Oregon’s lopsided marriage hearing

Timothy Kincaid

April 18th, 2014

There is never a foregone conclusion when it comes to court cases, but if there were it would be the case on Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In 2004, Oregonians voted to prohibit the legal recognition of marriage to one man and one woman. In October of 2013, two separate lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of that ban, and the consolidated case will be heard on April 23 before U.S. District Judge Michael McShane.

But Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum will not be defending the ban. She believes it to be an unconstitutional violation of civil rights. Instead she filed a brief stating that, “This case presents that rare case in which there simply is no legal argument to be made in support of a state law.”

Nor will the Governor be defending the ban. Nor any other state officer. Nor any intervenor. In fact, no one at all will be there to argue on the law’s defense.

This does make it difficult for a judge to rule in the law’s favor. Without some brief to quote or some argument to accept, a justice is limited to relying on outside or third party argument, such as an amicus brief.

And plenty of amicus briefs have been filed. For example Nike and Intel and Kaiser and a bunch of other businesses filed a brief saying that the ban was bad for business. And gay groups filed briefs saying that the ban was unconstitutional. But those won’t be much use to a judge looking for a legal argument for keeping the ban. (Oregonlive.com)

Opponents of gay marriage have stayed away from McShane’s court — declining, for example, to file any “friend of the court” briefs aimed at influencing his thinking. Some say there’s little reason to get involved since they don’t have standing to appeal.

However, I suppose, were a justice sufficiently driven by his own anti-gay animus he might create out of whole cloth a reason why gay people are not entitled to equal status as citizens. Despite a growing list of courts that have found for equality, from the right and the left, we know that someone like Antonin Scalia would have little hesitation to impose his religious doctrine on top the Constitution and find within the catechism what he needs to oppose equality.

Except Judge McShane is not such a judge.

Unlike the five federal judges who have struck down laws prohibiting same-sex marriages in other states in recent months, McShane won’t have anyone in the courtroom defending Oregon’s constitutional ban when he holds oral arguments Wednesday.

And, unlike the other judges, McShane also happens to be one of just nine openly gay members of the federal judiciary, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

There is never a foregone conclusion when it comes to court cases. But if there were…

CPT_Doom

April 18th, 2014

Apparently the state is already changing its marriage forms to reflect the likely outcome. Not to take an early victory lap, but this certainly seems like a slam dunk.

Nathaniel

April 18th, 2014

Are there any cases progressing in the 9th circuit that Judge McShane might defer to instead? Of course, since the 9th declared LGBT rights require heightened scrutiny, even that might be a moot point.

David in the O.C.

April 18th, 2014

I’m wondering what happened to the original group that got the anti-gay amendment on the ballot in the first place. Why aren’t they trying to defend the law that they helped pass? — Not that I want them to appear in court. But I think it’s odd that no one is trying to defend the amendment. That seems unheard of.

Richard Rush

April 18th, 2014

Why is ADF AWOL?

Sandhorse

April 18th, 2014

Even so, I don’t think he’ll escape the ‘activist judge’ label when all is said and done.

Mark F.

April 18th, 2014

I think a judge could find some way to rule that it’s a state issue without bringing in anti-gay animus. All judges make rulings contrary to their political opinions at times. But a judge could just say that Baker is still controlling precedent, as SCOTUS has not overruled it.

Lindoro Almaviva

April 18th, 2014

I’m wondering what happened to the original group that got the anti-gay amendment on the ballot in the first place.

My guess is that they are not allowed to intervene. Given the fact that the SCOTUS declared the proponents of Prop * did not have standing to defend the law in CA, I would say the same rule applies here.

There is never a foregone conclusion when it comes to court cases. But if there were…

I would add: There is never a foregone conclusion when it comes to Anti-Gay Inc’s reactions to court cases; specially those that go against their desires. But if there were… I can see the reaction now “Well, the judge was gay, what did you expect? His judgement was couded by his carnal desires. I guarantee you if it had been a different judge we would have a different opinion.” Never mind the inconvenient fact that every judge that has ruled on this issue since the Prop * decision has been heterosexual.

Soren456

April 18th, 2014

Also part of the quoted newspaper story:

“In an initial court hearing with attorneys involved with the current case, McShane made clear his willingness to recuse himself if there were any concerns – and he didn’t hear any.”

The “gay judge” nonsense will be even more nonsensical when its distributors are asked explain this.

corey

April 18th, 2014

I know Melissa won’t be making my cake!

Hunter

April 19th, 2014

It’s obviously a conspiracy — the whole state of Oregon has been taken over by Gay, Inc. Or the gaystapo. Or something.

I’m surprised at the lack of participation by the anti-marriage crowd. I can see them recognizing a lost cause, but I can’t see them admitting it.

Michael Moore

April 19th, 2014

I’m wondering what happened to the original group that got the anti-gay amendment on the ballot in the first place.

The original group is pretty diminished in capacity and influence, so my guess is they aren’t intervening because they don’t have to resources to devote to a a lost cause. The main group that pushed Measure 36 (which amended the state constitution) was the Oregon Family Council, which at the time had Scott Lively as its most high-profile spokesperson. Lively has since moved on. The other organizations and individuals who jumped on the Measure 36 bandwagon have other fish to fry — mostly of the anti-tax, anti-government variety capitalists and conservatives love.

The Oregon Family Council’s current tactic is pushing a “Protect Religious Freedom” initiative, which is similar to efforts in other states designed to allow businesses to skirt public accommodation laws. Last year a bakery in Gresham (just east of Portland) refused to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, an incident that got a fair amount of publicity. The OFC is focused on trying to use that to build momentum for its initiative effort.

The fact that they are taking that route is probably tacit admission that they have already lost the battle to “defend marriage,” though as far as I know they’ve never explicitly said that.

Charlie

April 21st, 2014

Nine years ago is an awfully long time in the gay marriage fight. I have to figure that if the ban went back to the ballot now, it’d fail.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Emphasis Mine

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1980: Tickets, Tux, and a Court Order -- A Male Couple Attends Senior Prom

Born On This Day, 1926: Christine Jorgenson

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1965: Second White House Protest

Today In History, 1981: "Polyester" Premieres

Today In History, 1987: Barney Frank Comes Out

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.