It has been more than a year since Oregon voters passed Measure 36, which changed the Oregon Constitution so that only marriage between a man and a woman is legal. Since then, advocacy groups such as Basic Rights Oregon have continued the fight to end discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Most recently, BRO sued the State of Oregon on the grounds that the measure is unconstitutional because it made multiple changes to the constitution and was therefore a revision, not an amendment. Marion County Circuit Court Judge Joseph Guimond upheld the measure Friday, ruling that the changes instated by the measure are “substantive” but not enough to overturn the law.
Although we don’t dispute Guimond’s legal decision, we are disheartened that Oregon continues to deny equal rights to gay couples. BRO plans to appeal the decision, but this group alone shouldn’t bear the burden of mounting legal challenges against Oregon’s law.
Rebekah Kassell, communications director for BRO, said, “Although this is a necessary part of a long-term movement, it’s tough when you realize discrimination will stay for some time to come,” (“Legality of Measure 36 upheld by Circuit Court,” ODE Nov. 7).
We are confident that one day – possibly within our lifetimes, possibly in a hundred years – people will look back on the era when same-sex marriage was illegal the same way they now look back on the time when women were not legally recognized as citizens who could vote. Banning the privileges and rights bestowed by civil contracts to gay couples is an infringement upon human rights and contradicts the values inherent in the concept of freedom in the United States.
Opponents of gay marriage don’t appear to understand the meaning of a “civil right.” After the court upheld the measure, Tim Nashif, political director for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, said, “They’re saying Oregonians don’t have the right to determine what is a civil right and what isn’t. They assume it’s a civil right, but we would disagree.”
On its Web site, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School defines a civil right as “an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury.”
If marriage can be defined as legal or illegal, it falls into the category of being an enforceable right or privilege.
The LII continues its discussion of civil rights, saying, “Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class.”
If the right to marry can be defined as a civil right, which we believe it can, and gays and lesbians are a particular group or class, Measure 36 is discriminatory. Eventually, people will be able to see the effort to legalize same-sex marriage for what it is: a civil rights movement.
BRO’s Web site states that in 2006, “the organization will launch a three-year campaign … to achieve long-term gains in the fight for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality in Oregon.”
We applaud BRO for continuing the fight against discrimination despite the setbacks it has encountered in the Legislature and the courts. Yet even Oregonians who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons should acknowledge that all adults in consenting, long-term relationships should be awarded the same status under the law. We encourage BRO and all people who oppose discrimination to continue their efforts to give same-sex couples legal protection in Oregon.