NOM Files Motion To Intervene In Challenge to Oregon Gay Marriage Ban

Eastman

Today the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM) reported that it will file a motion seeking to intervene in Oregon’s federal same-sex marriage case. The case seeks to overturn the 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

OregonThe state’s attorney general hads refused to defend the law in court stating that it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Her decision left no one with legal standing to defend the ban in court this week when it goes before a federal judge.

However NOM says that it wants to be granted legal standing to represent the law's supporters as well as those who would be “harmed” by its repeal. From NOM’s blog:

NOM's lead legal counsel — its chairman John Eastman — will tell the federal court in the filing today that NOM's members in Oregon include a county clerk who must perform marriages and certify them, professionals in the wedding industry, and voters who cannot defend their interests in upholding the law themselves due to legitimate fear of reprisal…

Eastman also said that news reports over the weekend that Judge Michael McShane is in a long-term relationship with another man and that the two are raising a child together raise serious ethical questions about whether the judge should continue to hear the case.

"These recent news reports suggest that Judge McShane is in the same position as the two gay men challenging the marriage amendment, raising troubling questions about his impartiality," Eastman said.

The oral arguments in this case are set to begin in a Eugene federal district court on this Wednesday, April 23.

Comments

  1. pete n sfo says

    And what exactly was that “harm” again; private citizens will be prevented from exercising religious discrimination in the public sphere???

    You can hear yourself, yes?

  2. Gaiboi says

    In language that Brownstain can understand. All of the low-hanging arguments have already been tried. The biggest guns you had were used in prop H8!

    Hellloooo(kncoking on Brownstains head)….is anybody there!!

  3. Fr. Bill says

    A Federal Court cannot “grant” standing to a party asking for it. A party who seeks to intervene in a case either has standing or not under the Federal Courts’ rules. The courts just apply the rules to the applicant.

  4. TampaZeke says

    Of course you won’t hear Eastman arguing that he has a bias because as a (bankrupt) NOM board member and their legal counsel he’s DESPERATE for a paycheck.

  5. shanestud says

    Opponents of same-sex marriage unsuccessfully made the same argument in California when they tried to erase U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 decision striking down that state’s anti-gay-marriage initiative.

    After Walker retired from the bench, he said publicly for the first time that he was gay and in a long-term relationship.

    Walker’s successor, Judge James Ware, refused to vacate the decision, saying that the presumption about Walker’s state of mind “is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief.”

  6. JJ says

    Yes, in our justice system, judges have to live with the consequences of their decisions along with everyone else. That’s not a bug. It’s a feature.

  7. Paul B. says

    “voters legitimate fear of reprisal”…gotta love that one! I guess we’re a tuff bunch and somewhere along the way they’ve become afraid of us. That certainly is the pot calling the kettle black. Exactly when did this tectonic shift occur and is there evidence of it? Those gays are such thugs.

Leave A Reply