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


Religious Tolerance logo

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

Opinions about the political
structure of the U.S.
NOM unsuccessfully requests a
stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.


Part 10:

Sponsored link.

This topic is continued from the previous essay

horizontal rule

conflict image Differences of opinion about the U.S. political structure:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) filed a motion with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking judges to stay the District Court ruling, NOM's president, Brian Brown, gave his assessment of the case. He said:

"This case is an ugly example of inappropriate cooperation between the Attorney General and the gay marriage lobby, both of whom want to redefine marriage in contravention of the overwhelming decision of the people to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The people of Oregon are entitled to a defense of their decision on marriage rather than being abandoned in court." 1

This statement illustrates two main differences of belief concerning the nature of democracy in the U.S.:

  • Many religious and social conservatives believe that the U.S. is a pure democracy. This leads directly to the belief that the vote of the people, as reflected in Measure 36 -- the 2004 amendment to the state Constitution that banned SSM -- is the highest law in the state.

  • Almost everyone else believes that the U.S. is a constitutional democracy. The highest law in the land is the U.S. Constitution. The due process and equal protection clauses in Amendment 14 to the U.S. Constitution requires federal and state governments to give same-sex couples the same access to marriage as opposite-sex couples.

More information.

NOM's reaction also illustrates another point of difference between many conservatives and others:

  • Many religious and social conservatives believe that the 2004 amendment to the state constitutional is still an accurate reflection of public opinion a decade later.

  • Others study more recent public opinion polls and accept that the majority of people of Oregon have reversed their beliefs concerning same-sex marriage in the past decade. Support for same-sex marriage is now approaching 60%. If the public voted on the same 2004 constitutional amendment today, it would almost certainly fail.

This conflict could easily be resolved if the two sides would engage in sincere, honest dialogue. But that appears to be impossible.

horizontal rule

Further developments involving the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) :

NOM received more bad news during late-MAY. Daily News in the UK reported:

"The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices issued a scathing report, faulting the group for failing to register with the state government as a ballot question committee and to file campaign finance reports while working to defeat the state's marriage equality law in 2009. The commission called it a 'significant violation of the law,' and the group could face fines of more than $50,000 and be ordered to reveal its donors." 1

Marc Solomon, the campaign director for Freedom to Marry -- a group that promotes marriage equality nationally -- commented:

"From coast to coast, today was a particularly bad day for NOM. They were finally called on the carpet and fined for flouting campaign finance laws and illegally hiding their donors in Maine, while their desperate attempt to keep committed couples in Oregon from marrying failed. Perhaps it's time for them to consider moving on." 1

As of mid-2014, many media sources were stating that Oregon is the 18th state to have attained marriage equality permanently. Including the District of Columbia, this makes 19 political jurisdictions where same-sex couples can freely marry out of 50 states, the District of Columbia and five territories.

The next state -- the 19th -- to attain marriage equality was Pennsylvania on 2014-MAY-22. Another District Court judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The Attorney General of that state, Kathleen Kane (D), favored marriage equality. Governor Tom Corbett (R), did not. He was facing a difficult re-election campaign. That might have influenced his decision to not appeal the court ruling or to request a stay. So, the court decision was allowed to stand. Same-sex couples are continuing to marry there.

horizontal rule

2014-MAY-27: National Organization for Marriage (NOM) makes one last appeal:

After being refused a stay by both the District Court and by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, NOM filed a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They asked that the Court issue a stay to at least temporarily halt marriages by same-sex couples in Oregon.

This is another demonstration of the importance of thorough advance preparation by those same-sex couples who wish to marry. They need to have their plans in place to obtain an marriage license and be married as quickly as possible. Many times during the previous decade, the window for same-sex marriages has opened up, only to be slammed shut a few hours, days, or weeks later. So, speed can be of the essence.

NOM's appeal referred to three of its Oregon members who they say:

"... have particularized interest at stake in the litigation." They members are:

  • a county clerk who issues marriage licenses. She or he is probably conflicted between their oath of office which requires them to obey state laws without discrimination and her religious beliefs to not help a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person marry the person to whom they are engaged.

  • a provider of wedding services -- perhaps a wedding photographer or a baker of wedding cakes -- who is conflicted between the requirement of Oregon human rights laws to not discriminate against potential customers, and the provider's religious beliefs which they feel prohibit them from helping a same-sex couple marry.

  • a person who voted for the 2004 state constitutional amendment and is apparently distressed that same-sex couples are now being treated equally. 5

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy received NOM's appeal. He is the U.S. Supreme Court's Circuit Justice who handles emergency appeals to the Supreme Court from Oregon, Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Washington -- the ten states, one territory, and one commonwealth in political union with the U.S. that are served by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 2

NOM's appeal to the Supreme Court was not the first of its type. In Utah, an appeal to the Supreme Court for a stay of a District Court ruling on same-sex marriage was requested and granted in 2014-JAN after about 1,300 same-sex couples had married. But that case was different from Oregon's, because the appeal was by Utah's Attorney General, who -- along with the Governor -- had legal standing in the case. In the Oregon case, the National Organization for Marriage has no similar claim for standing.

On 2014-MAY-28, Justice Kennedy asked for briefs to be submitted to him on or before JUN-02. Although he has the authority to decide such appeals himself, he involved all of the other eight Justices of the Supreme Court. 2 On JUN-04, the Court issued a one-sentence ruling denying NOM's request for a stay. It states:

"The application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied." 3

The Supreme Court does not have any obligation to cite reasons why they deny a petition or an appeal.

David Fidanque, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, said in an interview:

"Obviously, we're delighted. ... Since last June's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court [overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act], every federal court that's looked at this question has concluded that state bans on marriage by same-sex couples are unconstitutional. We're delighted that Oregon has joined the list, and it looks like it's going to stay there." 4

He also issued a statement, saying:

We are delighted that the Court has rejected NOMā€™s attempt to derail marriage equality in Oregon. We are confident that marriage equality in Oregon will help pave the way for marriage equality nationwide." 4

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. "Rough Day For The Anti-Gay National Organization For Marriage," Daily News, 2014-MAY-20, at:
  2. "Gay marriage in Oregon: Justice Kennedy asks litigants to weigh in on appeal to Supreme Court," OregonLive, 2014-MAY-28, at:
  3. Warren Richey, "Same-sex marriage stands in Oregon after Supreme Court denies stay of ruling," Christian Science Monitor, 2014-JUN-04, at:
  4. Maria L. Ganga, "U.S. Supreme Court refuses to block Oregon gay marriage," Los Angeles Times, 2014-JUN-04, at:
  5. Chris Geidner, "National Organization For Marriage Asks Supreme Court To Stop Oregon Same-Sex Marriages," BuzzFeed Politics, 2014-MAY-28, at: The text of their application is at the bottom of the article.

horizontal rule

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

Copyright © 2014 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2014-MAY
Latest update: 2014-JUN-06
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

GooglePage 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