Same-sex unions in Oregon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Same-sex marriage |
|---|
| Performed nationwide in |
|
Netherlands (2001) |
| Performed statewide in |
| Massachusetts, USA (2004) |
| Foreign same-sex marriage recognized in |
| Israel (2006) |
| Debate in other countries and regions |
|
Aruba |
| See also |
|
Civil union |
In 2004 and 2005 there was controversy and political disagreement concerning the status of same-sex unions in Oregon. In 2004, Multnomah County began issuing same-sex marriage licenses, which began a political battle over same-sex marriage that ended later that year with an amendment to the Oregon Constitution. In 2005, the legislature introduced a bill to create civil unions which eventually died in committee and did not become law.
Currently, the state of Oregon does not recognize same-sex marriage nor does it provide any type of civil-union or domestic partnership. The Oregon Constitution states: "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."[1]
Contents |
[edit] Same-Sex Marriages
March 3, 2004: The Multnomah County government begins issuing licenses for same-sex marriages, pursuant to a legal opinion issued by its attorney deeming such marriages lawful. [2] [3] [4]
On the first day, Multnomah county issued 422 marriage licenses, compared to 68 on an average day. Local businesses reported an up-tick in sales of flowers and other marriage-related services directly related to the beginning of same-sex marriages. According to the 2000 US Census, 3,242 same-sex couples were living in the county.
Neighboring Washington and Clackamas counties initially announced that they are studying Multnomah County's legal opinion, but did not plan to immediately follow suit.
March 9: At the first legal hearing, County Circuit Judge Dale Koch refuses to issue an injunction stopping the ceremonies.
As of the hearing, approximately 1,700 marriage licenses had already been issued by the county. A later study by the Oregonian revealed that first weeks 2,026 individuals from Multnomah County had received licenses, about one third of the 2000 Census figure, about 900 other individuals came from other locations in Oregon, about 490 from the state of Washington, and 30 from other states.
March 10: The State Legislature's attorney Greg Chaimov issues an opinion stating that counties in Oregon cannot prohibit same-sex couples from receiving marriage licenses. [5]
March 12: Hardy Myers, Oregon attorney general, issued his [6] office's opinion, after reviewing it with the governor. He concludes:
- current Oregon laws prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples;
- under current law, the legal status of being "married" carries with it legal rights, benefits, and obligations;
- the Oregon Supreme Court likely would conclude that withholding from same-sex couples the legal rights, benefits, and obligations that — under current law — are automatically granted to married couples of the opposite sex likely violates Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution; but
- because of the uncertainties about the Article I, Section 20 analysis that the Oregon Supreme Court would bring to bear on the question, it would be unwise to change current state practices unless and until a decision by the Supreme Court makes clear what, if any, changes are required.
The attorney general stated that his office did not have the authority to order Multnomah County to cease issuing licenses for same-sex marriages.
March 15: After considering their options, Multnomah County announces that they will continue to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
March 16: After holding public hearings, Benton County commissioners vote 2-1 to start issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, beginning Wednesday, March 24.
March 22: After receiving two letters from the attorney general and a phone call threatening to arrest the county clerk, the Benton county commissioners reverse their decision and vote to issue no marriage licenses of any kind -- neither same-sex nor opposite-sex -- until a decision is reached by the Multnomah County Court. [7]
Both sides agree to let three couples with venue sue the state of Oregon in Multnomah County Court to settle this issue. The suit becomes Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon, et al., named after Mary Li and Rebecca Kennedy, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license from Multnomah County.
April 16: Attorneys for the ACLU and Basic Rights Oregon present arguments in favor of the couples, while attorneys for the Oregon Department of Justice and Defense of Marriage Coalition[8] argued against the County's actions before Justice Frank Bearden.
April 20: In Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon, Judge Bearden of the Multnomah County Circuit Court orders the county to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses, while simultaneously ordering the state of Oregon to recognize the 3,022 such licenses already issued. The Oregon state registrar had been holding the completed licenses, rather than entering them into the state's records system, pending a court decision as to their validity. Judge Bearden also finds that the Oregon Constitution would likely allow some form of marriage rights to same-sex couples, and directed the legislature to act on the issue within 90 days of the start of its next legislative session. Should they fail to successfully address the issue within that time, Multnomah County would be free to resume issuing same-sex marriage licenses. It is understood that both parties would appeal the decision, although they have not yet decided whether to attempt to move directly to the state Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals.
May 21: The Defense of Marriage Coalition gets legal approval for the language of their proposed initiative to prohibit same-sex marriage. They begin to circulate petitions to obtain the 100,840 valid signatures needed by July 2 so it can submitted to a vote in the November general election.
July 9: In Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon, the state Court of Appeals lifts a temporary ban blocking the registration of the marriage licenses already issued by Multnomah County, pending the case concerning their validity being heard by the state Supreme Court. Within hours, the state begins processing the licenses, and announces that they will have the work done within a week.
November 2: Oregonians voted 57% to 43% to pass Ballot Measure 36, a constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. Opponents of Measure 36 outspent the Defense of Marriage Coalition more than 2 to 1 [9].
December 15: The Oregon State Supreme Court hears arguments in Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon.
- State of Oregon argues that:
- Multnomah County did not have the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses to remedy a perceived constitutional violation
- Ballot Measure 36 is retroactive, and now makes the issue of those licenses moot.
- The Defense of Marriage Coalition argues that:
- Measure 36 is not retroactive and thus the issue of the licenses is not moot
- There had been no constitutional violation of the rights of same-sex couples
- Even if there had been a constitutional violation, Multnomah County did not have the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses to remedy it.
- The ACLU argues that:
- Measure 36 is not retroactive (and thus that the issue of the licenses is not moot)
- Same-sex couples are protected under the Equal Privileges and Immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution and that their rights to marriage had been violated
- Counties are required to remedy perceived constitutional violations.
April 14, 2005: The Oregon State Supreme Court decides Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon, ruling that Multnomah County lacked the authority to remedy a perceived violation of the Oregon Constitution [10]. All such licenses are ruled void from their inception, and the court further rules that the Oregon Constitution now expressly limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court declined to rule as to whether or not same-sex couples had any rights under the Equal Privileges and Immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution.
[edit] Civil unions
On July 8, 2005, Oregon state senators approved legislation to allow same-sex civil unions. As originally written, Senate Bill 1000 would create civil unions and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, public accommodations and public services. [11] The vote at the state capitol in Salem was 19-10 in favor of the measure.
The Republican Speaker of the Oregon House, Karen Minnis, announced that she would not let the bill be passed. On July 21, the House performed a series of moves where the bill was amended, removing most of its language and replacing it with different text (seen by some to be a "gut and stuff"[12] maneuver). The new text of Senate Bill 1000 no longer contained language about sexual orientation, prohibition of discrimination, nor civil unions. Instead, it reaffirmed the recent state constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage and proposed to create "reciprocal beneficiary agreements" [13]. "Reciprocal beneficiaries" could be any two people prohibited by law from marrying each other, such as a "widowed mother and her unmarried son," and would not have the rights and obligations of married persons, specifically excluding employer-granted benefits such as health insurance or retirement benefits. Reciprocal beneficiaries would be granted inheritance rights, and the power to make medical or financial decisions if the reciprocal beneficiary was incapacitated.
The changes effectively killed momentum to pass the bill, which died in committee.
However after the November 2006 mid-term elections the Republican-controlled house which brought down the civil unions bill has switched hands to the Democrats which, like the Democrat-conrolled senate, is likely to approve the civil unions bill, bringing legality for a same-sex unions in Oregon which is more than likely to be heard in 2007[14].
[edit] External links
[edit] References
| Same-sex marriage in the United States |  |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||
