Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
Post Office Box 1231 • Manassas, VA 20108 • (202) 216-9430 • Email: info@imapp.org


WWW iMAPP

Support iMAPP
Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

Join the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy mailing list
Email:
Weekly Archives

Blogger!



Wednesday, April 21, 2004

OREGON DECISION: SAME-SEX WEDDINGS HALTED FOR NOW, ONES ALREADY DONE RECOGNIZED, LEGISLATURE TOLD TO INSTITUTE SSM OR VT-STYLE CIVIL UNIONS: From the San Francisco Chronicle

An Oregon judge ordered a halt Tuesday to same-sex weddings in the state's most populous county but also ordered official recognition of marriages already held there -- putting Oregon on track to join Massachusetts next month as the first states to validate gay and lesbian matrimony.

The ruling by Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank Bearden offered something to both sides in the debate, shutting down same-sex marriages in the only county in the nation still performing them while declaring unconstitutional a state law that denied equal benefits to same-sex couples. The judge said equal benefits could be provided in civil unions similar to those in Vermont.

Bearden's order that the state validate Multnomah County's 3,000 same-sex marriage licenses, the first ruling of its kind in the nation, is scheduled to take effect May 20 -- three days after same-sex weddings are to start in Massachusetts by order of that state's highest court. Tuesday's ruling is certain to be appealed, and the state's attorney general indicated he would seek immediate review by the Oregon Supreme Court. ...

As for the 3,000 marriages already performed, Bearden said, Oregon officials' refusal to recognize them violates a state law that requires official registration of all weddings in which licenses have been issued, fees paid and ceremonies conducted.

Attorney General Hardy Myers hasn't decided whether to ask a higher court to block that portion of the ruling during the state's appeal, said Kevin Neely, a spokesman for Myers. He said Bearden's decision largely followed the attorney general's position in the case, including his view that the state law was unconstitutional.

[Eve's emphasis.]

more

Read the decision here (PDF).

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact

Copyright Institute for Marriage and Public Policy