| Attorney General's opinion is that the ban on gay marriage in Oregon is probably unconstitutional.
Oregon county defies state on gay marriage
Officials continue to issue same-sex wedding licenses
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Confident that their state's marriage law is unconstitutional, four county commissioners in Portland are standing tough against the governor and attorney general, both of whom have advised Multnomah County to stop marrying gays.
Though Attorney General Hardy Myers issued an opinion last week admitting that Supreme Court judges would likely find unconstitutional the Oregon statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman, he said it would nonetheless "be unwise to change current state practices" until directed by a court.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski immediately echoed Myers' decision. Denying marriage licenses to gay couples might be unconstitutional, he said, but the state needed consistency, county to county.
Supporters of gay marriage appeared flabbergasted by both statements.
"This is Law School 101," said Multnomah County Commissioner Lisa Naito, a lawyer who was among the first to investigate the legality of Oregon's laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "You learn in the first week of class that the constitution always prevails when state law is wrong."
Naito said she found it "embarrassing" that the governor was counseling Multnomah County to discriminate against gays when his own research had revealed the inconsistency between Oregon's marriage law and the state constitution, which prohibits discrimination against a class of people.
"He took the politically expedient course," she said, "and cowers behind a state statute he and the attorney general know violates people's constitutional rights."
She urged gay couples to press the issue.
"In my view, same-sex couples should be lining up at county clerks' offices across the state to ask, 'Will you issue us a marriage license today in accordance with the Oregon Constitution, or will you discriminate and show prejudice?' "
The question, all parties agreed, requires a judge's ruling as soon as possible, and David Fidanque, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Oregon, said his group would file a lawsuit by the end of the week, either on behalf of a gay couple unable to marry elsewhere in Oregon, or against state officials refusing to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples wed in Multnomah County.
"I think we all agree -- ironically -- on what the court is most likely to say," Fidanque said. "The state and other counties are out of step with the constitution. Where we disagree is on whether the governor and the attorney general have a duty to enforce the constitution before the court speaks. Apparently they believe their oath of office doesn't mean anything."
There are already two cases pending that seek to prohibit marriage licenses from being issued to gay couples in Oregon, but Fidanque doubted they would get to the heart of the constitutional issue.
In Washington, defenders of traditional marriage are watching intently.
"These are counterfeit marriage licenses and I think pretty much everyone recognizes that," said Rick Forcier, executive director of the Christian Coalition of Washington.
But Washington's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act was challenged last week by six Seattle couples who filed suit, saying it violated the state's equal protection clause.
Meanwhile, in New York, two Unitarian ministers were criminally charged yesterday for marrying 13 gay couples.
Tanya Plaid, an event planner in Seattle who married her partner in Oregon the day Multnomah County began issuing licenses, said the legal furor had created not a shred of doubt in her mind.
"It's two weeks later and I'm just as married as I was the day we went to Portland," Plaid said. Still, the conflicting positions of government officials across the country had left her wondering when all the questions would be resolved in court.
"On a civil rights issue like this, what is 'soon?' " she asked. "I don't know if that means 10 years or one year, but I think we're in it for the long haul." | |
