Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced earlier this year that she wouldn’t defend the law because it violates federal equal-rights protections as interpreted by last year’s Supreme Court decision.
Several lawyers on both sides of the issue say the lack of opposition will almost undoubtedly lead McShane to strike down Oregon’s constitutional prohibition.
McShane also became known around the courthouse for having a temper. He could be particularly tough on lawyers he saw as unprepared. One prosecutor privately calls him an “equal-opportunity screamer” given to chewing out hapless attorneys.
For years, McShane collected religious icons and was frequently given pictures of St. Michael.
“I don’t think he’s a practicing Catholic,” says Bergstrom. “But I think it informs his life. ... I think he would say he considers himself a Catholic.”
With one longtime ex-partner, McShane adopted a young boy, now 20, who had come from an abusive home. He’s now helping rear the 13-year-old nephew of his current partner, Gregory Ford, who has gone back to school to become a nurse.
McShane’s sexual orientation may have helped him get a foot in the door to be considered for a federal judgeship. The Obama administration has pressed for a more diverse federal judiciary. The five finalists for the Eugene judgeship that McShane won included three women, one an African-American.
there’s been some grumbling about McShane’s involvement in the case.
John Eastman, a constitutional law professor and chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay marriage group, questions whether McShane has a conflict.
“The question is not his sexual orientation,” says Eastman, “but whether he is situated identically to the plaintiffs and will benefit from the exact relief he provides to them.”
In other words, McShane could also get the right to marry his partner if he strikes down the Oregon prohibition on gay marriage.
http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/04/gay_marriage_openly_gay_judge.html
I’m far more surprised that Oregon had such a law than a judge struck it down...
What is so stupid about this is that it’s important to the nation that there is huge difference between (1) penis + vagina, (2) penis + penis + anus, and (3) vagina + vagina + ?.
It amazes me that this isn’t clear as a bell that #1 is light-years different than 2 & 3.
It is far better to assign a new word/phrase to 2 & 3 because it doesn’t approach the impact on the society as does #1. Instead, what will happen is that in the next decade or so, because 1 is so radically different that they’ll assign a new word to 1, so it can be distinguished from 2&3.
A community has an interest in babies. It doesn’t have an interest in who’s in heart-fluttering love/lust with whomever.
Let’s go visit and bring a rope.
How is it unconstitutional? The constitution says nothing about requirements for marriage. That is left to the States. I would like this judge to tell me where all this is spelled out in the Constitution. I don’t see it.
Decades ago the people of CA fully understood what federal intrusion can do.
CA prop 187.
The results of the feds burning the ballots and declaring a victorious free election illegal, can now been seen coast to coast.
Another Bowbama appointee usurps the will of the people!
Another gay Bowbama appointee usurps the will of the people!
Then the People and the States can give their opinion AGAIN.
GOD will judge these anti heterosexual judges.
I wonder if this boy in the black burqa can provide any proof that it’s “unconstitutional”. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says it is. After all, the Constitution belongs to the American People, not some freeloading retarded “judge” who is afraid to get a REAL job. OTOH, maybe he’s talking about his daily constitutional.
Michael McShane
AKA Michael McShame
If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. I lost my Oregon list when my computer crashed recently, so please send me your name by FReepmail if you were on the previous list.
**The U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. It determined the law improperly deprived gay couples of due process.**
Prayer ping for these judges.
I’ll pose this same series of questions on each thread that has another h=judge violating God’s laws and the rights of the several states ...
Just what are we supposed to do about these unelected federal tyrants that continue to push perversion against the will of the people of the several states?
We cannot vote them out, and they do not give a rat’s tail about our objections to their activism.
Are we supposed to just stand around and take it while they destroy every last vestige of decency so to give the sodomite reprobates all they need to totally destroy whatever is left of marriage?
Where do we draw the line and what do we do to stop these politically corrupt and morally bankrupt black robed monsters?
To everyone who thought that the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas was reasonable: does this convince you otherwise? Homosexuals will not be satisfied until Christianity is outlawed; “Christian libertarians” would do best to realize this. If we don’t try to criminalize homosexuality, then they’ll beat us to the punch.
Amazing that OR banned homo marriage at all.
But the left doesn't abide by integrity, judicial precedent, or the Constitution.