More coverage on today's OSC ruling
The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County a year ago.
The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.
The court noted that last November, Oregonians approved a constitutional amendment that limits marriages to a man and a woman. The court also said that long before that vote, state law had set the same limitations on marriages since Oregon became a state.
"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," the court ruling said.
The court left the door open for state legislators to craft an alternative to gay marriages, such as civil unions.
"We conclude that Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state's legislative power," the court said.
A day earlier, Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he will push for a law allowing gay couples in Oregon to form civil unions that would give them many of the rights available to married couples.
Members of the Legislature have been awaiting the ruling to give them guidance on how to proceed on the issue of same-sex couples.
Vermont is the first and still the only state to offer civil unions to gays, passing a law in 2000. Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since May.
Multnomah County began issuing marriages to gay couples last April, arguing that not doing so violated the state Constitution. A judge ordered the practice to cease about six weeks later, but not before nearly 3,000 same-sex couples had wed.
Marte Sheehan, who married Linda Duchek last March, said she was disappointed with the ruling but had hopes the Legislature would pass a bill allowing civil unions.
"I believe that ultimately the Legislature will do the right thing," she said.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, April 14, 2005 at 9:42 AM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
ByI respect Dianne for everything she has done. People can argue that they move was bad in March but I disagree. Things will take time. We may get civil unions and the anti-discrimination bill (SB1000) passed this year - but full equality will take time and no one can expect things to just happen in a year. Keep fighting!
By
Looks like Diane's "perceived" power is about as real as a transsexual's "perceived" gender. How can you respect her for breaking the law? She certainly didn't do anything to help your cause.
http://danielisright.blogspot.com
By
Daniel Daniel Daniel. What happened to our friendship? :) You still disappoint.
"Perceived power"? Every single elected official has the responsibility to uphold the constitution just as much as the president of the US does. You need to understand that. Don't fight that because it is simply a fact. As happy as you may be from this ruling you need to understand that there are a lot of people including myself that range from being upset to anger. This anger will not just be anger that we simply keep as anger - this anger and frustration will be used to further our cause. Let me just tell you it's on. It's on like you would not believe. In the next few years there will be major change in Oregon and I plan on being a huge part of that. It's all a matter of time my dear friend.
The ruling today was very confusing - from a legal standpoint. I won't go into it, but it leaves a lot of things open. I won't deny that it hurts to see friends who have been together for MUCH longer than you and your wife and they are in pain. Can you imagine? This pain will turn into more will to fight. I look forward to this...
By
We can still be friends BHB even though we disagree. I'm sorry that some people don't like our public policy. Lot's of people don't like lot's of public policies. This ruling does not affect the love that two people might have for each other at all. It is external recognition that was sought. But even if government said it was recognized it would have been pointless because you can't force people to approve of your lifestyle.
I'm wondering, by "it's on" do you mean that you will try to change public opinion or do you just want the ACLU to sue everyone until government is forced to change?
» Post a Comment