Multnomah County sued by "Defense of Marriage Coalition" for $400k in legal fees
Opponents of same-sex marriage are calling on Multnomah County to reimburse their legal fees.
To win its lawsuit last month, the Defense of Marriage Coalition spent a total of $399,023.25, according to official records. [rumor has it that the Alliance Defense Fund paid for these legal fees not the DOMC]
In a petition filed Thursday with the Oregon Supreme Court, the anti-gay marriage coalition claims its four experienced attorneys billed 2,477.68 hours during a yearlong legal battle over Multnomah County's March 2004 decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
"This is a reasonable amount given the difficulties on this case, the experience of the litigation team, and the successful outcome," Kelly Clark, the lead attorney [and accused "rapist"] in the case, wrote in the petition.
The Oregon Supreme Court in April ruled that Multnomah County had no authority to issue licenses against state law, which allows only heterosexual marriage. [Although at the time they were issued Constitutional Amendment 36 was not even in the picture - why did the supreme court mention Measure 36 in the ruling if you cannot use newly enacted laws retroactively?]
In Oregon under certain circumstances, parties that prevail in a lawsuit can get attorney fees from the losers. It is unclear whether the Defense of Marriage Coalition will meet the test to get the fees in this case.
Multnomah County Attorney Agnes Sowle said Friday she could not comment because she had not seen the request for attorney fees.
Sowle concluded in a legal opinion last year that state marriage law violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians — refusing to give the couples marriage licenses would put the county on the losing end of a lawsuit.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Basic Rights Oregon, the states leading gay-rights group, eventually sued the state, which had refused to accept the county-issued marriage licenses.
Multnomah County intervened to defend its actions, as did the Defense of Marriage Coalition, which countersued, claiming the county had no authority to issue the licenses. [So this is where I think they will have trouble. The DOMC was not sued. Basic Rights oregon sued the State - therefore the DOMC chose to intervene in this case and therefore should not receive a penny for the money they spent on attorneys]
In April, the Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit and ruled that the 3,000-plus same-sex marriage licenses issued by Multnomah County were invalid.
This entry was posted
on Monday, May 09, 2005 at 12:27 PM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
ByThe relevance of M36 in the case was only as it relates to mootness, potentially, if the court did not otherwise conclude the case on the basis of authority at the time of issuance.
Had the DOMC folks merely offered friend of court briefs then they would get nothing. The state and Multnomah County allowed DOMC to intervene as a party. That intervention, right or wrong, was the time to wrestle. Intervention, or the right to intervene, hinges upon the notion that they have some right that could serve as the basis of a wholly independent legal action and that for other judicial reasons it is better to have those matters be lumped into another case. Why else do you think the intervention was negotiated before the DOMC dropped the other case? The money, of course.
Even a county can choose not to assert a policy choice if it costs too much to defend. In the Tanner case the judge doubled the attorney fees, if I recall correctly, within the judge's discretion.
Meanwhile, what do you think about a recent letter in The Oregonian "Government and marriage: a bad combination"?
I think is about time that the government gets out of the business of using marriage and sex as a club and carrot? It seems that the only point of government involvement here is to rally supporters and displace secular and non-sex-related matters from the agenda. There is no mystery that gay activists for government support seem to want to hammer religious groups, based solely on sex. It is, from an academic perspective, much like the public interest goal claimed by the state in Lawrence to legislate morality. Is religion and sexual morality indistinguishable; I kind of think so. Both belong outside of government, unless there is some particular harm that needs to be protected. What about the letter in The Oregonian noted above? Do you think that title of the letter should be "Government and marriage and sex: a bad combination?"
» Post a Comment