- Same-sex marriage in Oregon
In 2004 and 2005, there was controversy and political disagreement concerning the status of
same-sex marriagein Oregon. In 2004, Multnomah County began issuing same-sex marriagelicenses, which began a political battle over same-sex marriage that ended later that year with an amendment to the Oregon Constitution. In 2005, the legislature introduced a bill to create civil unionswhich eventually died in committee and did "not" become law.
Currently, the state of Oregon does not recognize same-sex marriage. However, the governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, signed a domestic partnership bill into law on
9 May 2007. Called the Oregon Family Fairness Act, the law would provide several major rights to same-sex couples that were previously only given to married couples, including the ability to file jointly on insurance forms, hospital visitation rights, and rights relating to the deceased partner. While January 1 2008was the date the statute would have taken effect, a court challenge delayed its implementation until being resolved on February 1 2008, and the law went into effect that day, with registrations set to begin on February 4 2008. cite web
url = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/03oregon.html
title = Ruling Allows Legal Status for Partners of Same Sex
publisher = New York Times
February 3 2008
accessdate = 2008-02-03 ]
The Oregon Constitution now states: "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."Human Rights Campaign [http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&CONTENTID=27835&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm] Accessed November 14, 2006]
A Timeline of the Dispute over Same-Sex Marriages in Oregon
March 3 2004: The Multnomah County government began issuing licenses for same-sex marriages, pursuant to a legal opinion issued by its attorney deeming such marriages lawful. [ cite web
url = http://www.oregonlive.com/special/gaymarriage/
title=Judge upholds ban: A Marion County judge rejects constitutional challenges to last year's Ballot Measure 36
publisher = The Oregonian
accessdate = 2008-02-03]
On the first day, Multnomah county issued 422 marriage licenses, compared to 68 on an average day. Local businesses reported an up-tick in sales of flowers and other marriage-related services directly related to the beginning of same-sex marriages. According to the 2000 US Census, 3,242 same-sex couples were living in the county.
March 9 2004: At the first legal hearing, County Circuit Judge Dale Koch refused to issue an injunction stopping the ceremonies. [cite news
title=Multnomah Co. judge refuses to halt same-sex marriages
March 8 2004
As of the hearing, approximately 1,700 marriage licenses had already been issued by the county. A later study by "
The Oregonian" revealed that the first week's 2,026 people from Multnomah County had received licenses, about one third of the 2000 census figure, about 900 other people came from other locations in Oregon, about 490 from the state of Washington, and 30 from other states.Fact|date=March 2007
10 March 2004: Attorney Greg Chaimov, the State Legislature's Legislative Counsel, issued an opinion stating that counties in Oregon could not prohibit same-sex couples from receiving marriage licenses. [cite web
url = http://communique.portland.or.us/documents/040309/legislative_counsel_ssm.pdf
title = Same-Sex Marriage: letter to Senator Kate Brown (Senate Democratic Leader)
author = Gregory A. Chaimov, Legislative Counsel
March 8 2004
accessdate = 2008-02-03]
March 12 2004: Attorney General Hardy Myersissued his office's opinion, [cite web|url=http://www.doj.state.or.us/pdfs/AG_samesexopinion.pdf|title=www.doj.state.or.us/pdfs/AG_samesexopinion.pdf |format=PDF] after reviewing it with the governor. He concluded:
** current Oregon laws prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples;
** under current law, the legal status of being "married" carries with it legal rights, benefits, and obligations;
Oregon Supreme Courtlikely would conclude that withholding from same-sex couples the legal rights, benefits, and obligations that — under current law — are automatically granted to married couples of the opposite sex likely violates Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution; but
** because of the uncertainties about the Article I, Section 20 analysis that the Oregon Supreme Court would bring to bear on the question, it would be unwise to change current state practices unless and until a decision by the Supreme Court makes clear what, if any, changes are required.
The Attorney General stated that his office lacked the authority to order Multnomah County to cease issuing licenses for same-sex marriages.
15 March 2004: Multnomah County commissioners announced that they would continue to issue licenses to same-sex couples. [cite news
title=Same-sex weddings continue; validity in doubt
publisher=Salem Statesman Journal
16 March 2004
16 March 2004: Following public hearings, Benton County commissioners voted 2-1 to start issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, beginning Wednesday, 24 March 2004.
22 March 2004: After receiving two letters from the attorney general and a phone call threatening to arrest the county clerk, the Benton county commissioners reversed their decision and voted to issue no marriage licenses of any kind—neither same-sex nor opposite-sex—pending a decision by the Multnomah County Court. [cite web|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/special/gaymarriage/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1080046579104020.xml|title=www.oregonlive.com/special/gaymarriage/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1080046579104020.xml ]
Both sides agreed to let three couples with venue sue the state of Oregon in Multnomah County Court to settle the issue. The suit was named "Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon, et al.", after Mary Li and Rebecca Kennedy, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license from Multnomah County.
April 16 2004: Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Unionand Basic Rights Oregonpresented arguments in favor of the couples, while attorneys for the Oregon Department of Justice and Defense of Marriage Coalition[cite web|url=http://www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org/|title=www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org/ ] argued against the County's actions before Judge Frank Bearden.
April 20 2004: In "Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon", Judge Bearden ordered the county to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses, while simultaneously ordering the state of Oregon to recognize the 3,022 same-sex marriage licenses already issued. The Oregon state registrar had been holding the completed licenses, rather than entering them into the state's records system, pending a court decision as to their validity. Judge Bearden also found that the Oregon Constitutionwould likely allow some form of marriage rights to same-sex couples, and directed the Legislature to act on the issue within 90 days of the start of its next session. He ruled that, should they fail to successfully address the issue within that time, Multnomah County would be free to resume issuing same-sex marriage licenses. It was understood that both parties would appeal the decision.
May 21 2004: The Defense of Marriage Coalition got legal approval for the language of a proposed initiativeto prohibit same-sex marriage. They begin to circulate petitions to obtain the 100,840 valid signatures needed by July 2 so it could be submitted to a vote in the November general election.
July 9 2004: In "Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon", the Court of Appeals lifted a temporary ban blocking the registration of the marriage licenses already issued by Multnomah County, pending the case concerning their validity being heard by the Oregon Supreme Court. The state began processing the licenses within hours, announcing they would have the work done within a week.
November 2 2004: Oregonians voted 57% to 43% to pass Ballot Measure 36, a constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. The Defense of Marriage Coalition claimed that Opponents of Measure 36 outspent their group more than 2 to 1. [cite web
title=Christian voters' impact in Oregon still under review
December 15 2004: The Oregon Supreme Court heard arguments in "Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon".
** State of Oregon argued that:
*** Multnomah County did not have the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses to remedy a perceived constitutional violation.
*** Ballot Measure 36 was retroactive, making the issue of those licenses moot.
** The Defense of Marriage Coalition argued that:
*** Measure 36 was not retroactive and thus the issue of the licenses was not moot
*** There had been no constitutional violation of the rights of same-sex couples
*** Even if there had been a constitutional violation, Multnomah County did not have the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses to remedy it.
** The ACLU argued that:
*** Measure 36 was not retroactive (and thus that the issue of the licenses was not moot)
*** Same-sex couples are protected under the Equal Privileges and Immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution and that their rights to marriage had been violated.
*** Counties are required to remedy perceived constitutional violations.
April 14 2005: The Oregon State Supreme Court decided "Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon", ruling that Multnomah County lacked the authority to remedy a perceived violation of the Oregon Constitution. [cite web|url=http://www.ojd.state.or.us/SCA/WebMediaRel.nsf/12dcaa278a9ef13688256c8d007729df/cb3b1bd8aea1b3f588256fe30050ebdf?OpenDocument|title=www.ojd.state.or.us/SCA/WebMediaRel.nsf/12dcaa278a9ef13688256c8d007729df/cb3b1bd8aea1b3f588256fe30050ebdf?OpenDocument ] All such licenses were ruled void from their inception, and the court further ruled that the Oregon Constitution now expressly limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court declined to rule as to whether or not same-sex couples had any rights under the Equal Privileges and Immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution.
In 2005, Oregon state senators passed a bill creating legal recognition for same-sex couples. The legislature subsequently made changes to the legislation which greatly reduced the number of protections afforded. After these changes, the bill never made it out of committee.
In early 2007, a bill was introduced in the House similar to the 2005 legislation which adopted the term "domestic partnership" to describe these unions and avoided both the "marriage" and "civil union" monikers. This bill passed both houses of the legislature and was signed into law on
May 9 2007to take effect January 1 2008. However a court challenge delayed its implementation until it could be resolved on February 1 2008, and went into effect that day with registrations set to begin on February 4 2008.
* [http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12226lgl20050414.html Li & Kennedy v. Oregon Decision]
* [http://www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org Oregon Defense of Marriage Coalition]
* [http://www.doj.state.or.us/hot_topics/samesex.shtml Oregon Department of Justice page devoted to same-sex marriage]
* [http://www.basicrights.org Basic Rights Oregon]
* [http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=236 The Money Behind the 2004 Marriage Amendments] —National Institute on Money in State Politics
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
Same-sex marriage in California — Same sex marriage is valid and recognized in California. California is the second U.S. state, after Massachusetts, to make marriage licenses available to same sex couples. The status of same sex marriage in California has been a contentious… … Wikipedia
Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by state — This article summarizes the legal and political actions taken by the individual states of the United States regarding same sex marriage. The texts are following.Laws Regarding Same Sex Partnerships in the United Stateslegend|#ed1e24|Constitution… … Wikipedia
Same-sex marriage — Legal recognition of same sex relationships Marriage Argentina Belgium Canada Iceland … Wikipedia
Same-sex marriage in New York — Legal recognition of same sex relationships Marriage Argentina Belgium Canada Iceland Netherlands Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden … Wikipedia
Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia — Legal recognition of same sex relationships Marriage Argentina Belgium Canada Iceland Netherlands Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden … Wikipedia
Same-sex marriage in the United States — in the United States and elsewhere. The social movement to obtain the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States for same sex couples began in the early 1970s, and the issue became a prominent one in U.S. politics in the 1990s … Wikipedia
Same-sex marriage in New England — The New England region of the United States is shaded in red, above … Wikipedia
Same-sex marriage in Connecticut — Legal recognition of same sex relationships Marriage Argentina Belgium Canada Iceland Netherlands Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden … Wikipedia
Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire — Legal recognition of same sex relationships Marriage Argentina Belgium Canada Iceland Netherlands Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden … Wikipedia
Same-sex marriage in Vermont — Legal recognition of same sex relationships Marriage Argentina Belgium Canada Iceland Netherlands Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden … Wikipedia