OREGON: Judge To Hear Arguments On NOM's Motion To Intervene On Wednesday

On Wednesday, openly gay U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane will hear oral arguments on NOM's motion to intervene in Oregon's marriage case. This weekend NOM chairman John Eastman filed a brief in which he blasts Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum for "dereliction of duty" for her refusal to defend the state's marriage ban.

The NOM brief said that while Rosenblum made clear on Feb. 20 that she wouldn't defend the law, it wasn't until March 18 "that the full depth of her dereliction of duty became apparent." That's when Rosenblum said in a brief that McShane should apply a tough "heightened scrutiny" standard, used in cases involving fundamental rights, to passing judgment on Oregon's same-sex marriage ban, NOM said. The organization also charged that Rosenblum "disparagingly characterized Oregon's citizens who voted in favor of Oregon's marriage amendment" when she said those voters wanted to "to enshrine in the state constitution a belief that same-sex couples are disfavored."

NOM said its concern about intervening was also heightened in April when it learned that State Registrar Jennifer Woodward had notified county clerks that the state was ready to immediately provide new forms recognizing same-sex marriage if the judge struck down Oregon's ban. "The scheme to accelerate the implementation of the assumed outcome of this collusive lawsuit confirms the imperative that an adversarial intervention is required," NOM wrote. The marriage group is seeking to intervene on behalf of NOM members who are a county clerk in Oregon, people involved in the wedding business and voters who approved Measure 36.

NOM has refused to identify its Oregon members on whose behalf they are seeking to intervene. Because those members "fear reprisals." Courts tend to take a dim view of anonymous litigants. 

Read NOM's brief in full.

OREGON: AG Ellen Rosenblum Files Objection To NOM's Demand To Intervene

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has filed an objection to NOM's demand to intervene in that state's marriage equality case, calling it an "unreasonable" delaying tactic.

Rosenblum, who has joined plaintiffs in urging the judge to overturn Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage, charged that the anti-gay marriage group had no reasonable basis for waiting so long before attempting to intervene in the case. She also said in a legal brief filed Friday that NOM hasn't raised any new issues in the case and that only the attorney general can represent the state's interests. NOM filed a motion to intervene in the case less than 48 hours before McShane held oral arguments on April 23 on why the parties in the case believe that Oregon's prohibition on same-sex marriage violates federal constitutional protections.

Rosenblum says that NOM "fails to identify any argument that has not already been presented to this Court by the defendants. Instead, what it would appear to offer this Court is the same arguments identified and presented by the state defendants without the context of how those arguments fail when considered in the full context of Oregon law." NOM has until Friday to file their reply brief. Openly gay US District Court Judge Michael McShane has scheduled oral arguments for May 14th.

Read Rosenblum's full objection.

Oregon AG Files Brief: Ban Serves No Rational Purpose And Harms Citizens

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum tonight filed a response brief in the same-sex marriage case, declaring, "The state defendants in this case recognize that the ban on same-sex marriage serves no rational purpose and harms Oregon citizens. This case presents that rare case in which there simply is no legal argument to be made in support of a state law." Last month Rosenblum announced that she would not defend the lawsuit.

Oregon United For Marriage reacts via press release: "We are literally counting down the days until all loving and committed couples in Oregon have the freedom to marry, and we are thrilled that the attorney general is on the right side of history. No one should be told it is illegal to marry the person they love. Freedom means freedom for everyone."

Later in the brief, Rosenblum says this: "Other state attorneys general and governors have reached similar conclusions about the defensibility of state laws, and responded by simply declining to appear in defense or withdrawing and joining forces with those challenging the laws. The Oregon state defendants believe it is more appropriate to remain as parties to this litigation to ensure that this Court has the benefit of the careful legal analysis that the state defendants have undertaken."

The lawsuit was filed in October 2013 by local attorneys on behalf of one unmarried Oregon couple and another couple who married in Canada. The suit is separate from the petition drive to place a repeal of the marriage ban on the ballot. That campaign has been put on hold pending the ruling in the lawsuit. Oral arguments in the lawsuit are scheduled for April 23rd.

Read today's brief in full at my Scribd account.

Brian Brown Has The Oregon Sadz

"Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty to defend the marriage amendment overwhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon. She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with. The people are entitled to a vigorous defense of the laws they enact, and the marriage amendment is no exception to that solemn obligation. Further, Ms. Rosenblum is dead-wrong in her conclusion that the amendment cannot be supported by rational legal arguments. Just last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that regulating marriage is the purview of the states, not the federal government. Most recently, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ordered a decision to invalidate Utah's marriage amendment to be stayed, strongly signaling that the Court believes there is a good likelihood that the state will win its appeal against the ruling issued by an activist federal judge. Marriage is our only institution that exists to bring men and women together to benefit the couple and to provide an ideal environment for any children produced by their union. It can and must be defended as a unique, essential and profoundly good institution." - Hate group leader Brian Brown, in his second case of the sadz today.

BREAKING: Oregon AG Says She Won't Defend Against Gay Marriage Suit

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced today that she will not defend the state against the marriage equality lawsuit filed in federal court in October. Rosenblum said that she will continue to enforce the gay marriage ban until the court rules, but adds that the ban "cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review." Here's a reminder about the suit, which is scheduled to have oral arguments on April 23th:

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene by Portland attorneys Lake Perriguey and Lea Ann Easton on behalf of two gay couples, seeks to have 2004's Measure 36 ruled unconstitutional. It names Gov. John Kitzhaber and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, as well as a few other officials, as defendants. It argues that one couple—Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson—should be able to legally marry. The other plaintiffs, Robert Deuhmig and William Griesar, were legally married in Vancouver, B.C., and wish to have their rights recognized in Oregon. The suit is separate from the anticipated $12 million campaign to overturn Measure 36 being orchestrated by Oregon United for Marriage. Volunteers are collecting signatures to put an initiative on the ballot next year.

Rosenblum is a Democrat and Oregon's first female Attorney General. I think I hear some sadz coming 'round the bend!

UPDATE: Freedom To Marry reacts.

“Attorney General Rosenblum is right in refusing to waste taxpayers’ dollars by defending the indefensible anti-marriage law in Oregon. Rosenblum is joined by other attorneys general from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada; and even Republican Governor Brian Sandoval in Nevada, who all came to the same conclusion that the state cannot in good conscience defend a law denying committed same-sex couples the freedom to marry. The rapid momentum for the freedom to marry in states across the country underscores the understanding that the Constitution’s guarantee of the freedom to marry and equal protection under the law apply to gay and non-gay people alike. America – and Oregon – are ready for the freedom to marry.”

UPDATE II: Oregon United reacts. Pay attention to the second paragraph.

“This is tremendous news. The Attorney General has taken a close look at the facts, and came to the same conclusion that courts around the country and freedom-minded Oregonians have: there is no reasonable or legal justification to exclude committed gay and lesbian couples from marriage,” campaign manager Mike Marshall says. “The dramatic increase in Oregonians’ support for the freedom to marry—from 42 percent support in May 2010 to 55 percent support today—mirrors the movement we’re seeing nationally. More and more people understand that no one should be denied the freedom to marry the person they love.”

Oregon United for Marriage also announced today it has gathered enough signatures to to be assured a place on the November 2014 ballot. 116,284 are required but the campaign has gathered more than 160,000 signatures—well over the requirement and more than enough to qualify for the November ballot. Oregon United will hold onto the signatures, pending the outcome of the federal lawsuit.