar cases, that they cannot object to public policy. Thus the only party with an interest to be vindicated was the state itself, another public policy making body. Had the state merely stared off into the distant stars, by a discretionary action of the Attorney General, then there would have been no case to challenge action of the MC4.

This state of affairs where the mere discretionary acts of a one public official, the AG in this case, can either prompt reaching the merits of the constitutionality of a government action, and never on behalf of an individual citizen, is the real travesty. The chaos, in my opinion, is letting members of the bar secretly negotiate, through simple private phone calls, to determine which matters reach the courts upon issues of constitutionality.

The real test is whether gays, or any other non married individual, can complain in court, and actually obtain standing to challenge, on the merits, the present existence of disparate treatment, without the aid of any single public body except that of the judiciary itself. Or stated differently: If the team of the Defense of Marriage folks and the AG can get an airing to challenge the public policy determination of a county can a gay couple alone get an airing of their grievance, in court, on the merits, of the continuing disparate treatment? (But they need to ask for a remedy of declaration of the relevant statutes as null and void. But if such is the remedy then what is the practical effect of the ruling upon the gay couple, nothing in particular, thus offering yet another device for the court to claim non-justiciability in a circular argument.) I would like to see this test, not in support of anything in particular to the complaints of gays but because I want a broader right of citizens, rather than the bar association allies of elected officers, to have at least as great a right, in the judiciary, to reach the merits of a complaint as that now accorded uniquely to public officials.

The real test, in my opinion, of whether Charles Hinkle's next move advances civil liberties generally, rather than obtaining a special right for one group over another, will be if he can tackle the chaos of giving the public attorney allies of local government's the right to act arbitrarily and capriciously against the citizens. The can of worms in this debate is a larger one than the gay rights issue and likely colored the choice to seek the aid of the MC4, because that was the only conceivably possible course of action given the judicial hostility to reaching the merits of claims of unconstitutionality by government acts on behalf of individual citizens against elected officials. The court is not there to rubber stamp anything that an elected official chooses to do but to is there to vindicate individual rights against that government action. The latest ruling vindicated only the whimsical (political) choice of the AG to advance the cause of the Legislature of the State of Oregon. Had the AG sat on his ass the MC4 would have likely been successful. Is it right that the AG or any other public attorney on behalf of a government entity should have this arbitrary power? The chaos that is reeking havoc is not that of the MC4, but the Oregon State Bar in defense of their own unelected liberty interest to control debate, just because they can.

Go void the marriage (same as civil union) statue, today, to prevent special privileges for the mere public announcement of sexual preference! If gays cannot get standing then I suppose no one can. Take Utsey's upside down reasoning and flip it right side up such that the court is there for the benefit of citizens rather than as a sock puppet to rubber stamp government (and public attorney) whim. This should be an argument that everyone could, or should, support. It would not be incompatible with Lawrence, either.

William writes: "On a more pedestrian note, I wish County/City elected officials would let go of the soap-box issues over which they have little control (global warming, foreign policy, international trade, social engineering), and focus on the important tasks within their purview."

Actually, issuing marriage licenses is the County's responsibility. As is upholding the Oregon Constitution. And, listening to their legal counsel, and the advice of a rather prominent outside law firm (Stoel Rives), they acted.

And as far as global warming goes, it's everyone's responsibility. Clearly the feds aren't going to act on it, because they're bought off by the oil companies. So the alternative has to be individual businesses, households, and local governments like the County taking responsibility. The County is issuing emissions, so it's acting on the impact of its actions.

Yoram: issuing marriage certificates is a ministerial function (aka "agent of the state"). The county doesn't get to reinterpret O.R.S., merely execute them. If County Commissioners were permitted to reinterpret the O.R.S. every time they were threatened with a lawsuit (with or without competent legal opinions), the O.R.S. would serve no purpose.

An aggrieved party is supposed to wait until they have been wronged, then file suit, then have it ajudicated. Multnomah County functioned as the proverbial judge, jury, and hangman. The Supreme Court rebuked them (with the legal opinion equivalent of a piledriver), and said: just the hangman.

As for global warming, I would suggest that the big bad oil companies have much more capability to improve our environment than the City of Portland, or Multnomah County. If a City or County Commissioner has a position paper or staff member devoted to global warming or foreign policy, they are pissing in the global wind. The problem is much bigger than municipal government. I'm not suggesting they should not act responsibly; but it is political advantage (not environmental protection) that motivates them.

If you want to improve Oregon's air quality, you would start lobbying China for greater democracy and environmental protection. The entire population of Oregon could swear off fossil fuels forever (which you would probably endorse!) and it would have virtually zero global impact. Particulates from China are flying in the jetstream as I type, speeding from the Gobi desert at nearly 200 mph.

China has 41 cities with a population exceeding 1 million (see below), and a total population of 1.24 billion. They currently represent 80% of the incremental global demand for oil: Portland doesn't even rank as a bit player in the global warming game. It is mental masturbation to pretend the City of Portland is going to have a material impact on global warming.

1 Shanghai SH 9,838,400 2 Beijing BJ 7,441,000 3 Tianjin TJ 5,095,900 4 Wuhan HB 4,488,900 5 Guangzhou GD 4,154,800 6 Shenyang LN 3,981,000 7 Chongqing CQ 3,934,200 8 Nanjing JS 2,822,100 9 Harbin HL 2,672,100 10 Xi'an SN 2,589,000 11 Chengdu SC 2,341,100 12 Changchun JL 2,223,200 13 Dalian LN 2,118,100 14 Hangzhou ZJ 1,932,600 15 Jinan SD 1,917,200 16 Taiyuan SX 1,906,500 17 Qingdao SD 1,867,400 18 Zhengzhou HEN 1,692,400 19 Shijiazhuang HEB 1,632,300 20 Kunming YN 1,549,600 21 Lanzhou GS 1,527,400 22 Zibo SD 1,514,000 23 Changsha HN 1,489,300 24 Nanchang JX 1,386,500 25 Urumqi XJ 1,359,000 26 Guiyang GZ 1,341,200 27 Anshan LN 1,287,100 28 Tangshan HEB 1,279,200 29 Wuxi JS 1,265,700 30 Jilin JL 1,244,700 31 Fushun LN 1,244,100 32 Fuzhou FJ 1,172,200 33 Suzhou JS 1,170,600 34 Baotou NM 1,146,500 35 Qiqihar HL 1,125,900 36 Xuzhou JS 1,120,500 37 Hefei AH 1,107,100 38 Handan HEB 1,069,100 39 Shenzhen GD 1,061,200 40 Luoyang HEN 1,043,200 41 Nanning GX 1,016,100

A couple of things:
I don't link behavior to genetics, but when a previous argument aligns with African-Americans, it opened the door for that statement. No one answered my question, citing the example of defying the law in Coos County. Because in my opinion, I thought serving beer to military minors was the right course of action. Although, in violation of the law. How is that no different of the actions of the other Multnomah or Benton County. Now the name calling, let's define these names (per Princeton online dictionary.
race: people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock. racist: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others. Bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. (Bigotry, act of being a bigot, more or less) Now, back to genetics. I don't define these things, someone else did. So as a Gay Person, you can't define being Gay as a race. Back to my original arguement. I wouldn't be considered a racist in this case. A better defination for me would be a bigot. But, in my previous post, I was willing to explore the prospects of SB 1000. So I can't be a total bigot, as I was able to consider a differing course of action, if adequately explained. So now, would the Multnomah County Commissioners who supported Gay Marriage at the expense of the law and have not modified their position(opinion), also be considered bigots? Now for something completely different, don't know how the global warming got involved, but I have to concur with Anderholt with anecdotal evidence, as I have been to Hong Kong many times over the last 18 years, and their air quality has degraded significiantly. (Couldn't resist.)

I don't know what you're saying when you say they haven't modified their opinions.

Given that two of the Multnomah County Commissioners who supported the gay marriage action are attorneys, I think they really believe they were upholding the law (and, albeit not publicly, that the Supreme Court misread/misapplied the law about County authority).

Commissioner Cruz attended Boalt (Berkeley), one of the nation's top law schools.

They've indicate a willingness to accept the decision.

As they say, you get three lawyers in a room, you'll get four opinions on what the law is.

In repy to K. Sudbeck: I was contrasting global warming (a classic soap-box issue over which Multnomah can have little or no impact) versus something they have actually been empowered to maintain/operate: bridges and jails.

Methinks the county doth protest too loudly.

In reply to Yoram: if the three lawyers are Oregon Supreme Court Judges, the other lawyers in the room don't much matter.

Thanks for the clarification. KJS

K. Sudbeck: "A better defination for me would be a bigot. But, in my previous post, I was willing to explore the prospects of SB 1000. So I can't be a total bigot, as I was able to consider a differing course of action, if adequately explained."

So people who might have suggested that blacks be given their own seat in the front of the bus as a possilbe solution wouldn't have been considered bigots?

I think having the opinion that only heterosexuals have the right to marriage, makes a person intolerent and simply being willing to give them their own seat up front doesn't really cut it -- especially if you are considering same-sex couples at all only "if adequately explained."

Yoram, Law Schools attended by members of the Oregon Supreme Court: Harvard, University of Chicago, Stanford, Oregon, Georgetown, Virginia, and Williamette. Depending on your view of Oregon Law Schools, not a bunch of slouches either. Legal Opinion is the exact phrase I would use and by the way they wrote their letters grudgingly accepting the OSC decision. I will take the compliation of prominent law schools above over one California school, as to who made the right or wrong legal decision.

GA-Keith, One of my line of arguement is that Gays can't compare themselves to the Blacks, because Gay isn't a race. The US Government doesn't recognize being Gay as a race, as per the 2000 US Census. Being Black is recognized as such. On my Oregon Marriage Certificate, issued by Douglas County, there is a signature for a bride and a groom. Bride is defined as a women(Princeton Online Dictionary) and Groom is defined as a man. The Certificate is a legal document as defined by current legal methodology and law.(Discussed above) So as expressed by the Oregon Supreme Court and approved by the people, marriage is defined between a man and a women, no where does it state that they have to be heterosexuals or homosexuals. You can call me intolerant all you want, but I have to follow the law and so do you. I am not even a bigot, but I do have a partiality that could prevent objective consideration of an issue or situation. So that makes me a bit prejudiced, but willing to explore arguements over the SB1000.

<hr/>