Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Decision in Oregon marriage equality case expected today

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Oregon State SealBIG UPDATE 2:11PM ET: The Ninth Circuit has denied NOM’s request for an emergency stay.

UPDATE 3 1:20PM ET: The state has filed a response to NOM’s request. The state opposes a stay, reiterating that it plans “to follow the court’s directives and counties stand ready to begin issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples otherwise qualified to marry should the district court strike down Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage.”

UPDATE 2 12:06PM ET: The Rummell plaintiffs have responded to the stay request, urging the Ninth Circuit not to grant an emergency temporary stay. Their filing argues that the district court would reach the same result on the merits even with NOM’s participation in the case, and that NOM would lack standing to appeal on the merits anyway. (Updated at 2:25PM ET: The Geiger plaintiffs filed their initial response, though they did so after the Ninth Circuit had denied the stay.

UPDATE 11:50AM ET: NOM has filed an emergency request with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay district court action in the case. NOM’s motion points out that the state has said it will implement any ruling striking down the ban immediately, suggesting that “a stay pending appeal be entered forthwith, so that final judgment is not entered and given effect before this Court can determine whether Appellant’s motion to intervene in order to present opposing argument to the district court was erroneously denied[.]”

On Friday, federal district court judge Michael McShane announced via a docket entry that he will issue a decision in the challenge to Oregon’s same-sex marriage ban today. The notice reads: “The Court intends on issuing an opinion on the pending motions for summary judgment at noon on Monday, May 19, 2014.”

No party to the case is defending Oregon’s ban. State officials declined to defend the provisions in federal court, and they later filed a brief arguing that it violates the Constitution.

The 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 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Oregon officials have said that if Judge McShane strikes down the ban, they will implement his decision instead of appealing it.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings


  • 1. Michael Grabow  |  May 19, 2014 at 8:14 am

    Any idea as to when we can expect a response from the Ninth circuit on NOMs appeal?

  • 2. Scottie Thomaston  |  May 19, 2014 at 8:19 am

    No clue honestly. I would hope they'd say something quickly, but they're so slow.

  • 3. Keith  |  May 19, 2014 at 8:28 am

    Looking through their site I did not see much about "civil rights" in the portfolio of the legal beagles filing the appeal for NOM. It seems they mostly do a lot of corporate stuff.

  • 4. Guest  |  May 19, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    Can you PLEASE moderate the insipid, vindictive, and disgraceful troll off of this site? The comments section used to be a great place to go for updates, links, etc. Now it requires sorting through hundreds of ridiculous comments to get anywhere. Thank you.

  • 5. Pat  |  May 19, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Sadly, it seems that, while the EoT team follows the comment threads, they have no interest whatsoever in taking any action, or even just commenting about this big issue (we now feel like lower court judges who have to interpret what the silence of SCOTUS judges may mean).
    In the meantime, again, the only way to reduce the clutter is to NOT bother replying to this troll. It's easy to just skip his messages, but less easy to skip all the comments of people who are trying to educate him.

  • 6. davep  |  May 19, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    Yes, However, considering that many participants here have donated to the site, I think we at least deserve some kind of response from the mods about this. It is not even clear that they are actually receiving, and are aware of, the reports about this.

    So what's up, EoT? We'd really like to know.

  • 7. Guest  |  May 19, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    I wonder if anyone is interested in pursuing a separate avenue of discussion, like a Slack network, or some similar collaborative site to keep us all informed of these developments??

  • 8. JakeAZ  |  May 19, 2014 at 8:25 am

    Any idea when we're going to see ANYthing from the 9th Circuit?

  • 9. Scottie Thomaston  |  May 19, 2014 at 8:30 am

    Hopefully in my lifetime.

  • 10. Randolph Finder  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:15 am

    Or your children's

  • 11. Robert West  |  May 19, 2014 at 8:37 am

    My bet is they will wait for one of the cases coming out of the 10th circuit to make it to the Supreme Court, then put everything on hold pending the outcome of that.

  • 12. Jesse  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:05 am

    IANAL, but wouldn't Hollingsworth v Perry be precedent enough for 9th Circuit to rule that whatever McShane's ruling is, NOM's intervention is definitely one that has no standing?

  • 13. Seth from Maryland  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:07 am

    exactly Nom doesn't have standing and they know it, their just trying to stall time to figure out how to get standingwhich they can't

  • 14. Scottie Thomaston  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Kind of. It seems likely that NOM couldn't APPEAL on the merits, even after being granted intervention. But I don't think Hollingsworth v. Perry would necessarily prevent them from participating in district court. But I also don't think the Ninth Circuit is going to allow them to intervene at this late stage anyway.

  • 15. Matt227  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:50 am

    The difference is the legal injury. On appeal, there is a chance that the intervening party has been subject of a district court order.

  • 16. Scottie Thomaston  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:06 am

    I don't see how they would be subject to a district court order in this case. The plaintiffs are asking for an injunction against state enforcement of the ban. I can't imagine a scenario in which an order is written that enjoins NOM from doing anything.

  • 17. Jesse  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:07 am

    are you referring to the anonymous county clerks NOM is representing? Because right now the legal injury would be to ghosts…

  • 18. sfbob  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:45 am

    I would say "the anonymous county clerk [singular] NOM PURPORTS to represent." Whoever that may be, they're sufficiently cowardly as to not want to be named because someone might call them out for the bigot they are. I mean seriously; when you take an office of public trust, your trust lies with all of the public, not merely with your friends.

  • 19. StraightDave  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    According to the official court transcript, McShane actually verbally referred to them as "phantoms" during the NOM intervention hearing. He wasn't being fooled at all.

  • 20. Seth from Maryland  |  May 19, 2014 at 8:59 am

    nom needs to give up -_- as we saw in the last case they are not the legal defendent therefore they don't have standing therefore no stay should be granted

  • 21. Zack12  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:03 am

    Once the motion on the en banc case dealing with heightened scrutiny is dealt with, I think the 9th will take a marriage equality case.
    Something to keep in mind, the 9th is still liberal but not as liberal as it once was.
    St. Ronnie still has a couple of his bigoted judges on there, George W was able to put seven people who are likely to rule against us on there and even a couple of the Clinton judges aren't a sure thing.
    Don't take any court for granted, never works out well when you do.

  • 22. jdw  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:17 am

    It's pretty much a wash. 3 of GWB's appointments flipped Dem judges to GOP. 3 of Obama's 7 appointments have flipped GOP judges to Dem, and a 4th was a new seat in the 9th.

    This remains one of the better courts for us, especially post-Windsor when even some GOP judges are getting a sense of which way the wind is blowing on this.

  • 23. JayJonson  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:42 am

    It is telling that only 3 judges in the Ninth Circuit voted for an en banc ruling in Hollingsworth.

  • 24. Sagesse  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:06 am

    NOM does love their 'emergencies.' McShane decided against allowing them to intervene on Wednesday. They could have filed notice of appeal, but instead, left it until it's an 'emergency'.

  • 25. Zack12  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:12 am

    They have just filed an appeal with the 9th circuit in the last few minute and are requesting a stay of McShane's ruling.
    That is rich, even coming from them.

  • 26. sfbob  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:19 am

    "We don't know for sure what the ruling's going to be but you have to stay it anyway. It's an emergency." The emergency being that their delicate feelings might be hurt.

  • 27. Seth from Maryland  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:21 am

    i bet they do know the ruling, they may already seen the ruling before we have, but it can't offically come out tll noon

  • 28. sfbob  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:43 am

    No doubt that's true Seth; I was being a bit sarcastic. I'd venture to say one would have to be quite obtuse not to know how Judge McShane will rule.

  • 29. Seth from Maryland  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:45 am

    i know lol , always fun to mess with nom hehe

  • 30. grod  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:05 am

    Zack – link to filing? G

  • 31. Zack12  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:19 am

  • 32. Sagesse  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:13 am

    Next stop, 'emergency' recusal motion?

  • 33. sfbob  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:18 am

    I wouldn't put it past them.

  • 34. Corey from Seattle  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:46 am

    It didn't fly with Judge Walker. I don't think the 9th will be too sanguine about NOM trying the same tack.

  • 35. sfbob  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:06 am

    If NOM has any sense (a bit "if" there of course) they will undoubtedly realize that, absent some truly compelling evidence, judges don't take kindly to having their colleagues' impartiality questioned. Submitting a request for recusal could make the Ninth Circuit even less likely to take their stay/appeal request. In fact I doubt it would even do them any favors at the Supreme Court level.
    The courts have ruled over and over again that just because a judge shares some characteristic with some or all of the plaintiffs, that does not serve as a reason for recusal. It can even lead to sanctions against the party making the request.

  • 36. Sagesse  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:13 am

    They wouldn't do it because they think it will work. They would do it for the same reason they're trying to prevent McShane from issuing his decision. The court system may give them legal deference to go through the process before being shut down.

    Here's hoping that the 9th is in a place by now where these subjects have been dealt with in the Prop 8 case, and dismiss them outright.

  • 37. davep  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:30 am

    I vividly remember the questioning during the Prop 8 appeals hearing when the defendant interverners were trying to argue that Judge Walker should have recused himself.

    First, they tried to suggest he should recuse just because he was gay. The thee-judge panel asked 'how does that constitute a basis for recusal?'.

    Then they tried to argue 'he's in a relationship and would directly benefit from the decision'. The panel pointed out 'But he could have married during the period before Prop 8 was enacted, and he didn't'.

    The defendants argued 'But he MIGHT want to marry in the FUTURE'. The panel asked 'So… should a married straight judge recuse himself in a trial about divorce laws, because he MIGHT want to get a divorce in the FUTURE?'….

    Yeah, the panel of judges were not amused by these 'arguments'.

  • 38. Kyle  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:56 am

    By their logic, a straight judge couldn't be impartial either since they would stand to be harmed if the ban were struck down.

  • 39. Zack12  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:25 am

    Here's the thing, if NOM hadn't waited, they very well could have been granted standing.
    But they chose to wait until the very last minute, which is the key reason the judge denied them standing among other things.
    I imagine the 9th will do the same.

  • 40. Scottie Thomaston  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:26 am

    I agree, the motion has to be timely.

  • 41. Seth from Maryland  |  May 19, 2014 at 9:29 am

    yep , didn't same thing happen with imperal county , they waited till the last min then deciced they wanted to defend prop 8 , ninth said NOPE too late

  • 42. FilbertB  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:01 am

    Please forgive me if this is an obvious question -but -I am trying to figure our possible scenarios here. If judge McShane issues a ruling overturning Oregon's ban, there is the question of a stay pending appeal. Since the state has said it was not going to appeal, and the clerks have said they would issue licenses to same-sex couples immediately – could the 9th circuit court jump in and issue a stay to consider NON's request to be an intervenor? if so, I am imagining a similar situation where there are couples married in an interim period such as in Utah.
    I suppose we will find out all of this in a few hours -and i have to admit I am anxiously awaiting the decision.
    Thank you.

  • 43. Keith  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:12 am

    "Maine ethics investigators are recommending more than $50,000 in fines for a national anti-gay-marriage organization for failing to register and disclose its activities in Maine’s 2009 same-sex marriage referendum. "That year, an effort to legalize same-sex marriage — approved by the Legislature and signed by then-Gov. John Baldacci — was repealed at the ballot box with 53 percent of the vote. "National Organization for Marriage was the largest contributor to the ’09 anti-gay-marriage campaign, and dumped roughly $2 million into the state. That money was integral in defeating the fledgling marriage equality law."

  • 44. Keith  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:15 am

    “The staff view NOM’s failure to register and file financial reports as a significant violation of law,” wrote ethics commission director Jonathan Wayne in an April 9 memo to commissioners. “Maine people deserve to know who is funding political campaigns to influence their vote.”

    NOM tried, unsuccessfully, to shield the name of its donors from state ethics investigators and the public, arguing that the right to give money anonymously was protected by the First Amendment. NOM lost that battle at the highest U.S. and Maine courts.

  • 45. Quest  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:24 am

    Too bad the $50,000 won't do anything to expose the nasty Christian bigots who financed discrimination. The fine does nothing for the group that was on the receiving end of this Christian bigotry; rather, the fine goes to the state and for nothing. It's a crime that the Christian NOM is getting away with this.

  • 46. TPAKyle  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:29 am

    Hope it comes out of Brown's salary.

  • 47. James  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:28 am

    Wait, don't we WANT an appeal? We want to toss as many cases at the federal judiciary as possible right? Can't we have the state appeal the ruling but simultaneously not ask for a stay?

  • 48. Scottie Thomaston  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:31 am

    No, we really don't want an appeal in this case, since the state agrees the ban is unconstitutional. But the Idaho case is on appeal, and there are opposing parties there. It's in the Ninth Circuit as well, so that takes care of that circuit.

  • 49. Eric  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:32 am

    If we win, we don't need an appeal.

  • 50. Rose  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Not here in Oregon….it's NOT going to be beneficial to ANYONE but the anti-gay bigots who are just trying to delay that which is going to happen!!!

  • 51. Seth from Maryland  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:38 am

    no , not in this case , we don't won't an appeal, there are already cases in the ninth circuit pending their way to the supreme court , if marriage equality becomes legal today in oregon thousands of marriage will happen then fed government will reconzie them making it really hard for the supreme court to overturn them

  • 52. AndyinCA  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:39 am

    James, the state is on our side here, and there is noone with obvious standing to appeal (other than NOM's boogeyclerks & wedding planners). We want the SCOTUS appeal to come from a state whose officers are defending their ban (e.g. Utah, VA, MI, etc.). This will ensure that, given the absence of standing issues, the court will need to address the merits.

  • 53. Corey from Seattle  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:54 am

    The only reason to want an appeal is to force NOM to spend every last fruitless penny on multiple fronts. Rack up those legal fees, boys! I halfway suspect this is NOM's thinking too: it has been their two-decade cottage industry to stagger into court like a row of concussed ducklings and whimper something about th' Babble an' Apple Pah an' Jeezus, Hallelujah. They're going to leap into every case where there appear to be billable hours, so long as the donors have money burning a hole in their pockets. They must know at this point that it's a, er, rearguard action.

  • 54. SeattleRobin  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    But the money thing goes bxoth ways. Any time a case gets more complicated requiring further briefing or gets appealed and requires starting everything at the next level, it means a lot more money needed for our side too. That's a Bad Thing.

  • 55. Zack12  |  May 19, 2014 at 10:42 am

    The state is on our side here, there is no need to appeal a ruling for us. If nothing else, appealing here would allow the courts to punt again.

  • 56. Sagesse  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:01 am

    If I read some of the news reports correctly, NOM has not asked the 9th Circuit to stay Judge McShane's ruling when issued. NOM has asked the 9th Circuit to stop McShane from issuing a decision pending their appeal of his ruling they cannot intervene. Big difference. In other words, the case cannot be over until they have definitively been denied intervention. Does this explain why no decision yet, when it was supposed to come at noon? Can the 9th read their appeal and deny it, or do they have to receive and consider briefing (which they have)? Can this delay be slapped down quickly, or will it work, at least for a while?

  • 57. Rik  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:03 am

    It's not noon yet in Oregon 🙂

  • 58. Sagesse  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:09 am


  • 59. Seth from Maryland  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:09 am

    lol still got 50 mins to go before the ruling is released

  • 60. JayJonson  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:09 am

    And I am waiting with bated breath.

  • 61. Seth from Maryland  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:15 am


  • 62. Sagesse  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:20 am

    Nice. So NOM can go ahead and appeal, but the decision itself (if favourable… never want to count premature chickens) would be merrily in effect.

  • 63. ragefirewolf  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:16 am

    NOM NOM NOM, tasty bigots…yum

    One more hour, I can hardly wait

  • 64. Zack12  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:16 am

    Stay denied for NOM!

  • 65. ragefirewolf  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:19 am


  • 66. ragefirewolf  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:21 am

    I wonder if NOM will try SCOTUS next?

  • 67. Bruno71  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Knowing them, probably. Though after the ruling were to go into effect, I wouldn't be as sure.

  • 68. AndyinCA  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:35 am

    or at least En Banc?

  • 69. Bruno71  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:37 am

    Given that time is of the essence, I'd expect them to skip the en banc.

  • 70. Rik  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:21 am

    Suck it, NOM

  • 71. Steven  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:20 am

    Another lost in their faces!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

  • 72. Margo Schulter  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:21 am

    One distinction that could be helpful: NOM is arguing that it should have been allowed by Judge McShane to be an intervenor and take part in the District Court proceedings, just as the Proposition 8 proponents did in Judge Walker’s district court trial in California — even though they turned out not to have Article III standing to appeal.

    As has been pointed out, the reason they weren’t permitted to intervene was the last-minute nature of their motion, two days before scheduled oral argument on April 23, when they should have been aware by late January and were in fact aware by February 20 that Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum was taking the position that the ban was unconstitutional. And Attorney General Rosenblum, even in the eleventh-hour situation, was quite open to their filing a (very belated) amicus brief, as some other organizations had done in a more timely way.

    So NOM was clearly using dilatory (i.e. stalling) tactics, and Judge McShane exercised his discretion to deny the intervention in part because of untimeliness, and in part because NOM was a national organization with only around 100 Oregon members.

  • 73. Corey in Seattle  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:22 am

    Paging Nelson Muntz.

  • 74. Margo Schulter  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:27 am

    Another factor thaet might not have helped NOM were its allegations that Attorney General Rosenblum had somehow failed in her constitutional duty by not defending what she considered clearly unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that there was “collusion” between the parties. Judge McShane called the latter allegation “unprofessional” at the May 14 hearing on NOM’s motion to intervene.

  • 75. davep  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:34 am

    Links to "no stay", please? Thanks guys!

  • 76. Rik  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:36 am

  • 77. JayJonson  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:41 am

  • 78. sfbob  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:41 am

    Try this:

    and this:

  • 79. sfbob  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:43 am

    Or if you want to see all of the motions and responses in one place:

  • 80. davep  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Looks like the wrong link – that one is for NOM's request for the stay.

  • 81. davep  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:45 am

    Oops, never mind. Was posting that while you guys were posting the new info. Thanks!

  • 82. Michael Grabow  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:38 am

    I can't find any links, I found out from Oregon United for Marriage. Text LOVE to 877877 for updates.

  • 83. Bruno71  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:40 am

    There's a link in this EOT blog post.

  • 84. GilPS  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:41 am

    The denial order from the 9th says the briefing schedule remains the same … What briefing schedule ?! WTF?! There should be no schedule because there won't be an appeal from the defendants, right?

  • 85. JayJonson  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:44 am

    The briefing schedule on NOM's appeal of the denial of their motion to intervene.

  • 86. Steven  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:42 am

    19 MORE mins guys!!!! will all west coast turn marriage equality today?

  • 87. JayJonson  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Anyone in Eugene right now? Is there a crowd in front of the courthouse or in the streets?

  • 88. Seth from Maryland  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:50 am

    10 mins

  • 89. Guest  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:54 am

    7 minutes
    LOL – How many times can I hit "refresh" and will that make time go faster? LOL

  • 90. davep  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:52 am

    …. just keep in mind, there's no certainly that the ruling will be announced at exactly noon, and if it doesn't happen right then, that's nothing to be concerned about.

  • 91. Seth from Maryland  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:54 am

    agreed,didn't it take 20 mins after the time it was suppose too for the ruling on prop 8 to come out?

  • 92. davep  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Actually I think it was more like four and a half years, but don't get me started…..

  • 93. JayJonson  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:56 am

    I thought that Judge McShane's court was in Eugene. Isn't that correct?

    The Oregonian has pictures of people outside the Multnamah County building in Portland. I think they are there to be first in line to marry when or if the ruling that comes down is positive.

  • 94. davep  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    I read in one of the articles that Multnamah County has made it known that they plan to immediately begin issues marriage licenses as soon as the ruling is announced, hence the crowd there. Other counties have not made statements about their immediate intentions.

  • 95. JayJonson  |  May 19, 2014 at 11:59 am

    From the Oregonian: A line began forming outside the Multnomah County building shortly after 5 a.m. Monday morning, as gay couples awaited the chance to get married, should a judge overturn Oregon's ban on gay marriage.

    By 10 a.m., more than a dozen people milled about on the sidewalk outside, sitting in lawn chairs and chatting over a makeshift buffet of coffee and pastries. The mood was was celebratory, with a tinge of caution.

    Judge Michael McShane has said he will rule on the legal status of Oregon's gay marriage ban at noon on Monday. It is likely he will overturn the ban, which voters enacted in 2004, just months after Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

    Deanna Geiger, 55, and her partner, Janine Nelson, 53, spurred the legal debate over gay marriage in Oregon in October, when they sued the county along with the state, arguing the statewide ban was unconstitutional. The pair were second in line Monday morning, awaiting their chance to get married after 31 years together, and months of legal deliberations.

    "It's exciting, but it's also nerve-wracking because we don't know what's going to happen," Geiger said as the pair waited.

    The pair were wed in 2004, when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses, but the statewide ban made their marriage legally void. Nelson said the experience was heartbreaking.

    "It was a total wind out of the sails," she said. "Hopefully it sticks this time."

  • 96. Ragavendran  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Favorable ruling – equal protection violation due to no rational basis. No word on due process. McShane compared the lawsuit to a friendly tennis match.

  • 97. Michael Grabow  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:06 pm


  • 98. sfbob  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:09 pm

  • 99. Zack12  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    The ban is unconstitutional!!

  • 100. Michael Grabow  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    Haha! Wikipedia is already updated

  • 101. JayJonson  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    In a tweet, Chris Geidner reports that Judge McShane has struck down the marriage ban. See Joe.My.God.

  • 102. davep  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    What's happening at the Multnomah County building? Have the marriages begun??

  • 103. Margo Schulter  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    Ragavendran — wonderful news, and a victory for Northwest nice!

  • 104. davep  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    New article is up now.

  • 105. JayJonson  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Victory! From the Oregonian: Oregon's ban on same-sex marriages was struck down Monday by U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, who ruled that the prohibition violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

    Jubilant couples who anticipated a favorable decision from the judge began the rush to officially wed at locations around the state. McShane allowed his order to take immediate effect.

    Oregon becomes the seventh state where a federal judge has struck down a gay marriage ban since the U.S. Supreme Court last year invalidated key sections of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

  • 106. JayJonson  |  May 19, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    Here is a link to the entire ruling:

  • 107. Klaus  |  May 20, 2014 at 3:09 am

    NOM is evil and unchristian

  • 108. Equality On TrialBREAKING&hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 2:11 am

    […] this morning, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) filed an emergency request in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to halt the district court proceedings in the case. NOM had […]

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