Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

The National Organization for Marriage wants to intervene in the Oregon marriage equality case

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Oregon State SealThe National Organization for Marriage has filed a motion to intervene in the challenge to Oregon’s same-sex marriage ban. They claim that their motion was filed “in order to safeguard significant protectable interests of its Oregon members in the subject matter of these lawsuits, to prevent a collusive suit on an immensely important public policy issue, and to ensure the possibility of appellate review of this Court’s ultimate decision.”

There is no one defending the Oregon ban at this point, and a hearing on the merits is scheduled for this afternoon.

Oregon officials have declined to defend the ban, and filed a brief attacking it in this case.

NOM argues that it has standing to intervene in the case because the organization has members who live in Oregon, for example, “a county clerk, a wedding services provider, and an Oregon voter who cast a vote in the November 2004 election in support of” the amendment banning same-sex marriage.

As the hearing is today, April 23, NOM filed a motion to put the hearing on hold while the judge considers their motion to intervene. Judge McShane denied that request. The judge set oral arguments on the motion to intervene for May 14, but today’s hearing on the merits will still be held. The text order notes that no decision on the merits will be issued until after oral arguments on NOM’S request to intervene.

The order specifically noted that NOM will have to show they have standing to participate in the case. In order to show they have standing, they will need to show they have a concrete stake in the outcome of the case, and not simply that they’re supporters of the ban.

Judge Michael McShane, who is gay and an appointee of President Obama, is overseeing the case.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings


  • 1. Michael  |  April 23, 2014 at 8:50 am

    I have read all of NOM's filings. The one that made me want to barf was the filing where they answer all of the states "allegations:" NOM proclaims that the two men aren't "parents" of the child because its biologically impossible.

    I emailed Jeff Mapes with the Oregonian and inquired if he would be reporting more on NOM and its ideology. He replied that my question was intriguing. Shoot him an email with the same suggestion: [email protected]

  • 2. RCChicago  |  April 24, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Thank you for the nudge. I'll follow up.

  • 3. Stephen  |  April 23, 2014 at 9:07 am

    Has NOM been allowed to intervene in any other cases?

  • 4. Guest  |  April 23, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    No because they're worthless, anti-gay Christian industrialists and they have no power or purpose. They're con-artists at best, but calling them an artist is too generous. They're more like scavengers. Wait, no, scavengers are important. They're more like intruders, and need to be incarcerated.

  • 5. Rose  |  April 23, 2014 at 9:41 am

    I HIGHLY doubt that NOM has ANY standing to intervene and this is just ANOTHER delay tactic and should be handled that way!!!

  • 6. Corey  |  April 23, 2014 at 9:41 am

    For all their claims that they want the voters to decide, this move is all about stalling the Oregon SSM ballot measure. If they can confuse the voter, or throw chaos into the initiative process, they will. They don't actually want to put this to voters in Oregon because voters would destroy them (polls 55-41 in Feb 2014).

  • 7. Zack12  |  April 23, 2014 at 9:56 am

    Polls can say a lot of things, I'd rather just have it struck down and be done with it.

  • 8. Big Rick  |  April 23, 2014 at 10:06 am

    I'm not so sure that a survey margin of 55-41 is enough to assure victory for the SSM ballot measure at the polls. The anti-marriage equality crowd will mobilize religious conservatives to overwhelmingly flock to the polls to defeat the SSM ballot measure and support the "religious liberty" bill, assuming it makes it onto the ballot. Having both those measures running at the same time is practically guaranteed to bring every anti-SSM voter out of the woodwork.

  • 9. Corey  |  April 23, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    In Washington the polls were 54-40 and initiative 74 passed 54-46. I don't think NOM likes those odds. If they can get the ballot measure canceled or withdrawn, or throw a wrench into the works, they would rather do that than let the vote happen.

    It's not a guarantee, no, but it sure as heck isn't a slam dunk for them either.

  • 10. SeattleRobin  |  April 24, 2014 at 4:24 am

    In the past I would have agreed with you, that the polling would be inflated beyond what actually happens in the voting. But the experience here in Washington, and also Main and Maryland, show that polling on the issue is now fairly predictive and no longer suffers from the…uh…can't remember the name… B-something? effect.

    However, there is still the problem of this not being a presidential election year, which usually means lower liberal voter turnout. So that can be a problem, even if polling is accurate.

  • 11. Faceless Bureaucrat  |  April 24, 2014 at 8:17 am

    Dear Seattle Robin,

    This is trivia, totally tangential to your point, but for what it is worth, the B-effect phrase you were thinking of is The Bradley Effect, named for African-American mayor of Los Angeles Tom Bradley, who lost an election for governor of California despite being ahead in the pools. See

  • 12. Eric Koszyk  |  April 24, 2014 at 8:52 am

    Again, it's debatable that the "Bradley Effect" ever happened to begin with. If it didn't happen in 1982 it sure isn't going to happen in 2014.

  • 13. Eric Koszyk  |  April 24, 2014 at 8:32 am

    It's called the "Bradley Effect"

    It's a phenomena where people will apparently say one thing to a pollster and then do another thing when they actually vote. The theory proposes that some voters will tell pollsters they are undecided or likely to vote for a black (or gay or whomever) candidate, while on election day they vote for the white (or non-gay) candidate.

    It's named after the 1982 California governor's race where LA mayor Tom Bradley (who would have been the first black elected governor in the U.S.) lost to George Deukmejian. Polls showed Bradley ahead through election day and yet he lost by 1%. Mervin Field, the most prominent pollster in the state, coined the term as a way of justifying their why their poll had been wrong and the term unfortunately stuck.

    Trouble is is that the Bradley Effect has been largely found to be bullshit and to have never happened in the first place. Most polls had shown the race significantly tightening and that Deukmejian had the momentum going into election day. The Field Poll was also shown to have been done inaccurately.

  • 14. ebohlman  |  April 24, 2014 at 9:24 am

    Social Desirability Bias (the proper name for what's misleadingly called Bradley Effect) is known to affect polls, though it wasn't the cause of the misspolling in the 1982 election (another reason was that election-day voters favored Bradley more than early voters, but the exit polls only counted the former).

    However, it's not likely to affect polling on marriage-equality issues because even today, when a clear majority favors equality, most people incorrectly believe that there isn't a majority (even most proponents think they're taking a minority position). So someone who opposed ME would not regard his position as stigmatized and would likely answer honestly.

    The big problem with overpolling on ME measures is probably that younger people are more likely to support it but less likely to vote; that may be reduced in vote-by-mail states like OR.

  • 15. Eric Koszyk  |  April 24, 2014 at 8:40 am

    I wouldn't worry about lower turnout by progressives.

    First of all Oregon, like Washington, is an all vote-by-mail state.

    Also there is a very good chance that there will be at least one marijuana legalization initiative also on the ballot. Plus the Democratic governor is mostly popular and has only token Republican opponents. And Democratic Senator Merkley is also pretty popular and his Republican opponents are what we'd call B or even C-list.

    If the polls are saying that it's passing, it's passing. If it's on the ballot, progressives will vote in huge numbers.

  • 16. Bruno71  |  April 23, 2014 at 11:59 am

    I think it's more about stalling the proceedings and subsequent ruling so that the ballot measure has to happen. It's their last chance to trot out any kind of "the people want this" b.s. if the measure happens to fail.

  • 17. Zack12  |  April 23, 2014 at 10:01 am
    This is one of numerous articles that claims what happened yesterday in the Supreme Court bodes ill for us.
    What is everyone else's take on this?

  • 18. Lymis  |  April 23, 2014 at 10:27 am

    It really depends on what the Justices feel their own rationale is.

    If it's pure conservative ideology – intended to preference white people over racial minorities, then it could signal support for the majority over the rights or the minority, which could bode ill for LGBT people.

    On the other hand, if it's based on the idea that discrimination is discrimination regardless of whether it is the majority or the minority who benefits, it's possible to see that a reinforcing the rights of gay people not to be subject to institutionalized support for the majority view.

    Marriage is not a limited resource. A same-sex couple who marries is not "taking away" one of the licenses from an opposite sex couple. Nobody is proposing doing anything to preference gay couples in an attempt to counteract the effects of discrimination and give us more opportunity.

    Right or wrong, striking down affirmative action and supporting marriage equality could both be seen as leveling the playing field, so I'm not sure this ruling can be taken as definitive either way with regards marriage equality or other gay rights issues.

  • 19. Dr. Z  |  April 23, 2014 at 10:58 am

    It's just as plausible that it bodes well for us. I wouldn't read too much into it. What's likely to be more significant is a clean sweep of federal rulings in our favor since Windsor.

  • 20. Kevin  |  April 23, 2014 at 11:32 am

    Remember, Kennedy *dissented* in Hollingsworth v. Perry on the standing issue. If he thought that the Constitution does not prohibit voters from barring gays and lesbians from marriage, he already had an opportunity to express that view in an opinion with the Court's four conservatives.

  • 21. Johan  |  April 24, 2014 at 4:28 am

    I do not understand your comment. The four conservatives DENIED standing to the proponents of Prop 8.

    update: I'm sorry, I remembered the "lineup" incorrectly. Roberts and Scalia denied standing, and Thomas and Alito dissented to give standing to proponents.

  • 22. Kevin  |  April 24, 2014 at 10:19 am

    What I am saying is that if Kennedy truly thought that the Constitution allowed voters to enact Proposition 8, he would have joined with the conservatives to decide the case on the merits. The standing issue was a procedural punt and everybody knows it.

  • 23. JayJonson  |  April 24, 2014 at 10:50 am

    The standing issue was decided by a curious lineup. Both sides had a mixture of conservatives and liberals. Scalia and Ginsburg both decided that the proponents lacked standing, as did Breyer, Kagan, and the Chief Justice. I think we have to accept that the question of standing was not simply a ruse to avoid making a decision. It was a real issue in its own right. The fact that the consequence of finding that the proponents lacked standing was to uphold Judge Walker's ruling and restore marriage equality to California probably helped Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan join with Roberts and Scalia in the majority decision, but they likely thought the question of standing was crucial in its own right. In addition, they also knew that the consequences of Windsor would be to further marriage equality generally, as has so far been proven to be the case.

  • 24. Johan  |  April 24, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Thanks for your reply. Kennedy wanted to rule on the merits. He actually wrote the dissent himself. He was joined by Alito and Thomas, considered conservatives. Chief Roberts (also considered a conservative) wrote the opinion for the court, and he was joined by the remaining conservative, Scalia. The lineup, as JayJonson says, was odd.

  • 25. Matt N  |  April 23, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    I don't think it bodes ill for us at all. Just a lot of authors wanting some attention:

    a) Kennedy has emphasized many times that he is very consistent in his decisions. To give such poetic rulings on gay issues thus far, only to say that it's fine for States to deny marriage would be quite a reversal.
    b) Do you really think Breyer would vote against us?
    c) Kennedy's ruling is about not giving anyone special treatment and treating everyone the same–exactly what allowing same-sex marriage accomplishes.
    d) If Scalia thought Kennedy would vote against same-sex marriage at a state level, he surely would have had a different opinion in the Prop8 case (Kennedy voted that ProtectMarriage had standing and Scalia said that they did not).

  • 26. Bruno71  |  April 23, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    Simply put, they are two separate issues that require different rationales. In my opinion, no way in hell does this mean that Kennedy or any of the "liberal" justices would vote against a fundamental right to marry regardless of gender.

  • 27. Rose  |  April 23, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    I TOTALLY agree with ya…….I mean either marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for EVERYONE regardless of the gender of the person one wants to marry or it is NOT a fundamental right and SCOTUS would have to overturn so many rulings and I doubt they will do that!!!

  • 28. Rose  |  April 23, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    Racial preferences has NOTHING to do with the FUNDAMENTAL right to marry……and therefore in my opinion the one ruling will have NO bearing on the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians!!!

    Things have changed and I believe that the Michigan ruling is basically regarding standards and practices specifically regarding College admittance!!!

  • 29. Terry  |  April 23, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    Seems similar to the reaction to Windsor. At the beginning, a lot of people were reading it as a states' rights decision primarily. The reality is it's been interpreted as constitution first, states' rights second and consecutive wins for marriage equality. Journalists are missing what this decision means now in regards to marriage equality as they did with Windsor. We have to keep a check on them since they can be reactive Debbie Downers.

  • 30. sfbob  |  April 23, 2014 at 2:40 pm

    As much as I disagree with the conclusion and what it portends with respect the fight against the results of racism, I can at least to some extent see where the court is coming from. And as objectionable as the decision is to me it certainly could have been far worse; it doesn't claim that affirmative action programs are unconstitutional, it simply says they are not required and that state laws prohibiting such programs aren't unconstitutional. The issues raised in this case are very important yet they differ significantly from those raised in the fight for marriage equality.

  • 31. Zack12  |  April 23, 2014 at 11:18 am

    I agree with all of you. If nothing else, Judge Friedman who ruled in favor of us in marriage equality is also the same judge that upheld the ban on AA.

  • 32. Ragavendran  |  April 24, 2014 at 10:13 am

    Which ban? I think the Michigan ban on AA was upheld by Judge Lawson from the Eastern District of Michigan. Then, both a 3-judge 6th Circuit panel and a subsequent en banc rehearing reversed him, declaring the ban to be unconstitutional.

  • 33. Zack12  |  April 24, 2014 at 10:23 pm

    I'd have to look it up. I know he struck something down that had to do with AA.

  • 34. Ragavendran  |  April 24, 2014 at 10:44 pm

    Aha. Found it. Grutter v. Bollinger. He was reversed by the Supreme Court though, which upheld affirmative action (Kennedy dissented, agreeing with Friedman that it should be struck down). The effort to circumvent this Supreme Court decision is what led to the Michigan Constitutional Amendment that has just been upheld by the Supreme Court.

  • 35. Warren  |  April 23, 2014 at 11:23 am

    Thank goodness the hearing is on May 14. Not much of a delay.

  • 36. StraightDave  |  April 23, 2014 at 5:46 pm

    I really had to reread this 3 times before I got it. Reason #8 for NOM intervening…

    " 8. Another of NOM’s members has informed me that he voted in favor of Measure 36 at
    the November 2004 election, but that he fears retaliation against him if he is named as an intervenor in this litigation.

    I think it claims that some anonymous voter should be allowed to intervene because he risks personal harm by intervening, e.g., retaliation. That apparently is the particularized harm that gives him standing. Nowhere else is any reason for his standing provided. This is the only harm mentioned. The judge is being awfully generous to grant them a hearing of any kind. I hope he reads his decision on the merits from the bench on May 14, but I know he won't.

  • 37. Nyx  |  April 23, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    To me this is dog whistle politics in action. To incite fear and loathing in their base. As in, see what "the gays" did to a certain Mozilla CEO… .

  • 38. Sagesse  |  April 23, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Even if NOM could intervene on behalf of members who supposedly suffered particularized harm, I don't see how NOM would be granted standing if those it represents are anonymous. All kinds of people who assert those harms have come forward in their own name. I don't think the court would grant standing based on anonymous complaints.

  • 39. annajoy1  |  April 23, 2014 at 6:51 pm

    I don't know Judge McShane, but I hope he doesn't turn out to be an apologist for being gay like the lesbian legislator in Hawaii who voted against gay marriage. I give him more credit than that, but as I said, I don't know him and sometimes we do strange things to show that we are not biased.

  • 40. Zack12  |  April 23, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    I don't think he'll go down that route. There was more to it with Jo Jordan.
    Bottom line, NOM has no legal leg to stand on and them filing so late is NOT going to be looked upon well at all.

  • 41. Ragavendran  |  April 24, 2014 at 11:15 am

    The second half of this article explores Judge McShane's profile with a few interesting anecdotes that offer some insight about his personality:

  • 42. bayareajohn  |  April 23, 2014 at 9:06 pm

    As I posted in the other NOM discussion;
    NOM can't expect to be allowed to intervene with this late showing. It's a showing, they expect to be denied, and they are already working on the press spin about how this so clearly shows that the rights of the RIGHT are systematically being trampled by actitvist gay judges. They win far more of the ignorant followers they seek by being denied than by being heard.

  • 43. Dr. Z  |  April 23, 2014 at 9:13 pm

    "Penny Pingleton, you will wear a large "P" on your sweater so that the WHOLE WORLD knows that you are PERMANENTLY, POSITIVELY PUNISHED."

  • 44. DaveM  |  April 24, 2014 at 3:40 am

    Yeah, this won't work. Read Scalia's concurrence in Doe v. Reed. Politics is a contact sport. Is the citizen is to legislate, the citizen must be prepared to lose anonymity in the process.

  • 45. Dr. Z  |  April 23, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    Yesterday I attended the rally in Portland before the hearing in Eugene on the summary motion to strike down Measure 36.

    What a strange feeling it was, to stand in Terry Schrunk Plaza (named after a Portland mob figure and Mayor who took the Fifth Amendment before JFK in the Senate in 1958) and listen to the same defend-the-LGBT-community speeches we'd heard six times before – in 1988, 1992, 1994, 2000, and 2004.

    Except my old friends from those days were gone. I was the only one left.

  • 46. Lolker  |  April 24, 2014 at 12:10 am

    The National Organization for Banning Marriage Equality just wants money.

  • 47. Schteve  |  April 28, 2014 at 2:52 am

    The National Organization against Marriage

  • 48. Michael Grabow  |  April 24, 2014 at 8:05 am

    The group's chairman, John Eastman, said the judge would benefit from hearing several arguments that weren't raised in court Wednesday because nobody was defending the ban.

    "The notion that there are no plausible arguments to make in defense of marriage is ludicrous," said Eastman, who also is a law professor at Chapman University in California.

    Comment from Huffington Post:

    When pressed for any sort of plausible argument that wasn't already disproved by rational thought or existing scientific data, Eastman responded by pointing behind the reporters, shouting "Look! A Distraction!", and then running in the opposite direction.

  • 49. Retired_Lawyer  |  April 24, 2014 at 8:22 am

    In considering NOM's attempt to intervene in Geiger v. Kitzhaber, Judge McShane should first address NOM's filing of its application the night before a scheduled summary judgment motion argument. The timeliness of a motion to intervene is a THRESHOLD test that must be satisfied before other factors are considered. NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 365 (1973) (If [a motion to intervene] is untimely, intervention MUST be denied. Thus, the court where the action is pending must FIRST be satisfied as to timeliness.")(emphasis supplied). Suit was filed Oct. 5, 2013. NOM alleges that it only found out that the State defendants would not defend on Feb. 24, 2014. NOM took no action for nearly two months. Analysis of timeliness must account for the length of time a would-be intervenor knew of its interest in the case, and the extent of prejudice to the existing parties as a result of the failure of the would-be intervenor to move as soon as it did know. United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1983). The "prejudice" to the parties here is great: they have litigated this case to its expected conclusion by means of summary judgment. NOM has not presented any unusual circumstances for its last hour conduct. The Judge could, and, in my opinion, should deny NOM's motion on timeliness grounds alone.

  • 50. Ragavendran  |  April 24, 2014 at 11:22 am

    The judge referred to that in court, saying that it was a surprise to him and his partner to hear that they wanted to marry. "We have no plans to get married," he said.

    When a loud electronic squeal was emitted from the sound system, McShane quipped, "That was Scalia." That's a reference to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, an ardent supporter of state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.

    McShane noted that former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, when she was on the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote in support of the "traditional interpretation of marriage."
    "I think Justice O'Connor evolved on this issue as well," Perriguey responded to laughter as he echoed President Barack Obama's statements that he was evolving on the issue.

  • 51. thelawworks  |  April 25, 2014 at 3:58 am

    Oh, these grandstanding late wedding crashers cloaking the identities of alleged voters who would feel harm if gay people had the right to choose not to marry– liberty interest—that the gay mafia might create reprisal. With all the harm that gay people suffer living under this marriage apartheid, it is outrageous that NO(het)M triesto characterize itself and it's secret society members as victims.

  • 52. Lee  |  April 25, 2014 at 11:42 pm

    Are transcripts or audio of the Oregon 'trial' available someplace? As a former Oregonian who voted against everything the Scott Lively / Lon Mabon Oregon Citizens Alliance put forth I would like to know how things came down.

  • 53. thelawworks  |  April 27, 2014 at 5:12 pm

    The transcript will be available on Pacer when it is complete. I will also post it on and on my blog

  • 54. thelawworks  |  April 29, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    The transcript is up.

  • 55. Ragavendran  |  April 29, 2014 at 11:32 pm

    I just read through the transcript (thank you, thelawworks). Most of the first half looks like an academic argument that a group of lawyers may have in a bar, that focus on one man – Anthony Kennedy, and his mysterious writings, especially whether Windsor is an equal protection case, a due process case, a combination of both, or something else entirely:

    "I think Kennedy is very creative sometimes in avoiding what he's talking about, including what level of scrutiny he is applying, but if you kind of look at what he's relying on, although some of the language is taken from due process cases, the analysis is really largely — fits more comfortably, I think, with an equal protection analysis."

    Then we get to the "limbo" status of SmithKline and whether it is possible to avoid it. Somewhere along here, the State's attorney provides the most humbling speech conceding defeat by the State of Oregon:

    "We have done a thorough analysis. We have considered the arguments and possible justifications that could be presented to this court. But we, at the end of the day, find that those justifications cannot be put forward without undermining the legislative choices that have been made to protect Oregonians and to value Oregonians, including same-sex couples and their families. And as creative as the state attorneys can be, and we can be very creative in our cases, we could not come up with a justification that others hadn't yet thought of and put forward in their cases."

    The mood seems to lighten a bit after that, and McShane openly expresses his exasperation about his equal protection versus due process confusion (when the State's attorney brought up Ginsburg's comment about the state, through marriage, providing a stamp of approval on the value of a relationship and what that means for the children):

    "That value piece is where I get a little lost in the substantive due process because none of that is required for marriage. I mean, the fact is I could wake up in — you know, with a blurry memory in Las Vegas and a ring on my finger; in Oregon, I am good to go. I mean, to me that leads much quicker into equal protection analysis. Why that person versus this group of people. But when we start talking about this flowery language about marriage, it just doesn't seem to be necessarily — I mean, there is that phrase, a marriage of convenience, and that's just fine in Oregon too. This traditional concept of, you know, inherent in human dignity, I get it, but it's not necessarily a prerequisite of any marriage in this state or any other state that I know of. That's where I get a little lost in those flowery, Mr. Perriguey arguments and Justice Kennedy arguments is that it seems so much easier for me to look at the application of the law."

    Then there is a comical exchange about the 5-day marriage of Britney Spears – McShane said he was impressed at the pop culture knowledge of the State's attorney. He then brought up the slippery slope issue and in response, the State attorney brought up and answered the polygamy question in the context of the Tenth Circuit oral arguments in Kitchen:

    "For the Utah case, the panel asked, if we agree with the plaintiffs, does this mean a right to polygamist marriage. They didn't ask that for the Oklahoma plaintiffs. And I could easily imagine arguments that would say, no, a polygamous marriage is not part of this fundamental, long-standing right to marry. The state does have good reasons to say that the solid foundation that we are trying to support is a relationship between two adults who can care for one another and care for their families, take responsibility for one another. We don't know what that means when you add a third or fourth or fifth person to the mix. And as a state, we have a rational justification to say no; we are going to limit marriage to two individuals. I can't come up with a similar justification in this case."

  • 56. Ragavendran  |  April 29, 2014 at 11:32 pm

    (Summary Continued…) Then the issue is whether a stay is appropriate if the Court decides to strike down the ban. In the middle of that, McShane ropes in Sevcik, wondering aloud what most of us here on EoT have been struggling to grapple:

    THE COURT: I meant to ask this earlier, but do you know the status, then, of the Sandoval case? One minute it was set for a hearing; now it's not.
    MS. EASTON: Your Honor, my understanding, and I just looked at the docket this morning when not sleeping, is that the case is not currently scheduled for oral argument. I didn't see it anywhere on the docket for an oral argument. All the briefs have been submitted, and I think they are just waiting for a hearing date.

    Then the issue is whether voters must have their say, and then whether it would be appropriate to stay proceedings in this case until Sevcik is decided. McShane then probes another attorney about the status of Sevcik:

    THE COURT: Do you know anything more about Sandoval with regard to the state now reversing itself and saying, we are not defending? Is it possible it's just not even going to be heard by the Ninth Circuit, or is it still going forward, do you know?
    MS. MIDDLETON: As far as I know, it's still going forward. It was set for argument, and then the argument date was taken off calendar at the request of one of the judges on the panel, and we don't know why. It was in the wake of Nevada withdrawing its brief, but there are other parties in that case, an intervenor that has continued to defend and have fully briefed it. So there's no reason to believe it won't go back on the calendar is what I understand.
    THE COURT: Okay.
    MS. MIDDLETON: So that's the one case. So for both of those reasons, all of those reasons, this court should not wait for guidance out of the Ninth Circuit, plus who knows when they'll decide. It could be many, many months or even a year from now.

    Then the issue of there being no possibility of an appeal is discussed, and also briefly, the issue of justiciability after the State deciding not to defend the ban. And then, it seemed to me that Judge McShane was not speaking as a Judge anymore, but simply as one of the people of the gay community, the concluding speech addressing the correspondence he has been receiving from the public:

    "I did want to — I meant to mention at the beginning, I have received a number of e-mails and letters from concerned citizens. I haven't passed those on to the parties. They are generally just general concerns. They almost unanimously have been from Oregonians who are very concerned about some of the issues raised and,in particular, concerned about redefining traditional marriage.I have had letters sent to my home, to the office. I have had e-mails. Here's what I want to say: You know, I know the debate gets very shrill on a national level. The notes that have been sent to me, some of the kindest words have been said, even though people are very passionate about it, the last note being from my mother, who had very strong feelings but still was very kind. So I just want people to know that because I don't respond to the notes. I mean, obviously it's not appropriate, I think, for the court to engage in a discussion with folks in order to shape any kind of opinion. But, you know, I do appreciate the kindness in the comments that have been forwarded to me. Universally every one of them, nothing — I mean, when I see a letter coming to my home address, my first thought is oh, no. And in fact, I have been very — I don't know if surprised is the right word, but I was very impressed that the debate can be kind; a lot of people saying they were going to pray for me, and I do appreciate those comments."

  • 57. Dani  |  May 9, 2014 at 1:49 am

    I was recommended this website by my cousin. I’m not sure whether this post is written by him as
    nobody else know such detailed about my problem.
    You’re wonderful! Thanks!

  • 58. Equality On TrialFederal &hellip  |  May 14, 2014 at 11:10 am

    […] in the challenge to Oregon’s same-sex marriage ban. NOM filed the motion to intervene just days before the court was set to hear the case on the merits. They listed some unnamed Oregonians like a […]

  • 59. Equality On TrialDecision&hellip  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:22 am

    […] National Organization for Marriage (NOM) filed a motion to intervene in the case in defense of the ban, but Judge McShane rejected their request. They have appealed to […]

  • 60. Weight Loss Tips  |  August 3, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Hello There. I found your blog the use of msn. This is a very smartly written article.
    I’ll make sure to bookmark it and return to read more
    of your helpful info. Thanks for the post.
    I’ll certainly comeback.

    Here is my site … Weight Loss Tips

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!