Posted on 04/16/2005 1:59:27 PM PDT by crazyhorse691
Disappointment stalks commissioners who favored gay and lesbian marriages voided by state jurists.
For seven weeks last spring, the most powerful women on the sixth floor of the Multnomah Building were the county's patron saints of same-sex marriage.
Feted at tearful wedding ceremonies. Lauded as civil rights advocates. Defiant in the face of criticism and consequence.
But in the wake of the Oregon Supreme Court's decision overturning 3,022 marriage licenses issued to gay and lesbian couples last year, commissioners Lisa Naito, Serena Cruz and Maria Rojo de Steffey and Chairwoman Diane Linn were portraits of disappointment.
"I'm saddened," Naito said Thursday as callers left morose messages on her office voice mail.
"It's so disheartening," said Linn.
Thursday's Supreme Court decision means the county will return more than $180,000 in marriage license fees to couples who are no longer legally wed. And it stunned silent two of the officials who were vocal a year ago.
Rojo de Steffey and Cruz fled from reporters after their weekly public hearing, issuing written statements rather than granting interviews. Friday, Rojo de Steffey was out of town and Cruz did not return calls.
"I am very sad," Cruz said in a press release.
"This moment is painful," Rojo de Steffey wrote in a memo to supporters.
On March 3, 2004, the four women offered a more optimistic face.
Against the backdrop of national debate about same-sex marriage, Linn, Naito, Cruz and Rojo de Steffey held private negotiations to decide what they should do in Multnomah County, where several thousand same-sex households were counted in the 2000 census.
Guided by the opinions of County Attorney Agnes Sowle and an independent law firm that it was unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage, the board ordered clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
It was Sowle's interpretation of the Oregon Constitution that spurred them to act. Sowle said the state Constitution's definition of marriage as a civil contract between "males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age," did not preclude marriage between partners of the opposite sex.
"It merely identifies the qualifications of those who may enter the marriage contract," she wrote last year. "Refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples denies them the privileges and immunities granted to heterosexual couples."
On April 20, weeks after Gov. Ted Kulongoski had requested that the commissioners halt the practice, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank L. Bearden ordered them to stop.
The four lawmakers survived aborted recall efforts, and local public opinion largely backed their stance on same-sex marriage.
But they were lambasted for evading public comment and for making their decision without Commissioner Lonnie Roberts, the board's most conservative member.
Today, Linn allows that cutting their colleague and the public out of the loop was a mistake. "But on the pure issue, based on the information we had at that time, I don't see any other thing we could have done."
Six months after the county issued its final same-sex marriage license, Oregon voters approved Measure 36, which amended the constitution to legally recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. In Multnomah County, 60 percent of voters rejected the amendment.
Roberts, who represents east Multnomah County and opposes gay marriage, said this week his fellow elected officials ought to have scheduled public hearings before granting the marriage licenses.
"My opinion is they were totally motivated by, what's the word I'm looking for, emotions. It was a strictly emotional decision," said Roberts.
Not so, said Naito.
"I did what I believed that the Constitution required me to do and what our attorney indicated what we were required to do," she said.
The county attorney, who issued a statement Thursday saying she needed to review the Supreme Court ruling, could not be reached for comment.
"She's been out of the office all this week, and she will be back on Monday," said assistant county attorney Jenny Morf.
Meanwhile, some proponents of gay marriage now say the county's actions backfired. One of them is the attorney who wrote the second opinion supporting the county counsel's interpretation of the Constitution.
"It boomeranged," said Charles Hinkle, a Portland lawyer who also filed one of 16 supporting briefs on behalf of the county. "They gambled and they lost. If a judicial route had been pursued, it might have resulted in a complete victory."
Linn was nonplused by Hinkle's hindsight.
"His legal position then doesn't agree with his position today," she said.
Linn said the county had set aside the $60 fee each gay and lesbian couple paid to be married last spring. The fees total $181,320.
That money will be reimbursed, she said.
But it won't erase the county's history.
About 260 couples contributed mementos, stories and photos to a commemorative wedding album project displayed last month in the lobby of the county's headquarters.
The items are now a part of the Oregon Historical Society's permanent collection.
Kimberly Wilson: 503-412-7017; kimberlywilson@news.oregonian.com
The queer mafia is deeply saddened.
Oregon's pioneers are spinning in their graves because of the way their state has become.
Ah, ah , ah, liberals. You are not allowed to criticize the courts!
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
At least no one got pregnant on their honeymoon!!
They also violated state open meetings laws, but nobody wanted to prosecute.
Today, Linn allows that cutting their colleague and the public out of the loop was a mistake. "But on the pure issue, ...... I don't see any other thing we could have done."
The county critter states in this article that the "pure" goal is all that is important, and it doesn't matter how they get there.
>>>>,At least no one got pregnant on their honeymoon!!<<<<
I wouldnt bet on that, I heard there was a run on Turkey basters at the local Walmart.
"Sowle said the state Constitution's definition of marriage as a civil contract between "males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age," did not preclude marriage between partners of the opposite sex.
You would think it would have been wiser to specify one male at least 17 years of age, and one female at least 17 years of age. Little did they know how strict a scrutiny would be applied.
Ew.
Little did they know how strict a scrutiny would be applied.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.