Oregon county issues same-sex marriage licenses

[Busheses]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/0...age/index.html

PORTLAND, Oregon (CNN) -- Multnomah County, Oregon's most populous county, started granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples Wednesday after the county attorney said refusing to do so is unconstitutional.

"The Oregon Constitution prohibits the county from discriminating against same-sex couples when they are applying for marriage licenses because that kind of discrimination based on gender and based on sexual orientation is not allowed in Oregon," said Multnomah County Attorney Agnes Sowle at a news conference in Portland, the county seat.

Immediately afterward, the county began handing out licenses to waiting couples, many of them clutching bouquets, some with children in tow.

One woman, holding up her license, said she had been waiting 16 years for the day. She said she and her partner planned to marry immediately.

Some couples had lined up in the wee hours of the morning outside the marriage office in Portland. Many sang the lyrics from "Chapel of Love" as they waited.

They came after Diane Linn, chairwoman of the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners, ordered the county Tuesday to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

It's unclear how state officials will respond. Attorney General Hardy Myers has been meeting with Gov. Ted Kulongoski and will soon announce the state's "marching plans," said Myers spokesman Kevin Neely.

Neely described Oregon's marriage law as "ambiguous."

The law reads: "Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable."

It is now happening everywhere........ <--- Now those are bananas wearing the gay flag. In other words, they are gay dancing bananas.

[rlj51]

Its spreading like wildfire...of course I don't see what the point is now. They all have to wait for the final say so (via a court ruling or amendment) so issuing marriage licenses all across the country seems kind of silly to me.

[C. D. Ward]

Hmmm...I do think that this situation is perhaps unique, certainly somewhat different from SF or NJ in that the actual marriage law of Oregon is truly ambiguous as to who's allowed to marry whom. It specifies age limits for both males and females but the language used does not appear to make it at all clear that males and females are intended to marry *each other* (although perhaps the entire law was not included in the article). In this case, at least, it doesn't appear that those who are issuing the marriage licenses are unequivocally violating existing law, regardless of the appropriateness of the Constitutional interpretation (which, for Oregon at least, also appears to support the decision).

[Cowthulu]

You know this is weird for me because I honestly believe if the voters of the state want to allow same-sex marriages then they have that right. I may not agree with it, but I respect it. I am not overly fond of the idea of federalizing the issue. If the people of Oregon want same-sex marriages, have at it. However if the people of Georgia for example don't want them, then they don't need to allow those marriages to take place in their state.

[C. D. Ward]

You know this is weird for me because I honestly believe if the voters of the state want to allow same-sex marriages then they have that right. I may not agree with it, but I respect it. I am not overly fond of the idea of federalizing the issue. If the people of Oregon want same-sex marriages, have at it. However if the people of Georgia for example don't want them, then they don't need to allow those marriages to take place in their state.

How then would we deal with reciprocity (state-to-state) as guaranteed in the Federal Constitution?

[Cowthulu]

Doesn't that just mean that the states would have to recoginze same-sex marriages of other states, but would not be forced to perform them?

Question also, isn't the reciprocity of states based on the 14th amendment?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Doesn't that just mean that the states would have to recoginze same-sex marriages of other states, but would not be forced to perform them?

Question also, isn't the reciprocity of states based on the 14th amendment?

Actually, I believe the 14th Amendment applied Article IV, Section 2 to State laws in addition to the original understood federal laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

All different and all getting along. And there was great rejoicing.

[Chuck Lee]

Doesn't that just mean that the states would have to recoginze same-sex marriages of other states, but would not be forced to perform them?

Yes.

Of course that just means people wanting a same sex marriage would have it done in another state, and then it would be recognized in their home state.

This would be contrary to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but I think folks are looking at that particular DoMA clause as being doomed in the long run once the courts get through with it.

[C. D. Ward]

Of course that just means people wanting a same sex marriage would have it done in another state, and then it would be recognized in their home state.

That's kind of what I was getting at. As long as one state allows it, all have to recognize it. Kind of makes it moot to vote against allowing it...

[rlj51]

How then would we deal with reciprocity (state-to-state) as guaranteed in the Federal Constitution?

Wouldn't DOMA take care of that?

[anthrogirl]

I am writing this less than ten blocks from the courthouse in Portland--indeed there is much rejoicing today. We have a substantial queer population in PDX, and Multnomah county tends to lean to the left. Get ready...

anthrogirl

[Twilly Spree]

I'll join in with a little gay banana dancing.





Aww yeah. Go little guy go!

[anthrogirl]

yee-haw!

[Chuck Lee]

Wouldn't DOMA take care of that?

It would definitely try. But the Constitution holds the trump. It's somewhat doubtful that the relevant parts of DoMA will hold up under a court challenge.

[rlj51]

It would definitely try. But the Constitution holds the trump. It's somewhat doubtful that the relevant parts of DoMA will hold up under a court challenge.

In other words, we're back to a constitutional amendment as the only viable option to protect traditional marriage?