The following marriages are prohibited; and, if solemnized
within this state, are absolutely void:
(1) When either party thereto had a wife or husband living
at the time of such marriage.
(2) When the parties thereto are first cousins or any nearer
of kin to each other, whether of the whole or half blood,
whether by blood or adoption, computing by the rules of
the civil law, except that when the parties are first cousins
by adoption only, the marriage is not prohibited or void.
(Oregon Revised Statutes Section 106.020)
CONSTITUTION
Or. Const. Art. XV, sec. 5a (approved by the electorate
on November 2, 2004):
It is the policy of Oregon, and its subdivisions, that
only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid
or legally recognized as a marriage.
The Court granted a preliminary injunction, but denied the motion for permanent injunction. The decision has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit and waiting for oral argument.
Action for declaratory relief filed on January 31, 2005
challenges the constitutionality of Measure 36 which amended
Oregon's constitution to define marriage as between one
man and woman. The complaint alleges that the amendment
revises the constitution illegally in violation of separation
of powers and violates a single subject rule for constitutional
initiatives. The Circuit Court found Measure 36 to be valid. The Plaintiffs appealed, and on May 21, 2008 the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts ruling.
In January 2004, Multnomah County began secretly planning
how to justify issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
They began issuing licenses on March 4, 2004. Two lawsuits
were filed to stop the county’s actions, but those
lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed to permit all the
issues to be litigated in this one action subsequently
filed by the ACLU on behalf of same-sex couples. On April
20, 2004, the court ruled that there is no right to same-sex
“marriage” under the Oregon Constitution and
ordered the county to cease issuing marriage licenses
to same-sex couples. However, the court also ruled that
same-sex couples are entitled to the same benefits and
protections as married couples. The court ruled that if
the legislature does not grant those benefits and protections
to same-sex couples within 90 days of beginning its next
legislative session, the county must begin issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples. The case is on expedited
appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. Opening briefs are
due September 20; amicus briefs on October 14; response
briefs on October 18; and reply briefs on October 28.
Oral argument is scheduled for November 17, 2004.
Defense of Marriage Coalition v. Benton County
Benton County announced that it too was going to issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and this suit was
filed prevent the county from doing so. Benton County
thereafter decided to wait on the decision in Li v. State
before going forward with issuing licenses to same-sex
couples, but also decided it would not issue licenses
to anyone until the issue of whether same-sex couples
can marry is resolved. This case is currently on hold
pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Li.
Nusbaum v. Modrell, Case No. 04-10298
An opposite-sex couple filed this action to require Benton
County to issue them a marriage license. At a hearing
on August 25, 2004, the court denied Benton County’s
motion to dismiss and issued a mandamus order requiring
the county to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex
couples.
