March 3, 2004

Depending on your point of view, today is a date that will live in memory or infamy.

Worldwide Pablo finds himself somewhat uncharacteristically speechless at the events of the last 18 hours. What had only been murmurs at the county headquarters before yesterday burst onto the Tuesday's evening news, and by nightfall gay and lesbian couples were lining up to get their marriage licenses. Today, same-sex couples [including several WWP friends and acquaintances] are streaming out the door with marriage licenses in hand and are marrying all across the city.

Not to throw cold water on an otherwise happy day, but doesn’t it seem peculiar that news of the county’s legal research on marriage laws never leaked out? Or that the county timed it so that licenses would be issued with only minutes of normal business operation between announcement and the granting of license? That a county commissioner was left completely out of the process? That the three-day waiting period is being so conveniently waived so as to suggest preplanning? That the instant “wedding chapels” at the Hilton Hotel and elsewhere were ready to go within mere minutes, complete with a retired Oregon Supreme Court justice with prepared remarks?

The end result is right, but the process stinks. WWP fears this will come back to haunt the issue.

[WWP, being a mere mortal with a regular job, cannot possibly pretend to keep people abreast of the today’s fast-breaking news. Find a reputable news website, like this one or this one, to stay on top of the developments. WWP will provide color commentary as events warrant.]

[Update: Betsy is also on the scene. Check out her up-to-moment coverage at her wonderful blog, My Whim Is Law.]

Comments

[Bob R.]

On Process...

I, too, am somewhat torn about the now-infamous "clandestine" nature of the decision.

Now, it wasn't the greatest secret in the world, because indy media had picked up the murmers a couple of weeks ago, but obviously, Commissioner Roberts doesn't read those outlets, and was completely left out by the other Commissioners.

Did they believe he would spill the beans or make a huge stink? What is his past history on matters of social controversy? In his KOIN interview, we appeared calm and pretty reasonable, especially for someone who had been so publically snubbed.

The claim of following the letter-of-the-law may be true. Apparently, commissioners meat only in pairs, because meeting with 3-or more simultaneously would trigger a public meeting requirement. But having a series of meetings in twos sure does look sneaky, at least at first blush.

But then, I ask myself, is the recognition of constitutional rights by public officials something that necessitates public involvement? Certainly, if rights were being taken away, or if actual county codes were being rewritten, there would need to be public input.

But let's flip the coin: How many times, throughout history, have people gone to government officials and said "Hey, what you're doing is unconstitutional", and then later be forced to go to court. What the county is doing here, is saying "Hey, we checked, and you're right, denying this right is unconstitutional, so we're going to go ahead and do it." Don't government officials have that authority? How seriously should we take the constitutional oath?

I think a lot of good things were said in the press conference, but perhaps it would have allayed some suspicions of someone had said: "When officials are asked to recognize a basic right, no matter how controversial, it is not a process that goes to a vote or endless series of meetings. Rights are rights, and the legal opinion given to us is that we were wrong to deny them in the past."

Suppose a school district was overtly denying the right of students to read the bible, even during private study time. If a parental group approached the school board president about this violation of rights, and the shool board president avoided another school board member who he knew didn't like the bible and would make a fuss, but instead notified the schools to stop interfering with private bible study, would there be an outcry about secrecy and the lack of public meetings? I don't think so.

The difference here is that the right in question is recently recognized and far more controversial, without a lot of court cases to use as a backdrop. But the basic scenario is the same: Rights were being denied by public officals, a group asked some of those officials with authority to reconsider, and they did.

Torn but joyful,
Bob R.

[Betsy]

Since I am currently unemployed, was on the scene, and know that b!X is splitting his time between county and city affairs today, I've humbly got updates and links to coverage on my own site.

[Worldwide Pablo]

Betsy:

You've been linked! [Thanks for the "nudge."] There's some terrific stuff there, so everyone go check it out.

--WWP

[brett]

I think it's more that the county knew there would be a lot of attention focused on this issue, and they wanted to get their ducks in a row before going public. I give them credit for running such a smooth operation. I also give the Legislature credit for writing such an ambiguous statute, as is its wont.

[TimC]

You're absolutely right about the process WWP. To quote Steve Duin (not something I do everyday): "Four women on the Multnomah County board just declared war. Not just on the opponents of gay marriage, but on the undecided, unsolicited, unnerved mass in the middle." I am in that "mass in the middle" more on the side everyday of supporting gay marriage, but this isn't the way to do it.