Oregon United drops ballot measure (updated)

Timothy Kincaid

May 23rd, 2014

In July 2013, Oregon United for Marriage began the process of collecting signatures to place a proposition on the ballot to reverse the state’s 2004 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. With significant high-profile political support and large contributions from some of Oregon’s corporate giants like Nike, they reached their goal of 116,000 signatures with an extra 50,000 to allow for errors or duplicates.

Earlier this year, in a brief submitted to the court, Oregon United stated that if Judge McShane ruled the ban unconstitutional by May 23rd, they would drop their ballot effort. The judge ruled earlier this week and the state will not appeal his ruling. So today Oregon United announced that they are discontinuing the process.

Today is May 23—and following Judge Michael McShane’s ruling that extended the freedom to marry to all loving, committed couples in Oregon, a ballot campaign to address the same issue is no longer needed. “We are confident that the freedom to marry is secure in Oregon and that we do not need to move forward with the ballot measure,” said Oregon United for Marriage deputy campaign manager Amy Ruiz. “It is time to celebrate this victory for Oregon.

UPDATE

Oregon United had accumulated hundreds of thousands of dollars in anticipation of needing a media campaign for the proposition. Now they are giving it back. (Statesman Journal)

That money came in large part from donations from other organizations like Basic Rights Oregon, the ACLU of Oregon, SEIU Local 503, Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, Gill Action Fund and the American Unity Fund.

And those groups will be getting some of that money back.

The marriage campaign’s executive committee has decided to return its remaining resources to its major donors in proportion to what they gave to the campaign.

Classy move.

Mark F.

May 25th, 2014

Is this really a good idea? It’s at least possible that SCOTUS will uphold same sex marriage bans at some point. I figure there are 4 votes for that, and who knows about Justice Kennedy?

Timothy Kincaid

May 25th, 2014

Mark,

I don’t believe that Oregon is being appealed. So I’m not sure that there is a vehicle by which it can be overturned irrespective of SCOTUS

Mark F.

May 26th, 2014

Tim, if SCOTUS upholds all same sex marriage bans as a general principle, wouldn’t that overturn all lower court rulings to the contrary? Isn’t that how it would work?

Timothy Kincaid

May 26th, 2014

Mark,

I’m not an attorney, and especially not a constitutional attorney, but no I don’t believe it works that way.

I believe that the courts could apply a ruling to all states. And if something were found to be unconstitutional, then of course it would. But I don’t think that a law that is found to be valid would apply to other states, if those states accepted the lower court’s ruling and did not appeal.

Perhaps someone better versed in the law can clarify.

Eric Payne

May 27th, 2014

Timothy,

You are correct in your response to Mark F.

If SCOTUS had ruled in either Windsor or in the Prop 8 case there was a basic constitutional righ for same-gender marriage, the fight would be over.

If some state’s ban on marriage equality were to be upheld by SCOTUS, that would not bring all the bans that have fallen back to life. What it would do, though, is to give the signal to state legislatures go ahead and write/pass NEW legislation limiting marriage to heterosexuals! as long as that legislation closely followed the wording of the Act/state constitutional amendment which was upheld.

cowboy

May 27th, 2014

I know it’s probably a little like putting the cart before the horse right now…but even my illustrious Senator Orrin Hatch thinks it will probably take a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to make same-sex marriages illegal now.

And how much more kind and understanding those citizens of Oregon are.

But in neighboring Idaho and further down in Utah it’s considered ‘anarchy’ if someone even suggests a law is unconstitutional.

I wonder what the difference between Oregon and Idaho/Utah could be? (/sarcasm) It’s a good example of where the influence of a particular sect can have on governments.

Ben In Oakland

May 27th, 2014

Cowboy, it’s a very simple mathematical difference.

Oregon minus (Utah plus Idaho) = conservative Mormons.

Much as I learned when my husbands relatives from Germany were visiting us a few years ago. He served them simply enormous steaks, any one of which I would have fed to four people.

Three Germans plus one cow = ZERO,.

cowboy

May 28th, 2014

The news just now:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57998571-90/case-gay-hatch-legal.html.csp

“Let’s face it, anybody who does not believe that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land just hasn’t been observing what’s going on,” Hatch said

— Salt Lake Tribune May 28, 2014

Jack

May 29th, 2014

I think Mark F. is correct here and that his fears are well-founded.

The Supreme Court didn’t rule on the merits in the Prop 8 case. It simply dismissed the case for lack of a defendant.

If in a future case the Supreme Court rules that bans on SSM are constitutional, any decisions handed down by federal courts striking down state bans would be voided and those bans would came back into effect. This means that CA, OR and PA would see their bans reinstated.

The reason this would happen is because the federal district court decisions that struck down the bans would be overruled.

Is this likely to happen? Who knows. But I would say that Anthony Kennedy isn’t a sure thing to legalize SSM nationwide.

Jack

May 29th, 2014

P.S.

Justice Kennedy appears to be, at least superficially, taking NOM’s position on appeal seriously, as he has asked for briefs from the Oregon parties on whether McShane’s decision should be stayed pending higher review.

I would also point out that Kennedy was NOT in the majority on the Prop 8 disposition. He apparently wanted to rule on the merits rather than dismiss for lack of standing.

Food for thought certainly.

JakeAZ

May 29th, 2014

SCOTUS is going to rule against us one way or another. All of our celebratory District and maybe even Appellate Court victories are going to be struck down by these religionist Fascists when they get to pick the perfect case to do so.

OK, I’m Danish. I tend to be on the hopeless side of things. Great for the states who have accomplished SSM w/o federal intervention (eg, NM and IA) but I fear the rest of us are goin’ down, down, down. By 2015.

Priya Lynn

May 29th, 2014

Jake, I’d be more inclined to agree with you if the lower court rulings had been mixed with some for and some against, but with a dozen courts all ruling the same way it seesm doubtful the U.S. supreme court is going to step in and say “You’re all wrong.”.

L. C. Burgundy

May 30th, 2014

Erm, IANAL, but I don’t think the Oregon or Pennsylvania decisions would be affected one way or the other by an adverse USSC decision. The standing issue applies regardless of the merits, and the USSC cannot start issuing orders on cases that are not appealed to them. Unappealed district court orders may not be precedent at all at the appellate level, but they are valid regardless.

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

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

Emphasis Mine

Today In History, 1948: "Homosexual Ring Broken Up" At Mizzou

Today In History, 1960: Daughters of Bilitis Hold First National Convention

Today In History, 1969: "One Profession Frowned Upon In Hollywood"

Today In History, 1993: Russia Decriminalizes Homosexuality

Born On This Day, 1927: Marijane Meaker

House GOP Caucus Heard "Homosexuals Worthy Of Death" Verse Before Spending Bill Vote

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.