I may be accused of also being tone deaf on this issue, but I am sorry, I really do not get the backlash against Diane and the other members of the County Commission who supported same sex marriage "without public process."

If one believes that same sex marriage is an issue of equality amongst all citizens, why do we somehow think there needed to be some public process to discuss extending the same rights to homosexual couples as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples? When has it been popular in this country to stand up for a minority group of our citizens? When has the majority ever understood the plight of the minority (e.g., Japanese/American internment during WW II).

This is not a time for those of us who believe that it is about damn time that gay marriages be allowed to distance ourselves from those on the County Commission who did the right thing....even though it may have hurt the feelings of some in the process. I believe we have a responsibility to speak out and defend those who stood up and were counted at a crucial juncture in our states history.

Randy, good to hear from you.

All the Four Sisters needed to do was to hold a couple of public hearings, and then pass a resolution directing the marriage license bureau to do the right thing. Is that really asking too much? When you're reversing millennia of tradition, sending the media into an orgasm, and gravely upsetting a large portion of the population, the least you can do is give the opponents a chance to express their views in advance.

The Tanner decision's been on the books for years. The Supreme Court sodomy ruling is nearly a year old. This didn't need to be done in a hurry, and it didn't need to be done on the sly.

And sneaking around on Lonnie Roberts was a particular abomination. What they did was totally violative of the spirit, if not the letter, of the public meetings law.

If they took the same steps and outlawed gay marriage, you'd be screaming about process until you burst a blood vessel. You sanction stuff like this, and some day you will live to regret it. Picture your pals Ted Ferrioli & Betsy Close operating this way.

Look at what happened with capping the reservoirs. What may have been a perfectly good idea was derailed due to flaws in the process. Although the stakes are much higher here, it's the same thing.

I know you dislike too much process, but so did one former college president I know. And he doesn't work here any more because of it.

Randy Leonard, you are officially forgiven for condoning a Harley party in my neighborhood that kept me awake half the night. *wink*

Seriously though, human rights should not be subject to majority vote. I'm with you 100% here.

Which is not to say that Jack doesn't bring up some excellent points.

Jack-
I should know better than to debate a law school professor...however, I can't help myself.

Comparing capping the reservoirs to the rights of human beings to marry misses the point...were talkin civil rights, Jack, not land use policy.

I think this may be one of those issues such as abortion, religion and partisan politics that people either agree on or they don't...however, I do not believe that public hearings on basic civil rights gets us anywhere....that is why it is important we elect people who reflect our collective values....to make decisions that reflect our collective morality...

I can see your point. Certainly 100,000 hours of debate in George Wallace's Alabama wouldn't have reached the right result.

But wait until some county clerk downstate decides that freedom to use one's property is a "fundamental human right" and starts issuing permits that violate state land use and environmental statutes. You may have to rethink your position.

Jack-
This is one of those issues that we should be willing to take that kind of risk. However, I do think the basic issue of truly treating all citizens as equals trumps any other issue comparison...Randy

It's really a question of whether the end justifies the means.

All of this is going to be voted on at some point or another. We all know that. Lon Mabon & Co. willl have this on the ballot within a year.

It's likely to be a close election. And if middle-of-the-roadsters are uneasy with the process in Multnomah County (including WWP, for Pete's sake), it could cost some crucial votes.

And if the majority amends the constitution to say we're all not equal, then I guess we aren't, after all. Which would really be too bad.

Not to mention all the good this is going to do for Bush.

I am going into some uncharted territory on your site...but, here it goes.

"And if the majority amends the constitution to say we're all not equal, then I guess we aren't, after all."

I believe that the initiative/referendum undermines what the drafters of our Constitution envisioned for our system of government. A fair reading of the federalist papers makes it clear that our founding Fathers rejected the concept of a direct "democracy" in favor of a republic.

Their argument, which I adhere to, was that a direct democracy allows for a "tyranny of the majority" that creates fundamental inequities for those in the minority on any given issue.

There is no plainer example than the current issue at hand. I reject the theory that a majority vote somehow makes a public policy "right" or that a public policy not accepted by the majority voting "wrong."

I have given that speech on the floor of the Oregon Senate, the Oregon House and in the chambers of the Portland City Council.

No one has ever stood up and said "right on." I get why not. However, that does not change the fundamental principles behind our republican (do not read party) form of government.

Hmm. Seems I've been missing a good one here. Fortunately, I have gotten back up out of bed after having a brainstorm about another issue entirly and so now I can weigh in as well. Let's see....

Before I respond directly, let me point out what I mentioned on my own site: OPB News reported on February 25 that the County was examining the issue, and no other news outlet bothered to pick it up and let their readers/viewers/listeners know about it. For the media, at least, to be joining in on the process bashing now is at the very least rank hypocrisy and a pile of bull, and they should be ethically and professionally ashamed of themselves for it.

Now.

Jack said: nd sneaking around on Lonnie Roberts was a particular abomination. What they did was totally violative of the spirit, if not the letter, of the public meetings law.

In which case (not that this is related to my main argument here), the Board regularly violates the spirit of that law, since it's already been pointed out that the Commissioners routinely work on various items only with those on the Board that support them. Roberts has done it too, so for him to be a cry-baby now... well, that's also rank hypocrisy.

If they took the same steps and outlawed gay marriage, you'd be screaming about process until you burst a blood vessel.

Uh, hold on. The County in effect had already "outlawed" gay marriage by refusing the issue same-sex marriage licenses. What happened here is that the County Attorney's legal opinion determined that the County was violating the Oregon Constitution by this policy, and so Chair Linn -- heeding the analysis of the Attorney, and entirely within her administrative discretion -- told the Clerk to change the policy to comply with the Attorney's view of the constitutional issues.

Had the County Attorney determined that the existing policy of refusing same-sex marriage licenses was kosher, then the Board simply would have had to do nothing at all to "outlaw" gay marriage.

Randy hits it precisely on the head: This is not a time for those of us who believe that it is about damn time that gay marriages be allowed to distance ourselves from those on the County Commission who did the right thing....even though it may have hurt the feelings of some in the process. I believe we have a responsibility to speak out and defend those who stood up and were counted at a crucial juncture in our states history.

Hear, hear.

Frankly, I'm a little bit ashamed of everyone who is unintentionally doing the work of the same-sex marriage opponents by joining them on the process direction.

Now, don't take that in an Attorney General Ashcroft "you're giving aid and comfort" sort of way.

But others have been saying (Paul of WWP for one) that he's concerned the process by which this was done will do more harm than good for gay marriage in Oregon. In reality, to my mind, it's the bogus fixation on the process question which gives energy to the opposition.

To add one bit to this: Cry-baby Roberts is a perfect example of why I'm irked so many supporters of same-sex marriage are jumping onto the process-bashing bandwagon. In reality what Roberts is doing is cynically using people's mistrust of government in order to hammer away at the process issue, because he'll find more political support for his efforts on that than he would if he was trying to rally people to join him in his prejucides.

It's sickening. And I makes me ache that so many same-sex marriage supporters are helping him out.

This process question is a tactical decision by same-sex marriage opponents beause they know they can stoke those flames and get support. Or, if not support, get politically-cynical people to at least sit around publicly bemoaning alleged process irregularities, thereby helping to distract from the real mission of the Defense of Marriage Coalition and their medievally-minded ilk -- which is, of course, to deny homosexual couples their fundamental civil rights

Lumping people who support civil rights but who care about the process in with those who don't support civil rights isn't fair.

There are two separate issues here. I disagree with you guys about one of them -- the less important of the two by far.

Deal with it.

But not everyone is able to divorce emotion and values and beliefs from process, you know. And I don't think it's a valid defense to offer up he does it too! as a reason for leaving Roberts out of the loop.

There are many people who feel personally threatened and scared by this move. Whether they're right or wrong to feel this way is immaterial - the fact is that since they do feel this way, they'll then choose to focus instead on the process as the scapegoat here in order to have something to make them feel better.

That isn't a reason not to make the move, in my opinion. But you also can't issue a blanket condemnation to the folks who are so twisted up about this that they have to find something external to blame, and you can't expect them to immediately apply reason and logic to the situation.

And the folks who are concerned about the backlash yet support the goal are being realists. Perception often wins out over logic and reason, you know.

And the folks who are concerned about the backlash yet support the goal are being realists. Perception often wins out over logic and reason, you know.

The backlash is being fed by same-sex marriage supporters making hay over a non-issue. There is no process problem here. But I don't know how to spell that fact out any more clearly than I repeatedly already have, so perhaps I'll just stop trying.

Well, okay, maybe one more time. Robert was not "left out of the loop." Members of the Board routinely work on issues only with colleagues who support them. That's nothing new, and it's not wrong. That's the reason why I brought up Roberts' hypocrisy. He's complaining about something they all do that doesn't actually happen to be wrong.

Maybe not illegal. But wrong.

Diane Linn has taken the position that she had authority as the chairwoman of the county board to direct the county clerk to issue licenses to same-sex couples, and that she did not need a vote of the board. The board did not vote.

Fine.

I could buy the "everyone does it" argument if she were canvassing for votes, and the result was a 4-1 vote by the commission, in public, to issue SSM licenses. But she asked for no vote, and said she needed none. Then, if this was truly a matter of law, why was she canvassing some of the commissioners? She should have either asked all, or none. The way she did it comes across as if she was looking not for support but for political cover.

[And as to whether she has the "worst timing and political savvy of any elected official around here sinc Frank Ivancie," Ivancie did win 5 of his 6 local races, usually against strong opponents. I think you'd have to go back a lot farther, maybe to Dow Walker, a county commissioner of the 1920s.

Help me out here. Who has the authority to determine something is "unconstitutional"? Can an elected official? Can an unelected county attorney? I think we have a system of government that leaves constitutional interpretation to the Judiciary. If that is the case, then Linn had no authority to unilaterally decide something is unconstitutional and act accordingly. The proper way for moving forward on this issue is the way it was done in Massachusetts: the Supreme Court interpreted their constitution in response to a lawsuit.

There is a large segment of the population, myself included, that is coming to terms with the concept of same-sex marriage. It is alien to all the religious beliefs that we were taught as children and now as rational adults we can see all sides and evolve, but that takes time. You can not suddenly institute your belief system without input without expecting a major backlash. Instead of moving forward in a timely manner that allows internal processing, the reaction is instead negative and counterproductive to the long-term goal of equal rights for all.

What same-sex marriage supporters seem to fail to realize is that it isn't just fundamentalist right-wing fanatics who are resistant to same-sex marriage. Polls show that even a large percentage of Democrats are opposed not just to marriage, but even civil unions. If you drive those people away by failing to move forward slowly, you may win the battle of Multnomah County, but you will lose the War of Equality for all.

Who has the authority to determine something is "unconstitutional"?

TimC: this information comes second-hand, so take it with a grain of salt, but what I read was that California has a law (that Gary Newsom is violating) stating that if you believe a law is unconstitutional, your role as elected official is to challenge that law in a court.

What I read said that Oregon has no such law, so disobeying a law that you feel is unconstitutional and making other people challenge YOU in a court is a valid way to go about it.

But again, that's second hand.

If you drive those people away by failing to move forward slowly, you may win the battle of Multnomah County, but you will lose the War of Equality for all.

That's one belief. Another belief is that people will be more reluctant to take a marriage away from people who have been granted one.

Furthermore, if same-sex marriages are going to be legalized in Oregon, it's going to be through court challenges, not because voters approve it. Everyone knows voters would never approve that. So, legalize them now and hope it stands up in court? Or challenge it in court, hope to win, and legalize them 10 years from now after all the appeals have gone through? This way is quicker, and the end result will likely be the same regardless.

Here's the thing. Lisa Naito said that after San Fransisco brought the subject up, Multnomah lawyers reviewed Oregon laws and deemed that if they did not allow gay marraige right then and there the county was going to get their asses sued off.

Oregon law allows gay marriage (by the wording), and with the concept so fresh in peoples minds (via Canada and S.F.), Multnomah county was going to have to deal with a rash of lawsuits, all of which would probably win, if they didn't immediately follow the law.

I appreciate that the County Commissioners saw fit to save my taxpayer money and obey the law.

Whether or not the county commissioners held public hearings on the matter of issuing gay marriage licenses would have had absolutely no influence on their course of action. It was based on a legal opinion and interpretation of current Oregon law, as it is written. The arguments on both sides of the gay marriage debate are well-known and I don't think that Ms. Linn made an uninformed decision.

I've seen many arguments from "civil rights supporters" as well as anti-gay marriage folk that fault Diane Linn for failing to listen to the majority or have public hearings on the issue or understand that most people don't approve of this.

The fact of the matter is, that when civil rights are at stake in a case where a minority is being discriminated against, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to ask the majority their opinion on the issue. I'm quite confident that the county commissioners do not live under a rock and they understand that the majority of people in the state (and county) do not approve of gay marriage. Holding public hearings or taking a vote isn't going to tell them anything new.

One job of the government is to protect its citizens - minorities being the ones most in need of legal protection and guarantee of equal status. That's what the county commissioners have been doing, and the opinion of the majority in this case is irrelevant.

-Alicia

Civil rights historically haven't been granted because people followed a public process. It has happened because people have been willing to be courageous and take controversial stands. That's just what the Multnomah County Commissioners did. God bless them for it.

Maybe not illegal. But wrong.

OK, let's have that debate too. (I won't even ask why it's only getting such traction now, instead of in response to any of the earlier Commission actions that came about in the same manner.) By all means, let's discuss what powers the Co Commission should have and what level of transparency we require of their processes. That's a useful debate to have (as it happens, I agree with your assessment of "legal but wrong", and would prefer greater transparency).

But let's not confuse it with the same-sex-marriage debate, which is an entirely separate issue. The Commissioners brought about the current state of affairs in a manner both entirely legal and entirely consistent with the historical functioning of their offices, so that even if it is eventually decided that Linn et al. did wrong and the rules should be changed, there can be no ex post facto action to change the current situation.

Opponents of glbt civil rights will try to use the process debate as a way of avoiding the real issue, which is whether or not we as a community want to create a second, lower, class of citizenship for glbt people. Because the "yes, yes we do" position on that issue is fundamentally untenable, its proponents will do all they can to avoid being forced to defend it directly. Please let's not let them get away with it. Let's keep the process debate (worthy on its own merits, as I've already said) where it belongs: *separate* from the gay rights debate. Neither has any bearing on the other, save only that the latter has brought the former to prominence.

It's a soundbite world out there, so: two issues, two debates.

My earlier comment was posted before I read the substance of the Asshole Lawsuit, which seeks:

a declaration that four of the Multnomah County Commissioners acted in violation of the Oregon Public Meetings Law and an injunction against authorizing the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses; an injunction preventing any reinstatement of the policy of issuing same-sex marriage licenses; a declaration that County Chair Diane Linn did not and does not have the authority to make such a decision; ande a declaration that the statutory definition of marriage permits only the union of one man and one woman.

Hoo boy. That's some impressive over-reaching. Even granting the first two declarations and (on a temporary basis) the first injunction, it's a ludicrous leap from "Linn et al. did this the wrong way" to "any policy they enacted thus must never be reinstated even if found to be valid" (injunction #2) and "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" (declaration #3). The Homos Are Icky Foundation, or whatever they call themselves, want to win all their anti-civil rights battles at once without having to debate anything more substantial than the process by which Linn et al. got the county started issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

That process, whether wrong or right, is not relevant to whether or not same-sex couples should have the right to marry. IANAL, but it seems to me that if Linn et al. are found to have acted wrongly, the most that can happen as a result of that finding is:

1. Linn & co. will face disciplinary action;
2. the role and powers of the Co Commission and its Chair may be redefined; and

3. a temporary injunction may be issued to halt the granting of same-sex marriage licenses in Multnomah Co pending a decision on whether or not to change the State law and/or constitution so as to make same-sex marriage, currently perfectly legal and constitutional, neither.

Even that third outcome seems unlikely, since no matter who asked for them or why, the legal opinions that led to the granting of SSM licenses will stand and will have to be challenged on their own merits. Those opinions, as pdxkona points out, leave the county vulnerable to lawsuits if it does not issue SSM licenses.

Two issues, two debates.

Eventually a court will decide whether:
(a) the Oregon marriage law does not prohibit a county from issuing SSM licenses, or
(b) the Oregon marriage law prohibits counties from issuing SSM licenses, or
(c) regardless of the Oregon marriage law, the Oregon constitution requires counties to issue SSM licenses.
(I don't think the marriage law can be read to require counties to issue SSM licenses, as it contains those "husband and wife" references, but it doesn't contain an explicit requirements that marriages be composed of one M and one W.)

If a court rules that state law does prohibit SSM, then Multnomah County's licenses will likely be held invalid, just as an Oregon-licensed marriage between first cousins would be invalid even though licensed and solemnized. But if the court rules that the law does not prohibit SSM, then although some counties might choose not to issue SSM licenses, the licenses issued by Multnomah County and the resulting SSM marriages would be valid throughout the state.

It's possible that counsel for another Oregon county will issue an opinion that Oregon law does not permit SSM licenses, which opinion is entitled to the same weight as Multnomah County's. Until a court rules, the opinions of county counsels are just that -- opinions -- and not decisions.

Isaac, thanks, that helps me to clarify my point. No matter what the courts finally rule, the process debate that centers on the actions of the Multnomah County Four is not relevant to the glbt civil rights debate. Those actions will not be among the factors considered by the courts in issuing their rulings on your points (a) through (c).

County process and glbt civil rights are two separate issues, and should be resolutely kept that way lest the lesser be used to muddy the debate about the greater.

Good luck trying to keep them separate.

I don't see how Linn's actions save a dime of county money. In case you didn't notice, a lawsuit was filed today and county attorney's will be spending our money defending their actions.

I also think it is a very weak argument to say that Oregon law permits SSM. Argue that it violates Oregon's constitution and you'll have much better luck winning. But again I'll ask the question, who can determine something is "unconstitutional"? I think it is the role of the Judiciary, as occurred in Massachusetts. Any thoughts Jack?

Perhaps an interesting approach would have been for a same-sex couple to apply for a marriage permit in Gilliam County or one of the other tiny Oregon counties and make their lawyers with their massive resources defend the denial of a permit!

Tim: All branches of government take an oath or affirmation to preserve, protect, and defend the constiution(s). Lisa Naito's right: they all have a responsibility to do so.

Thirty years ago, this was emphasized in an article by Paul Brest in the Stanford Law Review entitled, "A Conscientious Lawmaker's Guide to Constitutional Decisionmaking." Indeed, Brest's view (which I got first-hand in law school) was that legislators should go further than courts would to protect constitutional freedoms.

I agree with that. But I think they ought to do it in public, particularly when they know they are about to offend the religious (and perceived moral) sensibilities of a large segment of their constituency.

So Jack, to use your example, if a conservative county commission decides that they need to protect their constituents' constitutional freedoms by ignoring Oregon's land use laws, that it is their responsibility to do so? Then, it would be up to someone with standing to challenge that decision? I'm not sure I agree with the argument that it is the right of each elected body to make their own constitutional interpretation and act accordingly.

I would be interested in reading that article - perhaps I will have to track it down.

Good luck trying to keep them separate.

Does that mean you think I'm wrong, and the two are not separate? It goes without saying that opponents of glbt civil rights will try to blur the larger debate by focusing on the process issue. I'm arguing that they should not be allowed to get away with that.

I'm not a glbt rights opponent, and I'm concerned about the process. It undermines the legitimacy of the movement if you try to accomplish your objectives in a devious way. I'd rather see the integrity maintained. The issues are intertwined, regardless, because HOW you accomplish your goals are germane to a discussion about what those goals are. To me, the biggest issue today is the process issue, which is absolutely tied to the glbt rights issue simply because if the process is screwed up, the rights are not secured. That's how the law works.

I could buy the "everyone does it" argument if she were canvassing for votes, and the result was a 4-1 vote by the commission, in public, to issue SSM licenses. But she asked for no vote, and said she needed none. Then, if this was truly a matter of law, why was she canvassing some of the commissioners?

She wasn't. At least two Commissioners asked the County Attorney for a legal opinion. And members of Basic Rights Oregon and ACLU of Oregon were lobbying them to see if something could be done.

And she didn't need a vote. See my analysis of the open meetings law component of the lawsuit filed today.

Help me out here. Who has the authority to determine something is "unconstitutional"? Can an elected official? Can an unelected county attorney? I think we have a system of government that leaves constitutional interpretation to the Judiciary. If that is the case, then Linn had no authority to unilaterally decide something is unconstitutional and act accordingly.

This is too simplistic. What the Commissioners did was ask the County Attorney to evaluate the proper way the County should be discharging its authority under state law to issue marriage licenses. Making such determinations -- constitutional or otherwise -- is part of the County Attorney's job.

Once she made her findings that the Oregon Constitution required same-sex couples to be issued marriage licenses, all Chair Linn had to do was tell the Clerk to do so.

I'm concerned about the process. It undermines the legitimacy of the movement if you try to accomplish your objectives in a devious way. I'd rather see the integrity maintained.

This got me to thinking, and in fact I have changed my mind somewhat: I don't think that there is a transparency issue here at all.

If I have the facts straight, what happened was that in response to lobbying, Linn et al. consulted two-by-two with each other (so as to avoid involving Lone Loon Lonnie) and then requested a legal opinion from County Counsel. In response to this opinion, Chair Linn directed the County Clerk to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples.

Now, bypassing individual Commissioners seems like a bad idea to me, even if the Commission has done things this way for many years. (This process also bypasses the public, but then we have a representative democracy specifically because we cannot expect every citizen to be fully informed on every issue, so we elect representatives to act on our behalf without consulting us. See also small-r republic, founding of; and majority, tyranny of. Since OPB knew what was happening, it's clear that no special effort was made to hide the deliberations from the public. That's why I say there is no transparency issue.)

But suppose they held a Commission meeting and Roberts responded in predictable fashion to the suggestion that gays might actually be human and have rights: then what? (Although I don't think public meetings were necessary, the same argument applies: suppose such meetings were held, with predictable results: then what?) There would still remain the question of whether the county was obliged to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple who requested one, and the obvious way to proceed would be to request an opinion from County Counsel. Presumably the same opinion would have resulted, at which point Chair Linn would have been at liberty to issue the same instruction to the Clerk.

Now, Linn et al. know all this, so presumably they had a reason for blocking Roberts' involvement anyway. The only two I can think of are: either Roberts would have had at his disposal the means to greater mischief than I can think of, or Linn et al. decided that making their opponents mount the challenge was the faster route to the desired end. If the former -- that is, if Roberts has been robbed of a significant opportunity to act -- presumably the court hearing the Homos Are Icky Coalition's lawsuit will find that Linn acted illegally.

So let's look at the lawsuit in light of that argument. Suppose the court upholds this:

a declaration that four of the Multnomah County Commissioners acted in violation of the Oregon Public Meetings Law

an injunction against authorizing the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses

a declaration that County Chair Diane Linn did not and does not have the authority to make such a decision

This:

an injunction preventing any reinstatement of the policy of issuing same-sex marriage licenses

a declaration that the statutory definition of marriage permits only the union of one man and one woman

All of which is why I still think the civil rights issue and the process issue are separate. Even if Linn et al. did wrong, that has no bearing on whether society should allow gay marriage. The argument that has ended up before the court is essentially the same one that would have come up if Linn et al. had blocked gay marriage instead of enabling it.

TimC: Do check out Brest's article.

Also, read Marbury v. Madison, the seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing the judiciary's right to invalidate laws based on unconstitutionality. A big part of Justice Marshall's reasoning in this, the most momentous court decision of all time, was the judges' oath to uphold the Constitution.

The county commissioners took the same oath.

One of the things the gay marriage issue is bringing to the fore--slowly--is that civil unions are secular and marriage has religious overtones. This is blurry at best in most states for reasons that are certainly understandable with our nation's history. What the gay marriage debate is bringing to the table, I think, is a need to separate marriage from civil unions. That's much more complicated short-term, but much easier longer-term in addressing the legal rights of folks to get hitched and to guarantee them equal rights once hitched...something married gay couples still lack.

I think it should be up to our various religions to grant marriage ceremonies. We only dictate a few things to churches...no human sacrifices, don't deny medical treatment to someone who is dying (think Christian Scientists, for instance), etc. If they want to embrace or reject homosexuality, it should be up to them so long as they don't take their belief/prejudice beyond the walls of the church in the form of things like lynchings, denying legal rights, etc.

For purposes of legal recognition, I think civil unions should be the means for two people to legally bond, regardless of sex. I believe that laws should be changed to reflect that, not reinterpreted by the first lawyer that gives me the answer I want. Comparing this to the civil rights movement in the 60s is revisionist history--the nation had laws and an amendment which clearly made racial inequality illegal...gay marriage has never had that kind of legal standing, though with social change, we're building towards it.

And speaking of social change, I'm sure there are some more exotic combinations out there who would like to be civilly unioned as well...I presume they are still outside the bounds of acceptance for moral reasons? Do we keep the existing limits on age, number of spouses, etc., or are we only doing away with some societal judgements? If it becomes socially acceptable in a few years for men to once again be able to marry 14-year-olds girls in Tennessee (or here), are we fine with that? If an Afghani refugee brought his 14-year-old pregnant wife to Oregon for medical treatment, would we charge him with child molestation because our laws are different? Okay, it's unfair to compare two consenting adults with an adult and a child...so how about three consenting adults, be they Mormon, Muslim, whatever?

The MultCo Commissioners increased equal rights for gays by one local law...better than nothing, but they're presuming society has come to a consensus view that we're really still wrestling with. I'm not okay with 4/5ths of the county commissioners in 1/36th of Oregon's counties deciding in secret when that social change should be made official. I'd certainly rather they'd have deliberated the repercussions more thoroughly and publicly before acting. And, if it really is legal in Oregon for homosexuals to marry, why didn't the MultCo Commissioners go to the state and get a legal interpretation that applied state-wide? Because they knew what the answer would be, that's why. Local authorities should't overrule state law--or the prevailing interpretation of state law--regardless what their local counsel tells them...whatever the subject, whether they are from Portland, Coos Bay, or Burns.

Let's look slightly deeper. The MultCo commissioners and San Francisco's mayor had similar problems...an alarming dip in popularity. Linn's problems have been well documented here. Mayor Newsome, former Democratic golden boy with national aspirations, only won election in November by 11,000 votes over a Green candidate. He did very poorly amongst gay voters. He instituted gay marriage, and ta-da, problem solved. Opportunism or (and?) a belief in gay civil rights...so why didn't he approve gay marriage in his previous term as mayor? MultCo Commissioners...same question.

The Multco Commissioners haven't stood up to be counted--shown bravery in approving gay marriage. They've shown cowardice regards their ability and willingness to have an open dialogue with the people who elected them and with their counterparts across the state to get gay marriage, muchless gay equal rights, approved the right way...through the existing political and legal processes. Their attitude is when in doubt, cheat...the ends justify the means. Some heroes they are. If you're going to champion equal rights bravely, do it without hiding behind a legal interpretation and champion full equal rights. All they've done is reduced institutional prejudice a bit in one county, and hidden behind their legal counsel to do it.

Regardless that I believe in gay marriage (I believe in gay equal rights, and marriage is just one aspect of that), I have HUGE problems with how some local politicians are going about it. We can't turn back the clock, so we'll never know if their actions speed or slow our nation's progress towards gay equal rights. But I do know that selective anarchy, regardless if it's couched in tenuous legal interpretations, fosters a disrespect for the law which erodes the foundation of an orderly society. I thought the goal was to provide equal rights and make society better/stronger for it.

So, what the Multco Commissioners did hurts my feelings...and then some.

Gordie: I'm largely with you, and so are most of the newspapers throughout the state. But many of the true believers up here are just absolutely convinced that what happened this week was just picture perfect, and they've become overnight legal experts as well. No one dare question the process -- it's irrelevant. And you'll doubtlesly be hearing from them here any minute.

Eh. Martin Luther King Jr once wrote: Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

It's clear that Linn did nothing illegal or even unusual; that Linn is being attacked for fufilling her duties in the normal and legal way suggests, I think, that she would have been attacked for favoring gay equality no matter what process was used.

Unless, of course, she had used some meaningless process that wouldn't have threatened the status quo in the slightest. That, I bet, everyone would have approved of.

In the last three months, the gay marriage debate has been entirely transformed. Civil Unions - which only three months ago were a radical leftist idea - has become a middle-of-the-road position. In the end, whatever happens with the short-term legal battles, I think what Mayor Newsome and Ms. Linn and thousands of same-sex couples have done will do more to move the debate forward than small, cautious steps would have.

Maybe that makes me a "true believer." But it's not like you know for sure that you're right either, Jack.

Meeeeee-ow! Right on cue.

Issuing marriage licenses to gay couples wasn't "unusual"?

Two public hearings and a 4-1 vote really isn't asking too much, Barry. Enjoy the backlash, and the upcoming ballot measures.

Jack, if you think that "two public hearings and a 4-1 vote" would have prevented a backlash and the coming ballot measures, then you're totally clueless. There is no method of legalizing gay marriage that would not lead to backlash.

If they had gone with your suggested process, the opposition might have succeeded in getting a court injunction preventing issuing licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, the order to start issuing licenses (if any) would have ended up coming from a higher court, rather than coming from county officials. From a pro-gay-rights point of view, it's much better to have the initial decision come from county officials, rather than having it come from "activist judges" as it did in Massachusetts.

As a lawyer, I can't understand your last point, but even assuming that it's valid, consider this: People like me, who would never vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, would gladly vote for an amendment rescinding the county's action pending a public process.

And depending on how the ballot measures are worded, we just might.

BTW, thanks for calling me "totally clueless" because you disagree with me. You gay rights activists have shown in the last week how good you are at calling people names. A real bunch of Rosa Parkses.

Jack, I'm sorry if I insulted you; I hadn't intended the comment as an insult. (Strictly speaking, I didn't call you clueless, but let's not get into that kind of parsing). But if you want to encourage civility on your blog, maybe you should start by not calling people you disagree with names like "true believers" or responding to their comments with cat noises.

Nonetheless, I'm sorry my bad phrasing caused you to miss my point. Let me try again. Do you honestly believe that there would not have been a backlash and anti-gay-marriage ballot measures had there been two public meetings and a 4-1 vote? If that's your opinion, then I don't think you've made a realistic assessment of the opposition to gay rights.

A backlash is unavoidable, if any progress is to be made at all.

To tell you the truth, I'm totally bewildered as to what principle you're defending here. You're not defending the rule of law - it doesn't appear that a law has been broken. You're not objecting to a lack of public debate - there's been an enourmous public debate on the subject.

You seem to be saying that if the process leading to a policy change is not perfect, then the policy change itself is bad and should be opposed. I could agree with that view as applied to larger process points, but at the point when you're saying "I'd vote for an anti-gay ballot measure to support the principle of holding two public meetings that would have made no practical difference to the outcome and were not even legally required," that seems rather extreme to me.

Hi, Barry. Really, no personal insult intended or taken. But I must say I have never before seen more "sore winners" than I have this month.

I won't buy "The meetings wouldn't have affected the outcome." Before reversing millennia of law and tradition, and threatening many people's deeply felt political and religious views, elected officials must at least let their constituents know in advance what they're planning, and give them a chance to comment.

This process was not just imperfect; it was as far from perfection as I can imagine.

Sure, there has been lots of political commentary on gay marriage, but there was no public debate whatsoever before the body that made the decision. Particularly on the legal point, they should have had some serious constitutional scholars weigh in -- not just an unelected bureaucrat who serves at their pleasure.

What if some county downstate, on 12 hours' notice, starts issuing permits for machine guns, on the ground that the Second Amendment makes laws against such weapons unconstitutional? Legal? According to Lisa Naito, it is. But is it good government?

All the newspapers are right. The Sisters of Hawthorne screwed up.

Before reversing millennia of law and tradition, and threatening many people's deeply felt political and religious views, elected officials must at least let their constituents know in advance what they're planning, and give them a chance to comment.

Why? Are you saying that the four commissioners would have changed their minds had there been a meeting, because they were previously unaware that passionate opposition existed? Did recognizing that gays and lesbians have constitutional rights without holding a meeting to discuss it somehow revoke everyone's free speech rights? Has anyone been prevented from commenting on the decision, if they wanted to?

I'm trying to understand what real-world difference would have been made if the commissioners had chosen one legal method of making a decision over another. You seem to be claiming that anti-gay Oregonians have been denied their free speech rights by this decision, but as far as I can tell they're speaking out more than ever.

What if some county downstate, on 12 hours' notice, starts issuing permits for machine guns, on the ground that the Second Amendment makes laws against such weapons unconstitutional? Legal? According to Lisa Naito, it is. But is it good government?

Why should this horrify me? Most of the best scholarly data shows no relationship between legal gun ownership and gun crimes; the world won't end because more people own guns.

I'd rather have goverment officials act according to their own ideals and try and uphold the constitution, even if I disagree with them on an issue, rather than acting as if civil rights are subject to public polls. (Of course, they do this subject to checks and balances; they have to get by the courts, and they eventually have to face the public in an election.)

What wouldn't make sense is for pro-gun people to say "well, I disagree with the law saying how such decisions should be made, so rather than trying to change that law, I'm going to threaten to start opposing gun rights."

If you're really worried about this happening, Jack, then you should lobby to change the law so that public meetings are legally required for important decisions. That way you'd get a positive change in how goverment actions are taken - not just for this one decision, but for ALL future decisions.

But even if the question was raised in the wrong way, the essential quesiton of the gay marriage issue isn't "should the the County Commission be able to make important decisions without public meetings?" The central question is, "does the Oregon Constitution require granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples?" By linking the two positions together and saying that the rules should be retroactively changed (just for gay marriage, not for any other issue), you're confusing the issues, and you're also generating needless opposition to the procedural change you'd like to bring about.

The central question is, "does the Oregon Constitution require granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples?"

Perfect topic for some public hearings.

You can try and try and try to de-link the substance and the process, but western legal thought doesn't work that way. Every decision needs to be both substantively sound and made with due process.

I don't oppose gay marriage, and I won't lift a finger to prevent it. But there are some other process-conscious folks who might, and maybe you should track down their blogs and preach to them, because you are going to need to change their minds real soon.

For my part, I still think the lack of process stinks to high heaven, and I would never vote for any of the Sisters of Hawthorne again, for anything.