Fatwa: No Muslims on Mars »« Slut Shaming at Duke University

Oregon Won’t Defend Marriage Ban

The state of Oregon has joined Virginia and Nevada in refusing to defend the constitutionality of its ban on same-sex marriage. In a filing with the U.S. District Court, Oregon’s attorney general and solicitor general told the court that they will continue to enforce the ban, but not defend it.

State officials in Oregon notified a federal court on Thursday that they will no longer defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, following similar switches by state officials in Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The Oregon filing came in one of two consolidated cases in Eugene challenging the state ban, which was imposed by voters in 2004…

The key statement in the new Oregon document, which was in the form of an answer to one of the lawsuits, said state officials “will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review.” The paragraph added, though, that they would continue to enforce the ban as a legal duty unless and until it were struck down in court. Officials had not made that statement in their response in December to the other case in the pair that are now being considered together.

Here is the full statement from the brief:

State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review. In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs.

I’m sensing a trend.

Comments

  1. Wylann says

    And yet, legislators here in OR are also trying to pass a law similar to other states allowing businesses to discriminate against GLBT persons. I don’t know the odds of it passing here, but I hope it’s miniscule, and maybe the governor will veto it. I only recently moved here though, and I’m not real familiar with the local or state politics.

  2. D. C. Sessions says

    Wylann, ALEC is on another roll.

    I also get the impression that this time the response is getting smarter: lots more public attention pointing out how this is a core Republican position (“See — it’s all over the country!”) and at the same time morally offensive to damn near everyone in the USA.

    They can’t help it, and it’s going to hurt them. With a wee bit of help, it can hurt them a lot. Live by the wedge issue, die by the wedge issue.

  3. Johnny Vector says

    I’m sensing such a strong trend as to activate my armchair pop-sociologist senses. My hypothesis, which is mine, is that a significant majority of people have long thought that treating GLBT people unfairly really is unfair, but fear of being different has kept them from speaking out. Now that even some Republicans are officially in favor of equality, these folks no longer feel the need to joke along, “Yeah, that’s so gay, ha-ha.”

    If I were an actual sociologist, I’d come up with a way to test that, but since I’m not I’ll just sit here and assert it.

    Live by the wedge issue, die by the wedge issue.

    So you’re saying that although the wedge is very thin at one end, and much much thicker in the middle, it is also thin again at the other end. Is that your theory?

  4. D. C. Sessions says

    So you’re saying that although the wedge is very thin at one end, and much much thicker in the middle, it is also thin again at the other end. Is that your theory?

    I’m not sure that the metaphor works that way at the “reunite” end. Certainly, issues such as segregation have in the past turned against those who exploited them.

Leave a Reply