Same-sex marriage in Oregon

{{main|Domestic partnership in Oregon}}

Following the passage of the constitutional amendment and the Supreme Court's decision in Li and Kennedy, state officials began efforts to establish domestic partnerships granting virtually all of the rights and benefits of marriage. A bill was first passed in the Oregon State Senate in July 2005, but failed to pass the House of Representatives. Following the 2006 elections, similar legislation was re-introduced and passed both chambers of the Assembly. Governor Ted Kulongoski signed it into law on May 9, 2007. Since February 4, 2008, same-sex couples have had access to domestic partnerships, which guarantee almost all of the rights of marriage.

On March 3, 2004, Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after its attorney issued a legal opinion that such marriages were lawful.[https://web.archive.org/web/20040404020900/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fnews%2Farchive%2F2004%2F03%2F02%2Fstate2223EST7030.DTL Multnomah County authorizes same-sex marriages starting Wednesday]{{cite web|url=http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/03/030304portlandLic.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060309055055/http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/03/030304portlandLic.htm |archive-date=March 9, 2006 |title=Gay Couples Marry As Portland Ore. Says 'I Do' |access-date=February 20, 2014}}{{cite web| url = http://www.oregonlive.com/special/gaymarriage/ | title=Judge upholds ban: A Marion County judge rejects constitutional challenges to last year's Ballot Measure 36| publisher = The Oregonian | access-date = February 3, 2008}} On that day, Multnomah County issued 422 marriage licenses, compared to the 68 it issued on an average day. Local businesses reported an increase in the sales of flowers and other marriage-related services directly related to the beginning of same-sex marriages. According to the 2000 U.S. census, 3,242 same-sex couples were living in the county.[https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/375864 2000 and 2010 Census Profile] Neighboring Washington and Clackamas counties announced that they were studying Multnomah County's legal opinion, but did not plan to immediately follow suit.

At a hearing on March 9, 2004, after the county had issued approximately 1,700 marriage licenses to same-sex couples, County Circuit Judge Dale Koch refused to issue an injunction to stop the county from continuing the process.{{cite news|last=Parker |first=Jim |author2=Abe Estimada |title=Multnomah Co. judge refuses to halt same-sex marriages |date=March 8, 2004 |publisher=KGW TV |url=http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_030804_news_marriage_lawsuit.65ff4b93.html |access-date=March 29, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927221002/http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_030804_news_marriage_lawsuit.65ff4b93.html |archive-date=September 27, 2007 |url-status=dead |df=mdy }} A later study by The Oregonian showed that out the approximately 1,700 same-sex couples married in the first week, 2,026 spouses were from Multnomah County, while about 900 others came from other locations in Oregon, about 490 from the state of Washington, and 30 from other states.[http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/BIRTHDEATHCERTIFICATES/VITALSTATISTICS/Pages/ssmarry.aspx#table1 Same-sex Marriage Statistics 2004] On March 10, 2004, the Oregon Legislative Counsel, Greg Chaimov, issued an opinion that "state law requires a county clerk to license the marriage of a same-sex couple."{{cite web | url = http://communique.portland.or.us/documents/040309/legislative_counsel_ssm.pdf | title = Same-Sex Marriage: letter to Senator Kate Brown (Senate Democratic Leader) | author = Gregory A. Chaimov, Legislative Counsel | date = March 8, 2004 | access-date = February 3, 2008 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110927184549/http://communique.portland.or.us/documents/040309/legislative_counsel_ssm.pdf | archive-date = September 27, 2011 | url-status = dead | df = mdy-all }} The office of Attorney General Hardy Myers issued an opinion on March 12, 2004, after reviewing it with Governor Ted Kulongoski, that concluded that Oregon law prohibits county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; that the Oregon Supreme Court would likely find denying such licenses violates Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution; but that current state practices should not change in anticipation of such a ruling. It also said that the Attorney General's office lacked the authority to order Multnomah County to cease issuing licenses for same-sex marriages.Oregon Department of Justice: [https://web.archive.org/web/20060218045019/http://www.doj.state.or.us/pdfs/AG_samesexopinion.pdf March 12, 2004], accessed November 1, 2012

On March 15, 2004, Multnomah County commissioners announced that they would continue to issue licenses to same-sex couples.{{cite news|last=Law|first=Steve|title=Same-sex weddings continue; validity in doubt|publisher=Salem Statesman Journal|url=http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=77139|archive-url=https://archive.today/20060125040111/http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=77139|archive-date=January 25, 2006|date=March 16, 2004|access-date=March 29, 2007}} On March 16, following public hearings, Benton County commissioners voted 2–1 to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on March 24, but reversed their decision on March 22 after receiving two letters from the Attorney General and a phone call threatening the arrest of the county clerk,{{cite book|title=Gay Rights|first1=Rachel|last1=Kranz|first2=Tim|last2=Cusick|publisher=Infobase Publishing|date=2014|isbn=978-1438125497|page=48}} and decided to issue no marriage license at all pending a decision by the Multnomah County Court.{{cite web|title=Oregon county bans all marriages|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4593583|date=2004-03-24|access-date=2022-12-22|website=NBC|archive-date=2022-05-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220516063408/https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4593583}}{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/27/us/gay-no-marriage-license-here-straight-ditto.html|work=The New York Times|first=Kate|last=Zernike|title=Gay? No Marriage License Here. Straight? Ditto.|date=March 27, 2004}}

With the consent of the state, three same-sex couples sued the state of Oregon in Multnomah County Court, including Mary Li and Rebecca Kennedy, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license from Multnomah County. At a hearing before Judge Frank Bearden on April 16, 2004, in Li and Kennedy v. State of Oregon, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Basic Rights Oregon represented the plaintiffs and the Oregon Department of Justice and the Defense of Marriage Coalition defended the state's position.[https://web.archive.org/web/20040318060124/http://www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org/ Mission Statement of the Defense of Marriage Coalition] On April 20, 2004, Bearden ordered the county to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and ordered the state to recognize the 3,022 marriage licenses already issued. The Oregon state registrar had been holding the completed licenses pending a court decision as to their validity, rather than entering them into the state's records system. Bearden also found that the Oregon Constitution would likely allow some form of marriage rights to same-sex couples, and directed the Legislative Assembly to act on the issue within 90 days of the start of its next session. He ruled that if the Assembly failed to address the issue within that time, he would allow Multnomah County to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It was understood that both parties would appeal the decision. In July 2004, the Court of Appeals lifted the temporary ban blocking the registration of the marriage licenses issued by Multnomah County. The state announced that processing would take a week and began doing so within hours of the court's action.[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Pages/OpinionsCOA2004.aspx Opinions Issued in 2004]

{{Main|2004 Oregon Ballot Measure 36}}

On May 21, 2004, the Defense of Marriage Coalition received approval for the language of a proposed initiative to prohibit same-sex marriage. They began circulating petitions to obtain the 100,840 valid signatures needed by July 2 to place the initiative on the November ballot. On November 2, 2004, voters approved Ballot Measure 36, a constitutional amendment defining the marriage of "a man and a woman" as the only one recognized by the state, by a margin of 57% to 43%. The Defense of Marriage Coalition said that opponents of Measure 36 outspent their group more than 2 to 1.{{cite web|title=Christian voters' impact in Oregon still under review|first=John|last=Fortmeyer|url=http://www.cnnw.com/articles/articles12-04-1.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041204192037/http://www.cnnw.com/articles/articles12-04-1.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=December 4, 2004|access-date=March 17, 2007}} The now-defunct amendment read: "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."Wikisource:Oregon Constitution/Article XV

In February 2013, Basic Rights Oregon formed the group Oregon United for Marriage to put an initiative legalizing same-sex marriage on the November 2014 ballot.{{cite web| url=http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/02/backers_of_gay_marriage_will_t.html | title=Backers of gay marriage will take their cause to Oregon ballot in 2014 | publisher=Oregon Live| date=February 11, 2013}} The initiative would have replaced the state's constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples with provisions guaranteeing the right of all persons to marry without respect to gender.{{cite news| url=http://www.oregonunitedformarriage.org/news/oregon-united-for-marriage-turns-in-2000-sponsorship-signatures-on-the-freedom-to-marry-and-religious-protection-initiative| title=Oregon United for Marriage Turns in 2,000 Sponsorship Signatures on the Freedom to Marry and Religious Protection Initiative | access-date=July 1, 2013| newspaper=Oregon United for Marriage| date=February 19, 2013}} On July 26, 2013, the petition campaign to get the required signatures was launched.{{cite news | url=http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/oregon-united-launches-petition-campaign-to-put-marriage-on-the-ballot| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130726212632/http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/oregon-united-launches-petition-campaign-to-put-marriage-on-the-ballot| url-status=dead| archive-date=July 26, 2013| title=Oregon United Launches Petition Campaign to Put Marriage on the Ballot | date=July 24, 2013 | publisher=Human Rights Campaign}}{{cite web |url= http://www.oregonsaysido.org/ |title=Oregon Says I Do}} By early December 2013, the 116,284 minimum required signatures had been reached, but signature collection continued.{{cite news|last=Zheng|first=Yuxing|title=Marijuana legalization, same-sex marriage advocates say federal decisions strengthen 2014 Oregon ballot initiative efforts|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/marijuana_legalization_same-se.html|access-date=September 30, 2013|newspaper=Oregon Live|date=August 30, 2013}}{{cite news|url=http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=17181&MediaType=1&Category=26|title=Oregon Campaign For Gay Marriage Hits Signature Goal|publisher=On Top Magazine|date=December 8, 2013}} The campaign was endorsed by the Democratic Party of Oregon,{{cite news|url=http://www.dpo.org/node/48415|title=Democratic Party of Oregon Endorses Marriage Equality Campaign|publisher=Democratic Party of Oregon|date=June 14, 2013}} and various major businesses.{{cite news|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2013/10/intel_on_pending_oregon_ballot.html |title=Intel, on pending Oregon ballot measure: We support marriage equality|publisher=Oregon Live|date= October 19, 2013}}{{cite web | url = http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20131119/UPDATE/131119029/Nike-gives-280-000-support-same-sex-marriage-Oregon- | title = Nike gives $280,000 to support same-sex marriage in Oregon |author = Anna Staver |work = Statesman Journal |date = November 19, 2013}} The campaign gathered more than 160,000 signatures, enough to place its proposal, the Oregon Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, on the November 4, 2014 statewide ballot. Following the May 2014 U.S district court decision in Geiger v. Kitzhaber, striking down Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage, the group announced that it was "confident that the freedom to marry is secure in Oregon" and that it would not proceed with the measure.{{cite news |url=http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/23/gay-marriage-campaign-winds/9499083/|title=Oregon gay marriage campaign winds down|publisher=Statesman Journal|access-date=August 30, 2014|first=Anna|last=Staver}}{{cite web|url=http://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Same-Sex_Marriage_Amendment_(2014) |title=Oregon Same-Sex Marriage Amendment (2014) |publisher=Ballotpedia |access-date=February 20, 2014}}

In April 2023, Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber introduced Senate Joint Resolution 33 (SJR 33), a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to same-sex marriage, abortion and gender-affirming care, to the Oregon Senate. On April 27, 2023, the Committee on Rules adopted the amendment by a vote of 3–2. On May 2, 2023, senators Tim Knopp and Bill Hansell recommended that the amendment be modified to simply repeal the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage rather than instate language guaranteeing the right to same-sex marriage. On June 15, 2023, Republicans announced, as part of a deal reached with Democrats to end their six week walkout, that Democrats had agreed to kill the amendment. That same day, the Senate adopted, by a vote of 22–7 absent, a motion to re-refer SJR 33 to the Committee on Rules. The legislation died in committee when the Senate adjourned sine die on June 25, 2023.{{cite web|url=https://www.opb.org/article/2023/04/19/oregon-constitutional-amendment-proposal-abortion-gender-affirming-care-marriage-election-2024/|title=Oregon Democrats propose constitutional amendment on abortion, same-sex marriage, gender-affirming care|work=OPB|first=Amelia|last=Templeton|date=April 19, 2023}}{{cite web|url=https://legiscan.com/OR/bill/SJR33/2023|title=Oregon Joint Resolution 33|work=LegiScan|accessdate=June 19, 2023}}{{cite web|url=https://www.opb.org/article/2023/06/15/oregon-republican-walkout-legislature-deal/|title=Oregon lawmakers make deal to end Senate walkout. Here’s how key bills were changed|work=Oregon Public Broadcasting|accessdate=July 2, 2024}}{{cite web|url=https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2023/06/republican-led-walkout-ends-after-more-than-a-month-as-oregon-senate-resumes-business.html|title=Republican-led walkout ends after more than a month as Oregon Senate resumes business|work=The Oregonian|accessdate=July 2, 2024}}{{cite web|url=https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Measures/Overview/SJR33|title=SJR 33 2023 Regular Session|work=Oregon Legislative Assembly|accessdate=July 2, 2024}}

File:LGBT equality protest in Portland.jpg to advocate for the legalization of same-sex marriage, October 2009]]

On December 15, 2004, the Oregon Supreme Court heard arguments in the appeal of Li and Kennedy v. State of Oregon. Oregon argued that Multnomah County lacked the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses and that Ballot Measure 36 was retroactive, making the issue of those licenses moot. The Defense of Marriage Coalition argued that Measure 36 was not retroactive, there had been no constitutional violation of the rights of same-sex couples, and Multnomah County did not have the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses even to remedy a constitutional violation. The ACLU argued that Measure 36 was not retroactive, that the rights of same-sex couples under the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Oregon Constitution had been violated, and that counties were required to remedy perceived constitutional violations.

On April 14, 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court decided Li and Kennedy, ruling that Multnomah County lacked the authority to remedy a perceived violation of the Oregon Constitution and that all marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples were void when issued. The court noted that the Oregon Constitution had since been amended to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and it therefore declined to rule as to whether or not same-sex couples had any rights under the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Oregon Constitution.{{cite web|url=http://www.ojd.state.or.us/SCA/WebMediaRel.nsf/12dcaa278a9ef13688256c8d007729df/cb3b1bd8aea1b3f588256fe30050ebdf?OpenDocument|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929073547/http://www.ojd.state.or.us/SCA/WebMediaRel.nsf/12dcaa278a9ef13688256c8d007729df/cb3b1bd8aea1b3f588256fe30050ebdf?OpenDocument|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 29, 2011|title=Mary Li and Rebecca Kennedy et al. v. State of Oregon et al.|publisher=Oregon Judicial Department|date=April 14, 2005|access-date=November 23, 2008}}

On October 16, 2013, based on an opinion from the Oregon Department of Justice,{{cite web|title=Oregon Department of Justice: Letter|url=http://media.oregonlive.com/politics_impact/other/AG_Opinion.pdf|publisher=Oregon Live|access-date=August 30, 2014}} the state's Chief Operating Officer, Michael Jordan, announced that Oregon would begin recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions "for the purposes of administering state programs."{{cite news|last=Damewood|first=Andrea|title=Oregon To Recognize Marriages of Gay Couples Wed Out of State|url=http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30815-permalink.html|access-date=February 13, 2014|newspaper=Willamette Week|date=October 16, 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140224052637/http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30815-permalink.html|archive-date=February 24, 2014|df=mdy-all}}

{{Main|Geiger v. Kitzhaber}}

On October 15, 2013, two couples, an unmarried lesbian couple and two men already married in Canada, filed a lawsuit, Geiger v. Kitzhaber, in U.S. district court in Eugene, challenging the Oregon Constitution's ban on same-sex marriage.{{cite web| url= http://www.katu.com/news/local/Lawsuit-filed-to-overturn-Oregons-same-sex-marriage-ban-227955171.html | title = Lawsuit filed to overturn Oregon's same-sex marriage ban | author = Erica Nochlin | work = KATU news | date = October 15, 2013}} This made Oregon the 20th U.S. state to have a federal lawsuit challenging its ban on same-sex marriage filed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor in June 2013 invalidated part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).{{cite web | url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/portland-trailblazers-marriage-equality_n_4109662.html | title = Portland Trailblazers Back Gay Marriage, Becoming First NBA Team To Do So | author = James Nichols | work = Huffington Post| date = October 16, 2013}} Two more couples and the Basic Rights Education Fund filed another same-sex marriage case on December 19, 2013, with this latter case captioned Rummell and West v. Kitzhaber.

On January 22, 2014, Judge Michael J. McShane consolidated the two lawsuits and scheduled oral arguments for April 23.{{cite news|title=Judge consolidates Oregon gay-marriage lawsuits|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-consolidates-oregon-gay-marriage-lawsuits/2014/01/22/f496aee0-83d1-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181222125515/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-consolidates-oregon-gay-marriage-lawsuits/2014/01/22/f496aee0-83d1-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=December 22, 2018 |access-date=January 23, 2014|newspaper=Washington Post|date=January 22, 2014}} On February 20, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum told the court that she believed "that performing same-sex marriages in Oregon would have no adverse effect on existing marriages, and that sexual orientation does not determine an individual's capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship." She found it impossible to defend the state's ban "under any standard of review" and her office would no longer defend the ban in court. The plaintiffs in both Geiger and Rummell filed motions asking for summary judgment; this procedure used in cases where there are no material issues of fact requiring a trial, and a fast resolution is desired.{{cite news|last=Johnson |first=Chris |title=Oregon AG won't defend marriage ban in court |url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/02/20/oregon-ag-wont-defend-marriage-ban-court/ |access-date=February 20, 2014|newspaper=Washington Blade|date=February 20, 2014}} The court heard oral arguments on motions for summary judgment in the consolidated lawsuit on April 23, 2014. While all parties present supported same-sex couples' right to marry, Judge McShane questioned whether Oregon voters should get another say on the issue, since they approved the amendment defining marriage; and whether to stay the ruling and await guidance from same-sex marriage cases pending in the U.S. courts of appeal, or to implement the ruling immediately. The court scheduled another oral argument session for May 14, where the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), an organization that opposes same-sex marriage, tried to qualify for intervention in the case.{{cite news|last=Mapes|first=Jeff|title=Gay marriage: Judge Michael McShane provides little clue in how he will rule on Oregon case|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/04/gay_marriage_judge_michael_mcs.html|access-date=April 23, 2014|newspaper=The Oregonian|date=April 23, 2014}}{{cite news|last=Mapes|first=Jeff|title=Judge won't rule in Oregon gay marriage case until at least May 14 while he decides on intervenor|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/04/judge_wont_rule_in_oregon_gay.html|access-date=April 23, 2014|newspaper=The Oregonian|date=April 22, 2014}} On May 14, Judge McShane rejected NOM's attempt to intervene in the case, ruling that the group was unreasonably late in filing its request to intervene and that it failed to convincingly demonstrate that it should be allowed to intervene on behalf of three anonymous Oregon-based members of NOM.{{cite news|last=Mapes|first=Jeff|title=Gay marriage: Judge rejects attempt to intervene; ruling to overturn Oregon ban may follow|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/05/gay_marriage_judge_rejects_att.html|date=May 14, 2014}}

File:Deanna Geiger and Jean Nelson.jpg

At noon on May 19, 2014, Judge McShane issued his opinion, ruling that the state's ban was unconstitutional.{{cite news|last=Hubbard|first=Saul|title=Oregon's gay marriage ban struck down|url=http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/31602717-75/marriage-mcshane-ban-court-sex.html.csp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160112034214/http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/31602717-75/marriage-mcshane-ban-court-sex.html.csp|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 12, 2016|date=May 19, 2014}} He wrote:{{cite news|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/05/oregon_gay_marriage_ban_struck.html |title=Oregon gay marriage ban struck down by federal judge; same-sex marriages begin |date=May 19, 2014|access-date=August 30, 2014|newspaper=The Oregonian|last=Mapes|first=Jeff}}

{{quote|Because Oregon's marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.}}

Minutes after the decision was announced at noon, officials in at least four counties were fulfilling requests for marriage licenses from same-sex couples. The first to wed in Multnomah County were two of the plaintiffs, Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson. That county issued 96 licenses the first day, and judges officiated at wedding ceremonies in a Portland ballroom.{{cite news|last1=Mears|first1=Bill |title=Federal judge strikes down Oregon's same-sex marriage ban|url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/19/us/oregon-same-sex-marriage/|access-date=August 28, 2014|work=CNN News|date=May 19, 2014}}{{cite news|last1=Carson|first1=Teresa|title=Same-sex couples wed in Oregon after gay marriage ban lifted|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-oregon-idUSBREA4I0MA20140520|access-date=August 28, 2014|work=Reuters|date=May 19, 2014}}{{cite news |last1=Chokshi |first1=Niraj |title=Gallery: Gay couples wed after Oregon marriage ban struck down |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/20/gallery-gay-couples-wed-after-oregon-marriage-ban-struck-down/ |access-date=August 28, 2014 |newspaper=Washington Post|date=May 20, 2014}} Governor John Kitzhaber, the named defendant, said "I strongly support Judge McShane's decision to overturn institutional discrimination in Oregon's constitution. No longer will Oregonians tolerate discrimination against the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. [...] Now, finally, all Oregonians will have the opportunity to make a legal commitment to the person they love. Every person and every family in Oregon deserves that chance. Today is a win for love, for families, and for freedom." Senator Jeff Merkley called it "a historic day for Oregon", and Senator Ron Wyden said, "Judge Michael McShane's decision marks a significant moment in Oregon's civil rights history, and it's an important step toward equal rights for all Americans. Every American deserves the freedom to marry the person they love, and, starting today, all Oregonians will have that choice. I am proud to have stood with Oregon's same-sex couples in this struggle for marriage equality for nearly 20 years, and it's important to keep pushing until that right extends to all Americans." The Republican House Minority Leader, Mike McLane, issued a statement, "For those that believe marriage is a religious covenant, the origin of which predates America, today's federal court ruling won't change that. For those that believe marriage is a legal union between two people that is recognized and enforced by our state government, today's ruling is a logical extension of the Supreme Court's ruling last summer. Our society must embrace both views. My hope is that the process of reconciliation in Oregon will continue as we move forward with respect for each other." Val Hoyle, the Majority Leader of the House, said "I married the person who I love over 22 years ago, and I'm thrilled that all Oregonians now have the freedom to do the same."{{cite web|url=https://ktvz.com/news/2014/05/19/reaction-pours-in-as-oregon-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/|title=Reaction pours in as Oregon gay marriage ban overturned|work=KTVZ|date=May 19, 2014}}

NOM immediately asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to issue an emergency stay of McShane's ruling, which that court denied on grounds of lack of standing.{{cite news|last=Mapes|first=Jeff|title=Ninth Circuit strikes down National Organization's request to halt judge's decision|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/05/gay_marriage_in_oregon_ninth_c.html|date=May 19, 2014}} NOM then filed a request on May 27 with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy seeking to block Judge McShane's order.{{cite news|last=Associated Press|title=Group seeks SCOTUS stay of Oregon gay marriage decision |url=http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Group-seeks-stay-of-Oregon-gay-marriage-decision-5508496.php|date=May 27, 2014}} Justice Kennedy referred the matter to the entire Supreme Court,{{cite web|title=Order List of the United States Supreme Court|url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/06/04/Supreme%20Court%20order.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of the United States|access-date=June 4, 2014}} which on June 4 rejected NOM's request.{{cite news|title=Supreme Court Rebuffs Call to End Same-Sex Marriages in Oregon|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/us/politics/supreme-court-rebuffs-call-to-end-same-sex-marriages-in-oregon.html?emc=edit_tnt_20140604&nlid=56632514&tntemail0=y|work=New York Times | date=June 4, 2014 |access-date=June 4, 2014| last1=Liptak | first1=Adam }}{{cite web|title=Nat'l Organization for Marriage v. Geiger, Deanna L., et al. |url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/06/04/Supreme%20Court%20order.pdf|publisher=Supreme Court of the United States|access-date=June 5, 2014}}

In July 2015, several amendments to marriage and spousal laws were passed by the Legislative Assembly and signed into law by Governor Kate Brown. The reforms made all mentions to marriage in statutory law gender-neutral, and came into effect on January 1, 2016.[http://www.bullardlaw.com/news/alert/thats-a-wrap---key-employment-bills-passed-during-oregons-2015-legislative-session/ Bullard Law: 2015 Oregon Legislative Session Wrap-Up]

In February 2016, the Assembly passed legislation defining marriage as "a union between two people" irrespective of gender. It passed the House in a 43–13 vote and the Senate in an 18–11 vote.{{cite web|url=http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/25/legislature-reinforces-same-sex-marriage/80941896/ |title=Legislature reinforces same-sex marriage |publisher=Statesman Journal |date=February 25, 2016}} On March 14, 2016, Governor Brown signed the bill into law, and it took effect immediately. The statutory definition of marriage is now: "Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS 106.150."[https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2016R1/Measures/Overview/HB4127 2016 Regular Session HB 4127][https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2016R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4127/Introduced House Bill 4127] Oregon's statutes were also amended to read the following:

{{quote|Any privilege, immunity, right or benefit granted by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was married to an individual of a different sex, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual who is or was married to an individual of the same sex. [ORS 106.345 (3)]}}

Same-sex marriage is legal on the reservations of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians,{{cite web|url=https://ctclusi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Ch-4-7-Marriage-Ordinance-8-2014.pdf|title=Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, Title 4: Domestic Relations, Chapter 4-7: Marriage|work=Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians|accessdate=August 19, 2022}} the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians,{{cite web|url=https://www.ctsi.nsn.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Marriage-Ordinance-05-15-2015.pdf|title=Siletz Marriage Ordinance|date=May 15, 2015|work=Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians}} the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Coquille Indian Tribe, and the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe. The Coquille Indian Tribe was the first tribe in Oregon, and the United States, to legalize same-sex marriage, when its Tribal Council voted 5–2 in 2008 to allow same-sex couples to marry on tribal land. The law went into effect on May 20, 2009. At least one of the parties to the marriage must be a member of the tribe. Kitzen and Jeni Branting were the first same-sex couple to marry on Coquille sovereign land in Coos Bay on May 24. Kitzen Branting said, "My tribe recognizes the marriage, so that is really important to me. Anytime we come to a tribal function, I know my marriage is just as valid as anyone else's marriage." At the time, Oregon did not recognize same-sex marriage, but the tribe, as a federally recognized sovereign nation, was not bound by the Oregon Constitution.{{cite web|url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarrco.htm|title=Adoption of SSM by the Coquille Nation of Oregon|work=Religious Tolerance|date=May 5, 2012|first=B.A.|last=Robinson}} The Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians voted 6–0 to legalize same-sex marriage on August 10, 2014, and the Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians approved a marriage ordinance permitting same-sex couples to marry on May 15, 2015.{{efn|The ordinance defines "marriage" as "a formal and express civil contract entered into between two persons, who are at least 18 years of age, who are otherwise capable of entering a marriage, and at least one of whom is a member of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians."{{cite web|url=http://www.indianz.com/News/2015/017735.asp |title=Siletz Tribe becomes latest to join marriage equality movement |website=Indianz.com |date=June 4, 2015 |access-date=December 27, 2015}} Previously, the Siletz Tribal Code only permitted marriages between a "husband" ({{langx|tol|chʼeeseeneʼ}};{{cite web|url=https://dictionary.weeyadvn.com/|title=Tolowa Dictionary|work=dictionary.weeyadvn.com|access-date=November 23, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201001070307/https://dictionary.weeyadvn.com/|archive-date=October 1, 2020}} {{langx|aes|si:ʼt}};{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/alseatextsandmy00fracgoog|title=Alsea texts and myths|last=Frachtenberg|first=Leo Joachim|date=1920|publisher=Washington, Govt. print. off.}} {{langx|csz|demihl}};{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/coostexts00fracuoft/page/2/mode/2up?q=wife|title=Coos texts|publisher=Columbia University Press|date=1913|last=Frachtenberg|first=Leo Joachim}} {{langx|sis|qastliiuu}};{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/siuslawanloweru00instgoog/page/n18/mode/2up|last=Frachtenberg|first=Leo Joachim|date=1914|publisher=Columbia University Press|title=Lower Umpqua texts and Notes on the Kusan dialects}} {{langx|mbe|yałam|label=Molala}}){{cite thesis|last=Pharris|first=Nicholas J.|date=2006|title=Winuunsi Tm Talapaas: a grammar of the Molalla language|degree=PhD|publisher=University of Michigan}} and a "wife" ({{langx|tol|trʼaaneʼ}}; {{langx|aes|mukwaʼsli:}}; {{langx|csz|huumis}}; {{langx|sis|qiiuuch}}; {{langx|mbe|naŋiłay|label=Molala}}).}} The Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community passed a same-sex marriage law on October 28, 2015, and it went into effect on November 18, 2015.{{cite web|url=http://www.grandronde.org/news/smoke-signals/2015/10/29/tribal-council-approves-new-marriage-ordinance/#sthash.34qzezm6.dpbs|title=Tribal Council approves new marriage ordinance|publisher=Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community|access-date=November 2, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151105033807/http://www.grandronde.org/news/smoke-signals/2015/10/29/tribal-council-approves-new-marriage-ordinance|archive-date=November 5, 2015|url-status=dead}} The Law and Order Code of the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe states that marriage is governed by state law rather than tribal law. As such, same-sex marriage is legal in the reservation of the tribe, which they share with Nevada near the community of McDermitt.{{cite web|url=http://www.narf.org/nill/codes/fort_mcdermitt/ch5.pdf|title=Chapter 5. Domestic Relations and Adoptions|work=www.narf.org}}

While there are no records of same-sex marriages as understood from a Western perspective being performed in Native American cultures, there is evidence for identities and behaviours that may be placed on the LGBT spectrum. Many of these cultures recognized two-spirit individuals who were born male but wore women's clothing and performed everyday household work and artistic handiwork which were regarded as belonging to the feminine sphere. This two-spirit status allowed for marriages between two biological males or two biological females to be performed in some of these tribes. The Northern Paiute people refer to two-spirit people who crossed out of the masculine gender as {{lang|pao|tudayapi}} ({{IPA|pao|tɨˈɾajapai|pron}}), and they were free to marry either men or women.{{cite book|title=Men as women, women as men: changing gender in Native American cultures|url=https://archive.org/details/menaswomenwomena0000lang|url-access=registration|author=Sabine Lang|publisher=University of Texas Press |year=1998 |isbn=0-292-74701-2}} In the Sahaptin language, they are known as {{lang|uma|wáƛ̓uks}} ({{IPA|uma|wátɬʼuks|pron}}).{{cite web|url=https://dictionary.ctuir.org/uma/wa%c6%9b%cc%93uks/|title=Umatilla Dictionary: wáƛ̓uks|accessdate=August 19, 2022}} Among the Klamath people, two-spirit individuals are known as {{lang|kla|tʼwiniˑqʼ}} ({{IPA|kla|ˈt’wɪniːq’|pron}}).{{cite web|url=http://ksw.shoin.ac.jp/spaelti/Klamath/files_pdf/Klamath_Dictionary.pdf|title=Klamath Dictionary: tʼwiniˑqʼ|accessdate=August 19, 2022|work=ksw.shoin.ac.jp}} The {{lang|kla|tʼwiniˑqʼ}} wore women's clothing and "behaved as women". They married cisgender men, and usually took the role of a shaman and were credited with great spirit power. The Takelma call them {{lang|tkm|swayàu}}.{{cite book|url=https://ia800209.us.archive.org/23/items/cu31924027108962/cu31924027108962.pdf|title=Takelma Texts|last=Sapir|first=Edward|publisher=University of Pennsylvania|volume=2|date=1909}} In Chinook Jargon, two-spirit people are called {{lang|chn|burdash}}. Its origin is from the French word bardache, which gave in English berdache, now dated and considered offensive.{{cite web|url=https://cascadiabioregion.org/department-of-bioregion/your-chinook-wawa-word-of-the-day-burdash|title=Your Chinook Wawa Word of the Day: Burdash|accessdate=August 19, 2022|work=Cascadia Department of Bioregion|date=October 30, 2019 }}

An April 2014 study by the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles found that allowing marriage for same-sex couples would add $47.3 million to Oregon's economy during the first three years.{{cite web|title=Study estimates same-sex marriage would boost Oregon economy by $47 million over 3 years|url=http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20140415/UPDATE/140415020/Study-estimates-same-sex-marriage-would-boost-Oregon-economy-by-47-million-over-3-years?nclick_check=1|publisher=Statesman Journal|access-date=April 16, 2014}}{{cite web|last=Fitzgerald|first=E.G.|title=Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Oregon|url=http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/EconomicImpact-Oregon-2014.pdf|publisher=UCLA|access-date=April 16, 2014}} The study estimated that allowing same-sex marriage would also add 468 new jobs to the state economy.

The following table shows the number of same-sex marriages performed in Oregon since legalization according to the Oregon Center for Health Statistics.

Most same-sex marriages are performed in Multnomah, Washington and Lane counties; Multnomah accounting for approximately 39% of the state's same-sex marriages by the end of 2019. Wheeler County was the last county in Oregon where a same-sex marriage took place, as its first marriage was performed in 2022. The first same-sex marriage in Gilliam County was performed in 2020.{{cite web|url=https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/BIRTHDEATHCERTIFICATES/VITALSTATISTICS/Pages/Marriage-Data.aspx|title=Marriage by Month and County of Occurrence|access-date=January 4, 2021|work=Oregon Center for Health Statistics|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231130131621/https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/BIRTHDEATHCERTIFICATES/VITALSTATISTICS/Pages/Marriage-Data.aspx|archive-date=30 November 2023}} In 2014 and 2015, lesbian couples accounted for the majority of same-sex marriages; 68% in 2014 and 64% the following year.

The 2020 U.S. census showed that there were 11,948 married same-sex couple households (4,725 male couples and 7,223 female couples) and 9,058 unmarried same-sex couple households in Oregon.{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=PCT15&d=DEC+Demographic+and+Housing+Characteristics|title=PCT1405 Couple Households, By Type|access-date=11 December 2023|work=United States Census Bureau|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230609204706/https://data.census.gov/table?q=PCT15&d=DEC+Demographic+and+Housing+Characteristics|archive-date=9 June 2023}}

The June 2011 Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey found that 48% of Oregon voters thought marriage for same-sex couples should be legal, while 42% thought it should be illegal and 10% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 76% of Oregon voters supported the legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 43% supporting same-sex marriage, 33% supporting civil unions but not marriage, 22% favoring no legal recognition and 1% being undecided.Public Policy Polling: [http://publicpolicypolling.typepad.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OR_624.pdf Oregon in favor of legal gay marriage, Kitzhaber Solid] The June 2012 PPP survey found that 46% of Oregon voters thought same-sex marriage should be legal, while 45% thought it should be illegal and 9% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 74% of Oregon voters supported the legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 44% supporting same-sex marriage, 30% supporting civil unions but not marriage, 23% favoring no legal recognition and 3% being undecided.Public Policy Polling: [http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OR_070512.pdf Oregon divided on gay marriage]

{{Portal|LGBTQ|Oregon}}

• Domestic partnership in Oregon
• LGBT rights in Oregon
• Same-sex marriage in the United States

{{notelist}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

• {{cite web|url=http://media.oregonlive.com/politics_impact/other/mcshaneorder-1.pdf|title=Geiger v. Kitzhaber (order)|work=United States District Court for the District of Oregon|date=May 19, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140520042239/http://media.oregonlive.com/politics_impact/other/mcshaneorder-1.pdf|archive-date=May 20, 2014}}
• {{cite web|url=http://media.oregonlive.com/politics_impact/other/OPINION.pdf|title=Geiger v. Kitzhaber (opinion)|work=United States District Court for the District of Oregon|date=May 19, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140520042426/http://media.oregonlive.com/politics_impact/other/OPINION.pdf|archive-date=May 20, 2014}}
• {{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12226lgl20050414.html|title=Li & Kennedy v. State of Oregon|work=Oregon Supreme Court|date=April 14, 2005|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051129013507/https://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12226lgl20050414.html|archive-date=November 29, 2005}}
• {{cite web|url=http://www.doj.state.or.us/hot_topics/samesex.shtml|title=Page devoted to same-sex marriage|work=Oregon Department of Justice|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140522142831/http://www.doj.state.or.us/hot_topics/samesex.shtml|archive-date=May 22, 2014|access-date=May 22, 2014}}

{{Oregon legislation}}

{{Same-sex unions in the United States}}

Category:LGBTQ rights in Oregon

Category:Oregon law

Category:Politics of Oregon

Oregon

Category:2014 in LGBTQ history

Category:2014 in Oregon