Monday mélange

An unusually busy day, and the regular monthly deadline at the office, curtails Worldwide Pablo's enthusiasm for posting much today. But, darn it, there's just too much good stuff.

That's what courts are for: So, the county commission has given new life to the issuance of marriage certificates to same-sex couples here in Multnomah County. Here in Oregon, our county commissioners pretty much act as two branches of government, both executive and legislative. Guess that wasn't enough for Diane & Co.: Now the commission has decided to be the judicial branch, too, and will begin interpreting the meaning of the state constitution.

Funny. WWP thought that's what the supreme court is for.

[And if you don't think this cuts both ways, think for a moment about the judge who thinks he should be making laws.]

Process? What process? Part of the process breakdown became ever-so clear today with the commission's announcement. Nearly always, laws are overturned when their enforcement is challenged in court by individuals, and then ultimately perhaps, overturned in a court of law. It's the funny little trifle known as "the rule of law."

The commissioners have chosen a go-alone approach, which presents a new question: Is it even possible for government to exercise "civil disobedience?" Or is that just tired buzz language for a post-60s mindset at the Multnomah Building for a collective distaste of enforcing a law before a proper and constitutionally required court has been asked to rule on it?

While we're at it: What's the basis for an executive branch or legislative branch of government to interpret law and then act up on unilaterally? Moreover, to what degree does the insular approach inflame and accelerate an anti-gay election this fall, before which date there likely is not enough time to effectively block the [self-inflicted] steamroller of newly, and now historically, enraged conservative religious activism that will produce exactly the wrong result? There's a good discussion of related topics over at Jack Bog’s Blog.

Expecting the wurst: Hah! Think we have religious turmoil? Try Boston, where events might be described as wiener, wiener, whiners' woe…

Not so fast, Falwell: The evangelical pundits of conservative television inveigh daily about the history and meaning of heterosexual marriage. Well, not so fast, Jerry.

From First Amendment to Frist Amendment? Here’s a first. Religious ministers were charged with illegally marrying same sex couples. WWP begs you to wonder: Just what exactly is conservative about that?

Comments

[The One True b!X]

What's the basis for an executive branch or legislative branch of government to interpret law and then act up on unilaterally?

In Oregon, that would be Cooper v. Eugene.

[Worldwide Pablo]

b!X: If memory serves, Cooper might extend to statutory law, but not constitutional law. But allow WWP to Shepardize first...

[Worldwide Pablo]

Well, that's a stretch. How exactly did you get there?

[The One True b!X]

This way, with a brief side journey into Employment Division v. Rogue Valley Youth for Christ.

[Worldwide Pablo]

A generous reading, to WWP's eyes.

Anyone else?

[The One True b!X]

Well, let's drop this thing about not giving specifics.

The Oregon Supreme Court writing in Employment Division, and citing Cooper, said that an agency "[m]ust administer the law in accordance with constitutional principles, and must enforce its statutory obligations. If a statute tells an agency to do something that a constitution forbids, the agency should not do it."

What, specifically, is unclear about that?

[Worldwide Pablo]

Specifics...

Yes, the devil is in the dicta.

[PS: Citation? The case in unsearchable by that name or those words.]

[The One True b!X]

At the moment, I only have an electronic copy of the Employment Division decision and it's reference to Cooper, and various online references and citations of Cooper. I'm still working on getting Cooper itself. Let me dump Employment Division to pdf in the meantime.

[Jack Bog]

Art. IV, sec. 10, limits county power to matters of county concern. This is a statewide issue, ergo no county power. At least, that's my theory unless and until somebody proves me wrong.

[brett]

Counties, not the state, issue marriage licenses, so it's certainly a county concern in that respect. As Cooper said:

"The Superintendent of Public Instruction himself holds a constitutional office, Or Const, Art VIII, § 1, and must satisfy himself that he conducts it in accordance with the constitution."

County commissioners also hold constitutional offices, or at least perform duties subject to constitutional scrutiny, and so they have to satisfy themselves that they are performing those duties in accordance with the constitution. They asked for an opinion from their counsel and outside counsel, got one, and acted accordingly. I don't see this as a process issue. The lack of transparency is.