Geiger v. Kitzhaber: Plaintiffs Amended Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment

Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Lake James H. Perriguey, OSB No. 983213

lake@law-works.com
LAW WORKS LLC
1906 SW Madison Street
Portland, OR 97205-1718
Telephone: (503) 227-1928
Facsimile: (503) 334-2340

Lea Ann Easton, OSB No. 881413
leaston@dorsayindianlaw.com
DORSAY & EASTON LLP
1 SW Columbia Street, Suite 440
Portland, OR 97258
Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 790-9068

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Geiger, Nelson, Duehmig and Griesar

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

DEANNA L. GEIGER and JANINE M.
NELSON, ROBERT DUEHMIG and
WILLIAM GRIESAR,

Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN KITZHABER, in his official capacity
as Governor of Oregon, ELLEN
ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of Oregon, JENNIFER
WOODWARD, in her official capacity as
State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics,
Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY
WALRUFF, in his official capacity as
Multnomah County Assessor,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC
(Lead Case)

PLAINTIFFS GEIGER, NELSON,
DUEHMIG AND GRIESARS FIRST
AMENDED MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 43 Filed 02/l8/l4 Page l of 40 Page lD#: 227
Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

PAUL RUMMELL and BENJAMIN
WEST; LISA CHICKADONZ and
CHRISTINE TANNER; BASIC RIGHTS
EDUCATION FUND,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Defendants.

Case No. 6:13-cv-02256-TC

Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 43 Filed 02/l8/l4 Page 2 of 40 Page lD#: 228
i - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................2

I. THE PLAINTIFFS...................................................................................................2
II. THE DEFENDANTS...............................................................................................5
III. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS ...........................................................................7

A. Oregon Constitution Article 15, 5a ..............................................................7
B. Oregons Marriage Statutes ............................................................................8
C. Oregon Domestic Partnership Statute .............................................................9

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD..........................................................................10

ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................10

I. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS VIOLATE DUE PROCESS BECAUSE
THEY INFRINGE ON EACH PLAINTIFFS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
TO MARRY A PERSON OF HIS OR HER CHOICE .........................................11

A. Marriage is a Fundamental Right Protected Under the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ...........................................................12

1. United States Supreme Courts Jurisprudence Recognizes
Marriage As A Fundamental Right ..........................................................12

2. The Right Is Not Dependent On Gender .................................................14

II. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS DO NOT SURVIVE STRICT
SCRUTINY; OREGON OFFERS NO REASON TO EXCLUDE GAY
AND LESBIAN COUPLES FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
TO MARRY...........................................................................................................17

III. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS ALSO VIOLATE THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT .................20

A. Excluding Gays and Lesbians from a Fundamental Right the
Government Offers to Heterosexuals Violates the Equal
Protection Clause ..........................................................................................21

ii - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

B. Oregons Marriage Laws Violate the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment Because They Irrationally Target Gay
and Lesbian Couples and Treat Them as Inferior without
Justification ...................................................................................................22

C. Oregons Marriage Laws Are Irrational and Based on Prejudice .................25

D. Oregons Marriage Laws Are Unconstitutional Under Windsor ..................27

IV. THE LIMITATION ON FULL RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGES FROM
OTHER JURISDICTIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 15, 5A OF THE
OREGON CONSTITUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE
SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN WINDSOR ................................................29

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................31

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................10

Bishop v. US EX ROL. HOLDER,
Case No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW (N.D. Oklahoma Jan. 14, 2014) ...........................15

Boddie v. Connecticut,
401 U.S. 371 (1971) ...................................................................................................13

Bolling v. Sharpe,
347 U.S. 497 (1954) ...................................................................................................22

Bostic v. Rainey,
Case No. 2:13CV395 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014) .........................................................15

Bourke v. Beshear,
Case No. 2:13-CV-750-H (W.D. Kentucky Feb. 12, 2014) .......................................15

Brown v. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483 (1954) ...................................................................................................19

Carey v. Population Servs. Intl,
431 U.S. 679 (1977) ...................................................................................................17
iii - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................10

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur
414 U.S. 632 (1974) ...................................................................................................13

Eisenstadt v. Baird,
405 U.S. 438 (1972) ...................................................................................................21

F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia,
253 U.S. 412 (1920) ...................................................................................................20

Garrett v. Chapman,
449 P.2d 856 (Or. 1969) .............................................................................................29

Griego v. Oliver,
2014 NMSC 3 - NM: Supreme Court 2014 ...............................................................15

Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U.S. 479 (1965) .............................................................................................13,21

Hodgson v. Minnesota,
497 U.S. 417 (1990) ..................................................................................................13

Kitchen v. Herbert,
Case No. 2:13-cv-217 (D. Utah 2013) ......................................................................15

Lawrence v. Texas,
539 U.S. 558 (2003) .........................................................................11,12,14,16,21,28

Li v. State,
110 P.3d 91 (Or. 2005) .........................................................................................7,8,18

Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1 (1967) ..................................................................................11,13,15,16,28

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.
475 U.S. 574 (1986) ..................................................................................................10

Maynard v. Hill,
125 U.S. 190 (1888) ...................................................................................................12
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 43 Filed 02/l8/l4 Page 5 of 40 Page lD#: 23l
iv - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390 (1923) ...................................................................................................14

M.L.B. v. S.L.J.,
519 U.S. 102 (1996) ..................................................................................................13

Obergefell v. Wymyslo,
Case No. 1:13-cv-501, (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013) .....................................................15

Plessy v. Ferguson,
163 U.S. 537 (1896) ..................................................................................................20

Planned Parenthood v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833 (1992) ..................................................................................................14

Roberts v. United States Jaycees,
468 U.S. 609 (1984) ..................................................................................................13

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel Williamson,
316 U.S. 535 (1942) ...................................................................................................12

SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories
740 F3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................22,23,24

Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78 (1987) ...............................................................................................13,14

United States v. Carolene Prods. Co.,
304 U.S. 144 (1938) ...................................................................................................20

United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ....................................................................................... passim

W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624 (1943) ....................................................................................................1

Washington v. Glucksberg,
521 U.S. 702 (1997) ........................................................................................11,17,21

Zablocki v. Redhail,
434 U.S. 374 (1978) ..............................................................................13,15,17,18,21

v - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Constitutional Provisions

United States Constitution ......................................................................................... passim
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 1 .......................................................................................11,20
Oregon Constitution Article 15, 5a ......................................................................... passim

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ..........................................................................................................10
OAR 105-010-0018 .............................................................................................................3

Statutes

ORS 40.135, Rule 311 .........................................................................................................9
ORS 40.255, Rule 505 .........................................................................................................9
ORS 106.020 .......................................................................................................................8
ORS 106.041 .......................................................................................................................8
ORS 106.150 ...................................................................................................................8,10
ORS 106.300 ........................................................................................................................9
ORS 106.305(3) ..................................................................................................................9
ORS 106.305(2) ................................................................................................................15
ORS 106.305(4) ..................................................................................................................9
ORS 106.305(6) ..................................................................................................................9
ORS 106.325 .....................................................................................................................10
ORS 106.340 ...........................................................................................................10,19,20
ORS 107.105 ........................................................................................................................4
ORS 107.635(2)(b) .............................................................................................................4
ORS 108.010 ........................................................................................................................8
ORS 108.020 ........................................................................................................................8
ORS 108.030 ........................................................................................................................8
ORS 108.040 ........................................................................................................................8
ORS 108.045 ........................................................................................................................8
ORS 108.050 ........................................................................................................................8
ORS 108.060 ........................................................................................................................8
ORS 108.080 ........................................................................................................................8
ORS 108.090 ........................................................................................................................8
ORS 108.100 ........................................................................................................................9
vi - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

ORS 108.110 ........................................................................................................................9
ORS 108.510 ........................................................................................................................9
ORS 108.530 ........................................................................................................................9
ORS 108.550 ........................................................................................................................9
ORS 112.025 ...................................................................................................................3,29
ORS 112.035 ........................................................................................................................3
ORS 127.635(2) ..................................................................................................................4
ORS 174.100(6) ..................................................................................................................1
ORS 432.030 ........................................................................................................................5
ORS 432.030(d) ...................................................................................................................5
ORS 432.030(e) ...................................................................................................................5
ORS 432.405 ........................................................................................................................5
ORS 659A.030 .....................................................................................................................1

Other Authorities

Brief of Massachusetts, California, et al, as Amici Curiae In Support of Appellants
(Case No 12-17668, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, October 25, 2013........................6,18

1 - Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

INTRODUCTION

The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities
and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.
Ones right to life, liberty. . .and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to
vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

Ten years ago a slim majority of Oregon voters passed Measure 36 to amend the State
Constitution to exclude gay and lesbian people from marriage. The Plaintiffs are gay and
lesbian couples in long-term committed relationships. Plaintiffs Geiger and Nelson wish to
marry in Oregon. Plaintiffs Duehmig and Griesar want their marriage that was solemnized in
another jurisdiction fully recognized in Oregon.
Plaintiffs challenge Measure 36, Oregons voter-enacted prohibition against same-
gender
1
marriages codified in Article 15, 5a of the Oregon Constitution, as well as all Oregon
Revised Statutes that refer to husband and wife (collectively, Oregons Marriage Laws).
Enforcement of these laws denies Plaintiffs the fundamental right to marry and violates their
due process and equal protection rights under the United States Constitution to enter civil
marriages and to enjoy the concomitant legal rights, protections, and responsibilities of
marriage. These rights were wrongly made subject to the vicissitudes of political controversy
ten years ago. There is no constitutionally adequate justification for the government to deny
gay and lesbian couples the same access to marriage that the state affords heterosexual couples.
Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment, declare
that Oregons Marriage Laws violate the United States Constitution, and enjoin Defendants

1
Oregon civil rights and anti-discrimination laws recognize that sexual orientation includes an
individuals gender identity. ORS 174.100(6), ORS 659A.030.

in their respective official capacities from enforcing Oregons Marriage Laws in a manner
that excludes Plaintiffs.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. THE PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiffs Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson have been partners for 31 years and want
to marry one another in Oregon. Plaintiffs Robert Duehmig and William Griesar have been
together for 25 years and are the parents of two children. They seek full legal recognition
under Oregon law of their marriage that was legally officiated in Canada in 2003.
Except for the single fact that each couple is of the same gender, Plaintiffs meet all
the eligibility requirements for marriage in Oregon. See Geiger Decl., 8, 22, 24-25 (Dkt.
25); Nelson Decl., 8, 14 (Dkt. 26); Duehmig Decl., 2, 11 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 4,
6, & 22 (Dkt. 28).
Oregons refusal to recognize same-gender marriage denies Plaintiffs access to the
one universally recognized legal hallmark of a couple's commitment to build and to plan a
family life together. This denial touches every aspect of their lives. Plaintiffs struggle to
correct confusion about the nature, depth, and permanence of their relationships. See Geiger
Decl., 10, 24, 16-22 (Dkt. 25); Nelson Decl., 9-10,12, & 14 (Dkt. 26); Duehmig Decl.,
17-19, 20, 23-24, & 27 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 12-13, 17, 22, 29, 39, & 46 (Dkt. 28).
Plaintiffs Duehmig and Griesar worry that Oregon's relegation of same-gender couples to
second-class status sends profoundly hurtful messages to their children, teaching them that
their family does not deserve the same societal status and respect as other families. See
Duehmig Decl., 12-13 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 27-34, 39 & 48 (Dkt. 28). Plaintiffs
have incurred considerable expenses and financial losses and have suffered tremendously
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 43 Filed 02/l8/l4 Page l0 of 40 Page lD#: 236


because the current state of Oregon law denies them equal marriage recognition. See Geiger
Decl., 17 (Dkt. 25); Nelson Decl., 13-14 (Dkt 26); Duehmig Decl., 15, 17-18 (Dkt.
27); Griesar Decl., 46, 49 (Dkt. 28).
On September 23, 2013, Plaintiffs Geiger and Nelson applied for a marriage license
from the office of Defendant Randy Walruff, Multnomah County Assessor, but were denied
a marriage license solely because they are both women. Geiger Decl., 26 (Dkt. 25);
Nelson Decl., 15 (Dkt. 26), and Defendant Walruff Answer to Amended Complaint, 27
(Dkt. 13).
Plaintiffs Griesar and Duehmig were legally married in Canada on December 29,
2003. See Duehmig Decl., 10 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 22 (Dkt. 28).
On October 16, 2013, the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative
Services directed state agencies to recognize same-gender marriages performed outside of
Oregon in the administration of their programs. See States Answer (Dkt. 9), and States
Exhibit A, (Dkt.10). On December 23, 2013, this directive was codified as temporary
administrative rule OAR 105-010-0018. The rule applies to state agencies and does not apply
to state courts or to local governmental entities.
Plaintiffs are unable to file state tax returns as married individuals. This has caused
them to incur tax obligations that they would not have incurred if Oregon law permitted them
to marry or recognized their legal marriage. See Nelson Decl., 14 (Dkt. 26); Duehmig Decl.,
22 (Dkt. 27). Plaintiffs have been forced to incur sizeable legal costs to create legal
documents to enable their partners to inherit their property. See Geiger Decl., 17 (Dkt. 25);
Nelson Decl., 14 (Dkt. 26); Duehmig Decl., 22 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 49 (Dkt. 28).
ORS 112.025, ORS 112.035.
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 43 Filed 02/l8/l4 Page ll of 40 Page lD#: 237


Plaintiffs also are ineligible for favorable insurance rates and other discounts offered to
married couples by various businesses. See Geiger Decl., 16 (Dkt. 25); Duehmig Decl., 15
(Dkt. 27). Plaintiffs are not mutually responsible for supporting their same-gender partner in
the event that they separate. See ORS 107.105 (disposition of property, maintenance of
parties, determination of spousal support, and other obligations upon divorce). Under ORS
127.635(2), Plaintiffs partners cannot make medical decisions automatically by operation of
law like heterosexual married couples. Instead, Plaintiffs must take the extra step of procuring
advanced medical directives indicating that their partners can make medical decisions on their
behalf.
Plaintiffs are forced to go to great expense and effort to ensure that they have the
necessary legal documents in place to create the same rights and obligations between them that
are automatically created for opposite-sex couples through marriage. Moreover, family
members and others may still challenge Plaintiffs authority to make decisions for their partner
if he or she becomes incapacitated or dies. See Geiger Decl., 17; Nelson Decl., 13;
Duehmig Decl., 21; Griesar Decl., 49; see also ORS 107.635(2)(b) (spousal authority for
major health care decisions).
Plaintiffs feel shame, stigma, and humiliation every day as a result of Oregons
Marriage Laws. Plaintiffs have been singled out for discriminatory treatment and treated as
second-class citizens. Oregons Marriage Laws reflect the States rejection of their decision to
marry one another and classify their families as inferior to those of opposite-gender families.
See Geiger Decl., 16, 21, 22, 25-27 (Dkt. 25); Nelson Decl., 10, 14-15 (Dkt 26); Duehmig
Decl., 14-21& 27 (Dkt. 27); Griesar Decl., 27-35, 39, 46-48 (Dkt 28).


It is undisputed that Plaintiffs suffer economical and emotional harm as a result of their
legal inability to fully access the rights and to assume the obligations of civil marriage afforded
by state law to similarly situated heterosexual couples.
II. THE DEFENDANTS
Defendant John Kitzhaber is vested with the executive power as the Governor of Oregon.
It is his responsibility to ensure that the States laws are enforced fairly, uniformly, and
constitutionally. Defendant Ellen Rosenblum, as the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, is
the chief legal officer of the State of Oregon. It is also her duty to ensure the States laws are
enforced fairly, uniformly, and constitutionally. Defendant Jennifer Woodward is the State
Registrar for the State of Oregon. She also is the manager of Oregons Center for Health
Statistics and is custodian of its records. She directs, supervises, and controls the operation of
the system of vital statistics. ORS 432.030(d). Additionally, she develops and conducts training
programs to promote uniformity of policy and procedures throughout the state in matters
pertaining to the system of vital statistics. ORS 432.030(d). She also prescribes and provides
the rules necessary to implement the policies of the Department and the forms required to record
marriage under state law. ORS 432.030(e). See also, ORS 432.030, 432.405. Defendant Randy
Walruff is the Multnomah County Clerk who oversees the Countys issuance of marriage
licenses and is responsible for issuing marriage licenses, certifies persons who may solemnize a
marriage, and maintains marriage-related records as mandated by state law. ORS 432.405. All
Defendants are state actors who are required to uphold the obligations of the United States
Constitution to ensure that plaintiffs fundamental rights are not infringed by their actions.
The State admits that it cannot present evidence of any narrowly tailored, compelling,
legitimate, or rational governmental interest that is being served by denying Plaintiffs Geiger


and Nelson their fundamental right to marry one another. See States Answer, Exhibit A, (Dkt.
10). Exhibit A is a letter from the Deputy Attorney General to Michael Jordan, Chief
Operating Officer of Oregons Department of Administrative Services, which responds to Mr.
Jordans question as to whether Oregon agencies can recognize same-sex marriages from other
jurisdictions for purposes of administering Oregon law. In an amicus brief submitted to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the plaintiffs, Defendant General Rosenblum also
acknowledges that exclusion of same sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. See
Second Declaration of Lea Ann Easton in Support of Motion, Exhibit A at page 2; Brief for
the States of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District Court Of Columbia,
Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Washington, in Support of Appellants Sevcik, Case No. 12-17668 (9th
Cir. October 13, 2013). Defendants admit they cannot present evidence of any narrowly
tailored, compelling, legitimate or rational governmental interest that is being served by
refusing to fully recognize the legal marriage of plaintiffs Duehmig and Griesar. Id.
The State acknowledges that it cannot identify any legitimate (much less compelling)
state interest in requiring that each marriage recognized in Oregon contain one partner of each
sex. Id. at 6.
The State acknowledges that there is no reason to legally recognize same-gender
relationships in the form of domestic partnerships while simultaneously refusing to recognize
same-gender marriages. Id.
In his Answer to the Amended Complaint, Defendant Walruff summarizes Multnomah
Countys recognition of same-gender marriages in 2004 and the County Clerks issuance of
more than 3,000 marriage licenses to same-gender couples during that time. Walruffs


Answer, Dkt.13 at 2-3. Consistent with the Oregon Supreme Court decision in Li v. State, 110
P.3d 91 (Or. 2005), and the subsequent passage of Measure 36 amending Oregons
constitution to prohibit marriage equality for gay and lesbians, Multnomah County and
Defendant Walruffs office stopped granting marriage licenses to same-gender couples. Id. at
3.
III. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS
A. Oregon Constitution Article 15, 5a.
It is beyond dispute that gay and lesbian individuals have historically been, and
continue to be, subjected to persecution and discrimination. Indeed, Oregon has a dark
history of extraordinarily public discrimination against gay and lesbian people. This
discriminatory animus is expressed profoundly in the 35 anti-gay and anti-lesbian ballot
measures on Oregons ballots since 1978, more than any other state in the country. See
George T. Nicola, Oregon Anti-Gay Ballot Measures, available at
http://www.glapn.org/6013OregonAntiGayMeasures.html, last viewed Dec. 27, 2013.
Oregon voters passed Measure 36 to amend the state constitution in 2004. See
Declaration of Lea Ann Easton, Exhibit A, (Dkt. 29-1). Oregons constitution now bars
same-gender couples from access to marriage: "[o]nly a marriage between one man and one
woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." OR. CONST. art. 15, 5A.
During the 2004 campaign to enact Measure 36, many of the messages used to persuade
voters to amend the State's constitution relied on false and stigmatizing messages that same-
gender couples are inferior to opposite-gender couples and that both the institution of
marriage and children need to be protected from same-gender marriages. Id., Exhibit B,
(Dkt. 29-2) (2004 Oregon Voters Guide).
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 43 Filed 02/l8/l4 Page l5 of 40 Page lD#: 24l


Deputy Attorney General Williams in her October 16, 2013 letter, recognizes that
[p]roponents and opponents [of marriage equality] alike understand that the law targets gays
and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation by denying recognition of only their
valid marriages. That is the laws express purpose. States Answer, Exhibit A, Dkt. 10 at 6.
B. Oregons Marriage Statutes.
While Oregon statutes do not specifically prohibit same-gender couples from
marrying, Article 15, 5a of Oregons Constitution forces an interpretation of the words
husband and wife used in state statutes to exclude same-gender couples from all the
rights associated with marriage. In litigation that arose after Multnomah County issued
marriage licenses to over 3000 gay and lesbian couples in 2004, the Oregon Supreme Court
held that, as a statutory matter, access to civil marriage is available only to heterosexual
couples. Li v. State, 110 P.3d 91, 96 (Or. 2005) (en banc).
Oregons Marriage Statues include: ORS 106.020, Prohibited and void marriage;
ORS 106.041, Marriage License; application; record; ORS 106.150, Form of solemnization;
witnesses; solemnization before congregation; ORS 108.010, Removal of wifes civil
disabilities; wifes civil rights same as husbands; ORS 108.020, Non-liability for other
spouses obligations; ORS 108.030, Liability of husband for civil injuries caused by wife;
ORS 108.040, Liability of parents for expenses of family and education of children; ORS
108.045, Liability of stepparent for expenses of family and education of children; ORS
108.050, Non-liability of wifes property for husbands obligations; ORS 108.060,
Noninterest of one spouse in property of other; ORS 108.080, Civil remedies between
spouses in respect of separate property; ORS 108.090, Conveyances, transfers and liens
between spouses; creation and dissolution of estates by entireties; validation of prior


dissolutions; ORS 108.100, Husband and wife as attorney in fact for each other; ORS
108.110, Petition for support of spouse and children; rules, ORS 108.510, Revocation of
election to come under terms of Community Property law of 1943; ORS 108.530, Removal
of community property status by agreement; and ORS 108.550, Reliance on spouses right to
deal with property in spouses name. The Oregon Evidence Code also uses the terms
husband and wife in ORS 40.135, Rule 311, Presumptions; and ORS 40.255; Rule 505,
Husband and wife privilege.
C. Oregon Domestic Partnership Statute.
In 2007, the Oregon legislature adopted the Oregon Family Fairness Act (the Act).
ORS 106.300, et seq. which creates separate but unequal treatment for same-gender couples
that is similar, but not equal, to marriage. The Acts legislative findings acknowledge that
[l]egal recognition of marriage by the state is the primary and, in a number of instances, the
exclusive source of numerous rights, benefits and responsibilities available to married
individuals under Oregon law. ORS 106.305(3). This state has a strong interest in
promoting stable and lasting families, including the families of same-sex couples and their
children. All Oregon families should be provided with the opportunity to obtain necessary
legal protections and status and the ability to achieve their fullest potential. ORS
106.305(4). The Act was established to ensure more equal treatment of gays and lesbians
and their families under Oregon law. ORS 106.305(6).
The Act provides that
[a]ny 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, or
because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to
another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and
procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a


domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on
a domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another
individual. ORS 106.340.

While there are only a few exceptions to the Acts policy of more equal treatment
for same-gender registered domestic partners, the exceptions are legally significant and
demonstrate how domestic partnerships are afforded a separate and unequal status when
compared to marriages. For example, marriages must be solemnized pursuant to state law.
ORS 106.150. In contrast, there is no state requirement to solemnize a registered domestic
partnership. Rather, same-gender couples must register as domestic partners by filing a
declaration with the county clerk. ORS 106.325. Additionally, domestic partnership status
does not entitle gay and lesbian couples to access more than 1,000 federal benefits that are
available solely to married couples. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2696 (2013).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

This Court must grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(A).
The movant has the initial burden of demonstrating to the Court that there is no genuine issue
of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321-322 (1986). The non-movant(s)
must then present specific facts by affidavit or other admissible evidence sufficient to raise a
genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-
87 (1986). If that evidence is merely colorable, or not significantly probative, this court
may grant summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
ARGUMENT

Oregons Marriage Laws violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and Oregons Marriage Laws infringe on Plaintiffs fundamental liberties and


privacy rights in violation of the Due Process Clause and also fail to provide each Plaintiff
equal protection under the law in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs ask this Court to strike down Article 15, 5a of the Oregon Constitution and to
order that Oregons Marriage laws that refer to husband and wife be applicable equally
to gay and lesbian couples.
I. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS VIOLATE DUE PROCESS BECAUSE
THEY INFRINGE ON EACH PLAINTIFFS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
TO MARRY A PERSON OF HIS OR HER CHOICE
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that [No] State
[shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law... U.S.
CONST. AMEND. XIV, 1. Due Process protects not only basic procedural rights, but also
protects the fundamental, substantive rights of individuals from arbitrary intrusions by the
government into their private lives and liberty interests. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521
U.S. 702, 719-20 (1997) (The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process . . . .
The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain
fundamental rights and liberty interests.).
The freedom to marry has long been held a fundamental liberty and privacy right
protected by the Due Process Clause. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003)
([O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to
marriage . . . .) (citation omitted). The choice of whether to marry, and whom to marry, is
protected by the Due Process Clause from coercive state limitations. Id.; see also, e.g.,
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or
not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by
the State.).


The United States Supreme Court in Windsor affirmed that state marriage laws are
subject to constitutional guarantees and must respect the constitutional rights of persons.
Windsor 133 S.Ct. at 2691 (2013). The Court cited Lawrence v. Texas in affirming that the
Constitution protects the moral and sexual choices of gay and lesbian couples. The
Supreme Court held that intimate relationships, including the relationships of legally married
gay and lesbian couples, have the same constitutional protections as others and are entitled to
be treated by the government with equal dignity. Id. at 2693-94.
Marriage is a great public institution, giving character to our whole civil polity.
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 213 (1888). Civil marriage is an evolving legal institution.
Societal changes have resulted in alterations of marriage eligibility rules and to societys
collective understanding of the relative roles of the government and of the people within a
marriage. See Yamin Declaration, Dkt. 30.
Oregons Marriage Laws exclude Plaintiffs from participating in this great public
institution and thereby violate their rights under the Due Process Clause.
A. Marriage Is a Fundamental Right Protected Under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

1. United States Supreme Courts Jurisprudence Recognizes Marriage
As A Fundamental Right.

Over the past 80 years, in multiple decisions, the United States Supreme Court has
consistently recognized that the freedom to marry without government restraint or coercion is
a fundamental and constitutionally protected right under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment because this right affects an individuals life in many profoundly
intimate ways. Marriage involves private decision making about fundamental ways in which a
person lives his or her life, See, Skinner v Oklahoma ex rel Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541


(1942) (M]arriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S.
374, 384-85 (1978) ([T]he right to marry is part of the fundamental right of privacy implicit
in the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause. . . . [I]t is clear that among the decisions
that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal
decisions relating to marriage . . . .) (quotation and citation omitted); M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519
U.S. 102, 116 (1996) (Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children
are among associational rights this Court has ranked as of basic importance in our society);
Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 435 (1990) (the decision of whom a person shall marry
is constitutionally protected); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95-96 (1987) (holding that prison
inmates have a fundamental right to marry protected by the Due Process Clause); Roberts v.
United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 620 (1984) (the right of intimate association limits the
States power to control the selection of ones spouse); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur,
414 U.S. 632, 639- 40 (1974) (This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal
choice in the matter of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 380
81 (1971) (filing fees for divorce actions violated the due process rights of indigents unable
to pay the fees, by burdening the freedom of indigents to marry another person); Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1967) (The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of
the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. Marriage is one of the
basic rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.); Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965) (Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse,
hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that
promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty,
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 43 Filed 02/l8/l4 Page 2l of 40 Page lD#: 247


not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any
involved in our prior decisions.); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (Without
doubt, [the Due Process Clause] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the
right of the individual . . . to marry . . . according to the dictates of his own conscience... ).
2. The Right Applies to Sexual Orientation.
The autonomous liberty decisions incident to marriage that make it a fundamental right
are not dependent on a spouses gender any more than they are dependent upon a persons
status as a prisoner. See Turner, 482 U.S. at 95-96 (holding attributes of marriage, after
considering prison life limitations, were sufficient to form constitutionally protected marital
relationships). Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the rights of gay and lesbian
individuals are not distinct from those of heterosexual individuals with respect [to what] the
Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making choices [relating to
marriage]:
These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a
lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's
own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they
formed under compulsion of the State. Ibid.

**2482 Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just
as heterosexual persons do.

Lawrence v. Texas at 574 (quoting Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).
Oregons Marriage Laws advance the view that while gay and lesbian individuals have
the fundamental right to form enduring, private bonds of mutual love and support through the
more equal, but not equal, Oregon Family Fairness Act, they are not entitled to access the
admitted significant and fundamental right to marriage, solely because of the gender of their


chosen partner. ORS 106.305(2). Marriage is a key, personal decision, and the protections of
the United States Constitution shield individuals against the government serving as their state-
sponsored marriage broker.
Judge Shelby of the United States District for the Central District of Utah citing Loving
v. Virginia said instead of declaring a new right to interracial marriage, the Court held that
individuals could not be restricted from exercising their existing right to marry on account of
the race of their chosen partner. Kitchen v. Herbert, Case No. 2:13-cv-217 (D. Utah 2013) at
12.
2
In Kitchen, Judge Shelby applied this same reasoning to gay and lesbian couples and held
that [b]oth same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are simply manifestations of one right
the right to marry applied to people with different sexual identities. Id.
Like all other fundamental rights, the right to marriage vests in every American citizen.
See Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 384 ("Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination,

2
Since Plaintiffs filed this case, four other federal district courts in addition to Judge Shelby
have ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples who asserted that the government had violated
their constitutional rights by failing to recognize their right to marriage. Obergefell v. Wymyslo,
Case No. 1:13-cv-501, (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013)(ruled that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage
was unconstitutional and ordered Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions
on death certificates.); Bishop v. US EX REL. HOLDER, Case No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW (N.D.
Oklahoma Jan. 14, 2014)(Held that Oklahomas same-sex marriage ban violates equal
protection); Bourke v. Beshear, Case No. 3:13-CV-750-H (W.D. Kentucky Feb. 12,
2014) (Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions because
withholding recognition violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection) and,
Bostic v. Rainey, Case No. 2:13CV395 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014) (Virginia's laws that prohibit
same-sex marriage or that do not recognize a couple's right to marry are unconstitutional under
the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.) Additionally, the New Mexico Supreme Court
in Griego v. Oliver, 2014 NMSC 3 - NM: Supreme Court 2014 held "civil marriage" shall be
construed to mean the voluntary union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. In addition,
all rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply
equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples.



prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental
importance for all individuals.").
The importance of the liberty interest is made clear in the United States v. Windsor
decision in which the Court analyzed whether section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), the federal ban on the recognition of same-gender marriages, violated due process. In
its analysis, the Court framed the issue as whether the resulting injury and indignity [from
section 3 of DOMA] is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth
Amendment. Id. at 2692. Ultimately, the Court held that Congress could not deny the
liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and that DOMA is
unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment
of the Constitution. Id. at 2695.
The Supreme Courts decision was based on a profound respect for the fundamental
liberty of gay and lesbian individuals to form intimate relationships - without being
demeaned or degraded by the government - based upon the personal, private, and
constitutionally protected choices, akin to those set forth in Loving and Lawrence:
. . . [DOMA] tells [same-gender] couples, and all the world, that their otherwise
valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex
couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The
differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the
Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed.
2d 508, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates
tens of thousands of children now being raised by same- sex couples. The
law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the
integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in
their community and in their daily lives.

Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694.



The denigration and humiliation suffered by legally married gay and lesbian couples and
the children whom they are raising described in Windsor as the result of DOMA mirrors the
persisting denigration and humiliation Plaintiffs suffer as a result of Oregons Marriage Laws.

II. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS DO NOT SURVIVE STRICT
SCRUTINY; OREGON OFFERS NO REASON TO EXCLUDE
GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT TO MARRY.

The State of Oregon holds a monopoly over the fundamental right of civil marriage
within the state. Having assumed this monopoly over a fundamental right, the State cannot
categorically deny marriage to a discrete class of its citizens unless it can prove that the denial
of the fundamental right is the least restrictive means of meeting the strongest of government
interests. Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388. When a statutory classification significantly interferes
with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by
sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.
Id.
Since Oregons Marriage Laws significantly interfere with Plaintiffs fundamental
right to marry, these laws are subject to strict scrutiny and to critical examination. Zablocki,
434 U.S. at 383. Thus, the burden is on the State to establish that the acknowledged
discrimination against Plaintiffs fundamental liberty interests is justified by compelling state
interests and that these exclusionary laws are narrowly drawn to express only those
interests. Carey v. Population Servs. Intl, 431 U.S. 679, 686 (1977) accord Washington v.
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997) ([T]he Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government
to infringe . . . fundamental liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless
the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.) (quotation and
citation omitted).


When applying the strict scrutiny analysis set out in Zablocki, the court must have a
purported government interest to scrutinize. In this case, the State admits that it cannot identify
any legitimate (much less compelling) state interest in requiring that each marriage recognized in
Oregon contain one partner of each sex; no benefit to Oregon results from that limitation, and no
injury would result from recognizing the marriages. States Answer, Exhibit A, Dkt. 10, at 6.
While the advice conveyed by the Deputy Attorney General is directed to the question of state
agencies recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, it is clear the State cannot
articulate any legitimate state interest in denying the right to marry to same-gender couples in
Oregon. In fact, Defendant Rosenblum acknowledges there is an important governmental
interest served by including same sex couples in marriage:
In sum, the states favorand therefore encouragemarriage over transient
relationships because marriage promotes stable family bonds, fosters economic
interdependence and security for members of the marital household, and enhances
the physical and emotional well-being of both the partners to the marriage and
their children. Michael Wald, Same-Sex Couple Marriage: A Family Policy
Perspective, 9 VA. J. SOC. POLY & L. 291, 300-303 (2001); see also Goodridge,
798 N.E.2d at 954. All of these interests are furthered by including same-sex
couples in the institution of marriage. Thus, this is not a case where the inclusion
of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of
other groups would not. Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361, 383 (1974).
Instead, this is a case where the exclusion of a similarly-situated group
undermines the important governmental interests states promote through
marriage.

Second Declaration of Easton, Exhibit A, page 7. See also, Exhibit A at pages 5-12.

Defendant Walruff must follow the policy and regulations promulgated by State
Defendants in issuing marriage licenses. Li v. State, 110 P. 3d 91 (Or. 2005). Defendant
Walruff has not articulated any legitimate government interest in denying the right to same-
gender couples in Oregon.


Defendants cannot identify a single harm that it, nor that anyone else, would suffer as a
result of allowing Plaintiffs to exercise their constitutionally protected liberty interest to choose
a marriage partner of the same gender. If there is no harm in fully recognizing same-gender
marriages performed out of state, with all of the attendant obligations and benefits provided to
those already married, there is no demonstrated harm that would justify the continuing,
selective legal exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from accessing the constitutionally
protected fundamental right to marry in Oregon.
Indeed, the only harms in the record are those that Plaintiffs suffer on a day-to-day basis
as they grapple with the harsh reality of living in a state that insists on actively denying them of
their fundamental right to marry. By its own admission, the State concedes that there is no
basis to continue to infringe on Plaintiffs fundamental right to marry.
The Oregon Domestic Partnership Act recognizes that Plaintiffs, and all gay and lesbian
couples in Oregon, are deserving of more equal treatment under the law, because true
equality has been neutered by the will of the majority in passing Measure 36. A key provision
of the Act provides that [a]ny 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, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to
another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual
because the individual is or was in a domestic partnership or because the individual is or was,
based on a domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual. ORS
106.340. The Act evidences an attempt by the State Legislature to create a separate but
equal legal system to provide gay and lesbian couples the rights, privileges, and obligations
to which they are excluded by limitations imposed by Oregon Constitution Article 15, 5a.


Laws creating separate but equal public institutions for racial classes were struck down in
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Far from providing a compelling justification for the continued exclusion of gay and
lesbians from the fundamental right to marry, Oregon, by adopting the Domestic Partnership
Act, has identified that gay and lesbian Oregonians are deserving of more equal treatment
under the law.
Defendants have no justification to continue to deny Plaintiffs the right to access civil
marriage while at the same time creating a parallel scheme in which associated marriage rights
are granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural while marriage itself is withheld
solely because of the outcome of an election. ORS 106.340.
III. OREGONS MARRIAGE LAWS ALSO VIOLATE THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

The Equal Protection Clause guarantees that [no state shall] deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, 1. Equal
protection requires that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike, F.S.
Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920), as the Constitution neither knows
nor tolerates classes among citizens. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan,
J., dissenting). Courts must closely scrutinize, and not simply defer to the States judgment
where there is reason to suspect prejudice against discrete and insular minorities . . . which
tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily relied upon to
protect minorities. United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152-53 n.4 (1938).
/ / /


A. Excluding Gays and Lesbians from a Fundamental Right the
Government Offers to Heterosexuals Violates the Equal Protection
Clause.

The constitutional rights to due process and equal protection are related because
Plaintiffs, as gay and lesbian people, are a distinct class of Oregonians who are being denied
equal access to a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. The States denial
of this fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, and the
State must demonstrate that the denial of access to this fundamental due process right is
narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434
U.S. 374, 383-91 (1978); See also Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 447 n.7 (1972) (if we
were to conclude that the Massachusetts statute [treating married and unmarried persons
differently] impinges upon fundamental freedoms under Griswold, the statutory classification
would have to be not merely rationally related to a valid public purpose but necessary to
achievement of a compelling state interest) (emphasis in original).
Oregons Marriage Laws deny a class of Oregon citizens gay and lesbian couples
access to legal marriage in Oregon and access to full legal recognition in Oregon of their legal
marriage performed in another jurisdiction. Because the right to marry and the right to choose
a spouse are fundamental liberty and privacy rights, denying Plaintiffs access to those rights is
subject to strict scrutiny and the State must prove that denying access to those rights right is
narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 712.
The Supreme Court has made clear that [e]quality of treatment and the due process
right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked
in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests. Lawrence,
539 U.S. at 575 ; cf. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2695. (The liberty protected by the Fifth


Amendments Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying any person
the equal protection of the laws. . . . While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from
Government the power to degrade or demean in the way [DOMA] does, the equal protection
guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more
specific and all the better understood and preserved.); see also Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S.
497, 499 (1954) ([T]he concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our
American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. . . . [A]s this Court has recognized,
discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to violate due process.).
The State concedes, however, that it cannot identify any state interest or benefit to the
State to justify the infringement of Plaintiffs and other gay and lesbian couples fundamental
rights and the harms it causes to them and to their families. Based on the admissions by
Defendants and uncontested factual allegations by Plaintiffs and the applicable law, the court
should hold that Article 15, 5a of the Oregon Constitution and all marriage laws that restrict
gay and lesbian full access to, and recognition of, marriage violate the Plaintiffs rights to equal
protection.
B. Oregons Marriage Laws Violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment Because They Irrationally Target Gay and
Lesbian Couples and Treat Them as Inferior without Justification.

The Supreme Court in Windsor struck down DOMAs limitation on marriage to a
union between a man and a woman as a violation of Equal Protection. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at
2695-96. Oregons Marriage Laws similarly limit marriage to heterosexual couples,
creating a classification based on sexual orientation that excludes Plaintiffs from equal
participation. As explained below, this discrimination does not withstand scrutiny under the
heightened standard of review required by the Ninth Circuits Smithkline decision applying


Windsor to classifications based on sexual orientation. Windsor and Smithkline therefore
require that this Court strike down Oregons Marriage laws.
The Windsor Court did not specify the standard of review required when courts analyze
classifications based on sexual orientation. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held
that the standard of review required is heightened scrutiny. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.
Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471 (9
th
Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit concluded that United
States v. Windsor is dispositive of the question of the appropriate level of scrutiny in this case,
and held Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims
involving sexual orientation. Id. at 481.
The Ninth Circuit in SmithKline analyzes the Windsor decision and makes it clear that
excluding gay people must be justified and that deferential rational basis review is not
applicable to exclusionary governmental action.
In clarifying that Windsor requires courts to apply heightened scrutiny to laws that
effectively exclude participation based on sexual orientation; the Ninth Circuit noted that
Windsor looked to DOMAs design, purpose, and effect. Id. The court stated that Windsor
thus requires not that we conceive of hypothetical purposes, but that we scrutinize Congresss
actual purposes. Id. at 482. Windsor requires a legitimate purpose to overcome[] the
disability on a class of individuals. Id. (citing Windsor).
The Ninth Circuit points out that the Supreme Court was concerned with DOMAs
resulting injury and indignity imposed on Edith Windsor solely because she is a lesbian.
Windsor was thus concerned with the public message sent by DOMA about the status
occupied by gays and lesbians in our society. This government-sponsored message was in itself
a harm of great constitutional significance. Id. at 483. Windsor requires that classifications
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 43 Filed 02/l8/l4 Page 3l of 40 Page lD#: 257


based on sexual orientation that impose inequality on gays and lesbians and send a message of
second-class status be justified by some legitimate purpose. Id. Windsor requires that when
state action discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, we must examine its actual
purposes and carefully consider the resulting inequality to ensure that our most fundamental
institutions neither send nor reinforce messages of stigma or second-class status. Id. at 484.
By denying Plaintiffs equal access to marriage, Oregons Marriage Laws stigmatize
them by treating them as second-class citizens and do not afford them the same dignity,
respect, and stature afforded heterosexual families. Oregons Marriage Laws together create
a system of disparate treatment of gay and lesbian couples that serves no governmental
objective: the classification helps no one while significantly harming Plaintiffs and their
families.
Oregons Marriage Laws exclude Plaintiffs access to marriage based solely on their
sexual orientation. Governmental exclusions based on sexual orientation classifications
require that the government justify such exclusions. In this case, Defendants can offer no
justification other than the will of the majority and the outcome of an election. This
justification does not suffice to survive the heightened scrutiny. Windsors reasoning
reinforces the constitutional urgency of ensuring that individuals are not excluded from our
most fundamental institutions because of their sexual orientation. Smithkline at 486.
Defendants cannot justify the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from accessing the
important rites and ritual of marriage as being related in any way to any government
interest. Oregons Marriage Laws violate Plaintiffs equal protections rights.
/ / /


C. Oregons Marriage Laws Are Irrational and Based on Prejudice.

In striking down DOMA, the Supreme Court held that DOMA injure[s],
stigma[tizes], demean[s], and degrade[s] same-sex couples, treating their relationships
as second-class, second-tier, and unworthy of [] recognition. Id. at 2692-94 & 2695-96.
In addition, the Supreme Court held that DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children
now being raised by same-sex couples and financial[ly] harm[s] them by denying them
federal benefits. Windsor at 2694-95. The Supreme Court further emphasized that by denying
recognition to gay and lesbian couples, DOMA had a substantial societal impact . . . in the
daily lives and customs of people. Id. at 2693.
The Supreme Court held in Windsor that the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA
should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the
Constitution. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2689. Here, as in Windsor, Article 15, 5a of the
Oregon Constitution was plainly designed to injure gay and lesbian couples who want to
access civil marriage like similarly situated heterosexual couples. The definition of marriage
contained in Article 15, 5a of the Oregon Constitution creates a classification to
disadvantage Oregons gay and lesbian population. It does not further any other purpose.
The official explanatory statement of Measure 36 stated that there was ongoing
litigation concerning whether the current marriage statutes are valid under the Oregon
Constitution. See Declaration of Lea Ann Easton, Exhibit B, 2004 Oregon Voters Guide
(Dkt. 29-2). The arguments in the Voters Guide clarify that the purpose of Measure 36 was to
create a state-sponsored institution of inequality, and to prohibit gay and lesbian couples from
enjoying the same protections and benefits under the law as those extended to heterosexual
couples. Measure 36 also sought to preemptively deny the rights of gay and lesbian


Oregonians that they likely would have under the Oregon Constitution. As the State
acknowledges, the context and history of Article 15, 15a of the Oregon Constitution
includes what the voters were told about the measure during the election. States Answer,
Exhibit A, Dkt. 10 at 5. The specific intent of the proponents was to demean and to stigmatize
gay and lesbian Oregonians while promoting a social view steeped in religion and morality that
totally discounted the fundamental rights of a significant number of gay and lesbian
Oregonians, many of whom like Plaintiffs Duehmig and Griesar, are raising children. See
Declaration of Easton, Exhibit B (2004 Oregon Voters Guide) (Dkt. 29-2) and Exhibit C
(United States Census 2010, 2010 American Community Survey, Same-Sex Unmarried
Partner or Spouse Households by Sex of Householder by Presence of Own Children,
available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf), (Dkt. 29-3).
While a majority of Oregon voters may have succeeded in depriving gay and lesbian
couples equality and dignity under the Oregon Constitution in 2004, the protections provided
by the United States Constitution remain robust in 2014.
Far from having a salutary effect on society, this selective exclusion creates logistical
and legal inconsistencies in the law, and it demeans same-gender relationships and families,
selectively excluding them from full citizenship and depriving them of benefits that provide
security to their relationships. This special disparate treatment is reserved for gay and lesbian
couples alone, while similarly situated heterosexual couples are given preferential treatment
under the law. This violates the Plaintiffs fundamental right to marry and their right to equal
protection under the United States Constitution.
/ / /



D. Oregons Marriage Laws Are Unconstitutional
Under Windsor.

The Supreme Court held in Windsor that the design, purpose, and effect of laws
burdening same-gender couples should be considered as the beginning point in deciding
whether [they are] valid under the Constitution, and at the very least, Equal Protection
mean[s] that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate
treatment of that group. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2689, 2693 (quotation omitted). Like
DOMA, Article 15, 15a of the Oregon Constitution and the enforcement of state statutes
referencing husband and wife so as to exclude gay and lesbian couples access to
marriage have an avowed purpose and practical effect [ ] to impose a disadvantage, a
separate status, and so a stigma upon all who [desire to] enter into same-gender marriages
Id. at 2693.
Oregons Marriage Laws similarly restrict the freedom and choice of [gay and
lesbian] couples, including Plaintiffs. Id. Here, as in Windsor, Oregons marriage laws
effectively treat same-gender marriages as second-class marriages. Id. Accordingly, here,
as in Windsor, [t]his raises a most serious question under the Constitutions [equal
protection guarantees]. Id. at 2694.
The Supreme Court explained that DOMAs principal effect [was] to identify a
subset of relationships and make them unequal. Id. Like DOMA, Oregons Marriage Laws
principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency.
Id. By this dynamic, Oregons Marriage Laws undermine[] both the public and private
significance of . . . same-sex marriages. Id. [I]t tells those couples, and all the world, that
their relationships are unworthy of recognition in our state. Id. This places same-gender
couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. Id. The differentiation


demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects. Id. (citing
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)).
Oregons Marriage Laws further injure and humiliate[] . . . children now being raised
by same-gender couples, by making it more difficult for the children to understand the
integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their
community and their daily lives. Id. at 2694. Moreover, as in Windsor, these laws also
bring[] financial harm to children of same-gender couples, by raising the cost of health care
for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers same-gender
[partners], and by denying or reducing state benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a
spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. Id. at 2695. In sum,
like the law struck down in Windsor, Oregon Marriage laws single[] out a class of persons,
and impose[] a disability on the class. They instruct[] all [state] officials, and indeed all
persons with whom same-gender couples interact, including their own children, that their
[relationship] is less worthy than the [relationships] of others. Id. at 2695-96.
As acknowledged in Windsor, [b]y history and tradition the definition and regulation
of marriage . . . has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate
States. Id. at 2689-90. However, the Supreme Court emphasized, as it has before, that
State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights
of persons. Id.; see also, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
Were there any doubt about the reach of Windsors holding, Justice Scalias dissent
provides persuasive authority to this court as to logical outcome of the Court's ruling in
Windsor:
In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state
prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by


today's opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today's opinion
. . . is that DOMA is motivated by "bare. . . desire to harm" couples
in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to
reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-
sex couples marital status.

133 S.Ct. at 2709 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In conclusion, as in Windsor, Oregons Marriage Laws discriminate against gay and
lesbian couples and are invalid because no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and
effect to disparage and to injure them. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2696. Because Oregons
Marriage Laws treat these couples as less respected than others, they violate the Equal
Protection Clause, and must be struck down. Id.

IV. THE LIMITATION ON FULL RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGES
FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 15,
5AOF THE OREGON CONSTITUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
UNDER THE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN WINDSOR.

Oregons Marriage Laws do not fully recognize Plaintiff Duehmigs and Plaintiff
Griesars marriage legally performed in Canada. The Deputy Attorney Generals October 16,
2013 letter, issued the day after Plaintiffs filed suit, resulted in the state recognition of
Plaintiffs marriage only so far as Oregons executive branch. Some marriage laws, like the
right of intestate succession and the right of parties to obtain a divorce in state court, operate
independently of the executive branchs reach. While these laws remain in force, Plaintiffs
Duehmig and Griesar are excluded from their equal protections solely because both of them
are male. See ORS 112.025.
Oregon therefore provides Plaintiffs Duehmigs and Griesars marriage lesser
recognition and legal rights than heterosexual marriages performed out of state. The Oregon
Supreme Court has ruled that, a marriage which is recognized as valid in the state where it
was performed will be recognized in Oregon, Garrett v. Chapman, 449 P.2d 856 (Or. 1969),


unless, of course, it is a same-gender marriage rendered void by operation of Article 15, 5a
of the Oregon Constitution.
The State acknowledges that [p]roponents and opponents alike understand that the law
targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation by denying
recognition of only their valid marriages. This is the laws express purpose. States Answer,
Exhibit A, Dkt. 10 at 6. The State further admits that it cannot identify any defensible state
interest, much less a compelling one, to justify its refusal to recognize marriages performed
between consenting, unrelated adults under the laws of another state marriages that would be
unquestionably accorded recognition if the spouses were of the opposite sex. Id.
The Supreme Court in Windsor held that laws enacted expressly in order to deny
recognition to legally married same-gender couples inflict injuries of constitutional
dimensions. Id. at 2694 (ruling that DOMA demeans same-sex couples, and humiliates tens
of thousands of children now being raised by those couples). That holding applies directly to
the limitation imposed by Article 15, 5a of the Oregon Constitution on the full recognition of
lawful marriages of same-gender couples who married each other in another state. The harm
inflicted by the governments refusal to recognize an existing marital relationship is no less
when it is inflicted by Oregon, rather than the federal government. Similarly, the Supreme
Courts analysis of the profoundly stigmatizing impact of laws that single out gay and lesbian
couples for discrimination with respect to marriage applies equally to Oregons Marriage
Laws. The limitation imposed by Article 15, 5a of the Oregon Constitution on full and equal
recognition of same-gender marriage under the law is just as profound a constitutional
violation as that in Windsor, since it effectively renders a same-gender couples lawful
marriage unequal to similarly situated opposite-gender marriages for no reason.


Oregons Marriage Laws take the extraordinary measure of targeting an entire class of
legally married couples and excluding them from federal recognition just as Section 3 of
DOMA did. Oregons Marriage Laws single out an entire class of same-gender couples who
entered into legal marriages in other jurisdictions and categorically exclude these couples from
the otherwise general rule that a marriage valid where celebrated will be treated as valid in
Oregon as well. Like DOMA, Oregons Marriage Laws unusual deviation from the usual
tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive
same-gender couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with legal recognition of
their marriage. Id. at 2693. For both Oregons Marriage Laws and DOMA, the principal
effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The
principal purpose is to impose inequality[.] Id. Oregons Marriage Laws force[] same-sex
couples to live as married for the purpose of some jurisdictions laws but unmarried for
purposes of Oregons law. Id. at 2694. By so doing, Oregons Marriage Laws violate
Plaintiffs Duehmig and Griesar rights to Equal Protection of the laws guaranteed by the
United States Constitution.
CONCLUSION

When the government denies Plaintiffs the right to equally access the great public
institution of marriage, it effectively excludes them from the benefits and obligations
American citizenship promises. For all of the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs request the
Court grant summary judgment, declare Oregon Constitution Article 15, 5a unconstitutional,
/ / /



and grant such other relief to ensure Plaintiffs and other same-gender couples have equal access
to marriage in Oregon.
DATED this 18
th
day of February 2014.

By: s/ Lake James H. Perriguey By: s/ Lea Ann Easton
Lake James H. Perriguey, OSB No. 983213 Lea Ann Easton, OSB No. 881413

LAW WORKS LLC DORSAY & EASTON LLP
1906 SW Madison Street 1 SW Columbia Street, Suite 440
Portland, OR 97205-1718 Portland, OR 97258
Telephone: (503) 227-1928 Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 334-2340 Facsimile: (503) 790-9068
lake@law-works.com leaston@dorsayindianlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Geiger, Nelson, Duehmig, and Grieser
Page 1 - SECOND DECLARATION OF LEA ANN EASTON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC
lake@law-works.com
LAW WORKS LLC
Telephone: (503) 227-1928
Facsimile: (503) 334-2340

DORSAY & EASTON LLP
Portland, OR 97258
Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 790-9068

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Geiger, Nelson, Duehmig and Griesar

DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

WILLIAM GRIESAR,

Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.

Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC
(Lead Case)

SECOND DECLARATION OF LEA
ANN EASTON IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 45 Filed 02/l8/l4 Page l of 3 Page lD#: 320
Page 1 - DECLARATION OF DEANNA L. GEIGER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

lake@law-works.com
LAW WORKS LLC
Telephone: (503) 227-1928
Facsimile: (503) 334-2340

DORSAY & EASTON LLP
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 790-9068

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

WILLIAM GRIESAR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN KITZHABER, in his official
capacity as Governor of Oregon, ELLEN
Defendants.

Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC

DECLARATION OF DEANNA L.
GEIGER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

I, Deanna L. Geiger, hereby declare and state as follows:
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 25 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page l of 5 Page lD#: l36
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC

1. I am one of the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit along with my life partner, Janine Nelson.
I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration and could and would so testify
if called as a witness. I was born and raised in Portland, Oregon. I am the third of four children
with an older brother and sister and a younger brother.
2. I had boyfriends in high school. I didnt really even consider there was anything
different about me. Its just what girls did.
3. I had my first lesbian experience when I was 18 years old. It just kind of
happened and I felt like it opened up my mind to the fact that there was more than one option for
me in terms of relationships. I didnt tell anyone about it because, in 1977, I knew that people
would think that it was wrong and I was afraid my friends wouldnt want to be friends with me
anymore. I wasnt really ashamed of it, but I knew that I just needed to keep it to myself. Now
I know that I am gay. I cannot develop the type of intimate bond necessary to sustain a marriage
with a person of the opposite gender.
4. In the fall of 1977 I attended Pacific Lutheran University where I lived on campus
in a womens dorm. I had two roommates. I became very close to one of my roommates, Jan.
Jan and I did everything together. She had a boyfriend at home and I was still keeping the secret
that I had been involved with a woman. One day I kissed herand she kissed me back. Our
relationship continued to develop. She broke off with her boyfriend. We told each other that we
knew this was just a phase we were going through because we both wanted to get married and
have children.
5. Jan and I continued living together for four years. We told very few people about
our love for each other and kept up an appearance of being roommates for this entire time. We
slowly told our closest friends about the relationship but mostly let people think what they
wanted to think and left it unsaid.
6. In May 1982 I graduated from PLU with a Bachelors of Business Administration
and a minor in Economics. Following graduation, Jan and I ended our relationship.
7. 1982 was year of horrible unemployment in our country. I took a job at a summer
camp on Mount Hood. It was during this summer that I met Janine and fell in love with her.
8. It was late in the summer when I discovered that I was physically attracted to
Janine. Janine and I, along with another camp friend, had been discussing getting an apartment
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 25 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page 2 of 5 Page lD#: l37
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

after camp ended. During one of these conversations, I said to Janine you do know Im gay,
right? When she responded that she did and that she was fine with it, I also told her that I had a
crush on her. I cant really remember what happened next, but we ended up going on a date on
the next night off we both had pizza andlaundry. The date was August 10, 1982. We
celebrate this date as our anniversary. We want to marry in Oregon on August 10, 2014.
9. Following camp, we both moved back home to our parents homes because we
didnt have jobs. We kept our relationship a secret, closeted, except for a few trusted friends. We
were afraid of what would happen if our parents found out. We lived in the closet.
10. In November/December of 1982, Janines parents confronted her with the
question of whether or not I was gay. She told them I was. They asked if she was. At first she
denied it but within five minutes, Janine admitted that she was gay, too. After her parents
discussed the situation, she was told that she either had to stop seeing me or move out. She called
me in tears to tell me what had just happened. I called a friend and explained what had happened.
She said Janine could come live with her and her girlfriend rent-free while we figured out what
to do next.
11. After six-months of Janine living with our generous friends, I found a job and
together we moved into our first apartment in NW Portland.
12. In 1983, I obtained a full time position with Pacific Telecom, a small telephone
company which provided service to rural locations. It was headquartered in Vancouver,
Washington.
13. In 1984 we bought our first home in Aloha, Oregon. Shortly after we purchased
this home, we discussed the possibility of raising children together.
14. Janine wanted children. I did not feel that our culture would support our raising
children as a lesbian couple.
15. It was also during this time, that we bought rings, which we both still wear today.
16. Between 1984 and today we have bought and sold nine homes. Four times, this
included moving cross-country for my job. It wasnt until the third move that we made with the
company that I finally asked for the company to consider Janine my spouse as it related to
relocation benefits. They agreed to do this, but were unwilling to change the relation policy to
specifically allow thisinstead it was considered an exception. I had never before asked to be
treated equally because I was afraid of being discriminated against due to my sexual orientation.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

17. In 2003 we took the step of investing significant sums of money to create wills,
trusts and to legally give each other the right to oversee our healthcare because we wanted to
have as much protection for our relationship and each other as we possibly could since we could
obtain these protections that Oregon marriage provides only to heterosexual couples. While at
this point, our families and friends were well aware of our relationship, we were both concerned
about what might happen if one of us was to become very ill or passed away. We felt like we had
to take this step to protect our relationship since we could not marry in Oregon.
18. In 2004, when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, we went downtown applied for and obtained a license, and were married the same day.
We decided we couldnt wait to gather our friends and family because we werent sure how long
they would allow it and we didnt want to miss the opportunity to finally be married. We were
married on March 4, 2004.
19. The experience of actually getting married was amazing. We finally felt like our
relationship was finally valid.
20. Unfortunately, that feeling was reversed in May 2005 when the Oregon Supreme
Court decided these marriages were void because Multnomah County did not have the legal
authority to issue the licenses.
21. We became domestic partners in Oregon on February 4, 2008. I feel this is a
second-class, inferior designation. It is a separate and unequal status. Though it affords many of
the rights of marriage, it is a humiliating status.
22. In August 2012, after being in a committed relationship for 30 years, for the first
time ever, we publically acknowledged our relationship in front of our family and friends by
throwing ourselves a 30th anniversary party. It was amazing! Our friends and family refer to it as
our wedding even though we did not have a ceremony. Until this event, Janine and I always said
that even if our right to marriage was finally recognized, that we had been together for so long
we would not have a big gathering. But having experienced what we did on this amazing day, I
now know an aspect of what we had been missing having been denied equal access to marriage
all of our lives-- the validity that the public acknowledgment and the gathering of friends and
family bring to our relationship. In the past I had understood marriage as a document that
provided us rights which are very important to us, but marriage also provides validation that
our relationship and commitment is just as real and just as important as heterosexual couples.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Having been denied the right to marriage all of our lives, it is difficult to understand what the
State is depriving us as gay and lesbian citizens.
23. Janine and I have 20 nieces and nephews and 7 great nieces and nephews and one
more on the way. None of them has ever known us without each other. We have and always will
be their aunts.
24. We joke with our friends, that we share a brain because we often say the exact
same thing, with the exact same inflexion at the exact same time. Our friends tell us that we are
more married than most straight couples and I agree. Janine is not just my partnershe is
my best friend, and my sole mate. I cant imagine my life without her. I am going to spend the
rest of my life with her.
25. Janine and I meet every qualification for marriage except for the fact that we are
both women. There is no reason, other than a law passed by a majority of religiously motivated
voters and statutes that read husband and wife, that Janine and I are not married today. This
is heart-breaking.
26. With all the evolution in peoples understanding about individual liberty, about
the beauty of loving relationships, including with our President, many other states, the US
Supreme Court, and even the Pope, on September 23, 2013, we returned to the Multnomah
County offices to obtain a marriage license. We had completed an on-line application for a
marriage license and stated we were there to pick up our license. We were told that application
was only for heterosexual couples and were directed to complete the domestic partnership
application. We informed the clerk we were already domestic partners, but we wanted to get
married. Being denied a license after 31 years together is unfair and degrading.
27. When the Defendants in this suit began recognizing out of state marriages while
still refusing to recognize ours, I felt further stigmatized and humiliated by the continuing and
irrational refusal to recognize our relationship as a marriage.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Date: January 13, 2014 By: s/Deanna L. Geiger
Deanna L. Geiger, Plaintiff
Page 1 - DECLARATION OF JANINE M. NELSON IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

lake@law-works.com
LAW WORKS LLC
Telephone: (503) 227-1928
Facsimile: (503) 334-2340

DORSAY & EASTON LLP
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 790-9068


DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

WILLIAM GRIESAR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.

Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC

DECLARATION OF JANINE M.
NELSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

I, Janine M. Nelson, hereby declare and state as follows:

Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 26 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page l of 6 Page lD#: l4l
Page 2 DECLARATION OF JANINE M. NELSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1. I am one of the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit along with my life partner, and future
wife, Deanna L. Geiger. I am 53 years old and I reside in Portland, Oregon. I have personal
knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration and could and would so testify if called as a
witness.
2. Deanna and I are lesbian women in a loving, committed relationship. We have
been together 31 years and are registered domestic partners with Multnomah County in the State
of Oregon. I am gay. I cannot develop the type of intimate bond necessary to sustain a marriage
with a person of the opposite gender.
3. I am the third of four children and was born in upstate New York in Albion, a
small town near Rochester. We lived there my first 6 months, then moved to Winterhaven,
Florida for 6 months, then to Woodburn, Oregon for 4 years, then to three different places in 3
years in upstate New York, including Fulton, Avon and West Henrietta. At the age of 9, we
moved to Hillsboro, Oregon. Then at age 15, we moved to Oregon City, Oregon, where I
graduated from Oregon City High School in 1978. My father, who was born in Salem, Oregon,
worked for the Birds Eye division of General Foods. They had food processing plants in
Oregon, but they were headquartered in upstate New York. My father received regular
promotions requiring frequent relocation.
4. Because of our frequent moves, I was a shy and introverted child, and was raised
in a very conservative environment. My father was a product of his times and was always
concerned with what others thought of him and his family the keep up with the Joneses
mentality. For him, children were meant to be seen and not heard. I had very few friends and
was abnormally possessive of them, often times secretly following them when they would get
together with other friends or boyfriends.
5. I met my first serious crush, Kim, when I was 14, the year before our move to
Oregon City. We were extremely close. It seems so clear now she was my first love, but I had
no frame of reference for how I was feeling. I just thought we were really close friends who
liked to hold hands and touch. After we moved to Oregon City, we tried to maintain our
friendship. A couple of times wed go to each others homes for a weekend overnight stay,
sleeping on the floor in separate sleeping bags, but holding hands, not knowing or understanding
the concern it caused our parents. One night she was supposed to come to my house for an
overnight stay. I waited up until dawn, but she never showed up and wouldnt take my calls. I
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

was crushed, sobbing uncontrollably for days. It was almost 10 years before I would later come
out and understand it was our parents that tore us apart, fearing we were gay.
6. Having just moved and not knowing anyone at school, I devoted myself to my
studies and sports, playing softball, basketball, tennis and volleyball, graduating with honors and
receiving letters in 3 sports. I was also voted best female singer of my high school class. I did
what was expected of me in high school. I dated boys. I even became engaged during my
freshman year of college. But I could never shake the feeling that something wasnt right. I
figured I was just young and that Id get used to it. I have no idea what drove me to do so,
because I still had no idea I was gay, but I broke off the engagement a few of months before we
were to marry.
7. After high school, I went on to college at Oregon State University in Corvallis,
earning my Bachelors degree in Education in 1982. I continued to struggle to figure out my
place in the world. I had a wild crush on my best friend in college, but still didnt have any idea
I was a lesbian. Although my parents never expressly said so, it was clear I was there for my
Mrs. Degree and it was best that I choose an occupation that would make a good second
income and would be flexible for a family life. I have always loved kids, so teaching seemed
like a natural place to devote my career.
8. Upon graduating from OSU, I decided it would be a good idea to get some
experience with kids prior to my hopeful entry into the workforce as an elementary school
teacher. I landed a job as a counselor at Camp Namanu in Sandy, Oregon. I remember driving
down the long entry road to camp and seeing two women walking down the road hand-in-hand.
I thought to myself, I need a really good friend like that. I was 21 years old and still had no
idea I was gay, still having no frame of reference. A few weeks later, anticipating life when
camp was over, a couple of other counselors and I decided to get an apartment together after
camp. One of those women was Deanna Geiger. I was in her office/room and she asked me if I
was sure I really wanted to get an apartment with her. I said, Sure, why not? Itll be fun. And
then, in a simple little phrase, my life changed. She said to me, You do know Im gay, dont
you? Despite my outward calm response of Sure, my life changed. Something shifted in my
brain and everything in my life made sense. It was an absolute light bulb moment. How I felt
about my childhood friends, what I felt for Kim, why I broke off my engagement all of it made
sense. I never struggled with accepting I was gay because acknowledging I am brought clear
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

definition to my life. Where I previously felt like I never fit in anywhere, I suddenly had found
my place. And yes, I knew Deanna was gay and I desperately wanted to be her girlfriend. We
had our first date on August 10, 1982, which we consider our anniversary. Pizza and laundry on
a night we both had off and then we parked at the reservoir and I had my first kiss with a
woman. And it turns out she wasnt just any woman, she was, and is, the women of my dreams.
Weve been inseparable since.
9. After camp, Deanna and I struggled to find jobs. It was a time of very high
unemployment and neither one of us wanted to leave the area. We both moved back in with our
parents and saw each other as often as we could. I couldnt get enough time with her.
Unfortunately, my parents confronted me about being gay and kicked me out because I refused
to stop being gay. My parents were living with the illusion that sexuality is a choice. Their
sexuality may have been a choice, but mine is not. Kicked out of my family, I was taken in by a
very dear friend of Deannas, Lauren, and her then girlfriend, Michelle. Six months later,
Deanna and I were able to get an apartment together.
10. We spent most of the first twenty years of our life together very closeted, afraid of
losing jobs, apartments, insurance coverage, friends, and frankly, to protect our safety. We were
only out to very close friends and immediate family. It was clear our families didnt want us to
let our nieces and nephews know we were gay. I recall one of our nieces, when she was about 10
or 12, ask us what the rainbow flag on our car meant. We said it was a symbol of diversity and
she accepted the answer and moved on. However, all of them have only ever known us together.
As they got older, they understood and have been unwavering in their support.
11. Early on in our life together, Deanna and I decided to put all of our energy into
the career of whoever got a promising job first. Deanna got a very good job at Pacific Telecom,
a rural telephone company headquartered in Vancouver, WA. I was a substitute teacher for a
couple of years, but because of the over abundance of teachers in the Portland Metro area, was
unable to find full time employment as a teacher. I landed my first office job in 1984 as a
receptionist at what was then Storer Cable in Beaverton. In working various jobs, it became
apparent I was interested in pursuing accounting, so I went back to school while working full
time. In 1990, I earned a post baccalaureate certificate in Accounting from Portland, State
University. I am now Assistant Comptroller at OHSU.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12. Deanna and I have owned 9 homes. Having grown up in the suburbs, we kept
moving farther and farther out to try to get some privacy. Thinking it would be nice to live in the
middle of nowhere, we twice moved to small towns in the Midwest, once to Wisconsin from
1992 through 1994 and then to Minnesota in 1997 and 1998. In 2000, we found and purchased
our dream log house on six acres north of Camas, Washington. Unfortunately, the commute into
Portland was very taxing on my mental health. Then in 2002, on a bit of a whim, we bought a
small weekday condo in the Lloyd District in Portland and discovered we needed to move into
the city with accepting values. We loved it so much, in 2004, we sold our home and condo,
downsized, and bought a condo in the Pearl District. That move changed our lives. We met
several incredibly dear, and, ironically, mostly straight friends and have been out and proud ever
since.
13. In 2003 we took the step of investing significant sums of money to create wills,
trusts and to legally give each other the right to oversee our healthcare because we wanted to
obtain these protections that Oregon marriage provides only to heterosexual couples. While at
this point, our families and friends were well aware of our relationship, we were both concerned
about what might happen if one of us was to become very ill or passed away. We felt like we had
to take this step to protect our relationship since we could not marry in Oregon.
14. As blessed and full as my life is, I still feel like a second-class citizen. Despite
having been together 31 years, Deanna and I are still denied the right to marry in Oregon. A
mob of people created a law defining our relationship as less legitimate than the relationships of
straight peopleeven those who meet and get married, and then divorced, with such
nonchalance. When Multnomah County was issuing marriage licenses in 2004, Deanna and I
went to the County offices on day two and got a license, then on to the Keller Auditorium to get
married with hundreds of other joyous couples. It was such an incredible experience. We had
been together for almost 22 years at that point. No one in line at the County offices that day
were together less than 10 years. It will forever be one of the most special days of my life,
despite the fact the State later took our marriage certificate away and sent us back our $60. We
didnt deposit the check for several years as a form of protest. In 2009, when Oregon passed the
law to allow us to register as domestic partners, we wasted no time going down and registering.
This law gave us most of the State rights of a married couples, but none of the Federal rights
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

granted to people who are married. An illustration of this was the fact that since then, we
have to file separate Federal tax returns, then file a fake joint Federal return to include with our
joint State return. It ends up costing us a couple of thousand dollars more in taxes, but darned if
we werent going to file jointly.
15. On September 23, 2013, Deanna and I returned to the Multnomah County offices
to obtain a marriage license. We had completed an on-line application for a marriage license and
stated we were there to pick up our license. We were told that application was only for
heterosexual couples and were directed to complete the domestic partnership application. We
informed the clerk we were already domestic partners, but we wanted to get married. Being
denied a license after 31 years together was unfair, degrading, and humiliating.
16. I want to marry my life partner, Deanna Geiger, in Oregon, my home state.

Date: January 13, 2014 By: s/Janine M. Nelson
Janine M. Nelson, Plaintiff
Page 1 - DECLARATION OF ROBERT DUEHMIG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

lake@law-works.com
LAW WORKS LLC
Telephone: (503) 227-1928
Facsimile: (503) 334-2340

DORSAY & EASTON LLP
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 790-9068


DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

WILLIAM GRIESAR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.

Case No: 6:13-cv-01834-MC

DECLARATION OF ROBERT
DUEHMIG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

I, Robert Duehmig, hereby declare and state as follows:

1. I am one of the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit along with my husband, William Griesar.
I am 48 years old and reside in Portland, Oregon. I have personal knowledge of the matters
stated in this declaration and could and would so testify if called as a witness.
2. Bill and I are gay men in a loving, committed relationship. We have been together
for 25 years and were married on December 29, 2003 in Vancouver, Canada.
3. I was born in the Kendallville, Indiana, and grew up on a farm in Avilla, Indiana
with three brothers. I have a bachelors degree in political science from Indiana University and
am an Oregon licensed Emergency Medical Responder. I am gay. I cannot develop the type of
intimate bond necessary to sustain a marriage with a person of the opposite gender.
4. I met Bill in July 1989. I was working at the US/UK Fulbright Commission in
London. Bill had agreed to volunteer in the office in exchange for assistance my boss was giving
him on a book project. He started volunteering the first week I worked for the Commission.
Shortly after meeting, we began dating and have been together ever since.
5. We returned to the United States, moving to Los Angeles, CA for Bills job.
During this time, I worked for a temp agency and Avnet Computer. After enjoying Los Angeles
for 1! years, we moved to Portland, OR. Bill was able to transfer his job with him and I found
new work -- first on the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Campaign and eventually with
the American Federation of Teachers-Oregon.
6. During the 1992 election, Bill and I faced firsthand the difficulty of being in a
same-sex relationship in Oregon. The Oregon Citizens Alliance, working primarily through
churches, obtained enough signatures to put an anti-gay initiative measure on the state-wide
ballot. This religiously-based measure created an environment that was not only emotionally
difficult, but one that made us fear for our physically safety.
7. Bill continued to work in international education. We purchased our first home in
Johns Landing in Portland and adopted or first dog, Niki, a Belgian Shepherd. During this time,
we traveled regularly to spend time with family and friends. In 1996, Bill decided to return to

school to earn his Ph.D. in Behavioral Neuroscience at Oregon Health & Science University. In
1998, I changed positions and began working David Wus United States Congressional
campaign. After winning the election, I worked in both Congressman Wus district office in
Portland and at the campaign office.
8. In 2000, we decided to have children. After researching our options, we decided
adoption was the best plan for our family. We looked at various adoption agencies, including the
Holt Adoption, which we not work with us because we were a gay couple. We eventually found
an agency that worked with gay families. We traveled to Cambodia and adopted our first child,
Dominic. A year later, we returned to Cambodia to adopt our second child, Jack.
9. In order to have a more regular schedule, I left congressional work and began
working at Oregon Health & Science University after the arrival of our first son. I am currently
employed at OHSU working with the Oregon Office of Rural Health. While OHSU did offer
partner benefits, I was taxed on health benefits that Bill received through my employer, unlike
married couples.
10. As the boys grew, they attended preschool part time before entering school first at
Irvington Elementary and then Sabin School, both in the Portland Public Schools. Dominic and
Jack have been raised in a very diverse school setting. We have been very active in the school as
members of the PTA Board and were active in developing a successful school auction. Despite
the diverse make-up of their school, one son did have to deal with ridicule from a fellow student
for having two dads.
11. During the winter holiday, 2003, we traveled to Vancouver, BC by train, with our
sons. After several fun days of trains, boats and aquariums, we decided we would get married.
After arranging for a marriage officer to come the hotel, the hotel staff asked guests checking in
to please wait while they acted as our witnesses. It was a great train ride back. Our sons were
excited to have been in their first wedding.
12. In 2004, Oregon once again had anti-gay ballot measure before the voters. This
measure constitutionally banned marriage between people of the same sex, invalidating our
marriage in Vancouver, BC the previous December. Like previous anti-gay measures, churches

continued to spout that gay people were not allowed the same rights they had, based not on the
constitution, but on their religion. As a family, there were many places in Oregon, including
parts of Portland, in which our family did not feel safe because of the hysteria this popular vote
engendered.
13. Our children are growing up watching a moral religious majority vote to take
away the fundamental civil rights of their parents. These ballot measure initiatives over the years
have created confusing and hateful messages that stigmatize members of my family, publicly
demeaning us. Continued efforts to vote on civil rights for people in our society will only make
growing up harder for the next generation of gay and lesbian students.
14. Our family expanded when we hosted our first exchange student, Ingmar Sturm,
from Germany. Ingmar attended and graduated from Jefferson High School. He remains an
important part of our family. He became and continues to be Dominic and Jacks big brother.
We have traveled to Germany and France to spend the holidays with him and parents. Ingmar
has also been part of our familys travel, spending a month in Cambodia with us teaching the
boys about the country of their birth. A year later, we hosted another student from Germany,
Tim Winter, who also spent a year attending Jefferson High School.
15. While Oregon did allow domestic partnership in 2008, this resulted in an extra tax
for us. As an employee of OHSU, I was still taxed for the health benefits that Bill received.
This tax would continue, even though we paid a filing fee to become domestic partners.
16. People who are married in another jurisdiction are not required to remarry when
moving to Oregon. The domestic partnership was asking us to do just that. However, domestic
partnership is not marriage.
17. During 2013 insurance review, OHSU asked all employees who were covering
other people on their insurance to prove they were legally able to do so. I supplied the birth
certificate of both my children and our marriage license from British Columbia. While OHSU
accepted the birth certificates of our sons, OHSU rejected our marriage license.

18. OHSU did, however, accept a recent utility bill, with my and my husbands name
on it.
19. After 25 years and two children, OHSU gave more respect to a utility bill than to
a validly issued marriage document from our neighboring country.
20. During 2011, I was diagnosed with cancer. While I survived and am today
healthy, few things strike you are hard as that diagnosis. If our marriage were legal in Oregon,
my family would be far better protected if I were not to survive a health condition or some other
type of accident.
21. We have invested significant sums of money to create estate planning documents
and to legally give each other the right to oversee our estate and healthcare because we wanted to
obtain these protections that Oregon marriage provides only to heterosexual couples. We felt like
we had to take this step to protect our relationship since we could not marry in Oregon. Today,
we must keep constant track of legal documents to ensure that should something happen to one
of us, the other would not be left out because of the unfair marriage status.
22. Intestate property transfer rights, the spousal elective share, and the spousal
privilege enjoyed by other married couples would not necessarily apply to us because of
Oregons constitutional ban refusing to recognize our marriage.
23. While the current Oregon Attorney General issued a directive to state agencies to
recognize marriages validly performed out of Oregon, we have no security that a future Oregon
Attorney General would reach a different decision and unilaterally take away our marital rights.
24. Additionally, the lack of access to any federal survivor benefits would put an
unfair burden on my spouse and our children.
25. We have lived in Oregon for 22 years. We are loving and dedicated parents of two
great sons. We are active in the public schools. We are active in our community. We are active
in our local kids sports teams. We are productive tax paying citizens.
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 27 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page 5 of 6 Page lD#: l5l

26. As we watch our oldest son, who we adopted at 14-months, enter high school, we
would like to know that by the time by the time he graduates from high school, his parents
marriage will be legally recognized by the state we have called home for over two decades.
27. Full and equal legal recognition of our marriage will help strengthen our family
and will stop sending the message to our children from our government that their family is less
worthy.

Date: January 12, 2014 By: s/Robert Duehmig,
Robert Duehmig, Plaintiff
Page 1 - DECLARATION OF WILLIAM GRIESAR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

lake@law-works.com
LAW WORKS LLC
Telephone: (503) 227-1928
Facsimile: (503) 334-2340

DORSAY & EASTON LLP
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 790-9068


DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

WILLIAM GRIESAR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.

Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC

DECLARATION OF WILLIAM
GRIESAR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

I, William (Bill) Griesar, hereby declare and state as follows:


1. I am one of the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit along with my husband Bob (Robert)
Duehmig. I am 48 years old and I reside in Portland, Oregon. I have personal knowledge of the
matters stated in this declaration and could and would so testify if called as a witness.
2. I was born in New York City, and spent most of my childhood in Dobbs Ferry,
New York. I am the oldest of three children, and lived at home with my mother, father, brother
and sister until I moved to Providence, R.I. in 1983 to attend Brown University. I graduated in
1987 with a bachelor of science in Neural Sciences. I spent part of my junior year, in 1986,
studying at the University of Sussex near Brighton, England. I am gay. I cannot develop the type
of intimate bond necessary to sustain a marriage with a person of the opposite gender.
3. After graduation, I taught English to high school students in rural Japan for one
year, as part of the Japan Exchange & Teaching (JET) Program administered by the Japanese
government. During this time I wrote a proposal for a book advising North American
undergraduates about how to study abroad, on their own, in the U.K. and Ireland. The
Intercultural Press in Yarmouth, Maine accepted the book for publication. I spent the next three
years living and working in England.
4. I met Bob, my husband, when I first arrived in London, in 1988, to research the
guidebook. Bob was employed by the U.S. Fulbright Commission to advise foreign students
about opportunities in the United States. Neither of us was initially aware that the other was gay,
and we hung out as friends for several weeks. Eventually Bob moved in, our relationship
clicked, and we fell in love
5. I vividly remember spontaneously boarding a train north to Edinburgh, Scotland,
to be with Bob, who was there traveling for a week - surprising him and deepening our
commitment to each other. We spent three very happy years overseas.
6. Since that fall of 1988, the two of us have maintained a loving and committed
relationship for over 25 years.
7. In 1991, we moved to Los Angeles, California, and I worked for a college that
offered study abroad programs in Europe and Mexico. Bob worked for a computer firm.
8. After a year and a half in LA, we moved to Portland, Oregon, where I continued
to work in study abroad programs. We arrived in Oregon just as the campaign for Ballot
Measure 9 got underway - a political effort by the Oregon Citizens Alliance to write odious
discrimination against gay and lesbian Oregonians into the Oregon constitution.

9. Though that hateful and discriminatory initiative failed, the fear and stigma that I
experienced when our civil rights are put on the ballot remains one of the most harrowing and
deeply humiliating experiences of my life.
10. In 1996, I was accepted into the Behavioral Neuroscience graduate program at
Oregon Health & Science University, and conducted research on the cognitive effects of nicotine
in non-smokers.
11. In 1999, while attending a performance of Hamlet, I turned to Bob and said that
we should have children.
12. Together we started the process of pursuing adoption. Friends had successfully
adopted through the state of Oregon, but noted that gay couples were treated unequally in the
process. We considered international adoption from Guatemala, but the Catholic animus towards
gay couples made that route less attractive.
13. We settled on Cambodia, a Buddhist country, without the anti-gay religious
prejudice associated with Christianity, where Bob and I could pursue adoption openly and
honestly, as a couple.
14. In May of 2000, we traveled to Phnom Penh and met our oldest son, Dominic, and
returned to the United States as proud (and exhausted!) new parents of a 14-month-old boy.
15. We plunged into the world of diapers, play dates, play parks (local community
center gyms set up for young kids to explore and play), went on many hikes around Portland, and
met lots of fellow parents with same age children.
16. I powerfully recall this extraordinary urge to speak and talk with Dominic,
literally pointing out and naming everything we passed, and explaining what happened during
our social interactions.
17. A year later our adoption agency offered us the opportunity to adopt a second
child from Cambodia, and both of us immediately said yes. The Bush administration had begun
efforts to block gay and lesbian couples from adopting internationally, and under U.S. pressure,
Cambodia had instituted a new requirement that we obtain a letter attesting to our moral
character from a priest, a rabbi, or a lawyer. We chose the lawyer.
18. In summer of 2001, Bob traveled back to Phnom Penh to meet Jack. I stayed
home with Dominic, and successfully defended my thesis, graduating from OHSU with a

doctorate in Behavioral Neuroscience. Jack arrived right after the defense, and we now were a
family of four!
19. I built up significant arm and back strength carrying around two growing boys, on
hikes and adventures with other parents with kids. We went to parks, playgrounds, Columbia
Gorge trails, the Zoo, OMSI.
20. I also taught neuroscience courses at Portland State University (PSU) and
Washington State University-Vancouver (WSU-V).
21. We joined an organization called Northwest Families with kids from Cambodia
(NW FAMCAM) and regularly celebrated Cambodian holidays with other parents with Khmer
children. We also routinely attended Cambodian New Year celebrations at the temple in West
Linn, OR.
22. On December 29th, 2003, Bob and I were married in Vancouver, Canada, with
our kids present, in the lobby of the Blue Horizon Hotel. Canada had recently recognized the
marriage rights of all of its citizens, and we returned to Oregon as a married couple, legally
recognized in Canada, several countries in Europe, South Africa, and Massachusetts, but a
stranger to the law in our own home state of Oregon.
24. In 2004, we welcomed Ingmar Sturm, an exchange student from Kassel,
Germany, into our home for a year, through the AFS exchange program. He bonded with us, and
us with him, and became part of our family, attending nearby Jefferson High School. Ingmar
was a terrific older brother to Dominic and Jack, and we have kept in close touch since then,
visiting and traveling with him in Germany, and in Cambodia.
25. We became very involved with our sons public school, Sabin, in Northeast
Portland, and helped build up the school auction and raise money for teachers and classrooms.
26. Bob and I joined lesbian friends at the Multnomah County building who were
getting married, and I performed the ceremony (Id become a minister in the Universal Life
Church a few years earlier to serve that role for a straight couple we knew). I ended up
performing four additional marriage ceremonies for other couples in line! One of these couples,
Mary and Mary (who got married) had been together for more than 40 years. We had the
ceremony at the nearby Lucky Labrador Brewpub, on Hawthorne Boulevard.
27. Also in 2004, the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland and Bend, the Mormon
Church, and the Albina Ministerial Alliance bankrolled another political effort to selectively

deny basic civil protections to gay and lesbian Oregonians. Ballot measure 36 aimed to restrict
marriage rights to straight couples.
28. Ingmar came home from Jefferson one day, very upset that the Academic Dean,
Donald Dixon, was distributing pro-Measure 36 literature to fellow staff members, faculty, and
some students.
29. I vividly recall walking with my boys to Peninsula Park, and passing an apartment
with a Yes on 36 sticker in the window. A woman was coming down the front steps and I
introduced myself as a neighbor, and introduced her to my kids as well. I asked her why she had
that sticker in her window, and she said My pastor tells me I have to vote for this. She literally
could not look me in the eye as she said this.
33. One of the most difficult and upsetting nights we experienced was election night
in November, 2004. Measure 36 passed, and the state constitution was amended to selectively
deny marriage rights to our family, and other gay and lesbian families in the state.
34. It was awful to be publicly singled out for selective exclusion from a fundamental
American civil right, and based solely on unfounded religious prejudice. We felt somewhat
unsafe, in danger, at a significant disadvantage, under stress, occasionally angry, and sometimes
depressed. It was difficult to explain to our kids that even some people they knew, whose
families attended local Catholic and Christian churches, directly contributed to successful
political efforts to deny their parents the legal rights enjoyed by their friends and their parents.
35. I continued to teach at PSU, WSU-V, and at Portland Community College, and to
volunteer in my sons classrooms at Sabin. Bob took a job as a lobbyist for OHSU, and then
moved into his current position in the OHSU Office of Rural Health.
36. In 2005 we visited Germany and traveled around the country with Ingmar.
37. In 2006-07, we welcomed another German AFS exchange student, Tim Winter,
who also attended Jefferson High School.
38. We became more involved in our sons school, working on auctions, helping in
classrooms, helping our kids navigate their social and academic environments.
39. One day, the principal called to explain that Dominic had pushed another student,
but that he was not in trouble. Intrigued, we went to his office to learn that this other student was
from a family of Jehovahs Witnesses, and had been taunting Dominic and telling him his dads
would go to hell. I believe that ballot measures aimed at restricting or recognizing

fundamental civil marriage rights engender negative messaging that gives children, and adults,
permission to harm one another.
40. I am currently fixed term faculty in the Psychology department at PSU, an adjunct
faculty member in the Speech & Hearing department at PSU, adjunct in Psychology and
Neuroscience at WSU-V, and an Affiliate Graduate faculty member in Behavioral Neuroscience
at OHSU.
41. I bring together graduates and undergraduates in classes I teach at all these
institutions, together with students from the Pacific Northwest College of Art, to create new
courses that convey concepts in neuroscience, and involve art projects, for middle and high
school students in the Portland Public Schools.
42. Ive taken my boys to neuroscience conferences, and they have earned leadership
credits through PPS for assisting with outreach courses during the summer. We also continue to
hike, bike, skateboard and enjoy all that our home and community have to offer.
43. Last summer all four of us bicycled 171 miles from our front door in Northeast
Portland to Eugene, Oregon (both boys want to be Ducks)!
44. My son Jack is an excellent soccer player in the Hollywood League, and a piano
player, with a strong interest in math, science, Minecraft, Bones, Dr. Who and airplanes. He
took his first flight lesson in a Cessna at Twin Oaks Airport this summer. My oldest, Dominic, is
an accomplished mixed martial artist and guitarist who loves Green Day, Top Gear, Lord of
the Rings, NFL lids and skateboards. We are Portlandia at its finest, with a dog, chickens,
turkeys and bees.
45. We are heartened by the improving climate for gay and lesbian families, and the
decrease in religious prejudice and consequent increased support for legal equality evident in
younger generations. The arc of history is long but it certainly bends towards justice, equality,
and the principles of liberty embedded in the Bill of Rights.
46. Recently OHSU asked employees for proof of marriage or domestic partnership
during a benefits review. OHSU refused to accept our marriage certificate from Canada for that
purpose. However, they were ultimately satisfied with receipt of a Northwest Natural gas bill
listing both our names.
47. I do not relish nor look forward to another political season of gay-bashing prejudice
from area pulpits, as Oregonians prepare to vote in 2014 on a new ballot measure to remove the

pernicious, discriminatory religious language inserted into Oregons state constitution by the
passage of Measure 36.
48. I am concerned about the damaging effects that homophobic rhetoric from the
Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, the Albina Ministerial Alliance, and other local and
national religious organizations will have on gay parents and their children, and gay children and
their parents. The blatant animus, and those false, cloying protestations of love from religious
leaders who work to undermine basic civil protections for their neighbors, family members, co-
workers and friends is toxic, and unwelcome, and hurts children, and families, and belongs in the
dustbin of history as soon as possible.
49. We have invested significant sums of money to create estate planning documents
and to legally give each other the right to oversee our estate and healthcare because we wanted to
obtain these protections that Oregon marriage provides only to heterosexual couples. We felt like
we had to take this step to protect our relationship since the status of our marriage is uncertain.
Today, we must keep constant track of legal documents to ensure that should something happen
to one of us, the other would not be left out because of the unfair marriage status.
50. I know that removing the legitimacy and enforceability of evidence free religious
language reserving basic civil marriage rights for straight couples from Oregons state
constitution will permit my family, and many others, to live full, productive and legally equal
lives in Oregon, which is where we are headed as a modern, inclusive society - and is a benefit
to all.


Date: January 12, 2014 By: s/William Griesar
William Griesar, Plaintiff
Page 1 - Declaration of Lea Ann Easton in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

lake@law-works.com
LAW WORKS LLC
Telephone: (503) 227-1928
Facsimile: (503) 334-2340

DORSAY & EASTON LLP
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 790-9068


DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

WILLIAM GRIESAR,

Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.

Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC

DECLARATION OF LEA ANN
EASTON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

I, Lea Ann Easton, declare as follows:


1. I am one of the attorneys representing Plaintiffs in the above referenced case. I have
personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration. I am more than of legal age
and am otherwise competent to testify.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the November 4, 2004 Election
Results on Ballot Measure 36 as reported by the Oregon Secretary of States Election
Division. The results were obtained from the Oregon State Archives at
http://www.oregonvotes.gov/pages/history/archive/nov22004/index.html.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the State of Oregons Voters
Pamphlet November 2004, Volume 1, State Measures, Ballot Measure 36 pages 77- 104.
This pamphlet was obtained from the Oregon State Archives
at http://www.oregonvotes.org/pages/history/archive/nov22004/guide/cover.html on January
14, 2014.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the United States Census 2010,
2010 American Community Survey, Same-Sex Unmarried Partner or Spouse Households by
Sex of Householder by Presence of Own Children, downloaded
from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf on January 14, 2014.
/ / / /
/ / /
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page 2 of 3 Page lD#: l6l

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of American that the

DATED this 14
th
day of January, 2014.
By: s/ Lea Ann Easton

DORSAY & EASTON LLP
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 790-9068

November 2, 2004, General Election Abstract of Votes
*Indicates Passage or Nonpassage of Measure
STATE MEASURE NO. 36
Amends Constitution: Only Marriage Between One Man And One Woman Is Valid Or Legally Recognized As
Marriage
County *Yes No
Baker 6,568 2,378
Benton 20,399 24,757
Clackamas 116,484 76,817
Clatsop 10,525 8,494
Columbia 16,057 8,658
Coos 21,614 11,392
Crook 7,598 2,385
Curry 8,160 4,429
Deschutes 44,766 28,360
Douglas 39,874 14,640
Gilliam 782 354
Grant 2,823 956
Harney 2,735 902
Hood River 5,121 4,607
Jackson 62,082 38,609
Jefferson 5,682 2,331
Josephine 28,796 12,854
Klamath 23,798 7,462
Lake 2,978 831
Lane 92,083 92,024
Lincoln 12,629 11,461
Linn 36,552 15,134
Malheur 8,190 2,485
Marion 82,491 46,097
Morrow 2,990 1,113
Multnomah 144,151 213,923
Polk 22,284 12,789
Sherman 748 332
Tillamook 8,469 5,377
Umatilla 18,701 7,243
Union 9,218 4,195
Wallowa 3,050 1,392
Wasco 7,747 4,137
Washington 124,086 104,170
Wheeler 662 214
Yamhill 27,653 14,254
TOTAL 1,028,546 787,556
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29-l Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page l of l Page lD#: l63
Exhibit A
Declaration of Easton
Oregon Vote-by-Mail General Election | November 2, 2004
Bill Bradbury
Oregon Secretary of State
This Voters Pamphlet is provided for assistance in casting your vote-by-mail ballot.
volume 1 state measures
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29-2 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page l of 29 Page lD#: l64
Exhibit B Page 1 of 29
Dear Oregonian,
It's time again to do your part for democracy. This is an historic election, with more activity
surrounding voter registration than ever before. As Chief Elections Officer, I'm excited to
see so much interest in voting, and I want to take this opportunity to thank those of you
who are already registered and to encourage those of you who aren't to register today.
By registering to vote, you give yourself the power and the opportunity to have a say in the
policies and priorities that govern our cities, counties, state and nation.
You should re-register if your address has changed, your name has changed, or your
signature has changed. If you are registering to vote for the first time or re-registering,
please use the voter registration card available in this pamphlet, or online at
www.OregonVotes.org. If you are registering for the first time, you must register by
October 12 to participate in this election.
If you have any questions about registration, about filling out your ballot, or about getting
a replacement ballot if you make a mistake, please call our toll-free voter information line
at 1-866-ORE-VOTES (1-866-673-8683) or our TTY line for the hearing impaired at
1-866-350-0596. Elections representatives are available to answer all of your questions
about voting Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
For those of you who are already registered to vote, please return your ballot so that it is
received by November 2. Remember, the decisions you make with your ballot will affect all
of our lives and our future.
Best Wishes,
Bill Bradbury
Oregon Secretary of State
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
BILL BRADBURY
SECRETARY OF STATE
PADDY J. MCGUIRE
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE
ELECTIONS DIVISION
JOHN LINDBACK
DIRECTOR
141 STATE CAPITOL
SALEM, OREGON 97310-0722
(503) 986-1518
On the cover: Mist rises from the frost on Fort Clatsop, the winter 1805-06 headquarters of Lewis and Clarks
Corps of Discovery. This 1955 replica of the fort, reconstructed in the 1960s, is situated proximate to the
original and lies at the heart of a significant advance in the commemoration of Lewis and Clark history: the
Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Park. This timely increase in federal, state and local coordination
of public stewardship, if enacted by Congress, will include sites throughout the lower Columbia region, such as
Fort Clatsop, Fort Stevens, Fort Canby, and Ecola Park. Photo courtesy of the United States National Park
Service.
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29-2 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page 2 of 29 Page lD#: l65
Exhibit B, page 2 of 29
Official 2004 General Election Voters Pamphlet
3 | General Information
General Information
Official 2004 Primary Election Voters Pamphlet
Voters Pamphlet
Your official 2004 General Election Voters Pamphlet is divided
into two separate volumes. This is Volume 1 and contains
information on the eight statewide ballot measures, as well as
information on registering to vote.
Volume 2 will include the list of state candidates, statements
submitted by candidates and political parties, and information
about voting your ballot. It will also include your county Voters
Pamphlet if your county chooses to produce a Voters Pamphlet
in combination with the state. Volume 2 will be delivered
October 13-15.
For each of the eight statewide ballot measures in this Voters
Pamphlet you will find the following information:
(1) the ballot title;
(2) the estimate of financial impact;
(3) the complete text of the proposed measure;
(4) an impartial statement explaining the measure (explanatory
statement); and
(5) any arguments filed by proponents and opponents of the
measure.
The ballot title is generally drafted by the Attorney Generals
office. It is then distributed to a list of interested parties for
public comment. After review of any comments submitted, the
ballot title is certified by the Attorney Generals office. The
certified ballot title can be appealed and may be changed by
the Oregon Supreme Court.
The estimate of financial impact for each measure is prepared by
a committee of state officials including the Secretary of State,
the State Treasurer, the Director of the Department of
Administrative Services and the Director of the Department of
Revenue. The committee estimates only the direct impact on
state and local governments, based on information presented to
the committee.
The explanatory statement is an impartial statement explaining
the measure. Each measures explanatory statement is written
by a committee of five members, including two proponents of
the measure, two opponents of the measure and a fifth member
appointed by the first four committee members, or, if they fail to
agree on a fifth member, appointed by the Secretary of State.
Explanatory statements can be appealed and may be changed
by the Oregon Supreme Court.
Citizens or organizations may file arguments in favor of or in
opposition to measures by purchasing space for $500 or by
submitting a petition signed by 1,000 voters. Arguments in favor
of a measure appear first, followed by arguments in opposition
to the measure, and are printed in the order in which they are
filed with the Secretary of States office.
Measure arguments are printed as submitted by the author.
The state does not correct punctuation, grammar, syntax
errors or inaccurate information. The only changes made are
attempts to correct spelling errors if the word as originally
submitted is not in the dictionary.
The voters pamphlet has been compiled by the Secretary of
State since 1903, when Oregon became one of the first states to
provide for the printing and distribution of such a publication.
One copy of the voters pamphlet is mailed to every household
in the state. Additional copies are available at the State Capitol,
local post offices, courthouses and all county elections offices.
Website
Most of the information contained in this voters pamphlet is also
available in the Online Voters Guide on the World Wide Web at
www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/nov22004.html
Espaol
Una versin en espaol de algunas partes de la Gua del Elector
est a su disposicin en el portal del Internet cuya direccin
aparece arriba. Conscientes de que este material en lnea podra
no llegar adecuadamente a todos los electores que necesitan
este servicio, se invita a toda persona a imprimir la versin en
lnea y circularla a aquellos electores que no tengan acceso a
una computadora.
Important!
If your ballot is lost, destroyed, damaged or you make a mistake
in marking your ballot, you may call your county elections office
and request a replacement ballot. One will be mailed to you as
long as you request it by October 28. After that, you may pick it
up at the elections office. If you have already mailed your origi-
nal ballot before you realize you made a mistake, you have cast
your vote and will not be eligible for a replacement ballot.
Your voted ballot must be returned to your county elections
office by 8:00 p.m. election day, Tuesday, November 2, 2004.
Postmarks do not count!
County elections offices are open on election day from
7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Voter Information
For questions about voter registration, ballot delivery and return,
marking the ballot, requesting a replacement ballot, absentee
ballots, signature requirements, the voters' pamphlet, when and
where to vote, and other questions about elections and voting,
call the toll-free voter information line at 1-866-ORE-VOTES
(1-866-673-8683).
Voter information line representatives can provide services in
both English and Spanish. TTY services for the hearing impaired
are also available at 1-866-350-0596.
3 | General Information
Page
County Elections Offices .................................................... 152
Guide to State Measures.................................................... 7
Voter Registration Card ...................................................... 5, 155
Page
Voter Registration Information............................................ 4
Voters with Disabilities........................................................ 6
Table of Contents
Exhibit B page 3 of 29
Measure 36
Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General
Election, November 2, 2004.
Ballot Title
36
AMENDS CONSTITUTION: ONLY MARRIAGE BETWEEN
ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IS VALID OR LEGALLY
RECOGNIZED AS MARRIAGE
RESULT OF YES VOTE: Yes vote adds to Oregon constitu-
tion declaration of policy that only marriage between one man
and one woman is valid or legally recognized as marriage.
RESULT OF NO VOTE: No vote retains existing constitution
without a provision declaring that only marriage between one
man and one woman is valid or legally recognized as marriage.
SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Oregon statutes currently
provide that marriage is a civil contract entered into in person
between individuals of the opposite sex, that is, between males
and females at least 17 years of age who solemnize the
marriage by declaring they take each other to be husband and
wife. The existing Oregon Constitution contains no provision
governing marriage. Currently, the State of Oregon recognizes
out-of-state marriages that are valid in the state where per-
formed, unless the marriage violates a strong public policy of
Oregon. Measure adds to Oregon Constitution a declaration that
the policy of the State of Oregon and its political subdivisions is
that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be
valid or legally recognized as a marriage.
ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial effect
on state or local government expenditures or revenues.
Text of Measure
The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended as follows:
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.
NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and
italic] type indicates deletions or comments.
Explanatory Statement
Ballot Measure 36 amends the Oregon Constitution to
declare that the policy of the State of Oregon and its political
subdivisions is that only a marriage between one man and one
woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.
Under state statutes, a marriage is a civil contract entered into
by a male and a female who solemnize the marriage by declar-
ing that they take each other to be husband and wife. There is
ongoing litigation concerning whether the current marriage
statutes are valid under the Oregon Constitution. Ballot Measure
36 adds to the Oregon Constitution a statement of policy that
only a marriage between one man and one woman is valid or
legally recognized as a marriage.
Committee Members: Appointed by:
Kelly Clark Chief Petitioners
Tim Nashif Chief Petitioners
Roger Gray Secretary of State
Maura Roche Secretary of State
Kathleen Beaufait Members of the Committee
(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the
ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)
continued !
77 | Statewide Measures
Argument in Favor
CULTURE WAR!
Traditional values are under attack, and sexual perverts are
attempting to strain the definition of marriage far beyond what
God has ordained. The Word of the Lord must be legislated as
Oregon public policy.
In the Holy Bible, Saint Paul says that Christians should remain
single and abstain from sex. The New Testament says that
people should get married only if they are too weak-willed to
abstain from sex:
It is well for a man not to touch a woman. It is well to
remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control,
they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame
with passion. (I Corinthians 7:1, 8-9)
Marriage is not sacred. Marriage is for wimps and sissies!
Oregon public policy should define marriage in accordance with
divinely inspired Scripture. Therefore, marriage licenses should
be granted only to those persons who have been certified by
professional psychiatric examination to be too weak-willed to
abstain from sex.
Oh, by the way, although Jesus never said a single word
condemning homosexuality, if heterosexuals cant get married,
homosexuals shouldnt be allowed to marry eitherwell, unless
theyre too weak-willed to abstain. Sissies!
The sissy institution of marriage must not be perverted by
sinners who are capable of abstaining! The sacred union of
church and state must prohibit the immoral union of men and
women capable of the discipline of sexual abstinence. We are
not saved by either faith or good works. We are saved by
religious-right legislation!
Freedom of religion and equal treatment under law is simply the
special right to sin, because our tradition is the one and only
truth! And our tradition (that is, our personal moral opinions)
should become law.
AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL!
(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, Traditional Prejudices
Coalition.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by
the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth
of any statement made in the arg u m e n t .
Argument in Favor
MARRIAGE IS SACRED!
The Bible says that marriage is for procreation. God made
Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve made Cain and Abel, not
an empty nest.
Marriage is for procreation. If youre not pro-Creation, youre
anti-God. And once a marriage has been solemnized, sex is
serious business. The solemnity of sex must not be abused for
sinful pleasures. Sex is for procreation, not recreation. And
marriage is for breeding purposes.
Therefore, it should be Oregon public policy that
Homosexuals may not marry.
Infertile persons may not marry.
Men with vasectomies may not marry.
Women with hysterectomies may not marry.
Post-menopausal women may not marry.
Persons planning to use birth control may not marry.
Non-virgins may not marry (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).
Inter-racial couples may not marry (Deuteronomy 7:3).
And couples who fail to conceive within two years ought to
have their marriage licenses revoked.
Additionally, the Bible says that
Divorced persons may not marry (Luke 16:18).
And if a man dies without leaving a male heir, it is his brothers
responsibility to impregnate the widow (Genesis 38:6-10). If he
refuses, he shall be fined one shoe (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
This is the sacred word of the Lord, steadfast and unchanging.
Traditional morality must become Oregon public policy. All of it.
And the older the tradition, the better. The separation of
church and state be damned. In order to protect the sanctity of
marriage and the sacred institution of heterosexual procreation,
unequal treatment and discrimination must be legislated
consistently against all persons who cannot or will not breed as
God intended. It is Gods will that we multiply and fill the Earth
and finally subdue it when the population explosion self-
implodes. Praise God!
Love is not good enough a reason to marry, because marriage is
only for
HETEROSEXUALBREEDING.COM
(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, Defense of Heterosexual
Breeding Coalition.)
Argument in Favor
THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY IS UNDER ATTACK!
Frightening new unprecedented social changes are threaten-
ing old traditional values. And these attacks on tradition have
been escalating--for millennia!
First there was Original Sin when Eve disobeyed God! Then the
Flood! Then Abraham abandoned the traditional practice of
human sacrifice! Then Jews instituted the modern covenant of
circumcision! Then Moses brought down from Mount Sinai a
bunch of new-fangled Laws on stone tablets! And later Jesus
abolished them and preached instead the radical new Golden
Rule!
Polygamy fell out of favor! Women were no longer mere pieces
of property belonging to men! Next these uppity women
demanded the right to vote! Families could no longer own
slaves! Prohibition saved the family from destruction by Demon
Rum! The nineteenth-century extended families on American
farms were destroyed by the 1950s social engineering of the
Leave It to Beaver suburban cookie-cutter nuclear families!
Blacks refused to ride in the back of the bus! Women demanded
equal pay for equal work! Single parents demanded respect!
Gays and lesbians demanded an end to hatred and oppression!
Flower children protested traditional mass-murder warfare
and genocide! Divorce skyrocketed! The silence surrounding
child abuse was broken!
Frightening social changes continued! And then the religious
right began a righteous backlash! First they accused gays and
lesbians of being promiscuous! And when this failed, they began
accusing them of having long-term committed monogamous
relationships and wanting to get married!
Where will it all end? After 6,000-some years of frightening
attacks on old traditional values, will history never cease to
unfold? Will God never stop throwing all of these radical social
changes at us?
My friends, there is a simple answer. All you have to do is
VOTE TO TURN THE CLOCK BACK!
Measure 36 Arguments
continued !
Its really that simple!
Now, which one of these radical social changes will this meas-
ure turn the clock back to? Oh, come on, lets just
LEAVE IT TO BEAVER!
(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, The Beaver State
Defense of Beaver Coalition.)
Argument in Favor
As you know, Oregon once again is in the spotlight on an
issue that has national implications---the definition of marriage.
I am very concerned about what has taken place in
Multnomah and Benton Counties regarding same-sex marriage.
Clearly, the institution of marriage is being challenged and we
must stand up as citizens to protect traditional marriage in
Oregon and America.
I strongly urge you to vote yes on Ballot Measure 36 and
defend the definition of marriage as a union between one man
and one woman. Without the passing of this measure, I am
afraid that the actions of Multnomah and Benton Counties will
lead to an unfortunate conclusion by the Oregon Supreme
Court.
This issue cuts to our core values. Defining marriage is so
important that a huge number of Oregonians joined together in
successfully qualifying this measure for the ballot in a very short
time. Clearly, Oregonians want an issue of this significance to be
decided directly by voters, not Supreme Court Justices.
Measure 36 is on your ballot. It is now time to vote. Your yes
vote will change Oregons constitution, defining marriage as the
union between one man and one woman. This will strengthen
the historical definition that is in Oregon statute, and protect our
traditional idea of marriage by adding it to the Oregon
Constitution.
Our core values are too important. Dont let them be defined
by the courts, behind closed doors. Let YOUR voice be heard.
Vote yes on Measure 36.
(This information furnished by State Representative Susan Morgan.)
Argument in Favor
Measure 36 - Why Does It Matter?
The Children
A mother and a father are necessary for a childs emotional
well-being and development. Many of us know the pain of not
receiving a fathers or a mothers love and attention. In same-
sex marriage, this is not even a possibility.
If we normalize homosexual marriage, the state will be forced
to place foster children in same-sex households. Schools, and
society, will be teaching the next generation the equality of
same-sex marriage, changing our views of the importance of
gender and the nature of the family. It will cause kids to question
their sexual identity, and increase experimentation with a
behavior that is neither emotionally nor physically healthy.
Marriage between a man and a woman provides the best
environment for our childrens success.
Societal Structure
The basic ties in relationships that keep our society together, are
found in the family. Where the family struggles, so does the
society. Changing our view of this important building block
will affect us all!
We need to reserve the approval of society for those behaviors
that further its success. If we must affirm every behavior, then
disorder is the ultimate result.
Measure 36 affirms societys ability to support those
behaviors that lend it stability and coherence.
Measure 36 is not about denying rights.
The real issue is about approval, and gaining the respect of
society. Homosexuals already have the same individual rights
as everyone else, and can live as they please without threat from
the law.
Measure 36 is not about hate.
We continue to interact with, be friends with, and live in the
community with those who follow a different sexual orientation.
Measure 36 is about promoting the common good.
This is best for society, and best for our children.
Vote Yes on Measure 36!
(This information furnished by Jeff Roth.)
Argument in Favor
A Timeless Institution
Throughout history there has been one consistent outlook for
civilization: mom and dad. Its possible for unforeseen circum-
stances to defy peoples original intent. My father died very
young. Despite the hurdles it presented for my heroic mother, we
all knew the context of our familys origin.
A missing father or mother frequently sends children on a jour-
ney to find or learn about their parent. These natural inclinations
remind us of the unique role both mother and father have in a
family.
Men and women have distinct approaches to most issues.
These distinctions give parenting incredible balance for the
health and development of children. Research continues to doc-
ument this. In truth, the further we go down the road of both
experience and social understanding, the more we confirm the
uniquely powerful contribution that fathers and mothers make in
their childs life.
Many well-intended social experiments in the past 35 years have
left us short-changed in the end. Change is not always good just
because its new. Its possible at the end of a dramatic proposal
to find many unsuspected consequences. This clearly would be
the case if we were to dramatically alter the reserved design for
marriage between a husband and wife.
Traditional marriage doesnt reduce anyones value or impinge
on anyones rights. One mans inability to bring the unique bene-
fits of mothering to a marriage doesnt reduce his significance
anymore than it would for two men. Its simply true that the
beautiful manner of motherhood is uniquely performed by mom,
and fatherhood by dad. Otherwise we must recognize all
proposals for marriage on the basis of equal significance.
Redefining marriage will not enhance anyones worth, but will
reduce the rights of children to live in a culture that by design
affirms the role of marriage to give them a mom and dad.
continued !
We urge you to vote yes on measure #36.
Michael Howden
Executive Director
Stronger Families for Oregon
(This information furnished by Michael Howden, Executive Director,
Stronger Families for Oregon.)
Argument in Favor
Marriage Created, Not Contrived
Marriage is not a convenient contrivance of man but the
creation of God for the well-being and happiness of mankind.
It is intended by God to be a lifelong unity of loyalty and love
between a man, a woman, and Godthe natural offspring of
that unique, God ordained relationship being childrenin a safe
and healthy God centered family.
Marriage between a man and a woman is the fundamental
institution of any society. It provides the only healthy context for
procreation and the development of normal, healthy, and godly
human relationships.
The physical, emotional, spiritual, intellectual and moral
development of children, parents, and the larger society, is best
provided in this context.
To radically and fundamentally change the definition of marriage
to include what God considers an abomination is to reject
Gods purpose in marriage for men, women, children, and a
nation; to exchange the Glory of God for a lie, and to reject the
eternal rules of order and right which God has ordained.
Providing equivalent legal standing to unnatural relationships will
force devastating and irreversible changes to our society. The
rights of conscience, and the accompanying freedom to make
moral distinctions will be severely curtailed. Public schools and
curriculum will be required to teach that homosexual marriage
is the moral equivalent to traditional marriage. Religious fre e d o m ,
healthcare, and Social Security will all be negatively impacted.
Professing to be wise, we become fools (Romans 1:18-32) if
we believe judges and elected officials can arrogate to the state
the right to change what God has ordained, for light, temporal,
personal or political agendas.
Vote YES to amend the Oregon Constitution to preserve
marriage between a man and a woman only. Traditional
marriage must be protected from those who disdain its origin,
purpose, and Creator.
(This information furnished by David Crowe, Restore America.)
Argument in Favor
Oregonians, Not Judges and Liberal Multnomah County
Commissioners Should Define Marriage in Oregon
Most Oregonians thought marriage was already concretely
defined in the Constitution. We were all shocked when four lib-
eral Multnomah County Commissioners decided to circumvent
the public process and engage their County Legal Counsel to
redefine marriage in Oregons Constitution. It was wrong, and
Oregonians should be outraged.
Marriage Laws Defined as Being Between One Man and
One Woman Have Been on the Books in Oregon Since 1862
No where in the United States is same sex marriage legally rec-
ognized. In Oregon, statutes have been in place since 1862,
defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Here is what the statute reads;
According to Chapter 106 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, mar-
riage can only be between males of 17 years of age and females
of 17 years of age. This law has been in place since 1862.
Children do Better With a Mom and a Dad
All research is conclusive. Children do better with a mother and
a father. Kyle Pruett, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Yale,
explains that fathers have distinct style of communication and
interaction with children. Infants, by 8 weeks, can tell the differ-
ence between a male and female interacting with them. This
diversity in itself provides children with a broader, richer experi-
ence of various relational interactions- more so than for children
who are raised by only one gender.
We Dont Want Oregon to be the Only Place in America
Where Same Sex Marriage is Allowed
Few issues are more important than protection marriage in
Oregon. By not passing measure 36, and affirming what every-
one thought was already in the constitution, we will redefine the
culture of Oregon in ways we can not see or predict.
Please, Defend Marriage in Oregon, Pass Measure 36
(This information furnished by Representative Wayne Krieger, House
District 1.)
Argument in Favor
Our nations laws are excellent teachers for young people. All
laws attempt to draw a line, to say something is good, or
something is not good and should be discouraged. Oregons
laws have always limited marriage to a union between one man
and one woman, establishing a policy that only male-female
marriage is proper.
Now, some are calling for Oregon to put its stamp of approval
on same-sex marriage, a practice that God in the Bible clearly
calls wrong. Obviously, this would be a significant change in
public policy that would influence the values of many young
people.
The proponents of same-sex marriage have used activist judges
in their attack on traditional marriage. But the problem is not
ultimately activist judges. If Oregonians decided that stealing
was good, we would approve of judges overturning the will of
the people, because God says stealing is wrong. If our culture
was traditionally homosexual, we would call for overturning a
tradition that is wrong.
The question is, should the State of Oregon put its stamp of
approval on what God has clearly said is wrong? Right and
wrong are not ultimately determined by people, but by the God
who created them. Rulers are to rule in a way that pleases Jesus
Christ. When they do, they act in the best interests of all people.
Youth thinking about entering into same-sex intimate relation-
ships should not be encouraged by the government, but
discouraged from something that brings Gods displeasure.
There is no automatic right to marry. You have to be of age, you
cant marry a close relative, you cant marry more than one
person at a time, and you must marry someone of the opposite
sex. This is the line we have always drawn here in Oregon, and
it is the right line. It pleases God and helps our youth.
continued !
Dennis Tuuri for the Parents Education Association
Box 847, Canby, OR 97013 503-263-8337 peapac.org
(This information furnished by Dennis Tuuri, Executive Director, Parents
Education Association.)
Argument in Favor
BALLOT MEASURE 36 AFFIRMS STATE LAW
Ballot Measure 36 affirms what Oregon law and our citizens
have long held as true. State law currently defines marriage in
Oregon Revised Statute 106.010 as being entered into, in
person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least
17 years of age. The law was created in 1862, only three years
after we became a state. Unfortunately, the courts think those
who wrote the Oregon Constitution and our marriage law where
not clear enough in their intent.
JUDGES AND MULTNOMAH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF
MARRIAGE FOR THE ENTIRE STATE
Never before had people questioned the intent of our marriage
law. If it had not been for activists on the Multnomah County
Commission meeting secretly and without public input this
matter would not be before us. Today we are faced with letting
a questionable opinion stand or standing up and making our
opinion known.
IF MEASURE 36 FAILS AT LEAST 350 STATUTES
MUST BE CHANGED
If Oregonians dont pass Ballot Measure 36 the legislature will be
confronted with changing at least 350 statutes. Laws ranging
from insurance, divorce, child custody, and taxes would need to
be changed. There will be plenty for the legislature to do in the
next session, without having to rewrite all the statutes that in any
way affect marriage. The task of rewriting more than 140 years
of marriage laws would be a daunting challenge by its self,
without having the other duties of a regular legislative session.
I URGE YOU SUPPORT OF BALLOT MEASURE 36
ROGER BEYER
STATE SENATOR
DISTRICT 9
(This information furnished by Senator Roger Beyer.)
Argument in Favor
A Career Educator Urges Yes Vote on Measure 36
Measure 36 Is Essential to Quality Education
Oregonians have consistently demonstrated a deep commitment
to the welfare and education of children. In other words, in
Oregon kids come first! That is a commitment we can all be
proud of.
But successful education does not begin in the classroom. It
begins at home. Educators discovered long ago that the great-
est contributor to student success is parental involvement.
The Breakdown of Marriage Hurts Kids
The breakdown of marriage and family in recent years has taken
its toll on children. It has contributed to increased emotional,
behavioral, and health problems that have resulted in lower
academic achievement.
Certainly, there are exceptional parents in even the most chal-
lenging family circumstances, and these families deserve our
support and admiration. But on the whole, students do best
when living in a home with a married mother and father.
Measure 36 will benefit Youth Today and Tomorrow
School has always been more than reading, writing, and arith-
metic. Next to home, it is where most students develop the
character and values that will shape their lives. Marriage
between one man and one woman is the ideal, is what the
community expects, and that is what should be upheld!
Without Measure 36, it is possible that non-traditional relation-
ships will have to be presented as an option equal to marriage
between one man and one woman. This will lead to confusion
for students and a conflict with what is taught at home resulting
in a breakdown of trust in the local school.
That is why Measure 36 is essential for education, because more
important to education than stable funding is a stable and
healthy family! Please vote YES on 36! It is the most important
investment you can make to a childs education.
Please vote YES on Measure 36
Clark Brody
R e t i red Deputy Superintendent, Oregon Department of Education
Education Consultant
(This information furnished by Clark Brody, Retired Deputy
Superintendent, Oregon Department of Education, Education Consultant.)
Argument in Favor
Oregon Teachers & Educators Vote Yes on 36
As teachers and educators across the state of Oregon, we love
kids and weve dedicated our lives to their education. We also
understand just how much teachers and educators can help
shape the character and values of their students. It happened
for us as children, and we see it every day in our schools and
classrooms.
Thats why as teachers and educators, we are urging all
Oregonians to join us in voting YES on Measure 36. Measure 36
sends a simple, positive message to children that marriage
should be between a man and woman. It just makes sense.
Please vote Yes on 36.
Christopher W. Alsop Mindy Cornett Wendi Manthey
Linda Thornton Donald Lentz John Dracon
Mark Dorr Shirley Burrows Deborah L. Bush
Gerald Christenson Rodney Bragato Janet Crossan
Lauralee Furse Karyn Lentz Connie Thrush
John Nimmo Thomas Stuch Carol Funk
Ronald Suchanek Kenneth Bush Kevin Keeney
Ruth Wilhelm Michael Davis Gwen Hatt
Barbara Precechtil Patricia Gerig Timothy Zietlow
Allison Hart Reyna Butterfield Scott Ball
William McLaughlin Nancy Jacobson Mary Kuraspediani
Michael Quinn Elaine Hardman Nancy Womersley
Susan Akers Colleen Corcoran Kelly Benjamin
Gayle Nelson Rita Kenniston JoLynn Miller
Randall Law Cherry Binder Becky Blakely
Larry Verdoorn Connie Franklin William Suminski
Mary Jo Law Janice Hotrum Steve Smith
Marla King Linda Quinn Paul Boring
Gary Kelley Edward Guenther Rick Harris
continued !
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29-2 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page 8 of 29 Page lD#: l7l
Marv Walker Raymond Garboden Linda Verdoorn
Tom Demarest Ella Garboden Loren Gerig
Robin Manning Dale Robbins Joe Amsberry
Ben Cornelius Linda Nimmo Donna Basting
Elaine Hall Mark Manthey Oscar Stenberg
Ronald Lepp Sara Beyer Betsy Brown
Kim Bates Elaine Suminski Eldon Andres
Judy Huber Mary Lau Karen Callison
Pamela Robinson Mary Heaney Marcia Robbins
Brian Gerards Pamela Hardy Norm Scott
Eric Fuchs Shirley Mann Nancy Cornett
Charles Felton James De Young Th.D. Nina Rapp
Bob Callison Joanne Nelson Sharon Erck
Mary Ann Holloway David Bradshaw Ellen Demarest
Due to word limitations, this is a partial list.
(This information furnished by Christopher W. Alsop.)
Argument in Favor
Support Measure 36 -- Support Marriage
We all know what marriage is the union of one man and
one woman. Oregon law has recognized this historical definition
since 1862. But a few activist county commissioners in
Multnomah County decided they were going to take advantage
of a perceived loop-hole in the Oregon Constitution, and
redefine marriage on their own.
Process subverted
They didnt hold any public hearings. They didnt give any
advance warnings. They simply began issuing marriage licenses
that were in clear violation of state law and what we all know
marriage to be. Their actions were arrogant and wrong.
We never thought wed have to defend marriage through a cit-
izen initiative. But because the Multnomah County Commission
purposefully subverted the public process to redefine the law
we have no other choice.
Measure 36 ensures the law continues
as weve understood it
The Commissioners goal was to force this issue into the
courts. But we all know that marriage shouldnt be defined by
judicial action. Marriage has already been defined in the law and
through countless years of tradition.
This measure is about protecting an institution that has been
a foundation of our society for centuries. It is about ensuring
that the law continues to reflect the values and beliefs that the
overwhelming majority of Oregonians already believed were
enshrined in the law.
Overwhelming support
Earlier this year, 270,000 Oregonians signed petitions to put
this measure on the ballot. Those signatures were collected in
only five weeks a record show of support for the institution of
marriage.
Thirty-nine other states have a similar definition of marriage as
would be enacted under this measure. It is sensible, mainstream
and ensures that marriage will continue to be what we have
always understood it to be: the union of one man and one
woman.
(This information furnished by House Speaker Karen Minnis.)
Argument in Favor
Marriage Laws Were Defined in 1862.
Most People dont realize that in Oregon, marriage laws have
been on the books since 1862 defining marriage as being
between one man and one woman. If you were to look up the
statute, Chapter 106 of the Revised Statutes states, marriage
can only be between males of 17 years of age and females of
17 years of age. The statute couldnt be more clear.
39 States Have Already Established Marriage Laws
39 states have established either through their constitution, or
through statute the meaning of marriage as being between
one man and one woman. No where in America is same sex
marriage legal, and it shouldnt be made legal in Oregon.
Over 350 Oregon Statutes Would Have to be Rewritten if
Measure 36 Fails
At least 350 Revised Oregon Statutes would have to be rewritten
or thrown out placing future legislatures in a quagmire of
confusion and litigation. Marriage laws, insurance laws, probate,
child custody and many many more laws would have to be
rewritten to acknowledge same sex marriage.
The ACLU Will Demand More
If measure 36 fails, there will be mass confusion over the defini-
tion of marriage in Oregon. The ACLU will surely force costly
litigation on the state and school districts demanding that same
sex marriage become a normal component of school curricu-
lums. Teachers will be forced to teach sex education to middle
school children based on the new interpretation of marriage in
Oregon.
Measure 36 Deserves Your Support
It is important to affirm what we all thought was already in the
Oregon Constitutionmarriage is a sacred covenant between
one man and one man.
House Majority Leader Wayne Scott
(This information furnished by House Majority Leader Wayne Scott.)
Argument in Favor
Measure 36 Doesnt Change Oregons ConstitutionIt
Affirms What We All Thought Was Already There
Because of the actions of some renegade County Commis-
sioners, we are faced with the battle over the meaning of
marriage in our great state. Personally, I am outraged by the
arrogance of four county commissioners who thought they alone
could rewrite over 140 years of Oregon law.
The average person on the street thought Oregons constitution
was clear and without compromise. But times have changed,
and open democracy has been replaced with judicial activism
and political backroom deals. I believe most Oregonians are as
outraged as I am about the actions that have brought us to this
place in time.
The ACLU and Basic Rights Oregon are the Leaders Behind
the Scenes
Four Multnomah County Commissioners, the ACLU and Basic
continued !
Rights Oregon are the ones who made this happen and who
forced us to collect over 270,000 signatures in just five weeks to
allow citizens of this state to have our say on the issue of
defining marriage in Oregon. Their radical agenda went forward
without a single public hearing or open meeting discussing the
implications of rewriting Oregons sacred marriage laws, which
date back to 1862.
Now, Oregonians Can Have Their Voices Heard
Given just five weeks to gather the necessary signatures,
Oregonians have already spoken with a loud voice by submitting
record numbers of signatures to qualify this measure for the
ballot, but now that voice must be heard on election day.
Recently, Missouri passed their amendment with over 70% of
the vote, and now it is time for Oregon to do the same, if not
stronger.
Take a stand: Vote Yes on Measure 36.
Defend the greatest institution we have left standing.
State Representative Linda Flores
(This information furnished by State Representative Linda Flores.)
Argument in Favor
An Open Letter from Senator Ben Westlund
I have worked hard in my career to open and balanced as I
have deliberated on important public policy issues. At times, I
have been at odds with my own party about various issues
ranging from tax policy to healthcare reform. I am proud of my
independence.
Recently, I have had long meaningful discussions about
Measure 36, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as
being between one man and one woman. While many people
might expect me to break once again from my party and oppose
Measure 36, they will be interested to know that I am a strong
supporter of Marriage being defined as being between one man
and one woman.
First of all, most of us believe that the Constitution intended
for marriage to be defined as being between one man and one
woman. In fact, an early Oregon statute dating to 1862 rein-
forces this fact. Most people, if they were being honest with
themselves would agree that the culture of 1859 and the legisla-
ture of 1862 had no other intention.
More importantly however is my own strong personal beliefs
about how important it is to our culture and society that we hold
on and reinforce this very important institution we know as mar-
riage. Study after study and psychiatrist and psychologist alike
point to the value and the importance of children having both a
mother and a father as role models.
Measure 36 is simple. If it passes, and I hope that it does, it
will simply confirm what most of us thought already to be true
Marriage in Oregon is legally defined as being between one man
and one woman. Of all our cultural institutions, few are more
important and more worth protecting than marriage.
Please, Vote Yes on 36.
Senator Ben Westlund
(This information furnished by Senator Ben Westlund.)
Argument in Favor
Measure 36 is the Only Way to Protect Marriage
Oregonians expect much more of their elected officials.
Our nation has the finest system of government in the world. Its
the reason Ive dedicated so much of my life to public service.
Its also the reason I was deeply grieved when members of the
Multnomah County Commission authorized same-sex marriage
licenses without any public hearings, testimony or debate.
When dealing with matter as dear to the public as marriage its
imperative to hold fair, honest and open debate. With an issue
this big, every one deserves a chance to be heard.
It also gives policy makers the chance to weigh critical research
and understand the lasting ramifications of their decisions. In the
case of marriage, the evidence is very strong.
The Evidence Supports Historic Marriage
Children do best when raised in a home with a married mother
and father. That evidence is indisputable. They enjoy better
health, and experience fewer social, emotional, and behavioral
problems. They even score better as a group in school.
That doesnt mean children in other family arrangements cant
succeed, of course they can. And usually thats the result of a
dedicated parent or parents. But taken as a whole, marriage is
very good for children, for families and for the community. Its an
institution that deserves our support.
Measure 36 Is the Only Way to Protect Marriage.
The actions of the Multnomah County Commissioners speak
very loudly. There is a small extreme group that will try to
change marriage anyway they can. They will even skirt clear
laws that have been on the books for years.
Thats why its critical to vote Yes on Measure 36. Because
amending the State Constitution is the only effective way to
protect marriage.
Marriage has always been a special relationship only between a
man and a woman. Lets keep it that way. Please Vote Yes on
Measure 36.
State Representative Gordon Anderson
(This information furnished by State Representative Gordon Anderson.)
Argument in Favor
Vote YES on Measure 36
It Just Makes Sense
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. In
1863, the Oregon Legislature authorized marriage only between
members of the opposite sex. This statute reads:
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
Oregon now has over 350 laws recognizing marriage as between
a man and a woman.
The Laws of Nature
Of course this 141-year-old law isnt surprising. From the earliest
annals of recorded history, marriage has always been between a
man and a woman.
As a State Senator in rural Oregon representing hundreds of
continued !
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29-2 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page l0 of 29 Page lD#: l73
ranchers and farmers, the historic record makes perfect sense. It
takes a male and a female to produce offspring. Its just a law of
nature.
This does not mean that only married people make good
parents. Both history and our own neighborhoods are filled with
wonderful examples that prove otherwise. But they arent called
marriage. Marriage has always been a unique relationship
between one man and one woman.
40 States Recently Passed Laws Like Measure 36
To my knowledge, every state in the nation defines marriage as
a union between a man and a woman. Like Oregon, these laws
were thoughtfully debated and overwhelmingly passed. Then
in 1996, because some of these laws were being challenged in
the Courts, the Federal Government, under President Clinton
passed the Defense of Marriage Act. This allowed states to
protect their marriage laws. In the last 8 years, 40 states have
done so. And this election, 10 states are pursuing Constitutional
marriage amendments like Oregons Measure 36.
Measure 36 is the only way to preserve marriage. Without
Measure 36, marriage will always be just one court decision
away from becoming history.
Please vote Yes on Measure 36
Gary George
State Senator
(This information furnished by Gary George, State Senator.)
Argument in Favor
Seven Reasons to Vote YES on Measure 36
Vote YES on 36, Because Oregon Laws Deserve Open,
Honest Debate. Tell elitist Multnomah County Commissioners
that Oregonians dont make laws in secret meetings with power-
ful special interest groups.
Vote YES on 36, Because Children Do Best with Both a Mom
and Dad. The research is overwhelming, children with a married
mother and father consistently do better in every measure of
well-being. Its more important than race, economic status, edu-
cational background or neighborhood.
Vote YES on 36, Because Oregon Law Already Says
Marriage Is Between a Man and a Woman. Measure 36 is not
a new concept in Oregon. Over 350 Oregon statutes affirm what
most people have always believed: marriage is a union between
one man and one woman.
Vote YES on 36, Because Its the Way Nature Meant it to Be.
A Marriage between a man and woman is more than just about
a loving relationship, its also about the laws of nature. Every
species requires a male and a female to produce offspring.
Vote YES on 36, Because 40 States Already Have Defense of
Marriage Acts. In the past eight years, 40 states have passed
new laws protecting marriage between one man and one
woman. This election ten states have Constitutional marriage
amendments on their ballots.
Vote YES on 36, Because Its Our Last Chance to Preserve
Marriage. Oregon laws are already clear about marriage; its
between a man and a woman. But one activist Judge could
change that with a single decision. Thats why Measure 36 is so
important. Because even a Judge cannot change the
Constitution.
Vote YES on 36, Because Preserving Marriage Is Not
Discrimination. Measure 36 does not prevent anyone from
having a committed relationship and does not hinder benefits. It
just preserves marriage as a unique relationship between a man
and a woman, thats not discrimination.
Please Vote YES on Measure 36
(This information furnished by Michael White, Executive Director, Defense
of Marriage Coalition.)
Argument in Favor
A Look Back Should Lead to Yes Vote.
In the midst of important arguments about the meaning of
marriage, it is important to remember how we got here.
Prior to March, 2004 there had never been any doubt about the
meaning of the Oregon marriage laws, or their constitutionality.
Then four members of the Multnomah County Commission
decided, without any public notice or hearing, to take the law
into their own hands and begin issuing same sex marriage
licensesmaking a mockery of the Oregon Open Meetings Law
and basic principles of good government.
Multnomah County also claimed that same sex marriage
licenses are required by the Oregon Constitutionalthough no
court had ever so ruled, no Legislature had ever so voted, and
no citizen input had ever been heard on the question! In the
ensuing litigation over these actions, it became clear that the
County, and the special interest groups urging them on, wanted
the courts, not the People, to create a new constitutional right
for same sex marriage. Indeed it became clear that they desper-
ately wanted to avoid giving the People a vote. These groups
apparently do not believe that we are smart enough, fair enough,
or wise enough to decide such an important question. And they
wonder why citizens no longer trust their government? But this
subtly elitist view of government is not the view that was held by
our founders. Jefferson said, I know of no safe repository of
political power but in the hands of the people, and if we think
them not enlightened enough to hold it, the remedy is not to
take it from them, but to enlighten them.
If Multnomah County succeeds in this ill-conceived move, they
will not only have stolen an important constitutional question
from the People, but they will have further eroded citizen confi-
dence in our government. They are apparently willing to pay that
price. I am not.
(This information furnished by Kelly Clark, Attorney at Law, Defense of
Marriage Coalition.)
Argument in Favor
Uncovering the Myth of Same-Sex Marriage
Advocates of same-sex marriage use a number of arguments
that can best be described as myths. The reality is often quite
different. For example:
MYTH: Defining marriage as the union of one man and one
woman is discrimination.
REALITY: Everyone has access to marriage on exactly the same
terms and same set of restrictions. Age, family ties, marital
status and gender all affect the ability to marry.
MYTH: Homosexuals suffer serious harm because theyre
continued !
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29-2 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page ll of 29 Page lD#: l74
denied the protections of marriage.
REALITY: Many of the protections granted by marriage are
already available to same-sex couples through the use of private
contractual arrangements, such as wills, durable power of
attorney, health care proxies, and life insurance policies.
MYTH: Homosexual relationships are the same as
heterosexual ones.
REALITY: Research shows that homosexuals are less likely to
enter into long-term partnerships, be sexually faithful to a
partner, and have relationships last a lifetime. Granting legal
recognition to same-sex couples in the Scandinavian countries
led to a weakening of societys commitment to marriage across
the board.
MYTH: A one man and one woman definition imposes a
religious definition of marriage on civil society.
REALITY: The definition of marriage is rooted in nature itself.
The sexual union of a man and a woman is what reproduces the
human race. The durable commitment of that man and woman
to one another is what provides children with a mother and
father. Overwhelming evidence shows that this family structure
makes children happier, healthier, and more prosperous than any
alternative family form.
The real myth is that the benefits of marriage for society, cou-
ples and their children can continue apart its timeless definition
of a union between one man and one woman. The reality is
that redefining marriage could bring unintended consequences
on the next generation.
Peter Sprigg
Director, Center for Marriage and Family Studies
Family Research Council
(This information furnished by Peter Sprigg, Director, Center for Marriage
and Family Studies, Family Research Council.)
Argument in Favor
Considering the Children in the Marriage Debate
Glenn T. Stanton
Why should Oregon keep marriage between males and females?
Because to say yes to same-sex marriage is saying yes to
same-sex families.
An Untested Social Experiment
No society has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex
homes. To do so is a vast, untested social experiment on
children. Two doctors admit publicly in their Lesbian Parenting
Book, It will be interesting to see over time whether lesbian
sons have an easier or harder time developing their gender iden-
tity than do boys with live-in fathers. We all use products where
we are assured that no animals were harmed in the testing of
this product. But the warning label on the same-sex parenting
experiment reads: It will be interesting to see It is never wise
or compassionate to intentionally subject children to social
experimentation.
And what drives this experiment? Not the needs of children, but
rather the desires of adults. Lesbian mother, Rosie ODonnell,
told Diane Sawyer in a Primetime interview that her son asks
why he cant have a father. When asked what she tells little
Parker, Rosie responded, because Im the kind of mommy
who wants another mommy. Parker doesnt get a daddy
because Rosie has certain emotional and sexual desires. And
the growth of gay and lesbian families will intentionally deny
thousands of children their mothers and fathers.
While compassionate societies always come to the aid of
motherless and fatherless families, wise societies should never
intentionally create them. But that is what the same-sex family
does. Marriage should remain between men and women
because children need mothers and fathers.
Glenn T. Stanton is the author of Why Marriage Matters:
Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society.
Sources:
D. Merilee Clunis and G. Dorsey Green, The Lesbian Parenting
Book: A Guide to Creating Families and Raising Kids, 2nd ed.
(New York: Seal Press, 2003), p. 243.
ABC News: Primetime (March 14, 2002)
(This information furnished by Glenn T. Stanton, Director, Social Research
& Cultural Affairs, Focus on the Family.)
Argument in Favor
A Legal Perspective and the Need for Measure 36
We are Oregon attorneys involved in defending the definition of
marriage as one man, one woman, which has remained sub-
stantially unchanged since territorial times. We urge a yes vote
on Measure 36 so Oregons Supreme Court cannot alter the
definition of marriage.
Limiting marriage to one man and one woman is not a
discriminatory practice that violates either the Oregon or U.S.
Constitutions. The United States Supreme Court determined in
Baker v. Nelson there is no federal constitutional right to same
sex marriage. In the states where courts have decided their state
constitutions require same sex marriage (Hawaii, Alaska), voters
later rejected that conclusion by amending the constitution. The
only exception to date is Massachusetts, and they may do the
same soon after its legislature next meets.
The Supreme Court may or may not agree with our argument a
proper interpretation of the history and purposes of Oregons
Privileges and Immunities Clause requires it to uphold Oregons
marriage statutes as they now exist. Measure 36 allows the
people rather than the Supreme Court to decide.
If the Supreme Court concludes the Oregon Constitution
requires two individuals of the same sex be able to marry simply
because they want to, it is difficult to argue larger groups of indi-
viduals of any sex (polygamy or polyamory) should not also be
able to join in group marriage. When accommodating personal
sexual preferences is the touchstone for constitutional analysis,
all consensual relationships among adults become entitled to the
same dignity. Litigation is now underway in Utah to overturn that
states ban on polygamy, and the Utah plaintiffs use the same
arguments now being used in Oregon to attempt judicial rewrit-
ing of our marriage statutes. We disagree with an agenda
already on record as favoring state approval of all private con-
sensual sexual activity as equally dignified and appropriate.
We urge you to vote yes on Measure 36.
Herbert Grey
Kelly Ford
(This information furnished by Herbert Grey, Kelly Ford.)
continued !
Argument in Favor
DEFENDING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
ON BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN
I want to speak as a father in defense of traditional marriage.
As a father, I have helped raise three healthy, happy children
and it did not come about by accident. It happened as a result
of hard work on the part of their mother and me. Anyone
who insinuates that healthy children dont need both a mother
and a father have little understanding of what is required to
develop healthy families. I know the immeasurable importance
of their mother in the lives of my three kids. I now understand
from experience the importance a father can make
in the lives of his children.
A father-child relationship more than any other, defines a childs
entire life. It affects their dating and marriage relationships,
their identity, their sexuality, their work performance, how they
express emotion, and how they become independent. A
childs relationship with dad shapes their view of God, their
significant life decisions, and ultimately who they turn out to be
as individuals.
Marriage between a man and a woman was an institution
designed with a purpose in mind. That purpose was to create an
environment to enhance the development of healthy children.
Numerous studies have concluded that kids do best when they
are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They
are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be held back in
a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit
suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile
delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers.
They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty
years latter, than those not so blessed with traditional parents.
Please vote Yes on Measure 36.
Kent L. Walton, Chief Petitioner, Measure 36
(This information furnished by Kent L. Walton, Chief Petitioner, Measure
36.)
Argument in Favor
Portland Area Pastors Urging Oregonians to Vote YES on 36
As pastors, we rarely speak out on political issues. But this elec-
tion is different because Oregonians will decide one of the most
important decisions ever placed on a ballot. It is Measure 36, the
Defense of Marriage Amendment. And the outcome of Measure
36 will affect marriage and family for years to come.
We, as pastors -- who collectively minister to tens of thousands
of people of virtually every color, nationality, age and gender --
are doing everything within our power to keep marriage defined
as being between one man and one woman.
We love, support, and help care for almost every family arrange-
ment conceivable, but marriage is a relationship like none other.
Marriage is the way God designed nature to bring children into
the world. And marriage provides the ideal environment to raise
a child where each of the unique qualities of a man and a
woman blend together for the balanced development of their
offspring.
It doesnt mean married people are any more special than
non-married people; its the relationship of marriage itself thats
special. This is why we strongly encourage every person to vote
YES on Measure 36. Its simple; its right; its the way marriage
should be defined one man and one woman.
Frank Damazio James Martin
Pastor, City Bible Church Pastor, Mt. Olivet Baptist Church
Raymond Cotton Dale Ebel
Pastor, New Hope Community Pastor, Rolling Hills Community
Church Church
T. Allen Bethel Carl Palmer
Pastor, Maranatha Church Pastor, Cedar Mill Bible Church
David Stevens Kelly Boggs
Pastor, Central Bible Church Pastor, Valley Baptist Church,
McMinnville
Stu Weber Randall Sanford
Pastor, Good Shepherd Pastor, Sunnyside Foursquare
Community Church Church
(This information furnished by Frank Damazio, Pastor, City Bible Church.)
Argument in Favor
Traditional Marriage Is Not a Civil Rights Violation
Defining marriage as between one female and one male does
not violate anyones civil rights. The civil rights battle African
Americans faced was about basic human rights; the right to be
treated as a full human being, the right to an education, to vote,
to live where one chose and not to be limited due to the color of
ones skin.
These true human rights violations however, cannot be com-
pared to the issues posed by the same sex marriage community.
The right to marry whomever one chooses is not fully given to
any person. For example, no one can marry their sister, brother,
mother or father. A parent cannot marry his or her children. And
its not considered discrimination to forbid marrying a child or
having two spouses. These limitations apply to all people equally
and make good moral and common sense.
Certainly, the dignity of human rights must be afforded every
human being, but we cannot invent civil rights were there are
none. Regarding key civil rights indicators, like access to
education, employment and housing, gay Americans score
above the national averages. And gay and lesbian citizens are
not prohibited by law from having a relationship. It just isnt
marriage.
I have been questioned about past laws that prevented mem-
bers of an African-American community to marry into the white
community. While it definitely was discriminatory, the issue
concerned ethnicity and not same-sex marriages. The two are
as different as oranges are to apples.
The same-sex marriage community wishes to appeal to voters
who rightly say, what happened to African-Americans should
not happen to anyone else. With this I agree. However, I and
the majority of African-Americans, do agree that keeping mar-
riage between one man and one woman is not discrimination.
Rev. T. Allen Bethel
President, Albina Ministerial Association
(This information furnished by Rev. T. Allen Bethel, President, Albina
Ministerial Association.)
continued !
Argument in Favor
Bend Area Church Support Measure 36
The Bend Ministerial Association representing a majority of
churches in Bend urges voters to vote Yes on measure 36.
Both church and state have a common interest in affirming
marriage to be the union of one man and one woman.
First and foremost, the church recognizes the authority of our
creator, God, to govern His creation and to require certain
behaviors and to prohibit certain behaviors. In the very act of
creation, God created two very similar by different human
beings: man and woman. Man and woman are the very founda-
tion of the family; incomplete in themselves, but together
achieving the ability to create and nurture a family.
Jesus Christ affirmed marriage between a man and a woman
when he asked: Have you not read, that He who created them
from the beginning made them male and female, and said,
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold
fast to his wife; and they shall become one flesh? (Matthew
19:4-5 ESV)
As ministers of the Word of God we are required by our Lord to
teach and affirm that sex is a wonderful gift from God to be
enjoyed by husband and wife within the sacred bond of mar-
riage. We are also required by our Lord to teach that all sexual
relations outside of marriage between one man and one woman
are morally wrong and sinful. As pastors, we speak daily of
Gods love, compassion, and healing power to individuals and
families who suffer the consequences of sexual sin: broken
marriages and families, sexual addictions, poverty-stricken
single mothers and sexually transmitted diseases, all of which
increases the burden of civil government and public and private
social agencies.
For these reasons, both the church an civil government have an
interest in affirming marriage as the union of one man and one
woman.
Dave Miller, President
Terry Cowan, Secretary
(This information furnished by Dave Miller, President, Terry Cowan,
Secretary; Bend Ministerial Association.)
Argument in Favor
United Methodist Statement in Support of Measure 36
The understanding of the 10-Million Member United
Methodist Church is that Marriage is a God-defined
Covenant between one man and one woman.
We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is
expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and
shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that
Gods blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not
there are children of the union. We reject social norms that
assume different standard for women than for men in
marriage.
Paragraph 161.C (Social Principles, 2000 Book of
Discipline)
Our Christian community administers/supports this exclusive
Covenant only according to the definition given by the Biblical
God. Our stewardship of the Marriage Covenant within the
United Methodist Church is based upon Scriptures teaching
concerning the origins of Marriage found in the Creation
Narrative of Genesis, the Old Testament Prophetic Revelation
(which uses Marriage as a picture of Covenant faithfulness with
God) and the Teaching of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and
Mark that Marriage is exclusively between one man and one
woman.
This understanding presents a living witness to the larger society
of what faithful living is. We are not given the authority to
redefine the nature of this Covenant, doing so would be an
encouragement to engage in sinful behavior, a liberty that
Scripture never condones.
United Methodist Christians have historically rejected the
practice of homosexual behavior while seeking to uphold the
God-given worth/dignity of all persons. The 2004 General
Conference continued a two-decade affirmation of this under-
standing as United Methodist Church policy. The delegates also
affirmed by a wide margin that same-sex marriage is not recog-
nized or to be practiced in our denomination.
We urge you to join with us in supporting Oregon Measure 36.
Sincerely,
Rev. Rand D. Sargent Bob Youngman
Marquam, OR Newberg, OR
(This information furnished by Rand D. Sargent, Robert M. Youngman.)
Argument in Favor
The Value of Preserving Marriage
Relationships involve personal decisions. But the institution of
marriage is a public agreement, a foundation for how families
relate to their communities in Oregon. Marriage brings order to
social life within the diversity of our many private customs and
practices.
Marriage contributes immeasurably to the human and economic
health of society. Marriage helps nurture children into responsi-
ble citizens.
So the people of Oregon are right to be concerned about estab-
lishing fair rules determining who can marry. Our state sets a
minimum age for marriage. It licenses certain people to perform
wedding ceremonies, bans polygamy and the marriage of near
relatives. The state promotes healthy and stable marriages that
benefit everyone.
This public aspect of marriage reflects the shared values of the
people of our state. While individuals are free to form house-
holds and domestic partnerships as they wish, marriage is the
basic institution that the state registers and regulates. This
amendment would not restrict people in their private relationship
choices. Rather it would give clear support for the basic institu-
tion that has contributed to happiness and prosperity throughout
the ages.
Until recently Oregonians routinely agreed that marriage is
defined as a life-long commitment of one man and one woman.
Recent challenges to this definition introduced a knot of confu-
sion into our courts and into our lives.
An amendment to the state constitution is necessary to preserve
the meaning of marriage. Passing Measure 36 would support the
orderly regulation of marriage and protect the people of Oregon
from the confusion of a radical redefinition of marriage. It would
give clear direction to government officials as they determine
public policy for marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman has been the
foundation of strong and healthy communities for thousands of
continued !
years. Vote Yes on Measure 36 to preserve a stable under-
standing of marriage for the well-being of all.
Rev. Richard P. Zimmerman
Rev. Bruce Sexton
Rev. Gilbert Gleason
(This information furnished by Rev. Richard P. Zimmerman.)
Argument in Favor
LETS VOTE!
The recent OCA signature drive for the Divine Sovereignty Life
Amendment, if successful, would have given Oregonians the
extraordinary opportunity to vote on the existence of God, yes
or no. Religious dogma would have been decided democratically
by popular vote--essentially creating an official state religion
with GOD ALMIGHTY enshrined in the Constitution as
Oregon State Deity!
Although this initiative drive failed, the Christian Coalition has
now created a Commandment Amendment to the Constitution!
Measure 36 ordains us to
VOTE ON THE THEOLOGICAL BELIEF
of whether churches, synagogues, and temples shalt not
be permitted to marry gays and lesbians.
And this election thus establishes the glorious precedent for
democratic electioneering on ALL of the
Official Oregon State Dogma!
COMING SOON
TO A THEOLOGY BALLOT NEAR YOU:
Shall churches, synagogues, and temples be permitted to
marry divorced persons (Luke 16:18)? Lets vote!
Shall baptism be by sprinkling, pouring, or dipping? Lets
vote!
Shall the Lords Prayer be translated forgive us our debts or
forgive us our trespasses? Lets vote!
Shall adulterers be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:10)? Lets
vote!
Shall obnoxious religious-right hypocrites be allowed to
marry? Hell no! Lets vote!
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Hey, lets
just vote!
This is democracy! Religious beliefs belong on the ballot, and
winning beliefs become public policy in the Constitutional
Catechism! Minority adherents, straight and gay, should have
the statesmanship to accept that religious freedom does not
protect losing beliefs in a theological election.
Your special right to practice your moral beliefs (including
marriage) is subject to the whims of popular vote!
Its not discrimination, its electoral theology.
In Oregon, democratic dogma is inspired by initiative and
referendum--in the
Holy Marriage
of the
One Official Oregon Church and State!
VOTE FOR OREGON:
State beaches, the bottle bill, land-use planning, and now
THE OREGON DOGMA!
www.oregondogma.org
(This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, God for Oregon
DeityPAC (GOD-PAC) and Family Alliance of God.)
Argument in Favor
Same-sex marriage proponents argue this initiative amend-
ment violates the civil rights of gays. For clarity, examine issues
from a civil perspective.
Common ground
The right to marry exists.
A civil marriage union is a contract.
Problems
By its very nature, legal advocacy limits issues. Equal protec-
tion has provided an especially beneficial strategy for same-sex
marriage proponents.
It has focused on the right rather than on the source of the
right, marriage, the contract. It has forced opponents to
counter within this legal delimiter. It has resulted in a highly
divisive debate on an erroneous foundation of equal
protection versus marriage.
The issue proves more complex, like the story of the 5 blind
men describing the elephant. One blind man describes elephant
by the tail, another by the foot, and so forth.
First, rights emanate from the institution from which they are
derived. The institution (marriage/government/etc.) establishes
the rights. Rights do not establish nor do they create the nature
of the institution.
Therefore, we must understand the institution/source. We
must consider contract law because that is the nature of
marriage. The 4 elements are 1) mutual assent 2) consideration,
promise for a promise,the right to consensual reproductive
sex 3) legality subject matternot prostitution, bigamy 4) legal
subjectof age? not incest, etc..
Second, legal confusion also occurs because equal protection
focuses on individuals/equality whereas contract law focuses on
two or more parties/exclusionspecifics of the contract.
Third, contractual elements direct us to the nature of marriage
which is based upon the nature of man (m & f), the union of a
man and a woman. For the nature of man, consider statistics
(the norm, the bell-shaped curve), the natural law, and
Aristotelian philosophy.
Solution
Vote for this initiative amendment.
You say it isnt your business? It doesnt matter?
It does. Why? Because truth is the scale upon which justice is
based. Truth must prevail.
(This information furnished by Ann Lackey.)
continued !
Argument in Opposition
Marriage saved my spouses life
Two months after my husband David and I wed this Spring,
David suffered a devastating stroke.
When I was notified at my office of Davids condition, I rushed to
be with him, not stopping to contact my lawyer for a copy of our
power of attorney. When I arrived at the hospital, I was told that
his particular condition required a quick decision from next of
kin in order to approve a course of treatment that had to be
administered within three hours of the stroke.
Medical personnel needed a family member to authorize his
medical treatment. Waiting for his mother, who lives two hours
away, to reach the hospital would have wasted valuable time.
When the doctor asked who could sign the forms, for the first
time, I was able to say I am his husband. Those four words
allowed me to sign the necessary paperwork, authorize medical
treatment and stay by Davids side.
With that move, according to my doctor, I may have become the
first person in Oregon to sign a consent form for a same-sex
spouse. David is now well on his way to a full recovery because
I was able to authorize treatment so quickly.
David and I are both private people who have never played such
a public role in a campaign. But knowing that our marriage
saved Davids life motivated us to step forward and speak out
against Constitutional Amendment 36.
If this amendment passes, countless Oregonians will be denied
the right to make life-saving medical decisions for their loved
ones. Thats not healthy for families and its not right for Oregon.
Reasonable people may disagree about social issues such as
marriage, but amending unequal treatment into our constitution
and hurting families goes too far.
We urge you to Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36
Chris B. and David B., Portland
(This information furnished by Rebecca Lee, No on Constitutional
Amendment 36.)
VOTE NO ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 36
Putting Unequal Treatment In Our Constitution
Will Hurt Thousands Of Oregonians.
Our Constitution is for protecting our most basic and important
rights. It should never be used to settle partisan, religious or
ideological disputes. And it should never be changed in a way
that will hurt many of our fellow Oregonians.
Constitutional Amendment 36 may seem that it simply defines
marriage. But its impact goes far beyond gay marriage.
Constitutional Amendment 36 will hurt thousands of our fellow
Oregonians: gays and lesbians, certainly. It will also hurt their
families, their children and our communities.
Constitutional Amendment 36 will
Put unequal treatment for gay and lesbian families into our
Constitution.
Deny many Oregon families and children access to health
care and insurance coverage. That hurts them, and is costly
for all of us.
Block inheritance protections even leading to people
losing their family home.
Prevent the ability to make life-saving medical decisions in
emergency situations.
These arent theoretical problems. They are real problems. They
hurt real people. Constitutional Amendment 36 would put those
hurts in our Constitution permanently.
Please read the next several pages of this Voters Pamphlet
to see many specific facts and examples.
We Can Disagree About Gay Marriage
Without Putting It In the Constitution
We can disagree about gay marriage. Many people do. But we
should never use the constitution to settle this kind of disagree-
ment. Putting unequal treatment in our Constitution and
hurting people goes too far.
Marriage is about so much more than who gets married: Its
about love and commitment. Respect and responsibility.
Benefits and protections. All people share these needs and
emotions, including gays and lesbians. It is just wrong to use our
Constitution as a weapon against them.
Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36
Because our Constitution is designed to protect people.
Not hurt them.
(This information furnished by Rebecca Lee, No on Constitutional
Amendment 36.)
Oregon Parents urge you to vote no on
constitutional amendment 36
We are each the parents of two adult children one who is
straight and one who is gay or lesbian.
Like all parents, we have dreamed that one day each of our chil-
dren would know the joy of marriage. Like all parents, we have
dreamed that one day each of our children would know the joy
of parenthood.
Like all parents, we have worried about the challenges their lives
would bring.
Unlike many parents, though, we have also worried that one of
our children would be singled out for unequal treatment and that
one of our children would have opportunities and rights from
which our other child would be excluded.
Each of our children should be allowed to protect their loved
ones in times of medical emergency, each of our children
should be able to provide health insurance coverage for their
spouse and their children, each of our children should know
that if their spouse dies, they will not lose their nest egg or the
family home.
But if this Constitutional Amendment passes, those things
may be forever denied to our gay and lesbian children.
If this amendment passes, it will deny many Oregon families and
children - like ours - health care, inheritance rights and the ability
to make life-saving medical decisions.
We dont think this is fair. We dont believe unequal treatment
belongs in our Constitution. We urge you, on behalf of all of our
children, to please vote no on Constitutional Amendment 36.
Jim & Elise Self, Eugene
On behalf of their children
continued !
Linda & Brian Stahl, The Dalles
Russell & Eleanor Cannon, Bend
(This information furnished by Brian R. Stahl.)
AFSC on Equal Civil Marriage Rights
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) supports equal
civil marriage rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
people equal to those for heterosexuals. We are aware that
many are calling for civil unions for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender people and some people wish to reserve civil mar-
riage for heterosexual couples alone. It is our belief that
government sanction should be applied equally. All couples
should be granted civil union licenses or all should be granted
marriage licenses.
In doing so, we are careful to distinguish between civil law, in
which no single religious view should predominate, and the right
of various faith traditions, denominations, and congregations to
decide for themselves whether they will perform, support, or rec-
ognize the marriages of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender. Similarly, we wish to distinguish between the
necessity for equality in the matter of civil law and coercive gov-
ernmental marriage promotion policies that seek to enforce
only one standard of worthiness for people who receive govern-
ment assistance. We uphold equality in civil law and the
principle of free choice in the matter of marriage while rejecting
the idea that the worthiness of persons and families is deter-
mined by marital status.
Vote NO on constitutional amendment 36!
(This information furnished by Dan Stutesman, American Friends Service
Committee.)
The YWCA of Greater Portland strives to eliminate
racism and discrimination in all its forms and provides
growth, education and leadership opportunities
for women and families.
The YWCA works towards diversity and non-discrimination.
Measure 36 will put unequal treatment based on sexual orien-
tation into the Oregon constitution. The Oregon Bill of Rights
provides: No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or
class of citizens privileges or immunities which, upon the same
terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens. We can disagree
about social issues, but disagreements should not be resolved in
the constitution. Amending the constitution transforms one
groups current views into a principle that binds us indefinitely.
The constitution should give equal protection under the law.
Measure 36 specifies different rights for Oregonians, forever.
Victims of this amendment would be children and families. Many
families would be denied health care, inheritance rights and the
ability to make decisions about their life. The amendment could
restrict adoption policies, and could put children in jeopardy if a
parent were to die.
In 1946 Esther E. Skelton, president of the Portland YWCA
Board of Directors wrote to the membership with a resolution
in harmony with the policy of the YWCA and steps that we
have taken against discrimination. She was addressing the
posting of the discriminatory signs we cater to white trade
only. She asked every member to combat this vicious practice,
and help implement our fundamental belief in the democratic
way of life and in the worth and dignity of human personality.
Removing the signs did not eradicate racism. It did make it
possible to advance the social discourse about racism and
grant basic rights to those who previously were denied them.
Voting against Ballot Measure 36 is a step we can take in
2004 to continue to fight discrimination.
Board of Directors of the YWCA of Greater Portland, 1111 SW
10th Avenue, Portland, OR 97205
(This information furnished by Adella Macdonald, Executive Director,
Board of Directors, YWCA of Greater Portland.)
Dear Oregon Voter,
My name is Pete Sorenson, an elected Lane County
Commissioner. My life and work are rooted in Oregon. I grew up
in Coos County, graduated from the University of Oregon, ran a
private law firm, raised two children, and served as an elected
member of the Oregon State Senate. Ive been a licensed
Oregon attorney for 22 years. As a former member on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee that considers the
impact of voter approved Constitutional amendments that I want
to share my perspective with you.
I firmly oppose Constitutional amendment 36. Oregons
Constitution should not be amended to deny rights that
citizens currently enjoy under that very document.
Although this measure does not affect me personally, it affects
many people that I know. I believe that Marriage is both a reli-
gious and civil act. Our religious beliefs should be private. We
must keep the legal aspects separate from the religious aspects.
Oregons constitution is a legal document designed to expand
and protect the rights of Oregonians. The Constitution was not
written to deny specific rights and freedoms that are enjoyed by
the rest of Oregonians.
This measure will deny REAL OREGONIANS some of the most
basic rights that we take for granted. Some of the basic rights
include denying partners the right to make hospital visits and
medical decisions, blocking inheritance rights, and denying
people social security benefits after the death of loved ones.
I truly believe that women and men are created equal.
Oregons constitution should not be amended to deny
Oregonians basic rights. Please join me in voting NO on
Constitutional amendment 36.
Thank you,
Pete Sorenson
P.S. - If you have any questions about the seriousness of this
measure and why I oppose it, please contact me at
PO Box 10836, Eugene, Oregon 97440 or by calling me at
(541) 485-6726 or by sending me an email at
sorenson2004@juno.com.
(This information furnished by Peter Sorenson.)
continued !
Unsure how to vote on Constitutional Amendment 36?
Ask yourself:
Do you want unequal treatment for gays and lesbians in our
Constitution?
Do you want to take away health care coverage from Oregon
families and children?
Do you want to prevent people from making critical life-saving
medical decisions for their loved ones?
Do you want to prevent thousands of Oregonians from fair
inheritance rights when their loved one dies, even if it meant
they could lose their family home?
Do you want to change our Oregon Constitution in a way that
hurts real people in very real ways?
If your answer to any of these questions is no then your
answer to Constitutional Amendment 36 MUST be NO
(This information furnished by Ellen Lowe, No on Constitutional
Amendment 36.)
One Guys View:
HERES ANOTHER REASON TO VOTE NO ON 36
There are a lot of clear reasons to vote against changing the
Oregon Constitution to exclude gay and lesbians from civil
marriage.
First of all, there is no way around the fact that it is unequal
treatment and you dont put that in a Constitution.
And however one might feel about same-sex marriage, it
isnt a threat to anyone. When it comes to tradition, live and
let live is a good strong Oregon value.
Im a 19-year old single straight guy. Two people of the same
gender getting married certainly doesnt hurt me, now or if and
when I get married.
What gets me is that we have to vote on this at all.
When I look at my life and my future, heres what Im worried
about:
Whether I will be able to get a good job.
Whether I will be able to afford a home.
Whether my kids (if I chose to have any) will be able to go
to a decent school.
If I am going to be able to afford health insurance.
And Im not even going to start on whats going on overseas.
And that brings me to the other reason to vote no on
Constitutional Amendment 36.
There are a lot of politicians who are psyched to see this on the
ballot because it is a big, fat distraction. They would much pre-
fer voters be thinking about gay marriage than about what a
lousy job they are doing on the stuff that actually has an impact
on our lives.
Vote NO because unequal treatment is wrong.
But also vote NO to send a message:
STOP WASTING OUR TIME
AND GET TO WORK ON OUR REAL PROBLEMS!
(This information furnished by Ernie Pearmine, Gervais.)
The Community of Welcoming Congregations strongly opposes
Constitutional Amendment 36. We are an interfaith association of
over 50 communities of faith who each have purposefully and
theologically made commitments to welcoming all. We support
the gay and lesbian families in our midst and recognize that
changing the Constitution in this manner would have a negative
impact on their lives.
While the criteria for marriage is a civil matter, we believe that
equitable treatment of all people is a matter of faith. As people
of faith, we believe that God has created all of us in the divine
image. We hereby assert that equality in marriage is a justice
issue and strongly encourage equity that crosses all barriers.
The Constitution provides protections and individual freedoms
and should not be used to formally sanction different treatment
for gay and lesbian families. As clergy leaders and communities
of faith, we support civil marriage equality and encourage
religious communities to celebrate the marriages of gay and
lesbian couples and their families. The proposed Constitutional
Amendment would harm gay and lesbian families by denying
health benefits and other financial protections that keep families
safe.
While we come from different theological perspectives regarding
marriage, we agree that passing this Amendment would create
unequal treatment for gay and lesbian families. Therefore, we
oppose amending the Constitution in this way. We urge
Oregonians to vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36.
(This information furnished by The Rev. Tara L. Wilkins, Director, The
Community of Welcoming Congregations.)
Constitutional Amendment 36: Not as simple as it seems.
Putting unequal treatment in our Constitution to ban gay mar-
riage impacts more than you might think. Here are 100 of the
rights, responsibilities and protections that would be denied to
Oregon families.
Which would you want to be denied?
1. No automatic right to make health care decisions for
partner
2. No automatic right to visit partner in the hospital
3. No right to sue for wrongful death if partner negligently
killed
4. No right to consent or refuse consent to an autopsy of
partners body
5. No vested right to be buried in cemetery plot with partner
6. No automatic right to inherit cemetery plot
7. No automatic right to make arrangements for funeral or
dispose of deceased partners body
continued !
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29-2 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page l8 of 29 Page lD#: l8l
8. No right to donate partners body or organs after death
9. No automatic right to inherit deceased partners estate
10. Required to comply with childcare facility regulations when
caring only for partners children
11. Required to comply with childcare facility regulations when
caring only for partners children
12. A prior will is not automatically revoked when the relation-
ship ends
13. No right to be notified in a public notice before partners
will is destroyed by an attorney
14. No preference to be appointed personal representative of
deceased partners estate
15. No right to continue to live in the deceased partners home
for one year after partners death
16. No automatic right to notice in matters involving deceased
partners estate
17. No right to support from deceased partners estate
18. No right to demand one-quarter share of partners estate if
will leaves less than that
19. No automatic right to notice that a conservatorship or
guardianship is being filed against partner unless currently
living together
20. May not get highest preference by court to be appointed
as guardian or conservator for incapacitated partner
Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36.
Amendment 36.)
Oregon families.
21 No right to obtain life insurance on partner
22 No uninsured motorist insurance coverage for partner
23 No right to spousal cash surrender valuation of term life
insurance on partner
24 No right to coverage under deceased partners group
health insurance plan.
25 No protection for partners home in bankruptcy
26 Private conversations with partner are not protected in
court
27 Conversations with a marriage counselor are not protected
in court
28 No automatic education on fetal alcohol syndrome
29 No court-ordered counseling upon divorce
30 No right to crisis counseling through state crime victims
compensation fund if partner is a victim of international
terrorism
31 Partner not responsible for family expenses
32 No automatic paternity for children
33 Must testify against partner in a court case
34 Must surrender home to satisfy lien for partners unpaid
medical treatment in long-term care facility
35 No right to sue long-term care facility that fails to dis-
charge lien in a timely manner once overdue charges for
partner are paid
36 No right to sell property qualified for farm use assessment
to partner without disqualification
37 No right to avoid court appointment of a property manager
during foreclosure of partners home
38 No right to maintain a dwelling on EFU (exclusive farm
use) property even if occupied by farm operators partner
39 No right to maintain a dwelling in a farm or forest zone
even if lawfully created or acquired by the owners partner
40 No right as a partner to a landowner to obtain a
landowner preference tag for hunting from the Fish &
Wildlife Commission
Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36
Amendment 36.)
Oregon families.
41 No right to private visits in long-term care facility
42 No right to receive personal effects from deceased
partners body
43 No access to partners death record
44 No automatic right of survivorship for jointly owned real
property
45 No right to loss of support payments from the state crime
victims compensation fund if partner killed in a crime
46 No right to family therapy from state crime victims com-
pensation fund in case of child sexual abuse
47 No right to crisis counseling through state crime victims
compensation fund if partner is a victim of international
terrorism
48 No right to exclude capital gain on principal residence
based on partners ownership
49 No court-ordered life insurance upon divorce
50 No right to deduct partners medical expenses on income
tax return
51 No right to receive deceased partners wages
52 No right to deceased partners wage claim against non-
paying employer
53 No right to work on partners farm for less than minimum
wage
continued !
54 No eligibility for scholarship if partner is disabled or killed
on the job
55 No right to sue for partners death that was a result of an
unsafe workplace
56 No right to workers compensation benefits if partner dis-
abled or killed on the job
57 No right to opt out of workers compensation insurance as
a family business
58 No right to sue non-employer for negligently killing partner
on the job
59 No right to continue workers compensation benefits until
remarriage if partner is killed or disabled on the job
60 No right to examine or get copy of autopsy report of
deceased partner
Amendment 36.)
Oregon families.
61. No right to receive personal effects from deceased
partners body
62. No access to partners death record
63. No automatic right of survivorship for jointly owned real
property
64. No right to sell property qualified for farm use assessment
to partner without disqualification
65. No right to loss of support payments from the state crime
victims compensation fund if partner killed in a crime
66. No right to family therapy from state crime victims com-
pensation fund in case of child sexual abuse
67. Must pay taxes on employer health insurance benefits for
partner
68. No right to exclude capital gain on principal residence
based on partners ownership
69. Must pay taxes on employer health insurance benefits for
partner
70. No right to deduct partners medical expenses on income
tax return
71. No right to receive deceased partners wages
72. No right to deceased partners wage claim against non-
paying employer
73. No right to work on partners farm for less than minimum
wage
74. No eligibility for scholarship if partner is disabled or killed
on the job
75. No right to sue for partners death that was a result of an
unsafe workplace
76. No right to workers compensation benefits if partner dis-
abled or killed on the job
77. No right to opt out of workers compensation insurance as
a family business
78. No right to sue non-employer for negligently killing partner
on the job
79. No right to continue workers compensation benefits until
remarriage if partner is killed or disabled on the job
80. A prior will is not automatically revoked when entering a
new relationship
Amendment 36.)
Oregon families.
81. No automatic right to special retirement benefit after death
of partner who was a police officer or a firefighter
82. No right as unmarried couple with children to be treated
as married for workers compensation rights and benefits
83. No automatic right to partners group insurance provided
by public retirement system.
84. No right to opt out of unemployment insurance as a family
business
85. No right to receive deceased partners unemployment
benefits
86. Required to comply with farm labor contractor regulations
when working only with partner
87. Subjected to employment discrimination laws when hiring
partner in family business
88. Employer can refuse to hire or discharge employee
because it employs or has employed partner
89. No protection through emergency court orders in case of
divorce
90. No tax exemption for dividing property upon divorce
91. No dividing retirement plans upon divorce
92. No automatic right to receive partners judicial retirement
pension
93. No automatic right to make retirement selection from
deceased partners public employee retirement benefit
94. No automatic right to partners pre-Medicare insurance
benefit provided by public retirement system
95. No automatic right to partners Medicare supplemental
insurance paid for by public retirement system
96. No automatic right to approve partners public employee
retirement choices
97. No automatic right to special pre-retirement public
employee retirement benefit after death of partner who
was a judge
continued !
98. No right for partner of disabled or killed public safety
officer to Public Safety Memorial Fund benefits
99. No automatic right to receive partners public employment
benefits
100. No right to retired partners health insurance offered by
local government employers
Amendment 36.)
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon
Oppose Constitutional Amendment 36:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT
For more than 40 years, Planned Parenthood has been a
name you can trust in Oregon to provide you with medically-
accurate information, education and counseling. We oppose
Constitutional Amendment 36 and heres why:
MYTH: Those behind this measure are making false
claims, such as, Sex-education classes will be
forced to teach homosexuality as a legitimate
option. They claim that this will lead to more people
being gay and therefore more people dying early
from AIDS.
FACT: Constitutional Amendment 36 has nothing to do
with Oregons sex education law. ORS 336.455
requires Promote abstinence for school age youth
and mutually monogamous relationships with an
uninfected partner for adults as the safest and most
responsible sexual behavior. However, abstinence
shall not be taught to the exclusion of other material
and instruction on contraceptive and disease reduc-
tion measures.
REALITY: Planned Parenthood knows that Constitutional
Amendment 36 is has nothing whatsoever to do
with Oregons sex ed classes.
MYTH: Supporters of Constitutional Amendment 36 are
making false claims, such as, Public Schools will
be forced to teach that gay marriage is equal to
traditional marriage beginning in kindergarten.
FACT: Constitutional Amendment 36 has no require-
ments related to family life education. Using
phrases like beginning in kindergarten is the worst
kind of fear-based tactic designed to scare and mis-
lead parents. In reality, Oregon law requires basic
information we all agree on, such as, Teach that no
form of sexual expression is acceptable when it
physically or emotionally harms oneself or others
and teach pupils not to make unwanted physical
and verbal sexual advances
REALITY: Planned Parenthood knows that Constitutional
Amendment 36 is completely unnecessary when
it comes to getting good information to our kids.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD URGES YOU TO VOTE NO ON
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 36, ITS UNNECESSARY.
Bill Sheppard Planned Parenthood of the
President/CEO Columbia Willamette
Planned Parenthood
Southwestern Oregon
(This information furnished by Becca Uherbelau, Planned Parenthood
Columbia/Willamette, Planned Parenthood Southwestern Oregon.)
The Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ
opposes Constitutional Amendment 36. We affirm that mar-
riages purpose and focus need always be love, wholeness,
justice and equality. The right to marry is a matter of loving our
neighbors and seeking justice for them. As a civil rights issue,
marriage should be accessible to all Oregonians in committed,
loving relationships. All couples should have access to the 1,000
plus rights and responsibilities that come with marriage.
What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself. Mark 12:30-31
The Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ is
committed to a society where love and justice abound for all
people. The Oregon Constitution should not restrict civil rights
and allow unfair treatment of our citizens. The amendment
process should not be used to solve divisive issues of the
moment. Amendment 36 dignifies unfair treatment and under-
mines religious liberty.
Thoughtful people of faith can and do disagree on the issue of
marriage. We respect the right of each religious group to decide
whether or not to sanctify any marriage. Our state Constitution
should not endorse one religious definition of marriage over
another. Clergy have never been forced to perform any mar-
riages not recognized by their particular beliefs. Our Federal
Constitution expressly forbids this under the First Amendments
establishment clause and its guarantee of the right to the free
exercise of religion.
Respect the rights of all religions. Vote NO on Constitutional
Amendment 36.
The Central Pacific Conference is composed of 40 worship com-
munities in Oregon, with additional churches in Washington and
Idaho.
(This information furnished by Joyce Liljeholm, Central Pacific Conference
of the United Church of Christ.)
A Public School Teacher Urges a No Vote on
Constitutional Amendment 36
Im very proud to have served as a public school teacher in
Oregon for twenty-two years in Coos Bay, Albany and St.
Helens and over the years, Ive really seen a lot.
There are all kinds of reasons students succeed or fail at
learning in our public schools. One of the most telling signs of
whether students benefit from school and gain new and
improved life skills is how they are treated by their peers, by
teachers, by parents and by school leaders. Students who are
treated well, and not differently than others, are more likely to
succeed. Students who are deficit, even in an area thats not
their fault, have a much more difficult time, because they are
also treated differently by fellow students, educators and the
entire school community.
continued !
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29-2 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page 2l of 29 Page lD#: l84
Exhibit A, page 21 of 29
Constitution Amendment 36 would put unequal treatment for
kids and their families into our state Constitution. It would mean
some kids cannot receive health insurance coverage, just
because they have lesbian or gay parents. It will mean that some
children wouldnt be able to visit one of their gay or lesbian par-
ents in the hospital. It means that some childrens legal custody
could be in question should something happen to one of their
gay or lesbian parents.
Oregonians should not be fooled. There are a lot of protections
that kids get from married parents that other kids cannot enjoy
simply because they may have lesbian or gay parents.
Please join me in opposing Constitution Amendment 36. We
shouldnt handicap any Oregon child with something they carry
around each and every day, by allowing unequal treatment of
their parents.
Elaine Mariman, Columbia City, OR
(This information furnished by Elaine Mariman, Columbia City, OR.)
One thing Americans agree on is that what makes our nation
great is our religious freedom and religious diversity. Many of our
countries founders fled Europe because they were persecuted
for their religious practices. They founded a new nation with a
Bill of Rights that guarantees religious freedom and protects the
right of everyone to freely practice their religion (or not to prac-
tice at all).
Constitutional Amendment 36 seeks to take away that religious
freedom. Churches, synagogues, and other religious organiza-
tions have different opinions about same-sex marriage. Many
rabbis, ministers, priests, and their congregants, believe that
their religious traditions support and honor the sanctity of mar-
riage for all couples, including same-sex couples. We, the
Religious Response Network, are a group of clergy and people
of faith of many religions who share this conviction.
If Constitutional Amendment 36 passes, then the religious beliefs
of those who support it will be forced upon everyone. People of
faith who believe in the sanctity of same-sex marriage will have
their religious convictions pushed aside by the State. That kind
of government interference is un-American to the core.
Voltaire said, I may not agree with what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it. The same principle at
the very core of our democracy is at stake here.
We urge all Oregon voters, no matter what their personal beliefs
on marriage, to be patriotic and support the genius of our nation
religious freedom. We ask those of you who personally oppose
same-sex marriage to stand up for the rights of your neighbors
and vote no. The same principle that protects your right to prac-
tice your religion as you wish should protect the rights of your
neighbors who practice their religion differently. Please stand up
for your rights and those of your fellow Americans, and keep the
state from taking sides in a private, religious debate on marriage.
Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36.
(This information furnished by Rabbi Maurice Harris, Religious Response
Network.)
PFLAG Oregon State Council
(Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)
Urges NO Vote on Constitutional Amendment 36!
PFLAG Oregon State Council represents hundreds of parents,
families and friends of lesbians and gays around the state. From
Ontario to Coos Bay and from Forest Grove to Klamath Falls, we
are your neighbors, your friends, and coworkers who love our
children, gay and straight. We strive to create a society that is
healthy and respectful of human diversity and inclusive of our
gay and lesbian children. Oregons constitution is sacred to the
protection of our families.
Constitutional Amendment 36 will HURT our families:
It singles out our gay and lesbian children for unequal
treatment.
It denies protections for health care, inheritance rights and
the ability to make life-saving medical decisions.
It puts our children and their children at risk.
It is unfair to our families.
All of our children should be allowed to protect their spouses
and children in times of medical emergency.
All of our children should be able to provide health care cover-
age for their spouses and children.
Dont deny Oregon families and children - like ours health care,
inheritance rights and the ability to make life-saving medical
decisions.
VOTE NO!!
Vote against hurting our families
Vote against putting our children at risk.
Vote against unequal treatment in our Constitution.
Please Protect our Gay and Lesbian Children
and Their Families
PFLAG Oregon State Council
Asks You to Vote NO on
Patricia Keeney, President, PFLAG Oregon State Council
(Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)
Elise Self, Co-Chair, PFLAG Eugene/Springfield Chapter
PFLAG Mid-Columbia Chapter
PFLAG Portland Chapter
Mark Hammer, Coordinator, PFLAG Clackamas County Chapter
PFLAG Grants Pass Chapter
Bill Hayden, PFLAG Salem Chapter
PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians & Gays),
Corvallis/Albany Chapter
Dorothy Leman, Co-President, PFLAG Central Oregon Chapter
PFLAG South Coast Chapter
PFLAG Ashland/Rogue Valley Chapter
PFLAG Forest Grove Chapter
(This information furnished by Patricia Keeney, President, PFLAG Oregon
State Council (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).)
continued !
Exhibit B page 22 of 29
The National Organization for Women,
Corvallis Chapter
Advocates a NO Vote on Constitutional Amendment 36
NOW is the National Organization for Women. We are dedicated
to making legal, political, social and economic change in our
society in order to achieve our goal, of eliminating sexism and
ending oppression. NOW has more than half a million members
with 550 chapters around the country, including Corvallis,
Oregon.
Mission: The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women
into full participation in the mainstream of American
society now, exercising all privileges and responsibili-
ties thereof in truly equal partnership with men.
Why Should Oregon Voters Say NO to
Constitutional Amendment 36?
Constitutional Amendment 36 would hurt Oregonians and their
families in very real ways:
Amendment 36 would put unequal treatment for gays and
lesbians in our Constitution resulting in same-sex couples
and their families being denied pension and other benefits
and legal protections.
Amendment 36 would deny many Oregon families and their
children access to health care coverage, inheritance rights
or the ability to make end-of-life medical decisions.
Why Should Oregon Voters Say NO to
Constitutional Amendment 36?
The Oregon Constitution is designed to protect, not hurt
Oregonians.
Our Constitution protects our most basic and important
rights. Constitutional Amendment 36 singles out some
Oregon families for unequal treatment under the law. All our
families should be treated fairly.
Constitutional Amendment 36 will establish unequal treat-
ment as a constitutional principle. Unequal treatment is
always wrong, but it is doubly wrong to put it in our Oregon
Constitution.
For 38 years,
the National Organization for Women
has been dedicated to bringing
an end to unequal treatment.
Please Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36.
(This information furnished by Tina C. Empol, President, The National
Organization for Women, Corvallis Chapter.)
National Association of Social Workers
Oregon Chapter
Urges NO Vote on Constitutional Amendment 36!
Reject Constitutional Amendment 36:
Constitutional Amendment 36 would deny many Oregon families
and children basic needs like:
Dependent healthcare coverage
Inheritance and parenting rights
Emergency medical decisions
Oregon does not need Constitutional Amendment 36. Like many
measures we have seen before, it has unintended conse-
quences. We should not put amendments like this in the Oregon
Constitution.
As social workers, daily we see the real threats to marriage:
Divorce
Chemical dependency
Family violence
Financial stress
Constitutional Amendment 36 doesnt do one thing to address
the true threats to marriage or to families. This Amendment
wont save one marriage. It will only hurt real families by perma-
nently denying them everyday legal protections we all take for
granted.
Social workers know that families these days come in all shapes
and sizes. Whats most important is that every child in Oregon,
regardless of who their parents are, has the same safeguards
under the law. Constitutional Amendment 36 puts kids at risk
and would deny them basic legal protections.
Voting NO on Constitutional Amendment 36 protects Oregon
families from hurtful and unexpected impacts.
Please Protect Oregon Families
Oregon Social Workers
Ask You to Vote NO
on Constitutional Amendment 36.
(This information furnished by Scott Manchester, Executive Director,
National Association of Social Workers, Oregon Chapter.)
Former Bar Presidents Say:
Unequal Treatment Does Not Belong in Our Constitution
Constitutions outline the basic principles under which govern-
ments are organized, and Oregons Constitution clearly states
that equal treatment is one of those basic principles. Article I,
Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution requires government to
treat us all equally. It states that all privileges and immunities
provided by Oregon must be granted equally to all citizens. This
statement of equal protection means that Oregonians share in
equal measure all of the benefits and all of the burdens of
citizenship. Marriage and its benefits are among the privileges
and immunities our government must provide equally.
Constitutional Amendment 36 would be a direct violation of
the spirit of our Constitution:
Despite our Constitutions strong statement against unequal
treatment, Constitutional Amendment 36 turns its back on
one of our states fundamental principles and purposefully
introduces unequal treatment into our Constitution. If
Constitutional Amendment 36 passes, our Constitution will
say it is acceptable to treat certain Oregonians as second-
class citizens. Thats wrong.
Constitutional Amendment 36 undermines the essence of
the Oregon Constitution. It conflicts with the letter and spirit
of Article I, Section 20. Our history has taught us that
unequal treatment is wrong, and hurts not only individual
citizens, but our state as well. Citizens should be able to
rely on our Constitution to protect them, not to harm them.
continued !
Vote No on Measure 36.
Unequal treatment does not belong in our Constitution.
Kevin K. Strever Judy Henry
Edwin A. Harnden Bernard Jolles
Charles R. Williamson Angel Lopez
Mark Johnson Robert H. Fraser
Thomas C. Howser Dennis C. Karnopp
Lawrence B. Rew
(This information furnished by Mark Johnson.)
In accordance with the historical testimonies of The
Religious Society of Friends on equality and marriage, the
North Pacific Yearly Meeting (NPYM) opposes all attempts to
deny legal recognition of marriage of same sex couples.
This statement was agreed to in unity at the 2004 NPYM meet-
ing representing over 50 congregations of one branch of Friends
(Quakers) from the five Northwestern States. Quaker meetings in
Bend, Corvallis, Eugene, Portland, Salem, and the Rogue Valley
also have public statements supporting marriage equality.
Since 1989 Oregon Quakers have performed marriages of same-
sex couples; a practice deeply considered from religious, moral,
and personal perspectives. We believe such marriages are good
and right in the eyes of God. We urge you to respect our reli-
gious freedoms and beliefs and vote NO on Constitutional
Amendment 36 which would limit marriage.
Why are Quakers taking a stand contrary to social traditions?
Quakers have opposed many unjust traditions, such as slavery
and denying women the right to vote. Laws that enshrine
unequal treatment of people are wrong. Such laws follow the
worst traditions of discrimination. They are at odds with tradi-
tions of equality.
We support the tradition that marriage vows are a public state-
ment of love and commitment between two people. Our State
laws should support all marriages equally.
It is not fair that 5% of committed Oregonian couples, including
those married by Quaker meetings, are excluded from the hun-
dreds of legal benefits of marriage
Quakers are not trying to tell anyone what to believe. Similarly,
the State Constitution shouldnt be rewritten making our belief in
marriage equality illegal. Although religions have different views
on marriage, our laws should provide equal benefits to all.
Churches arent required to sanction marriages contrary to their
beliefs. Equally, churches opposing marriage equality should not
impose laws which prohibit us from celebrating marriages
according to our beliefs.
Support religious freedom. Vote No on Constitutional
Amendment 36.
(This information furnished by Bonnie Tinker, North Pacific Yearly Meeting
of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).)
On July 12, 2004, the following resolution was passed unani-
mously by the Administrative Council of University Park United
Methodist Church. Subsequently, the entire congregation voted
unanimously to submit it to the Oregon Voters Pamphlet.
RESOLUTION
ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL OF
UNIVERSITY PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
JULY 12, 2004
We are United Methodists who believe that our Christian faith
demands social justice and equality. We oppose any state or
federal constitutional amendments or laws defining marriage as
being only between one man and one woman. Such amend-
ments treat same gender couples as less than equal, denying
them equal protection under the law. This discrimination violates
Gods command that we love our neighbors as ourselves and
denies our convictions that all humanity, including gay men and
lesbians, are created in Gods image. We urge the defeat of
these constitutional amendments or laws at the state and federal
level.
(This information furnished by Rev. Dr. Jeanne G. Knepper, Rev. Marcia J.
Hauer, co-pastors; University Park United Methodist Church.)
Working Families Oppose Unequal Treatment and urge you to
VOTE NO ON Constitutional Amendment 36
The language in this amendment is deceptively simple, but will
have serious negative consequences for Oregon, for families and
for business and labor.
Constitutional Amendment 36 is wrong for Oregon:
Our Constitution was purposefully designed to provide jus-
tice and liberty, protect citizens, and to ensure all Oregon
citizens receive equal treatment. In the Bill of Rights it is
stated, No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or
class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which upon the
same terms, shall not belong to all citizens.
Constitutional Amendment 36, sets a dangerous precedent
and is a severe deviation from what our founders intended.
The constitution - a historical, inclusive and revered docu-
ment, should not be permanently amended in order to
attempt to settle what some may feel is the hotly debated
social issue of the day, and to permanently write inequality
into the Constitution. There are many other avenues to
debate social issues.
Constitutional Amendment 36 is wrong for families:
Amending unequal treatment into our Constitution would
deny thousands of Oregon families access to health care
coverage, inheritance rights, retirement benefits and equal
protection under the law. Oregon families are stronger only
when all Oregon families have fair rights and protections.
Constitutional Amendment 36 is wrong for business and labor:
Constitutional Amendment 36 would make it impossible for
labor unions and employers to offer equitable benefits
packages to all their members and employees. The clear
discrimination of not allowing same-sex couples relation-
ships to be recognized by law deprives thousands of
families one of the most important attributes of their labor:
the ability to take care and provide for their family
members.
continued !
We urge you to vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36
Service Employees International Union Local 503, OPEU
(This information furnished by Arthur Towers, Service Employees
International Union Local 503, OPEU.)
These are just a few of the groups and individuals
from across Oregon
Who urge you to VOTE no on Constitutional Amendment 36:
CAUSA, Immigrant Rights Coalition of Oregon
Oregon Education Association
The Fair Housing Council of Oregon
Columbia County Citizens for Human Dignity
Rural Organizing Project
YWCA of Greater Portland
Klamath County Coalition for Human Dignity
The Womens Resource Center of Central Oregon, Bend
Columbia Pacific Alliance for Social Justice, Astoria
Benton County Board of Commissioners
Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon
Oregon Safe Schools and Communities Coalition
National Association of Social Workers, Oregon Chapter
Corvallis NOW
Kitty Piercy, Eugene
Bradley-Angle House, Portland
Harry and Merry Demarest, Corvallis
Wasco County Citizens for Human Dignity
Wallowa County Peace and Justice Network
Tillamook County Citizens for Human Dignity
Bruce Abernathy, Bend City Councilor
Linda S. Johnson, Bend City Councilor
John Hummel, Bend City Councilor
Elder Resource Alliance, Portland Metro Area
Outright Libertarians
Governor Ted Kulongoski, and Mary Oberst, First Lady of
Oregon, Salem
SEIU Local 49 and SEIU Local 503
Richard Matson, Philomath City Councilor
Human Dignity Coalition, Bend
State Rep. Kelley Wirth, Corvallis
Richard P. Burke, Commissioner, Tualatin Valley Water District
State Senator Vicki L. Walker, Eugene
State Rep. Carolyn Tomei, Milwaukie
Cliff Trow, Former State Senator, Corvallis
ILWU Local 5
Deschutes County Democratic Central Committee
Dan Saltzman, Portland City Commissioner
Kathleen D. Saadat, Portland
State Senator Kate Brown, Portland
State Senator Charlie Ringo, Beaverton
Portland Womens Crisis Line
State Rep. RP Joe Smith, Portland
National Council of Jewish Women, Portland Section
James Maguire, Chairman, Beaverton Human Rights Advisory
Commission
OnwardOregon.org
Peace and Justice Committee, Salem First Congregational
United Church of Christ, Salem
Benton County Democrats
Wasco County Democratic Central Committee
Westside National Organization for Women, Portland
State Rep. Mitch Greenlick, NW Portland and Beaverton
For a full list of endorsers, go to www.noon36.com
Amendment 36.)
One Oregon Family Speaks Out on
Family has always been very important to my wife, our children
and me. Joanne and I are third generation Oregonians and have
been married 48 years. We both have grandfathers who were
ministers and missionaries. We raised our children in conserva-
tive Christian churches. Among other things, my two brothers,
my sister and I have had breakfast together every Tuesday for
over 30 years.
Joanne and I have three wonderful children two girls and one
boy and are a very close family. Fifteen years ago, our son told
us he was gay and I had to address my personal attitude about
homosexuality.
I finally realized that although my feelings were strong, they
were based on misunderstanding and poor advice. By reading,
learning and listening to my son, I realized that gay people have
the same desires in life as everyone else. It especially touched
me when my son explained that he wanted to find someone to
share his life with just like Joanne and I have shared ours. His
commitment was just as strong as ours.
Why should my son not receive societys respect and support
just as much as his sisters? We should be encouraging stable,
committed relationships for solid families even if they are differ-
ent from our own. Constitutional Amendment 36 would do the
opposite.
On behalf of my family, I urge you to look in your hearts and see
that this amendment would hurt families, not protect them.
Please vote NO ON Constitutional Amendment 36
Donald and Joanne L. Ross, Troutdale
(This information furnished by Donald Ross.)
OREGON CLERGY URGE
A NO VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 36
As clergy and as people of faith we urge our fellow Oregonians
to reject Constitutional Amendment 36. We have several deep
concerns about this unnecessary and divisive measure.
Putting Unequal Treatment for Gays and Lesbians
in Oregons Constitution Will Not Protect Marriage
We perform weddings and counsel with couples before they are
wed, and afterwards. We see everyday the true threats to mar-
riage: abuse, alcoholism, poverty, infidelity and, ultimately,
divorce. This measure does nothing to address these problems.
Marriage needs no protection from people who wish to enter
into it in good faith to pledge their love and lifetime commitment.
A No Vote on Constitutional Amendment 36 Will Not
Force Any Church or Any Person to Act Against Their Faith
This measure deals only with civil marriage a government
function. There is no threat to any religious tradition. Religious
institutions cannot be told who they must or must not marry.
continued !

Our Constitution Must Not Be Used
to Settle Theological Differences.
Just as Oregonians may disagree over marriage, so do different
religious traditions. Some accept same-sex unions, some do
not. It is a very dangerous step to have our Constitution dictate
theological winners and losers. When the government begins
to turn one particular religious school of thought into the funda-
mental law of the land, every religion is at risk. The very fact that
there is disagreement on this issue is an important reason not to
put this into our Constitution
Please Protect the Human Dignity of All People
and Protect Our Freedom of Religious Expression
VOTE NO ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 36
Rev. Barbara Campbell, St. Mark Presbyterian Church, Portland
Rabbi Maurice Harris, Temple Beth Israel, Eugene
Rev. J. Todd Smiedendorf
Rev. John T. Schwiebert, Metanoia Peace Community
United Methodist Church
(This information furnished by Rev. Tara Wilkins.)
The Following Central and Southern Oregon Clergy and
Congregations Urge you to vote NO on Constitutional
Amendment 36.
Catholic Loretto Womens Network, Eugene
Temple Beth Israel, Eugene
Springfield Church of the Brethren, Springfield
Rev. Marsha Dempsey, Pastor, MCC Two-Rivers
Faith In Action
Morningside United Methodist Church
Lucy McIver, Eugene Friends Meeting (Quaker)
Rev. Ann Bowersox, Presbyterian Campus Pastor, University of
Oregon
Rev. Jan Fairchild, Pastor-Springfield Church of the Brethren
Marion Malcom, Community Alliance of Lane County (CALC)
Beth Weldy, Board President, Springfield Unitarian Universalist
Fellowship
Rabbi Maurice Harris, Temple Beth Israel, Eugene
Irwin H. Noparstak, MD, Jewish
Rev. Jeremy D. Hajdu-Paulen
Rabbi Yitzhak Husbands-Hankin, Temple Beth Israel, Eugene
Rev. Ryan J. Lambert
Gordie Albi, Catholic Loretto Womens Network
Springfield Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Rev. Elizabeth N. Oettinger
Rev. Beth Crawford
Religious Response Network, Eugene
Rev. Christine Riley, Unitarian Universalist minister
First Congregational United Church of Christ, Corvallis
Freedom Friends Church, Salem
Rev. Heather Lynn Hanson
Rev. Peggy Senger Parsons, Pastor, Freedom Friends Church
Rev. Karen E. Crooch, Morningside United Methodist Church
Jan Nelson, Morningside United Methodist Church
Rev. Richard R. Davis, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of
Salem
Renee Cornwell, United Methodist Church
Rev. C. Warren Hovland, First Congregational United Church of
Christ, Corvallis
Dr. Milo L. Thornberry, Pastor, United Methodist Church
Rev. Dr. Karen A. McClintock, United Methodist clergy, clinical
psychologist
Peace and Justice Committee of First Congregational Church,
UCC, Salem
Rev. Michael Powell
Arlene August, music minister, Congregational United Church of
Christ, Klamath Falls
Susan Alberty
David Hedelman, minister, Congregational United Church of
Christ, Klamath Falls
Rev. Leila A. Shepherd, United Church of Christ
Pastor Gail McDougle, Salem
Pastor Stephen Haddan, Salem
Rev. Caroline Zaworski, First Congregational United Church of
Christ, Corvallis
The following Communities of Faith and Clergy urge you to
vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36.
St. Mark Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)
Koinonia Catholic Community
Rev. Susan Princehouse, Minister, United Church of Christ
Rev. Mary Anthony
St. James Lutheran Church
Rev. Mary Sue Evers
Havurah Shalom, Portland
Rev. Barbara J. Campbell
Rev. Emily A. Champagne, Unitarian Universalist
Rev. David C. Dornack
Metropolitan Community Church of Portland
Rev. Lynne Smouse Lpez, Ainsworth United Church of Christ
Rev. Timothy Winslea, PC(USA)
Rev. Berdell Moffett-Chaney
Cascade Chapter of More Light Presbyterians
Rev. Casey Moffett-Chaney, Portland Center for Spiritual Growth
Rev. Cort D. Brumfield
Rev. Peg Pfab
First Unitarian Church Board of Trustees
Rev. Glenna T. Shepherd, Metropolitan Community Church of
Portland
Rev. Judith Youngman
Rev. Cecil Charles Prescod
Rev. J. Todd Smiedendorf, Forest Grove United Church of Christ
AFFIRMATION GLBT Mormons
Rev. Diane Dulin
Rev. Gary L. Davis, Lake Oswego United Church of Christ
Bridgeport United Church of Christ
Rev. Marcia J. Hauer
Rev. Joan L. Beck
Zion United Church of Christ
Rev. Elizabeth Winslea, PC(USA)
Rev. Sylvia J. Eagan
Rev. David Maynard, Eastrose Fellowship Unitarian Universalist
Dan Stutesman, American Friends Service Committee
Rev. Dr. Patricia S. Ross
Rabbi Daniel J. Isaak
Rev. D. Steven Witte, Oregon Farm Workers Ministry
Rev. Susan Leo, pastor, Bridgeport United Church of Christ
Rabbi Emanuel Rose
Rabbi Kim L. Rosen
Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell
Rabbi Joseph Wolf, Havurah Shalom
Rev. Dana Worsnop, Atkinson Memorial Church
Rev. W. J. Mark Knutson, Augustana Lutheran Church
Rev. Thomas Disrud, First Unitarian Church of Portland
Keshet Coalition
Rev. Richard F. Burdon, United Methodist Church
continued !
Eunice Schroeder, Director of Sacred Journey Ministries
Rev. Denise Andersen
The Session of Southminster Presbyterian Church
Peace Church of the Brethren
Rev. David Siegel, American Baptist
Rev. Ellen L. Green, United Church of Christ
Rev. Catherine Tinker, United Church of Christ
Rev. James O. Bradford, Disciples of Christ
Rabbi David Kominsky
Rev. Robert Schaibly
Rev. Katherine Hellier
Rev. Barbara Bellus, Epworth United Methodist Church
The Oregon Business Community
Opposes Constitutional Amendment 36
Oregons businesses should oppose Constitutional Amendment
because it hurts Oregon families and it hurts Oregon businesses.
Constitutional Amendment 36 is bad for businesses:
Constitutional Amendment 36 could harm Oregons abil-
ity to recruit new business and attract tourism. These
spending and investment decisions are usually made by a
very narrow margin. Putting unequal treatment for gays and
lesbians into our constitution could tip the balance in the
wrong way.
Constitutional Amendment 36 could make it harder for
businesses to provide competitive benefits for all
employees including same sex couples which is an
increasingly important recruitment and retention tool.
Businesses want simplicity the ability to offer the same
benefits to each employee streamlines benefits and keeps
costs down.
The next generation of entrepreneurs do not support
Constitutional Amendment 36. Local polling shows
younger, well-educated voters support equal treatment for
gays and lesbians and will vote to reject this measure.
Allowing Constitutional Amendment 36 to pass undermines
the investments Oregon has already made to recruit and
retain young, creative entrepreneurs.
The following businesses and business leaders urge to
Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36:
Harold Pollin
Paloma Clothing, Mike Roach and Kim Osgood
Powells Books
Sho Dozono
Kalberer Company
Peter Bragdon
Joe DAlessandro
For a full list of businesses supporting
No on Constitutional Amendment 36,
please go to www.noon36.com
(This information furnished by Joe DAlessandro.)
Our family urges you to protect Oregon children.
All parents have the same worries about what will happen if their
child is injured in an accident: Will he be OK? Can we get to the
hospital in time? How can I comfort him?
These were just a few of the questions we asked ourselves
when our son Carter, who was five at the time, fell while playing
in our family home. His head met the sharp corner of a coffee
table, causing a gash that required a frantic trip to the emer-
gency room of our local hospital.
We arrived at the emergency room worried about our son and
anxious for the doctors to attend to Carter. When the time came
for him to receive treatment, we were told only one of usthe
parentcould enter the room with him.
Quickly, we explained that we were both his parents. One of
you needs to stay in the waiting room, we were told again.
Not wanting to delay our sons treatment, we chose not to
argue. But while waiting for him to receive stitches, a look
around the waiting room made it clear that no other parents
were being asked to wait outside for their child. The hospital
policy to allow only one parent in the room while a child received
treatment only applied to our family all the other injured or sick
children were able to have both of their parents comfort and
reassure them as they received treatment.
Our son should be able to have both of his parents by his side
when he is injured and frightened. Our child deserves the same
protections as every other child. But if Constitutional
Amendment 36 passes, it will cause unequal treatment for
thousands of Oregon families and their children.
Protect Oregon children. Protect Oregon Families.
Nancy and Peggy Frantz-Geddes, Salem
(This information furnished by Nancy and Peggy Frantz-Geddes, Salem.)
As nurses, we urge you to Vote No on Constitutional
Amendment 36!
As nurses, we know Constitutional Amendment 36 will
jeopardize the health of gay and lesbian couples and their
families:
Constitutional Amendment 36 would deny many families
the ability to quickly and easily make life-saving medical
decisions in the case of an emergency.
While some insurers allow domestic partner access to their
policies, many others do not. This lack of coverage leads to
delayed treatment and higher health care costs for all
Oregonians.
Constitutional Amendment 36 will force nurses to be
gatekeepers instead of caregivers:
Banning same sex marriage puts nurses in the difficult
position of determining who is next of kin and deciding
who can make medical decisions and who can be present
with a loved one during an emergency. We want to put our
efforts into our patients healthcare, not being gatekeepers.
Federal HIPPA laws allow us to disclose medical informa-
tion to spouses and parents, but not necessarily to a
continued !
domestic partner. This makes consultation difficult, and
could delay proper treatment of children and adults.
As nurses, we believe in fairness and equality.
On behalf of nurses and health care providers, we urge you
to VOTE NO on Constitutional Amendment 36
Kathleen Sheridan, R.N. Dana Welty, R.N.
Ursula White, R.N. Zannah Martell, R.N.
Mary Beth Yosses, R.N. Carolyn A. Lynnes, R.N.
William D. Reinhardt, R.N. Madelon Lewis, R.N.
(This information furnished by Kathleen Sheridan, R.N.)
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OREGON SAYS
VOTE NO ON MEASURE 36
Churches, not the government, should control the
marriage sacrament
When a couple commits their lives to each other, government
has a legitimate role in establishing their legal rights and
obligations. But government has no business meddling in the
institution of marriage, which most Oregonians believe to be a
holy institution ordained by God.
Libertarians believe the institution of marriage should be
controlled entirely by our churches and other social institutions,
not by government. That is why we oppose Measure 36 - it asks
the wrong question, sets people of differing faiths against each
other and sets the dangerous precedent of letting government
define and control associations among people.
Instead of asking who should be able to marry, we should ask if
government should be involved in marriage at all. Government
should provide a legal structure, available to any couple, which
would establish legal rights and obligations. Couples could then
go to the church of their choice to be married. Individual
churches would decide who they will agree to marry or not
marry.
If you are a conservative supporting this measure, consider this:
if Measure 36 sets the precedent of allowing government to
define associations between people, the day will come when
liberals will use the same tactic against you.
Scratch the surface and you will see that Measure 36 is not
about marriage, it is about freedom. If Measure 36 passes,
government will effectively co-opt marriage, depriving churches
of the freedom to control their marriage sacrament. Individuals
will lose the freedom to make important decisions in their lives.
Measure 36 will set the stage for more government intrusions
into our private associations.
Lets scrap Measure 36 and start over. Lets pass a measure that
respects the rights of all individuals and ensures that govern m e n t
can no longer intrude into matters of faith.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE 36
1-800-829-1992
www.lporegon.org
(This information furnished by Dan Fitzgerald, Libertarian Party of Oregon.)
Im Just a Kid. Dont Hurt Me
I like dancing, reading and hanging out with my friends in my
neighborhood. I have two Moms that love me and want the best
for me
But they are afraid, because Constitutional Amendment 36
would leave me without protections they say are important:
Being sure I can get on their health insurance coverage
Allowing both my parents to make decisions if I get hurt
Having both my parent be able to sign permission slips or
deal with emergencies at school
Knowing that Im going to stay with one Mom, should
anything happen to the other
Im just a kid and I just want the same protections that any other
kid needs. Please dont do something that will hurt my family
and me.
Dont Leave Kids Like Me Without Protections
Henry P. Age 14
(This information furnished by Sue Kaufman & Laura Schulz, Henrys
moms.)
All forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and
should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere I
appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.s
dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood
for lesbian and gay people.
~ Coretta Scott King
at the 13th annual Creating Change conference
Reuters, 3/31/98
Putting Unequal Treatment into Our Constitution
Would Be a Giant Step Backwards for Civil Rights
Our nation was founded on high ideals of liberty, equality, and
the basic rights due to all people. While we have always lived up
to those ideals, we must always strive to move forward and not
backwards.
Civil rights is not always a comfortable subject. And marriage is
often the place where that discomfort is first felt. Until the
1960s, the idea of interracial marriage was as controversial
among Americans as same-sex marriage is today.
Many states passed constitutional amendments to prevent
people of different races from marrying to protect the integrity
of marriage. When the Supreme Court overturned those
amendments, it declared that the freedom to marry is a basic
right.
Whenever we allow the rights of a minority to be put to a
vote of the majority, we take a giant step backwards in the
struggle for equality of all people.
Many of us may be uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage,
but we must not allow that discomfort to be used to place
unequal treatment in our Constitution. We must not use our
Constitution to deny rights to our gay and lesbian neighbors,
family and friends.
continued !
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29-2 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page 28 of 29 Page lD#: l9l
Please say NO to Unequal Treatment.
Please say NO to Constitutional Amendment 36
Sen. Avel Louise Gordly
Ramon Ramirez
Jo Ann Bowman
Vice-Chair African American Chamber of Commerce
Kathleen Saadat
Community Activist
Rev. John W. Garlington, III
Rev. Dr. Hector E. Lopez
Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ
(This information furnished by Rev. Dr. Hector E. Lopez, Central Pacific
Conference of the United Church of Christ.)
From the Heart of Grandparents:
This year we celebrated our 55th wedding anniversary. Over the
years, weve been through some wonderful times and some
pretty tough times, too.
One thing we know for sure, being married isnt simple. After the
wedding ceremony was over, we found out just how much we
rely on each other and how much marriage protected us in times
of need. Certainly we counted on each other for love and under-
standing, but it was the things we took for granted that mattered
so much: the fact that there would always be someone who
could make decisions if either one was taken to the hospital, or
knowing that if one of us dies the other will keep the house and
our nest-egg no questions asked.
Weve raised three daughters and have four grandchildren
thats a lot of birthdays and scraped knees. Marriage has been a
blessing we hoped each of our children and grandchildren would
know, because we cant imagine our lives without each other,
protected by our marriage.
But Constitutional Amendment 36 would deny many of those
protections big and little things we take for granted to two of
our grandchildren. Because they have two mothers, our grand-
kids cant count on the protections marriage brings to a family.
They cant count on both their parents being able to make
immediate medical decisions on their behalf, or being able to
stay with one parent if the other dies.
Constitutional Amendment 36 would not only put unequal treat-
ment of lesbians and gays into our Constitution, it would put
unequal treatment of their families including our grandchildren
into our Constitution.
Unequal treatment doesnt reflect the Oregon values that we
raised our family with and it doesnt belong in our Constitution.
Please vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36.
Alea and John deJung, Eugene
(This information furnished by Alea and John deJung, Eugene.)
U.S. Department of Commerce
Economics and Statistics Administration
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
American Community Survey Briefs
Same-Sex Couple Households
By
Daphne Lofquist
ACSBR/10-03
Issued September 2011
INTRODUCTION
Living arrangements are rapidly changing
in America, especially when it comes to
both same-sex couple households and
the recognition of same-sex marriages
by individual states. A description of
these households is not complete without
identifying the presence of children in
these households by their relation to the
householderwhether they are biologi-
cal children, stepchildren, or adopted
children. This report addresses these
topics by presenting data from the 2010
American Community Survey (ACS) on
same-sex couple households at national
and state levels. The data in this report
are for households, not individuals.
This report is one of a series produced
to highlight results from the 2010 ACS.
The ACS provides detailed estimates
of demographic, social, economic, and
housing characteristics for congressio-
nal districts, counties, places, and other
localities every year. A description of the
ACS is provided in the text box What
Is the American Community Survey?
SAME-SEX COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS
BY STATE
Approximately 594,000 same-sex couple
households lived in the United States
in 2010, not statistically dierent from
the 581,000 households reported in the
2009 ACS.
1
Nationally, about 1 percent
of all couple households were same-sex
1
The 2009 ACS number of same-sex couples can
be found at <www.census.gov/population/www
/socdemo/les/ssex-tables-2009.xls>.
Same-sex couple households:
These households are identi-
ed using both the relationship
to householder and sex items.
Total couple households: The
total of those households where
the householder reports hav-
ing a spouse or unmarried part-
ner in the household. Includes
opposite-sex and same-sex mar-
ried and unmarried couples.
Unmarried partner: A person
reported as an unmarried part-
ner of the householder and who
shares a close personal relation-
ship with the reference person.
Reported as spouse: Those
in same-sex couple households
who were originally reported as a
spouse of the householder. Same-
sex spouses were edited during
processing to unmarried partner.
Own child: A never married
child under 18 years old who is a
son or daughter by birth, mar-
riage (stepchild), or adoption.
couples. The percentage of same-sex
couple households for the 50 states and
the District of Columbia ranged from
0.29 percent for Wyoming and 4.01
percent for the District of Columbia
(see map). Seventeen states and
the District of Columbia had higher
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 29-3 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page l of 4 Page lD#: l93
Exhibit C, page 1 of 4
U.S. Census Bureau 2
percentages of same-sex couple
households than the nation.
The legal recognition of same-sex
couple households vary by state.
In 2010, 42,000 of these house-
holds were in states that performed
same-sex marriages, while 169,000
were in states that had either
registered domestic partnerships
or civil unions (Table 1). Over half
(90,000) of same-sex couple house-
holds either registered domes-
tic partnerships or civil unions
resided in the state of California.
Overall, 25.7 percent of all same-
sex couple households in 2010
reported that they were spouses
(152,000). Administrative records
indicate less than 50,000 same-sex
marriages were performed in the
United States between 2004 (when
same-sex marriages were rst
legalized in Massachusetts) and
2010.
2
In states where same-
sex marriages were performed,
42.4 percent of same-sex couple
households were reported as
spouses compared with 28.2
percent for states with domestic
partnerships or civil unions and
22.7 percent for all other states.
SAME-SEX COUPLE
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
CHILDREN
Out of the 594,000 same-sex cou-
ple households, 115,000 reported
having children. Eighty-four percent
2
Renna, Cathy., The Williams Institute
Experts Comment on Department of Justice
DOMA Decision, February 24, 2011, press
release prepared by the Williams Institute,
UCLA School of Law.
of these households contained own
children of the householder (Table
2). In comparison, 94 percent of
opposite-sex married couple house-
holds with children reported living
with their own children. Same-
sex couple households may have
reported higher proportions of non-
related children because they may
have been children of the partner
of the householder. This is clearly
seen in Table 2 where same-sex
couples are shown by whether they
reported as spouse or unmarried
partner. While 94 percent of mar-
ried opposite-sex couples were liv-
ing with own children in 2010, 89
percent of same-sex spousal house-
holds with children reported having
own children of the householder
present. In comparison, 81 percent
of same-sex unmarried partner
Same-Sex Couple Households as a Percent
of Total Couple Households by State: 2010
United States = 0.95 percent
Percent of Same-Sex
Couple Households
1.764.01
0.961.75
0.670.95
0.290.66
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.
MT
AK
NM
OR
MN
KS
SD
ND
MO
WA
FL
IL
IN
WI NY
PA
MI
OH
IA
ME
MA
CT
AZ
NV
TX
CO
CA
WY
UT
ID
NE
OK
GA
AR
AL
NC
MS
LA
TN
KY
VA
SC
WV
RI
DE
MD
NJ
HI
VT
NH
DC
Exhibit C page 2 of 4
Table 1.
Distribution of Same-Sex Couple Households by States Grouped by Legal Recognition of
Same-Sex Couple Marriages and Unions: 2010
(In percent. For information on condentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and denitions, see
www.census.gov/acs/www)
Total Reported as spouse Unmarried partner
Legal recognition
Margin of Margin of Margin of
Estimate error ()
1
Percent error ()
1
Percent error ()
1
Total same-sex couple households . . . 593,324 11,395 25.7 0.8 74.3 0.8
States performing same-sex marriages
2
. . . . . . . . 42,195 3,055 42.4 3.7 57.6 3.7
Domestic partnership/Civil unions
3
. . . . . . . . . . . . 169,205 6,133 28.2 1.4 71.8 1.4
California
3A
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,023 4,569 32.1 2.4 67.9 2.4
All other states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381,924 8,804 22.7 0.9 77.3 0.9
1
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimates variability. The larger the margin of error
in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent
condence interval.
2
This includes Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.
3
This includes California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.
3A
California performed same-sex marriages from June to November 2008.
household with children contained adopted, or stepchildren. In 2010, percent had only biological chil-
children of the householder. about 9 out of 10 married opposite- dren, while 21 percent had either
sex couple households with own stepchildren only or adopted only.
The second panel of Table 2
children contained only the biologi- In same-sex unmarried partner
shows more detailed categories of
cal children of the householder. Of households with own children,
own children living in a house-
all same-sex couple households only 67 percent had only biological
holdwhether they are biological,
with own children present, 73 children compared with 80 percent
Table 2.
Couple Households With Children: 2010
(In percent. For information on condentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and denitions, see
www.census.gov/acs/www)
Married Unmarried Total
Same-sex couples by reporting status
opposite-sex opposite-sex same-sex
Same-sex Same-sex
couples couples couples
spouse unmarried partner
Characteristic
Margin Margin Margin Margin Margin
of of of of of
Percent error ()
1
Percent error ()
1
Percent error ()
1
Percent error ()
1
Percent error ()
1
Households with children
(number) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,443,599 83,848 2,684,978 23,359 115,064 5,516 43,933 2,901 71,131 4,381
Own children present
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.8 0.05 88.5 0.20 84.1 0.93 89.0 1.43 81.1 1.48
No own children present
3
. . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 0.05 11.5 0.20 15.9 0.93 11.0 1.43 18.9 1.48
Households with own
children only . . . . . . . . . . . 22,872,151 86,426 2,267,016 20,771 94,627 5,026 38,778 2,738 55,849 4,077
Biological only
4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.8 0.10 88.0 0.41 72.8 2.71 80.4 3.11 67.4 3.81
Step only or adopted only
5
. . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.07 5.2 0.30 21.2 2.26 13.1 2.83 26.8 3.36
Combination of own children only
6
. . . 4.8 0.07 6.8 0.30 6.0 1.51 6.4 1.84 5.7 1.81
1
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimates variability. The larger the margin of error
in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent
condence interval.
2
Households with at least one own child present under the age of 18 years. Can contain not own children as well.
3
Households that contain grandchildren, other relatives, or other nonrelatives under the age of 18 years.
4
Households with biological children only.
5
Households with either stepchild only or adopted child only.
6
Combination of two or more of the three own children types.
Exhibit C page 3 of 4
in spouse households. Among both
same-sex spousal and unmarried
partner households, family units
consisting of children of the partner
or through adoption are common.
Statistics on same-sex couples from
the 2010 Census are also available
for comparison purposes with the
2010 ACS. Detailed tables on the
estimates of same-sex couples liv-
ing with children for the nation and
individual states and a technical
evaluation of these estimates from
both data sources can be found by
accessing the Web page American
Community Survey Data on Same
Sex Couples <www.census.gov
/hhes/samesex/data/acs.html>.
SOURCE AND ACCURACY
Data presented in this report are
based on people and households
that responded to the ACS in 2010.
The resulting estimates are repre-
sentative of the entire population.
All comparisons presented in this
report have taken sampling error
into account and are significant
at the 90 percent confidence level
unless otherwise noted. Due to
rounding, some details may not
sum to totals. For information on
sampling and estimation methods,
confidentiality protection, and
sampling and nonsampling errors,
please see the 2010 ACS Accuracy
of the Data document located at
<www.census.gov/acs/www
/Downloads/data_documentation
/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of
_Data_2010.pdf>!
What Is the American Community Survey?
The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide sur-
vey designed to provide communities with reliable and timely
demographic, social, economic, and housing data for the nation,
states, congressional districts, counties, places, and other locali-
ties every year. It has an annual sample size of about 3 million
addresses across the United States and Puerto Rico and includes
both housing units and group quarters (e.g., nursing facilities
and prisons). The ACS is conducted in every county throughout
the nation and every municipio in Puerto Rico, where it is called
the Puerto Rico Community Survey. Beginning in 2006, ACS data
for 2005 were released for geographic areas with populations
of 65,000 and greater. For more information on the ACS sample
design and other topics, visit <www.census.gov/acs/www>.
Contents
Same-Sex Couple Households 1
INTRODUCTION 1
SAME-SEX COUPLE
HOUSEHOLDS BY STATE
1
SAME-SEX COUPLE
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
CHILDREN 2
Distribution of Same-Sex
Couple Households by
States Grouped by Legal
Recognition of Same-Sex
Couple Marriages and
Unions: 2010 3
Couple Households With
Children: 2010 3
SOURCE AND ACCURACY
4
What Is the American
Community Survey? 4
Exhibit C, page 4 of 4
Page 1 - DECLARATION OF PRISCILLA YAMIN, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

lake@law-works.com
LAW WORKS LLC
Telephone: (503) 227-1928
Facsimile: (503) 334-2340

DORSAY & EASTON LLP
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 790-9068


DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

WILLIAM GRIESAR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.

Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC

DECLARATION OF PRISCILLA
YAMIN, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I, Priscilla Yamin, hereby declare under penalty of perjury, and state as follows:

/ / / /

Page 2 DECLARATION OF PRISCILLA YAMIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Qualifications and Engagement
1. I am presently an associate professor of Political Science at the University of
Oregon. In 1995, I received an M.A. in Gender Studies and Feminist Theory from the New
School for Social Research in New York City. In 2005, I received a Ph.D. in Political Science
from the New School for Social Research. Since 2007, I have taught courses related to gender
and family politics at the University of Oregon.
2. I am the author of American Marriage: A Political Institution (University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2012). In the book I explore the politics of marriage in the United States. I
have delivered numerous talks on the topics of marriage and other gender related issues. I have
reviewed articles for publication on marriage and family politics as well as written book reviews
on related topics.
3. I spent a decade researching the politics of marriage in the United States. The
claims and evidence in this Declaration come from the research for my book and are more fully
documented there.
4. I am not being paid for this declaration. My opinions expressed in this declaration
are my true opinions as an expert in marriage politics.
Summary of Facts and Opinions
5. I have been asked for my expert opinion concerning the United States evolving
understandings of individual rights and citizen obligations as they relate to marriage rights. My
conclusions are as follows:
6. In the United States, marriage is more than just private right. It is also a political
institution that plays an important role in defining citizenship norms, practices and rights. I
define a political institution as follows: it has a broad and discernible purpose; sets norms,
rules and roles; clearly distinguishes between those inside and outside the institution; and

controls those inside and out. Marriage does all those things. By denying gays and lesbians
access to the political institution of marriage, the state laws are prohibiting many citizens full
citizenship rights and obligations based on sexuality.
7. The institution of marriage is fundamental to the American state because it acts as
a fulcrum between rights and obligations. Marriage represents communal duty, loyalty, moral
education, inherited property relations and social and civic status. Yet at the same time, marriage
represents consent, contract, individual liberties and independence from the state. As an
obligation marriage structures social, sexual, political and economic relationships. As a right,
marriage secures liberal freedoms and privileges of full citizenship. Politically marriage has
defined notions of personal fulfillment and happiness as well as social obligations tied to
economic status, stability and order.
8. As a political institution in the U.S., marriage has been an essential site of
political struggle over the political rights and obligations of citizens throughout US history.
Political struggles that have emerged historically in relation to race, gender, economic inequality,
and sexuality have been fought through a language of marital obligations and rights. Activists,
lawyers, politicians and legislators have consistently turned to marriage to define and shape their
political views on various policy issues such as immigration, welfare and civil rights. Most
recently, political actors have turned to marriage to define and shape their political views on
sexuality, morality, and family. In the United States, there has been a consistent turn to marriage
when political questions of inclusion and equality become major public debates.
The politics of marriage embody central dynamics in American politics regarding matters of
inclusion and exclusion, the status of citizenship and the meaning of equality. The specific
question of same-sex marriage rights today is similar to past struggles over marriage rights.

Same-sex marriage rights and obligations therein is about the inclusion of gays and lesbians not
only concerning their private rights of citizens to marry but also their public rights of belonging
and to enacting American citizenship. Struggles over marriage as a right or obligation, as
legitimate or illegitimate, are in part debates over whether and how to incorporate groups on the
margins of the national community. Thus marriage is more than a right that is denied or granted
a citizen. It is an institutional affiliation, a practice, and a status. Denying access to this
institution creates hierarchy and exclusion while granting access defines equality and
membership.
9. As a political institution, marriage simultaneously organizes membership, rights,
and obligations in civil society and socializes people into acceptance of certain social and
political norms and patterns of beliefs and behaviors. Debates over the definition of marriage
today and in the past, do not simply concern peoples sex lives, gender roles, and familial
practices, but also political issues of inclusion, equality and freedom. That said, history shows
that inclusion in the institution of marriage has not meant open sexuality and immorality but the
opposite in many ways. Individuals participating in the institution of marriage conform to norms
and mores for the price of inclusion in society and polity.
10. The deeply political edge of marriage has been obscured because it appears
nonpolitical and therefore beyond collective contest. Marriage is charged with great symbolic
power that defines both individual endeavors and national ideals. In these two ways, marriage
pervades society. It is both an everyday practice as well as significant interpretive frame for
political and social life.
/ / / /
/ / / /
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 30 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page 4 of 7 Page lD#: 200

Basis and Reasons for Opinions
11. The question of same-sex marriage is only the most recent debate over marriage.
There have been many other political fights over rights and benefits that have to do with
marriage. It is striking that while marriage is mobilized differently in distinct historical moments,
marriage itself generates consistent thematic and political dynamics. Political battles over
marriage shape and are shaped by the larger contexts in which they take place. Activists,
lawyers, politicians and legislators have regularly turned to marriage to define and shape their
political views. They turn to marriage to resolve tensions and to justify new political
arrangements or maintain hierarchical relationships. Here are some historical examples:
12. At the end of the Civil War, amid a devastated society, state officials looked to
marriage as they sought to establish national stability and transition ex-slaves into the polity. The
problem of black citizenship was central both for Union officials and former Confederates, and
for each marriage was used to address that problem. With freedom, ex-slaves gained the right to
marry. Indeed, the inability of black men to protect their families was a marker of bondage and
inequality. Freedmen's Bureau agents, working on behalf of the Union, compelled ex-slaves into
marital arrangements, which they saw as fundamental to patriarchal practices of freedom and
independence. Defeated southern elites meanwhile used every channel available to them to make
sure that newly freed blacks did not cross the color line socially or economically. One of the
main ways they did so was to fan fears of interracial marriage and energetically enforce anti-
miscegenation laws to keep whites and blacks apart.
13. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when questions of immigration
were politically central, marriage was used as a way to regulate, restrict or extend it. American
values and norms were ushered in through new marital standardization laws that required state
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 30 Filed 0l/l4/l4 Page 5 of 7 Page lD#: 20l

marriage licenses and blood tests, while eugenic marriage laws preventing certain marriages
were enacted across the country. And eugenic marriage laws aimed at new immigrants were
passed in 38 states in attempt to protect "native stock" from southern and eastern European
blood. Immigrant women who married American-born men were automatically granted
American citizenship, while American women who married foreign nationals lost theirs.
14. In the mid 1960s, marriage became an object of both racial and economic policy
when Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then assistant secretary of labor to Lyndon Johnson, argued that
black poverty was caused by "a tangle of pathology" at the center of which was low marriage
rates. At the same moment, the rising tide of feminism focused on marriage and struggled against
what they saw as an obligation to marry. Moreover, the Supreme Court, highlighted marriage as
the last bastion of segregation defeated, when they determined that anti-interracial marriage laws
were unconstitutional.
15. The year 1996 saw the passage of two landmark statutes that dismantled the
welfare state and defined marriage at the federal level as a union between a man and woman. The
authorization of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act promoted
marriage for poor single mothers while the Defense of Marriage Act denied marriage rights and
benefits to same-sex couples. In one instance marriage is strongly encouraged by the state and in
another it is forcibly denied.
Conclusion
16. What this historical story tells is that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex
couples is not a moral question but a political one. This is not the first time in the United States
where marriage has been at the center of political questions inclusion in the nation. These
historical examples illustrate the continued political importance of marriage in American politics.

Denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians can be compared to denying citizens the right to
vote. The right to marry grants citizens a right to privacy as well as right to participate actively in
public life. Denying marriage rights excludes same-sex couples from all the benefits and
obligations of American citizenship promises.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Date: January 10, 2014
Priscilla Yamin
Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC

PAUL RUMMELL and BENJAMIN
WEST; LISA CHICKADONZ and
CHRISTINE TANNER; BASIC RIGHTS
EDUCATION FUND,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Defendants.
_____________________________________

Case No. 6:13-cv-02256-TC

I, Lea Ann Easton, declare as follows:

1. I am one of the attorneys representing Plaintiffs in the above referenced case. I have
personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration. I am more than of legal age
and am otherwise competent to testify.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Brief of Massachusetts,
California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington as Amici
Curiae In Support of Appellants (Case No 12-17668, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
October 25, 2013.
/ / /
/ / /
Case No.: 6:13-cv-01834-MC

DATED this 18
th
day of February 2014.

By: s/ Lea Ann Easton

DORSAY & EASTON LLP
Portland, OR 97258
Telephone: (503) 790-9060
Facsimile: (503) 790-9068


!"#$%& ($)$%* +,-.$ ,/ 011%)2* /,. $3% 4#"$3 +#.5-#$
"#$#%&' (#$)*+, #- .&/, !"#$%&$''()*++,""#%&(,

0/

"%*.1 (.123$.&, #- .&/, -,',%.#%&()*++,"",,(, 456
)3.&*-*31 73% -8# 9%3-#)-*31 37 :.%%*.;#,
/%&,01,%20)-,',%.#%&)*++,"",,/
31 .99#.& 7%3: -8# <1*-#2 (-.-#( 2*(-%*)- )3<%- 73% -8# 2*(-%*)- 37 1#$.2.
1.-.(8. 1/ =.)+(31, #- .&/, !"#$%&$''()*++,""#%&(,

0/

1#*& (/ ."#%)%3:"*#, ;3$#%13%, (-.-# 37 8.>.*?*, -,',%.#%&)*++,""#%&,
&3%#--. =/ 7<22', 2*%#)-3%, 2#9.%-:#1- 37 8#.&-8, (-.-# 37 8.>.*?*,
-,',%.#%&)*++,"",,, 456 8.>.** 7.:*&' 73%<:,
/%&,01,%20)-,',%.#%&)*++,"",,/
31 .99#.& 7%3: -8# <1*-#2 (-.-#( 2*(-%*)- )3<%- 73% -8# 2*(-%*)- 37 8.>.**
!"#$% '% ()**)+,-*$..*/ +)0#%'"1#)/ +'11$+.#+-./
2$0)3)"$/ 2#*."#+. '% +'0-(!#)/ #00#1'#*/ #'3)/ ()#1$/
()"40)12/ 1$3 ,)(5*,#"$/ 1$3 ($6#+'/ 1$3 4'"7/ '"$8'1/
9$"('1./ )12 3)*,#18.'1 )* !"#$# $&'#!( #1 *-55'". '%
)55$00)1.*

:.%-8. )3.+&#'
.@@AB5CD ;C5CB4E

;#1#$*#$# )/ 1.2#.< F
=31.-8.1 "/ :*&&#%
.GGHG@45@ .@@AB5CDG ;C5CB4E
)3::31>#.&-8 37 :.((.)8<(#--(
3IIHJC AI @KC .@@AB5CD ;C5CB4E
35C .GKLMB@A5 9E4JC
"AG@A5, :. NOPNQ
RSPTU TOTVOONN
WC5C0HC0C/546C4MXG@4@C/Y4/MG
F425%(," 2' 6,720.

8*..$&$2%#" 725%(," "$(&,. 2% %,9& +#:,;
Case: l2-l7668 l0/25/20l3 lD: 8836875 DktEntry: 24 Page: l of 42
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 45-l Filed 02/l8/l4 Page l of 42 Page lD#: 323
Second Declaration of Easton
Ex. A page 1 of 42

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, California 94244

GEORGE JEPSEN
Attorney General of Connecticut
5 Elm Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III
Attorney General of Delaware
Department of Justice
820 N. French Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

IRVIN B. NATHAN
Attorney General for the
District of Columbia
One Judiciary Square
441 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia
20001

LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of Illinois
100 W. Randolph St., 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601

TOM MILLER
Attorney General of Iowa
1305 E. Walnut Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50319

JANET T. MILLS
Attorney General of Maine
Six State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333

DOUGLAS F. GANSLER
Attorney General of Maryland
200 Saint Paul Place
Baltimore, Maryland 21202

JOSEPH A. FOSTER
Attorney General of New Hampshire
33 Capitol Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

GARK K. KING
Attorney General of New Mexico
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of New York
120 Broadway, 25th Floor
New York, New York 10271

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Attorney General of Oregon
1162 Court Street N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97301

WILLIAM H. SORRELL
Attorney General of Vermont
109 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05609

ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General of Washington
1125 Washington Street SE
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, Washington 9850

Case: l2-l7668 l0/25/20l3 lD: 8836875 DktEntry: 24 Page: 2 of 42
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 45-l Filed 02/l8/l4 Page 2 of 42 Page lD#: 324
Ex. A page 2 of 42
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...iii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE.. 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....2

I. CIVIL MARRIAGE ADVANCES MANY IMPORTANT STATE
INTERESTS, ALL OF WHICH ARE ADVANCED BY
INCLUDING SAME-SEX COUPLES IN THE INSTITUTION ..........4

A. State Interests In Marriage Are Furthered By Ending The
Exclusion Of Same-Sex Couples .... 5

B. The History And Evolving Tradition Of Civil Marriage Are
Not Solely About Promoting Procreation And Do Not
Justify Continued Discrimination 8

II. NEVADA AND HAWAII MARRIAGE LAWS ARE NOT
RATIONALLY RELATED TO INTERESTS IN PROCREATION
AND CHILDBEARING BY DIFFERENT-SEX COUPLES .12

A. Excluding Same-Sex Couples From Marriage Does Not
Promote The Well-Being Of Children ...13

B. Same-Sex Parents Are As Capable As Different Parents
Of Raising Healthy, Well-Adjusted Children ....15

C. Promoting Responsible Procreation Does Not Justify
Restricting Marriage To Different-Sex Couples ........18

III. SPECULATION ABOUT THE EROSION OF THE INSTITUTION
OF MARRIAGE IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ...22

A. The Institution Of Marriage Remains Strong In States
That Allow Same-Sex Couples To Marry .............22

Ex. A page 3 of 42
ii

B. Allowing Same-Sex Couples To Marry Does Not Threaten
The States Ability To Regulate Marriage .... 28

CONCLUSION ....................32

Ex. A page 4 of 42
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) ... 15

Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) ........... 5, 15

Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) . 20

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) .. 8, 20, 21

Fla. Dept of Children & Families v. Adoption of X.X.G.,
45 So.3d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) ...... 16

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) .. 29

Goodridge v. Dept of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) ....... passim

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) .. 10, 20-21

Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) ... 20

In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) 5, 9, 18-19

Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Haw. 2012) .......28

Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) . 7

Lapides v. Lapides, 171 N.E. 911 (N.Y. 1930) ..... 19

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) ..... 10, 20

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ...3, 15, 28, 30-31

Martin v. Otis, 124 N.E. 294 (Mass. 1919) ... 19

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) . 4

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (1981) 22
Ex. A page 5 of 42
iv

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) ...10, 20

Nevada Dept of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) 17

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) ... 8, 22

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ..11, 20

Ryder v. Ryder, 28 A. 1029 (Vt. 1894) .. 19

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) . 17

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) 17

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) ... 18-19

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) ... 13, 17

United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) . 8, 13

United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341 (1966) 11

U.S. Dept of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) .. 21

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) ... 16

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) ... ..10, 19, 20

Statutes

Il. St. Ch. 765 305/4(c)(3) ... 19

N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law 9-1.3(e) 19

Ex. A page 6 of 42
v

Other Authorities

Brief for Appellee, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (No. 395),
1967 WL 113931.. 15-16

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics
System, Divorce Rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011,
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/divorce_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf ...... 26, 27

System, National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends 2000-2011,
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm... 23-24, 27

System, Marriage Rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011,
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/marriage_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf .... 23, 24

Alexis Dinno & Chelsea Whitney, Same Sex Marriage and the Perceived
Assault on Opposite Sex Marriage, PloS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 6 (June 2013),
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.
pone.0065730 ........ 25

Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, & Stephanie J. Ventura, National Vital
Statistics Reports, Birth: Preliminary Data for 2009, Vol. 59, No. 3, Dec.
21, 2010, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_03.pdf ............... 28

Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, & Stephanie J. Ventura, National
Vital Statistics Reports, Birth: Preliminary Data for 2011, Vol. 61,
No. 5, Oct. 3, 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/
nvsr61_05.pdf... ... 27, 28

Mark L. Hatzenbuehler et al., Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Health
Care Use and Expenditures in Sexual Minority Men: A Quasi-Natural
Experiment, Am. J. Pub. Health, Feb. 2012 .... 6

Mark L. Hatzenbuehler, et al., State-Level Policies and Psychiatric Morbidity
in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations, Am. J. Pub. Health,
Dec. 2009... .. 6

Ex. A page 7 of 42
vi

Iowa Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, 2010 and
2011 Vital Statistics of Iowa http://www.idph.state.ia.us/apl /health_
statistics.asp#vital................................................................................................25

Chris Kirk & Hanna Rosin, Does Gay Marriage Destroy Marriage? A
Look at the Data, Slate.com, May 23, 2012, http://www.slate.com/articles/
double_x/doublex/2012/05/does_gay_marriage_affect_marriage_or_
divorce_rates_.html ............................................. 24, 26, 27, 21

Rod Boshart Lee, Marriages Up, Divorces Down in Iowa, Sioux City
Journal, July 23, 2010 26

Lisa Leff, Defense Lawyers Rest Case at Gay Marriage Trial, Associated
Press, Jan. 27, 2010, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/
2010/01/27/witness_says_gay_marriage_would_help_children/....... 14

Christopher Ramos, et al., The Effects of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts:
A Survey of the Experiences and Impact of Marriage on Same-Sex Couples,
The Williams Institute, May 2009, http://williamsinstitute.
law.ucla.edu/experts/lee-badgett/effects-marriage-equality-masurvey/ .... 14

Sabrina Tavernise, Parenting by Gays More Common in the South, Census
Shows, N.Y. Times, Jan. 19, 2011 . ..14-15

Michael Wald, Same-Sex Couple Marriage: A Family Policy Perspective,
9 Va. J. Soc. Poly & L. 291 (2001) ........ 7

The Williams Institute, United States Census Snapshot: 2010,
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Census
2010Snapshot-US-v2.pdf.. 14

Ex. A page 8 of 42

1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici States Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District
of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington
1
file this brief in support of Appellants
Beverly Sevcik, et al. (No. 12-17668) and Natasha H. Jackson, et al. (Nos. 12-
16995, 12-16998) as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a).
2

The Amici States share a compelling interest in ensuring that all citizens
have equal opportunity to participate in civic life. To that end, each of the Amici
States has taken steps to eliminate discrimination in employment, housing,
education, and the provision of government services and benefits. In addition, the
Amici States all license marriage to advance many important governmental
interests, and are committed to ensuring that the institution of marriage is
strengthened by removing unnecessary and harmful barriers.

1
The District of Columbia, which sets its own marriage rules, is referred to as a
state for ease of discussion.
2
The Amici States recognize that the Court has extended the briefing schedule
in Jackson v. Abercrombie, Nos. 12-16995 and 12-16998, and that the case may be
stayed and/or dismissed, pending the outcome of Hawaiis special legislative
session.
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 45-l Filed 02/l8/l4 Page 9 of 42 Page lD#: 33l
Ex. A page 9 of 42

2

Based on our shared goals of promoting marriage, protecting families, and
eliminating discrimination, we join in asking the Court to reverse the judgments of
the district courts below.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Civil marriage in the United States is an important and enduring institution.
Throughout our Nations history, marriage has maintained its essential role in
society and has been strengthened, not weakened, by removing barriers to access
and by creating greater equality between spouses. Over the past decade, this
evolution has continued as same-sex couples have been permitted to marry.
Against that history of greater inclusion and equality, Nevada and Hawaii marriage
laws single out same-sex couples and consign them to second-class status.
The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional.
Denying gay men and lesbians the fundamental right to wed the partner of their
choosing offends basic principles of due process and equal protection, and fails to
advance any legitimate governmental interest. Since the Founding, states have
sanctioned marriages to support families, strengthen communities, and facilitate
governance. Because same-sex couples form families, raise children, and avail
themselves of the benefits and abide by the obligations of marriage in the same
manner as different-sex couples, the states interests in marriage are furthered by
allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Case: l2-l7668 l0/25/20l3 lD: 8836875 DktEntry: 24 Page: l0 of 42
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 45-l Filed 02/l8/l4 Page l0 of 42 Page lD#: 332
Ex. A page 10 of 42

3

Attempts to justify exclusionary laws by recasting the states interests in
marriage as singularly focused on the procreative potential of different-sex couples
are misguided. Neither the laws of the several states, nor applicable jurisprudence,
supports such a narrow understanding of marriage. Moreover, there is no rational
relationship between encouraging responsible procreation by different-sex couples
and excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
Exclusionary marriage laws similarly cannot be justified by pure speculation
as to the injury same-sex marriage will inflict on the institution. The Supreme
Court rejected similar conjecture in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), and the
experience of states permitting same-sex marriage belies such speculation. None
have experienced the adverse consequences that the laws proponents seek to
avoid. Instead, the data indicate that eliminating marriage restrictions has no
negative effect on rates of marriage, divorce, or births to unmarried mothers. If
anything, these measures of the strength of the institution have improved. Nor
have equal marriage rights weakened the ability of states to impose reasonable
regulations on marriage generally.
Nevada and Hawaii marriage laws deny gay men and lesbians the
fundamental right to marry and codify the second-class statusfor its own sake
Case: l2-l7668 l0/25/20l3 lD: 8836875 DktEntry: 24 Page: ll of 42
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 45-l Filed 02/l8/l4 Page ll of 42 Page lD#: 333
Ex. A page 11 of 42

4

of same-sex couples and their families. Under any standard of constitutional
analysis, they cannot survive review.
3

ARGUMENT

I. CIVIL MARRIAGE ADVANCES MANY IMPORTANT STATE
INTERESTS, ALL OF WHICH ARE ADVANCED BY
INCLUDING SAME-SEX COUPLES IN THE INSTITUTION.
Marriage is a great public institution, giving character to our whole civil
polity. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 213 (1888). Yet, while it has always been
an anchor for an ordered society, civil marriage has never been a static institution.
Societal changes have resulted in corresponding changes to marriage eligibility
rules and to our collective understanding of the relative roles of persons within a
marriage. Nevertheless, generations of Americans have consistently valued
marriage as a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly
public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity,
and family. Goodridge v. Dept of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 954 (Mass.
2003). States, too, have long valued marriage for its many benefits to individuals,
households, and the community at large, and therefore have transformed the

3
For the reasons set forth in the brief of Appellants Beverly Sevcik, et al. (pp.
49-62), the Amici States submit that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny.
Ex. A page 12 of 42

5

personal commitment inherent in marriage into publicly recognized rights and
obligations.
A. State Interests In Marriage Are Furthered By Ending The
Exclusion Of Same-Sex Couples.

States recognize and regulate civil marriage to serve several interests,
including to facilitate governance, create economic benefit, create stable
households, create legal bonds between parents and children, assign providers to
care for dependents, and facilitate property ownership and inheritance. ER 267
(Cott).
4
Underlying all of these interests is the recognition that marriage provides
stability for individuals, families, and the broader community. Baker v. State, 744
A.2d 864, 889 (Vt. 1999).
For example, the security of marital households creates a critical private
safety net, ensuring that members of the family are not alone in a time of crisis, and
limiting the publics liability to care for the vulnerable. In re Marriage Cases, 183
P.3d 384, 423-424 (Cal. 2008). Marriage also provides couples with greater
freedom to make decisions about education and employment knowing that, if one
spouse provides the primary economic support, the other will be protected, even in
the event of divorce or death. ER 363-364 (Badgett). As a result, married couples

4
References to Plaintiffs-Appellants Beverly Sevcik, et. al.s Excerpts of
Record are cited as ER [pg.] ([declarant]).
Ex. A page 13 of 42

6

can specialize their labor and invest in each others education and career, which
has long-term benefits for both the couple and the state. Id.
Marriage also advances the well-being of spouses. Research has established
that married people enjoy greater physical and psychological health and greater
economic prosperity than unmarried persons. ER 314-315 (Peplau). In addition,
recent studies demonstrate that gay men and lesbians, in particular, benefit when
marriage is made available to them.
5

Beyond the married couple, marriage improves the quality of childrens lives
in many ways:
[M]arital children reap a measure of family stability and economic
security based on their parents legally privileged status that is largely
inaccessible, or not as readily accessible, to nonmarital children. Some
of these benefits are social, such as the enhanced approval that still
attends the status of being a marital child. Others are material, such as
the greater ease of access to family-based State and Federal benefits
that attend the presumption of ones parentage.

5
Gay men and lesbians living in states with protective policies are significantly
less likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders than their counterparts living in
states without such policies. Mark L. Hatzenbuehler, et al., State-Level Policies
and Psychiatric Morbidity in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations, Am. J. Pub.
Health, Dec. 2009. Similarly, gay men experience a statistically significant
decrease in medical care visits, mental health visits, and mental health care costs
following the legalization of same-sex marriage. Mark L. Hatzenbuehler et al.,
Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Health Care Use and Expenditures in Sexual
Minority Men: A Quasi-Natural Experiment, Am. J. Pub. Health, Feb. 2012.
Ex. A page 14 of 42

7

Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d at 956-957. Marriage improves childrens well-being by
honoring their parents relationships and by strengthening their families through,
for example, enhanced access to medical insurance, tax benefits, estate and
homestead protections, and the application of predictable custody, support, and
visitation rules. Id. at 956. Children whose parents are married simply have a
better chance of living healthy, financially secure, and stable lives.
In sum, the states favorand therefore encouragemarriage over transient
relationships because marriage promotes stable family bonds, fosters economic
interdependence and security for members of the marital household, and enhances
the physical and emotional well-being of both the partners to the marriage and their
children. Michael Wald, Same-Sex Couple Marriage: A Family Policy
Perspective, 9 Va. J. Soc. Poly & L. 291, 300-303 (2001); see also Goodridge,
798 N.E.2d at 954. All of these interests are furthered by including same-sex
couples in the institution of marriage. Thus, this is not a case where the inclusion
of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of
other groups would not. Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361, 383 (1974). Instead,
this is a case where the exclusion of a similarly-situated group undermines the
important governmental interests states promote through marriage.
Given their recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships and civil unions,
the only interest Nevadas and Hawaiis laws actually advance by withholding the
Ex. A page 15 of 42

8

title of marriage is the interest in signifying the states lesser respect for same-
sex couples.

However, no state has a legitimate interest in codifying second-class
status for its own sake. See United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2694 (2013)
(invalidating Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act because it created two
classes of state-sanctioned, same-sex relationships and had the principal purpose
[of imposing] inequality). By deliberately withholding the social benefits and
cultural significance associated with state-sanctioned marriage, Nevada and Hawaii
marriage laws work a special harm on same-sex couples and their families without
advancing any legitimate governmental interest. Given that the touchstone of the
Fourteenth Amendment is that the government must treat all similarly-situated
people alike, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985)
(citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)), these laws fail the most basic of
constitutional inquiries.
B. The History And Evolving Tradition Of Civil Marriage Are Not
Solely About Promoting Procreation And Do Not Justify
Continued Discrimination.

The argument that the governments sole interest in recognizing and
regulating marriage is the natural capacity of different-sex couples to produce
children not only ignores the many state interests advanced by marriage, but also
distorts history. Appellees seek to elevate procreation to the sole, or even primary,
purpose of marriage because it singles out the one unbridgeable difference
Ex. A page 16 of 42

9

between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the
essence of a legal marriage. Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d at 962. Their argument
stands at odds with the full history of marriage in our country, and seeks to justify
discrimination based on historical tradition. Encouraging procreation has never
been the governments principal interest in recognizing and regulating marriage,
and tradition alone cannot sustain ongoing discrimination.
6
ER 267-269 (Cott); see
also In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 432.
In the United States, civil marriage has always been authorized and
regulated by local governments in the exercise of their police powers. ER 266
(Cott). Throughout our history, therefore, marriage has been understood as an
institution that is at the same time public and private, legal and intimate. On the
public side, marriage has served both political and economic ends. In early
America, the household formed by marriage was understood as a governable,
political subgroup (organized under male heads), and therefore a form of efficient
governance. ER 267-268 (Cott). As a political unit, the household included not
only the married couple and their children, but also extended family. Later,
households took on particular significance as economic sub-units of state

6
As Professor Nancy Cott testified, marriage rules in the United States have
been directed more consistently at supporting children than producing them. ER
269.
Ex. A page 17 of 42

10

governments, functioning as support systems for all household members, not only
the children born of the marriage. Thus, the states historically have encouraged
couples to choose committed relationships, regardless of whether they result in
children, because these private relationships assist in maintaining public order.
Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d at 954; ER 267-268 (Cott).
At the same time, the states authority to regulate marriage historically has
been bound by the deeply personal and intimate nature of marital unions. Thus,
while recognizing the states sovereign powers over civil marriage, our courts have
also consistently affirmed the understanding of marriage as a fundamental
expression of liberty (Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978)), privacy
(Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965)), intimate choice (Lawrence v.
Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003)), and association (M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102,
116 (1996)). This balance between the public and private nature of marriage has
always been critical to the institution.
It is true that states traditionally defined marriage as being between one man
and one woman, but that tradition does not itself justify the continued exclusion of
same-sex couples.
7
The states powers with respect to defining and regulating

"
The tradition of marriage as between different-sex couples is based, at least in
part, on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines, and not only
procreative abilities. ER 267-268 (Cott). Men traditionally were viewed as

Ex. A page 18 of 42

11

marriage are subject to the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due
process, and it is well-established that tradition alone cannot justify perpetual
discrimination. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996) (discriminatory
classification must serve an independent and legitimate legislative end). And, in
many ways, marriage in this country has been characterized as much by change as
it has by tradition. Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d at 966-967 (As a public institution and
a right of fundamental importance, civil marriage is an evolving paradigm.). The
direction of change consistently has been toward removing restrictions on who can
marry and promoting equality of the spouses. ER 269-270 (Cott). Extending
marriage to same-sex couples falls squarely in line with this tradition.
Indeed, many of the features of marriage that we take for granted today
would have been unthinkable at our Nations Founding. For centuries (and until
relatively recently) men and women were treated unequally, with wives ceding
their legal and economic identities to their husbands upon marriage. See, e.g.,
United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341, 342-343 (1966) (applying law of coverture).
Marriage between persons of different races was prohibited, nullified, and even

suitable for certain types of work (providing for the family) and women for others
(caretaking), both of which were required for the survival of the household. Id.
However, these views are outdated, particularly to the extent that they presume
womens abilities to be limited or inferior to mens.

Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 45-l Filed 02/l8/l4 Page l9 of 42 Page lD#: 34l
Ex. A page 19 of 42

12

criminalized for parts of three centuries. Divorce was difficult, if not impossible,
in early America. ER 269-270 (Cott). That civil marriage has endured as a core
institution is a testament to both the value of the institution and its ability to evolve
in concert with social mores and constitutional principles.
II. NEVADA AND HAWAII MARRIAGE LAWS ARE NOT
RATIONALLY RELATED TO INTERESTS IN
PROCREATION AND CHILDREARING BY DIFFERENT-SEX
COUPLES

The chief argument advanced in support of Nevada and Hawaii marriage
laws is that these states, like all states, have a legitimate interest in promoting
marriage between two people who may produce children, intentionally or not,
thereby ensuring that they will raise the children together. Refusing to recognize
marriages between same-sex couples does not advance this interest. In fact,
excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not promote the well-being of any
children. It does just the opposite by denying their families the dignity, benefits,
and protections afforded by marriage. In addition, the notion of using procreative
abilities to limit access to marriage is inconsistent with our legal tradition, as the
desire or ability to procreate has never been a prerequisite for marriage. Finally,
drawing the line at same-sex couples as opposed to other couples who are unable
or unwilling to procreate is simply irrational.

Ex. A page 20 of 42

13

A. Excluding Same-Sex Couples From Marriage Does Not Promote
The Well-Being Of Children.

All states share a paramount interest in the healthy upbringing of children.
However, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage works against this
interest. The second-class status that Nevada and Hawaii assign to same-sex
couples has the unavoidable effect of conferring second-class status on their
families as wellan outcome that harms children.
8
As the Supreme Court recently
recognized:
The differentiation [between state-sanctioned relationships] demeans
the couple . . . And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now
being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even
more difficult for children to understand the integrity and closeness of
their own family and its concord with other families in their community
and their daily lives.

Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694 (citation omitted). Indeed, parties and experts on both
sides of this debate acknowledge that children benefit when their parents are able
to marry. David Blankenhorn, a prominent expert employed by proponents of

8
Following the Supreme Courts invalidation of Section 3 of DOMA, Nevadas
and Hawaiis exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage imposes tangible
harms and inequalities that extend to an extensive body of federal law. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. at 2694. Nevada and Hawaii marriage laws now prevent same-sex
couples and their families from obtaining important federal benefits and
protections otherwise available to married couples. This works significant and
practical harm to those families and further undercuts the rationality of state laws
that create two classes of state-sanctioned relationships.
Case: l2-l7668 l0/25/20l3 lD: 8836875 DktEntry: 24 Page: 2l of 42
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 45-l Filed 02/l8/l4 Page 2l of 42 Page lD#: 343
Ex. A page 21 of 42

14

restrictive marriage laws, admitted that permitting same-sex couples to marry
would likely improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their
children. Lisa Leff, Defense Lawyers Rest Case at Gay Marriage Trial,
Associated Press, Jan. 27, 2010, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles
/2010/01/27/witness_says_gay_marriage_would_help_children/. A statewide
survey conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health confirmed
this conclusion, finding that the children of married same-sex couples felt more
secure and protected and saw their families as being validated or legitimated by
society or the government. Christopher Ramos, et al., The Effects of Marriage
Equality in Massachusetts: A Survey of the Experiences and Impact of Marriage
on Same-Sex Couples, The Williams Institute, May 2009, at 9,
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/experts/lee-badgett/effects-marriage-equality-
masurvey/.
Rather than encourage biological parents to raise their children together,
exclusionary marriage laws only impede one set of parentssame-sex couplesin
their efforts to provide their children with stable family environments.
9
See

9
According to the 2010 Census, 17% of same-sex households (over 111,000)
include at least one child. The Williams Institute, United States Census Snapshot:
2010, at 3, http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Census
2010Snapshot-US-v2.pdf. (last visited Oct. 25, 2013). Many of these families live
in states that offer no legal recognition to the couples. See, e.g., Sabrina Tavernise,

Ex. A page 22 of 42

15

Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d at 963-964 ([T]he task of child rearing for same-sex
couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws.);
see also Baker, 744 A.2d at 882; Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963, 1018
(Wash. 2006) (Fairhurst, J., dissenting) (children of same-sex couples . . . actually
do and will continue to suffer by denying their parents the right to marry). By
depriving the children of same-sex couples of the benefits of being raised in a
secure, protected, and respected family unit with two married parents, Nevada and
Hawaii laws work against the states efforts to strengthen the modern family in its
many variations. Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d at 963 (collecting examples in
Massachusetts). Thus, these laws do not promote the well-being of children; they
do just the opposite.
B. Same-Sex Parents Are As Capable As Different-Sex Parents Of
Raising Healthy, Well-Adjusted Children.

The implication that same-sex couples are somehow less suitable parents is
contrary to the experience of the Amici States and scientific consensus. A similar
argument was advanced, and rejected, in Loving, when Virginia defended its anti-
miscegenation law based on its concern for the well-being of children who
become the victims of their intermarried parents. See Brief for Appellee, Loving

Parenting by Gays More Common in the South, Census Shows, N.Y. Times, Jan.
19, 2011, at A1.
Ex. A page 23of 42

16

v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (No. 395), 1967 WL 113931, at *47-48. The
argument likewise should be rejected here.
The overwhelming scientific consensus based on decades of peer-reviewed
research establishes that children raised by same-sex couples fare as well as
children raised by different-sex couples. ER 502, 508-510 (Lamb); see also Fla.
Dept of Children & Families v. Adoption of X.X.G., 45 So.3d 79, 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 2010) ([B]ased on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field,
this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be
irrational to hold otherwise.); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 899 n.26 (Iowa
2009). In fact, the research that has directly compared gay and lesbian parents
with heterosexual parents has consistently shown gay and lesbian parents to be
equally fit and capable. ER 508-510 (Lamb). Numerous organizations
representing mental health and child welfare professionals have confirmed that
same-sex parents are as effective as different-sex parents at raising psychologically
healthy and well-adjusted children.
10

10
These organizations include the most well-respected psychological and child-
welfare groups in the nation: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric
Association, the American Psychological Association, the Psychological
Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of
Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, and the North American
Council on Adoptable Children.
Ex. A page 24 of 42

17

In addition, there is no basis for the assertion that children need traditional
male and female role models, or that children need mothers and fathers to perform
distinct roles in their lives.
11
ER 505-507 (Lamb). These views are disconnected
from the changing realities of the American family. Troxel v. Granville, 530
U.S. 57, 63 (2000) (plurality) (recognizing that [t]he composition of families
varies greatly from household to household). More importantly, courts have
repeatedly rejected gender-based stereotyping by the government. Nevada Dept
of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 733-735 (2003) (finding that government
action based on stereotypes about womens greater suitability or inclination to
assume primary childcare responsibility is unconstitutional); United States v.
Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533-34 (1996) (rejecting overbroad generalizations of the
different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females as justifying
discrimination) (citations omitted); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 656-657
(1972) (striking down a statute that presumed unmarried fathers to be unfit
custodians).
Nor is there any basis for the suggestion that children necessarily benefit
from being raised by two biological parents. ER 513-514 (Lamb). The most

11
Even if this were true, Nevada and Hawaii (like many other states) allow
unmarried same-sex (and different-sex) couples to raise children. Thus, barring
same-sex couples from marriage does nothing to advance the purported interest in
ensuring traditional gender role-modeling.
Ex. A page 25 of 42

18

important factors predicting the well-being of a child include (1) the relationship of
the parents to one another, (2) the parents mutual commitment to their childs
well-being, and (3) the social and economic resources available to the family. ER
502-503 (Lamb). These factors apply equally to children of same-sex and
different-sex parents, and they apply whether one, both, or neither of these parents
is a biological parent.
12
The reality is that both different-sex and same-sex couples
become parents in a variety of ways, including through assistive technology,
surrogacy, and adoption, and it is in the states interest to promote the well-being
of all these families.
C. Promoting Responsible Procreation Does Not Justify Restricting
Marriage To Different-Sex Couples.

Singling out responsible procreation as the states primary governmental
interest advanced by marriage is fundamentally flawed. The argument requires the
recognition of a restriction on marriage premised on the ability to procreate, and
this notion is antithetical to our legal tradition. Never before has the ability or
desire to procreate been a prerequisite for entry into marriage. ER 268 (Cott); see

12
Of course, many children raised by same-sex parents are raised by one
biological parent and his or her partner. Refusing to allow these couples to marry
will not make it more likely that the biological parent will instead marry his or her
donor or surrogate, for example.
Ex. A page 26 of 42

19

also In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 431); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95-96
(1987).
For example, while states have long allowed parties to void marriages where
one spouse is physically incapable of intercourse, e.g., Martin v. Otis, 124 N.E.
294, 296 (Mass. 1919); Ryder v. Ryder, 28 A. 1029, 1030 (Vt. 1894), the inability
to produce children has not itself been a grounds for annulment. See e.g., Lapides
v. Lapides, 171 N.E. 911, 913 (N.Y. 1930). Similarly, some states expressly
presume infertility after a certain age for purposes of allocating property, but do
not presume that these individuals are not qualified to marry. See e.g., N.Y. Est.
Powers & Trusts Law 9-1.3(e) (women over age 55); Il. St. Ch. 765 305/4(c)(3)
(any person age 65 or older). Individuals who are not free to procreate (prisoners,
for example) still have the right to marry. Turner, 482 U.S. at 94-99. Even parents
who are irresponsible about their obligations to their children have the right to
marry. Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 389-391.
States have an interest in ensuring that couples make responsible choices
about having children, as we all want children to be raised by loving, capable
parents. However, that is not what opponents of same-sex marriage mean by
responsible procreation, and the challenged laws are not rationally related to the
interest as they describe it. Opponents use the term responsible procreation to
describe a narrow interest in sanctioning marriage to protect the biological children
Ex. A page 27 of 42

20

of different-sex couples. Considering this interest, Nevadas and Hawaiis
recognition of different-sex marriages that do not or cannot produce biological
children not only creates an imperfect fit between means and ends, Heller v.
Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 321 (1993), but pursues the supposed objective of promoting
responsible procreation in a manner that [makes] no sense in light of how [those
states] treat other groups similarly situated in relevant respects. Bd. of Trs. of
Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 366 n.4 (2001), citing Cleburne, 473 U.S. at
447-450; see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 633 (invalidating discriminatory law because
it is at once too narrow and too broad).
Many different-sex couples either cannot procreate or choose not to, yet
these marriage laws are concerned with none of them. If it is the case that states
only recognize marriage to further their interest in protecting the children born out
of sexual intimacy, then it makes no sense to recognize marriages where one or
both spouses are incapable or unwilling to bear children. Instead, the reality is that
states recognize marriage to advance many important governmental interests. At
the same time, statesand the courtshave also consistently recognized the
autonomy to make personal choices about entry into marriage and procreation as a
fundamental individual right, not to be restricted without compelling reason.
Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 574; M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 116; Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 384;
Ex. A page 28 of 42

21

Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486. Thus, states have never before restricted marriage
rights based on procreative capabilities.
To save an incongruous rationale, some have argued that extending marriage
to different-sex couples who lack the ability or desire to procreate nonetheless
encourages responsible procreation by promoting the optimal or ideal family
structure. However, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to
marry will diminish the example that married different-sex couples set for their
unmarried counterparts. Both different- and same-sex couples model the formation
of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish stable families based on
mutual love and support. At best, the modeling theory is so attenuated that the
distinction it supposedly supports is rendered arbitrary and irrational. Cleburne,
473 U.S. at 446. At worst, the theory is a poorly disguised attempt to codify
discriminatory views as to what constitutes an ideal family. In light of Nevadas
and Hawaiis extension of parental rights to gay men and lesbians, and their
recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships and civil unions, it is difficult not to
conclude that the only purpose for withholding the title of marriage is to send the
discriminatory message that some families are simply inferiora purpose the
Constitution does not permit. U.S. Dept of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528,
534-535 (1973) (bare desire to harm unpopular group is not a legitimate
governmental interest).
Ex. A page 29 of 42

22

III. SPECULATION ABOUT THE EROSION OF THE
INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE

Speculation that removing state restrictions on marriage between same-sex
couples will erode the institution, as measured by the markers cited below
marriage, divorce, and nonmarital birth ratesdoes not justify discriminatory
marriage laws. Nor does allowing same-sex couples to marry preclude states from
otherwise regulating marriage. The experience of the Amici States who recognize
same-sex marriage belies dire predictions about the future of marriage, and
establishes that states can and do continue to impose reasonable restrictions on
who may marry.
A. The Institution Of Marriage Remains Strong In States That Allow
Same-Sex Couples To Marry.

The Amici States experience with equal marriage rights should carry
substantially more weight than surmise and conjecture in the constitutional
analysis of the challenged laws. See, e.g., Plyler, 457 U.S. at 228-229 (rejecting
hypothetical justifications for law excluding undocumented children as
unsupported); Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 464 (1981)
([P]arties challenging legislation under the Equal Protection Clause may introduce
evidence supporting their claim that it is irrational[.]) (citation omitted). And, the
actual data show that the conjecture about the negative impact of same-sex
marriage is unfounded.
Ex. A page 30 of 42

23

1. Overall Marriage Rates: Marriage rates in states that permit same-sex
couples to marry have generally improved. Despite a pre-existing national
downward trend in marriage rates, the most recent national data available (from
2011) indicate an increaseor, at minimum, a deceleration in the downward
trendin all seven states with marriage equality at the time (Connecticut, the
District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and
Vermont).
13

Typically, states have seen a significant increase in marriage rates during the
first, and sometimes, second year after legalizing same-sex marriage. For example,
the marriage rate in Massachusetts jumped from 5.6 to 6.5 marriages per thousand
residents (a 16.1% increase) in 2004, the first year same-sex couples could marry,
and remained at 6.2 in 2005. In Vermont, the marriage rate increased from 7.9 to
8.7 in the first year, and then rose again to 9.3. In the District of Columbia, the
marriage rate jumped from 4.7 to 7.6 (a 61.7% increase) in 2010, the first year
marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples.
14

13
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics System,
Marriage Rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011,
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/marriage_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf (last visited
Oct. 25, 2013) [hereinafter, CDC Marriage Rates].
14
CDC Marriage Rates, supra note 13; Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Vital Statistics System, National Marriage and Divorce Rate

Ex. A page 31 of 42

24

In Massachusetts, where marriage equality has been the law for nearly a
decade, the marriage rate stabilized following the legalization of same-sex
marriage, but remained higher than the national trend would otherwise predict.
From 2005 to 2007, the average annual marriage rate (6.0) was higher than the
average rate for the three years preceding same-sex marriage (5.9). Massachusetts
marriage rates for 2009 and 2010 were the same as the rate for 2003, the year
before same-sex couples could marry. And, in six of the seven states that
permitted same-sex couples to marry as of 2011, the marriage rate remained at or
above the level it was the year preceding same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, the
national average marriage rate declined steadily from 7.8 in 2005 to 6.8 in 2011.
Thus, contrary to predictions, there appears to be a general improvement in
marriage rates, or at least a deceleration of the national downward trend, in states
allowing same-sex couples to marry.
15

2. Different-Sex Marriage Rates: Although there are limited data
available on different-sex marriage rates in particular, the data that are available do

Trends 2000-2011, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm
(last visited Oct. 25, 2013) [hereinafter, CDC National Trends]; Chris Kirk &
Hanna Rosin, Does Gay Marriage Destroy Marriage? A Look at the Data,
Slate.com, May 23, 2012, http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/
05/does_gay_marriage_affect_marriage_or_divorce_rates_.html [hereinafter, Kirk
& Rosin] (last visited Oct. 25, 2013).
15
Kirk & Rosin, supra note14; CDC Marriage Rates, supra note13.
Ex. A page 32 of 42

25

not support the theory that same-sex marriage has a negative effect on different-sex
marriage rates.
16
To the contrary, it appears that rates of different-sex marriage in
states licensing same-sex marriages are equivalent to rates in states that do not
recognize same-sex marriage.
17
In fact, in some states, the number of different-sex
marriages increased in the years following the states recognition of same-sex
marriages. In Connecticut, for example, the number of different-sex marriages
increased by 2.2% from 2009 to 2012.
18
In Iowa, the number of different-sex
marriages also increased slightly in 2010 and 2011.
19
In Massachusetts, the
number of different-sex marriages in the first three years after the state began
licensing same-sex marriage (2005-2007) was higher than it was in the year before
(2003).
20

16
Alexis Dinno & Chelsea Whitney, Same Sex Marriage and the Perceived
Assault on Opposite Sex Marriage, PloS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 6 (June 2013),
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0065730
(last visited Oct. 25, 2013).
17
Dinno & Whitney, supra note 16, at 5.
18
Data provided by the Connecticut State Vital Records Office (July 2013).
19
Iowa Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, 2010 and 2011
Vital Statistics of Iowa, available at: hff://www.Idh.sfnfo.In.us/nI/
health_statistics.asp#vital (last visited Oct. 25, 2013).
20
Certificate of Marriage data provided by the Massachusetts Registry of Vital
Records and Statistics (July 2013).
Ex. A page 33 of 42

26

3. Divorce Rates: The Amici States experience directly contradicts the
suggestion that allowing same-sex couples to marry leads to increased rates of
divorce. In four of the seven states that allowed same-sex couples to marry as of
2011, divorce rates for the years following legalization stayed at or below the
divorce rate for the year preceding it, even as the national divorce rate increased.
21

In Massachusetts, the divorce rate decreased from 2.5 per thousand residents in
2003 to as low as 2.0 in 2008, four years after legalization. Connecticuts divorce
rate dropped from 3.4 in 2008 to 2.9 in 2010, a change of 14.7%. Similarly, Iowa,
New Hampshire, and Vermont all saw significant drops in their divorce rates
during the first year in which same-sex couples could marry. Iowa, for example,
saw its lowest number of divorces since 1970.
22

Moreover, as of 2011, six of the seven jurisdictions that permitted same-sex
couples to marry (Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts,
New York, and Vermont) had a divorce rate that was at or below the national
average. In fact, four of the ten states with the lowest divorce rates in the country

21
Kirk & Rosin, supra note 14.
22
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics System,
Divorce Rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2011,
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/divorce_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf (last visited
Oct. 25, 2013) [hereinafter, CDC Divorce Rates]; Rod Boshart Lee, Marriages Up,
Divorces Down in Iowa, Sioux City Journal, July 23, 2010.
Ex. A page 34 of 42

27

were states that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Iowa and Massachusetts had
the lowest and third-lowest rates, respectively.
23

4. Nonmarital Births: The suggestion that allowing same-sex couples to
marry will lead to an increase in nonmarital births is likewise unsupported.
Massachusettss nonmarital birth rate has been well below the national average for
years, and that continued after same-sex couples began to marry. In fact, as of
2011, the most recent year for which data are available, five of the seven states that
allowed same-same couples to marry (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and Vermont) had nonmarital birth rates below the national average.
24

The total number of births to unmarried women nationally increased from
1940 through 2008. Notably, it has declined since. The drop from 2010 to 2011
was the third consecutive decline, totaling 11% since 2008. During that same time
period (2008-2011), seven states (including California) extended marriage to same-
sex couples. There is simply no correlation between same-sex marriage and
increases in nonmarital births. In fact, in Iowa, the percentage of women having
children outside of marriage actually decreased from 35.2% in 2009, the first year

23
CDC Divorce Rates, supra note 22; CDC National Trends, supra note 14;
Kirk & Rosin, supra note 14.
24
See Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, & Stephanie J. Ventura, National
Vital Statistics Reports, Birth: Preliminary Data for 2011, Vol. 61, No. 5, Table I-
1, Oct. 3, 2012 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_05_tables.pdf.
Ex. A page 35 of 42

28

same-sex couples could marry, to 34.2% the following year. The rate decreased
again in 2011 to 33.8%.
25

B. Allowing Same-Sex Couples To Marry Does Not Threaten The
States Ability To Regulate Marriage.

It is likewise not true that once the link between marriage and procreation is
taken away, it becomes virtually impossible for states to limit entry to marriage in
any meaningful way. Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1118 n.37
(D. Haw. 2012). Rather, as Loving instructs, states simply may not circumscribe
access to marriage, and thus restrict a fundamental right, based on a personal trait
that itself has no bearing on ones qualifications for marriage. States can continue
to exercise their sovereign power to regulate marriage subject to constitutional
guarantees and protections.
In Loving, the Supreme Court characterized Virginias anti-miscegenation
laws as rest[ing] solely upon distinctions drawn according to race, and
proscribing generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different
races. 388 U.S. at 11. Nevada and Hawaii marriage laws similarly restrict the
right to marry by drawing distinctions according to gender and by using that

25
Hamilton, et al., supra note 24, at 3; Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, &
Stephanie J. Ventura, National Vital Statistics Reports, Birth: Preliminary Data
for 2009, Vol. 59, No. 3, Table I-2, Dec. 21, 2010,
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_03.pdf.
Ex. A page 36 of 42

29

personal characteristic to define an appropriate category of marital partners.
Focusing on this reliance on inherent, personal traits to regulate marriage
illuminates the limiting principle that the district courts found lacking: states may
not limit an individuals ability to enter into marriage or choice in spouse based on
an inherent, personal characteristic that does not bear upon his or her capacity to
consent to the marriage contract. Indeed, this focus on inherent characteristics is
consistent with our legal tradition of considering suspect disparate treatment based
on personal characteristics that typically bear no relationship to an individuals
ability to perform or contribute to society.
26
See, e.g., Frontiero v. Richardson,
411 U.S. 677, 686-687 (1973).
Applying this principle, and removing gender from spousal restrictions, does
not result in all groupings of adults having an equal claim to marriage. In
furtherance of the interest in maintaining the mutuality of obligations between
spouses, states may continue to lawfully limit the number of spouses one may have
at any given time. Unlike race or gender, marital status is not an inherent trait, but
rather is a legal status indicating the existence (or not) of a marital contract, the

26
Although Amici States contend that sexual orientation discrimination should
be subject to heightened scrutiny, it is not necessary to accept that Nevada and
Hawaii laws involve suspect classifications for purposes of this analysis. The point
here is not that these laws draw suspect lines, but that they draw upon a personal
characteristic, unrelated to ones qualification for marriage (i.e., ability to consent
or current marital status), to define an individuals marriage choices.
Ex. A page 37 of 42

30

presence of which renders a person temporarily ineligible to enter into additional
marriage contracts. States similarly may continue to lawfully prohibit marriage
between certain relatives in order to guard against a variety of public health
outcomes. Consanguinity itself is not a personal trait, but rather defines the nature
of the relationship between particular individuals and thus exists only when an
individual is considered in relation to others. Finally, in order to protect children
against abuse and coercion, states may regulate entry into marriage by establishing
an age of consent.
27
Likewise, age is not an intrinsic trait, as it changes continually
and the restriction is therefore temporary. Thus, even after gender is removed from
consideration, other state regulations continue to advance important governmental
interests and remain valid.
Nevadas and Hawaiis reliance on gender to regulate marriage is not saved
by the argument that exclusionary marriage laws do not actually discriminate based
on gender or sexual orientation because, in theory, gay men and lesbians have the
same right to marry as heterosexual men and women. Opponents of same-sex
marriage are not the first to argue that symmetry in a laws restrictions precludes a
finding of invidious discrimination. In Loving, Virginia argued that because its
anti-miscegenation laws punished people of different races equally, those laws,

27
For similar reasons, states may regulate entry into marriage based on mental
capacity because that bears upon an individuals ability to consent.
Ex. A page 38 of 42

31

despite their reliance on racial classifications, did not constitute discrimination
based on race. 388 U.S. at 8. In reality, anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia and
elsewhere were designed to, and did, deprive a targeted minority of the full
measure of human dignity and citizenship by denying them the freedom to marry
the partner of their choice. Nevada and Hawaii marriage laws, if upheld, would
achieve the same result.
The argument that Nevada and Hawaii laws do not discriminate fails to
acknowledge the practical and symbolic significance of marriage, including the
paramount importance of choice in ones spouse. Quite simply, these laws prevent
gay men and lesbians from fully realizing what the Supreme Court described as
one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men. Loving, 388 U.S. at 12. This result is in clear conflict with our Constitution.

Ex. A page 39 of 42

32

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should reverse the judgments of the
district courts below.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Genevieve C. Nadeau

MARTHA COAKLEY
Attorney General
GENEVIEVE C. NADEAU*
JONATHAN B. MILLER
Assistant Attorneys General
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Office of the Attorney General
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 727-2200
genevieve.nadeau@state.ma.us

Dated: October 25, 2013 *Counsel of Record
Ex. A page 40 of 42

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32

Certificate of Compliance With Type-Volume Limitation,
Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B) and 29(d) because this brief contains 6,918 words, excluding parts of
the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).

2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Times New
Roman in 14-point type.

Counsel for Amici Curiae
Dated: October 25, 2013

Ex. A page 41 of 42

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing Brief of
Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon,
Vermont, and Washington As Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants with the Clerk
of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using
the appellate CM/ECF system on October 25, 2013.

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and
that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

Counsel for Amici Curiae
Dated: October 25, 2013

Ex. A page 42 of 42

Geiger v. Kitzhaber: Plaintiffs Amended Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geiger v. Kitzhaber: Plaintiffs Amended Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiffs First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Lake James H. Perriguey, OSB No. 983213

You might also like