Twitter icon

Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD of this site
Vital notes

World religions
Christian def'n
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Interpret the Bible
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation 666
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic beliefs

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Confusing terms
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs. Religion
More information

Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Death penalty

Same-sex marriage

Human rights
Gays in the military
Sex & gender
Stem cells
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news



!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

Same-sex marriage (SSM) and
domestic partnerships in Oregon.

Part 8: 2011 to 2014: Polling data.
2014-MAY: Stay request filed.
Federal judge issues ruling.

Sponsored link.

This topic is continued from the previous essay

horizontal rule

poll symbol 2011 to 2014: Opinion polls in Oregon show gradually increasing support for SSM:

As for national polls and polls in other states, the support for same-sex marriage has gradually increased since 2011 as the opposition has decreased. The trends are not smooth, perhaps because of the small sample size of all of the polls.

Date Polling
% favor
% against
No opinion


Margin of
Error *
2011-JUN Public Policy Polling 1
±3.7 p.p.
2012-JUN Public Policy Polling 2
±3.7 p.p.
2012-DEC Public Policy Polling 3
±4.0 p.p.
2013-APR DHM Research 4
±4.4 p.p.
2014-FEB OR United for Marriage 5

The Margins of Error are given in percentage points. The value for the 2013 poll was estimated by us.

As in all, or essentially all, national and state polls on SSM:

  • Women are more supportive than men;
  • Democrats are more supportive than Independents who were much more supportive than Republicans; and
  • Younger voters are more supporters than older.

The following graphic is from Oregon United for Marriage's Facebook page:

Graphic from Facebook 6

Within ten days of being posted, the graph received 1,036 "likes from visitors."

horizontal rule

thumb up image 2014-APR-01: A coalition of Oregon employers support marriage equality:

A coalition of 36 Oregon employers — including Nike, the University of Oregon and the Portland Timbers — filed a amicus curia brief with the U.S. District Court in Eugene. They note that the state ban on same-sex marriage is causing significant harm to business in the state. The coalition supports marriage equality.

The brief states that the SSM ban requires employers to:

"... involuntarily become the face of discrimination based on sexual orientation when they are forced to administer benefits differently for employees with a same-sex spouse in order to comply with Oregon law (e.g., income tax law). That imposes additional confusion, costs, and administrative burdens, which further harm Oregon businesses and their employees."

Hilary Krane, Nike’s general counsel, said:

"To attract and retain the best talent, we believe we need laws that promote diversity and inclusion, that treat all Oregonians equally and that prevent discrimination."

Frank Schubert, political director of the National Organization for Marriage's -- a group whose sole goal is the elimination of same-sex marriage -- disagreed with the Coalition, saying:

"The top-performing states in the country in terms of the economy are all states that have marriage amendments on the books. The arguments that these (Oregon) businesses are making are empty to begin with." 7

horizontal rule

Sponsored link:

horizontal rule

downward fist image 2014-MAY-19: National Organization for Marriage (NOM) attempts to have a stay imposed:

There was one unusual feature of the Oregon case: there were no active defendants. The Governor and the Attorney General, who would have been the logical state officers to defend Oregon's Measure 36, both refused to do so because they believed that the Measure was clearly unconstitutional. The National Organization for Marriage's sole function is to try to deny all same-sex couples across the U.S. -- and their children -- the security, status, protections and benefits of marriage. They had attempted to intervene in the case as a defendant, but were rejected by the judge.

NOM realized that the District Court was scheduled to release its ruling at noon Pacific Time on Monday, MAY-19. They expected a positive ruling that would legalize same-sex marriages across the state. At the last minute, in a preemptive attempt to prevent such marriages from being solemnized, they filed a petition with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the morning of MAY-19, asking the Court to invoke a stay on the District Court ruling when the latter was issued.

NOM's petition said, in part:

"Unlike in all the other pending cases, however, there is no adversary to Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges in this case. No one to take an appeal. And no one to request a stay that would preserve the status quo in Oregon pending ultimate resolution by the Supreme Court of the significant constitutional issues presented.

That is why NOM sought to intervene in this litigation, on behalf of its Oregon members who have significant protectable interests that will be effected should the district court rule that Oregon’s marriage law is unconstitutional." 8

Other than having to accept the state of Oregon redefining marriage to allow all loving, committed couples to marry, it is not obvious what "significant protectable interests" that might suffer damage among NOM's members in Oregon if the District Court legalized marriage equality.

The state immediately filed a petition to the court in opposition to NOM's/ It stated:

" party to the litigation challenging Oregon’s same-sex marriage ban is seeking to stay the proceedings. Nor does any party to the litigation intend to appeal. To the contrary, Oregon officials are prepared to follow the court’s directives and counties stand ready to begin issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples otherwise qualified to marry should the district court strike down Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage. ... no stay is warranted because it is unlikely that NOM would prevail on appeal. ... As the district court found, it is the province of the Attorney General, who answers to the electorate of Oregon, and not NOM, which does not, to determine what legal position to take in response to a challenge to state law." 8

horizontal rule

LGBT symbol 2014-MAY-19: Federal District Court judge issues ruling, overturning ban on SSMs. Licenses issued:

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane had announced earlier that he would issue his ruling on MAY-19 at 12:00 Noon.

He kept his promise. He declared that Measure 36 -- a 2004 amendment to the Oregon Constitution that banned same-sex marriages -- was unconstitutional. He said in his ruling that:

"Because Oregon's marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ..."

"My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families, families who we would expect our Constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure. ... With discernment we see not shadows lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather, we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and service to the greater community. 9

horizontal rule

This topic continues in the next essay

horizontal rule

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

  1. Oregon in favor of legal gay marriage..." Public Policy Polling, 2011-JUN-24, at:
  2. Oregon divided on gay marriage," Public Policy Polling, 2012-JUL-05, at:
  3. "Kitzhaber, Merkley lead potential foes," Public Policy Polling, 2012-DEC-07, at:
  4. Untitled, DHM Research, 2013-APR-29, at:
  5. "An incredible day for the freedom to marry in Oregon!," Oregon United for Marriage, 2014=FEB-20, at:
  6. "Support for the Freedom to Marry in Oregon is at a record high," Oregon United for Marriage, 2014-FEB-22, at:
  7. Ilene Aleshire, "Coalition supports same-sex marriage," The Register-Guard, 2014-APR-02, at:
  8. Chris Geidner, "Ninth Circuit Denies Same-Sex Marriage Opponents’ Attempt To Stop Oregon Marriage Ruling," BuzzFeed, 2014-MAY-19, at:
  9. Bill Mears and Catherine E. Shoichet, "Federal judge strikes down Oregon's same-sex marriage ban," CNN, 2014-MAY-19, at:

horizontal rule

Site navigation: Home > Homosexuality > Same-sex marriage > Menu > Oregon > here

Copyright © 2013 & 2014 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2014-FEB
Latest update: 2014-JUN-05
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

Go to the previous page, or go to the Oregon same-sex marriage menu or choose:


Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

Sponsored links