ADF Alliance Alert

Oregon voters approved a constitutional marriage amendment in 2004 that enshrined the definition of marriage as being between one man and woman.  Despite that vote, officials in Oregon’s halls of power have attempted to undermine the constitutional amendment by subsequently adopting domestic partnership legislation.  Several measures to repeal the domestic partner legislation have been initiated, including Referendum 303.

Referendum 303 (for the November 2008 ballot) was created and submitted to the Secretary of State on September 26th, 2007 with an excess of 6,000 votes. If passed, it would repeal Oregon domestic partnerships.  On October 8th, 2007 the Secretary announced that “there were not enough signatures to sustain the referendum” (see, ADF press release, December 3, 2007).

Citing concerns about the illegitimate invalidation of signatures, ADF filed a lawsuit, Lemons v. Bradbury.  After the U.S. District Court ruled that Referendum 303 supporters have no constitutional right to have their signatures counted, ADF appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asking it to order Oregon officials to properly acknowledge voter’s signatures and put Referendum 303 on the November 2008 ballot.  Ninth Circuit oral arguments in Lemons v. Bradbury are scheduled for July 18, 2008. If ADF succeeds in Lemons, voters should have the opportunity to decide whether marriage counterfeits are permitted in Oregon.

Unfortunately, recent media reports would lead one to think that all hope is lost for voters who seek to to overturn the domestic partner legislation. A June 16th report by the AP on Oregon Live indicates:

Social conservatives and church groups are admitting defeat in their efforts to collect signatures for initiatives to repeal two Oregon gay rights laws in this November’s election . . .

Jeana Frazzini, executive director of opposition group Basic Rights Oregon, is quoted by the AP as saying there is “a sea change in Oregon on this issue.” If that is true, Basic Rights Oregon should support a popular vote. The implication that the initiatives have failed for lack public support is simply unsupported.

While advocates of homosexual behavior are doing all they can to suppress voter participation,  ADF is working overtime to ensure that voters decide whether marriage counterfeits will be permitted in Oregon. This is one more crucial battle, among a growing number, that test whether Americans will be ruled by law or unbridled power.

_______________________________

The following chronology offers additional context to aid in understanding the confusing situation in Oregon:

In November 2004, Oregon voters approved Measure 36 (DomaWatch information). It amended the Oregon Constitution to provide: “only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or legally recognized as marriage.” The constitutionality of Measure 36 was affirmed November 4, 2005 in Martinez v. Kulongoski. (ADF press release, Nov. 4, 2005).

In April 2007, Senate Bill 2 passed. It makes “sexual orientation” a protected classification in “laws relating to unlawful discrimination.”

On May 1, 2007, HB 2007 passed. It creates domestic partnerships.

On December 29th, 2007, Judge Michael Mosman granted ADF’s request for a preliminary injunction in Lemons to halt Oregon’s plans to institute domestic partnerships on January 1st. (ADF press release)

On January 1, 2008, both S.B. 2 and H.B. 2007 became effective after being signed into law on May 9th, 2007.

On February 1st, 2008, U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman lifted his preliminary injunction against the “domestic partnership” law, H.B. 2007, declaring that petition signers had no constitutional right to have their signatures counted. (Opinion)

On February 29th, 2008, Initiative 144 was filed at the Secretary of State’s office.  This initiative  provided that “same-sex unions, civil unions, or domestic partnerships do not grant to individuals the privileges . . . granted by law through marriage.” It purpose was to repeal H.B. 2007.

On March 3rd, 2008, Initiative 145 was filed at the Secretary of State’s office. It would have removed “sexual orientation from lists of protected classifications. ” Its purpose was to repeal Senate Bill 2.

On March 6, 2008, ADF appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Lemons v. Bradbury. This appeal seeks to overturn the February 1, 2008 order by the U.S. District Court.

On March 22nd, 2008, Basic Rights Oregon filed a petition to review disputing the Certified Ballot Title of Initiative 145 issued by the Attorney General.

On March 31st, 2008, State Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, state Senator Gary George, R-McMinnville, and former Sen. Marilyn Shannon of Brooks filed Initiative Petition 146.  Basically, it was substituted in lieu of Initiative Petition 144.

On May 29th, 2008, according to this report from Concerned Oregonians, opposition group Basic Rights Oregon filed a last-minute appeal “with the Oregon Supreme Court to contest the Attorney General’s certified ballot title wording” on Initiative Petition 146.

The Certified Ballot Title Process for the November ballot has been completed; the Attorney General has already issued certified ballot titles for Initiative Petitions 145 and 146. The initiatives are being held up in the Ballot Title Appeal Process. In both cases, Basic Rights Oregon filed petitions for review with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must decide whether the certified ballot titles are in compliance with statutory requirements before they can be placed on the ballot. In both cases, the Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling.

In early June 2008, the Capitol 3 Conservatives Blog posted a press release by Restore America and a couple of reports (one and two) by Concerned Oregonians.  One of the reports by Concerned Oregonians  indicated:

Whether the Oregon Supreme Court takes action or not this Wednesday on the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 145, too little time remains to collect the required signatures. (…)

There is no doubt that if the Oregon Supreme Court had acted ‘expeditiously’ as the law directs, Concerned Oregonians would have gathered well over 100,000 signatures by the July 3rd deadline, and Oregonians would have been given the opportunity to VOTE on at least one of the two most culturally devastating bills in Oregon history.

An article by Tim Brookover and Nancy Ford that appeared in Out Smart Magazine indicated that Oregon is “the first state to elect two openly gay Supreme Court justices.”

Share This