Multnomah County responds, agrees with plaintiffs position that bans on gay marriage violate the constitution and harm the community. Asks court to decide this issue quickly so that it can begin issuing marriage licenses.
Original Title
Multnomah County Response to Summary Judgment
6:13-CV-01834-MC Geiger v. Kitzhaber
Oregon gay marriage lawsuit
Multnomah County responds, agrees with plaintiffs position that bans on gay marriage violate the constitution and harm the community. Asks court to decide this issue quickly so that it can begin issuing marriage licenses.
Multnomah County responds, agrees with plaintiffs position that bans on gay marriage violate the constitution and harm the community. Asks court to decide this issue quickly so that it can begin issuing marriage licenses.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Eugene Division
DEANNA L. GEIGER and 1ANINE M. NELSON, ROBERT DUEHMIG and WILLIAM GRIESAR,
PlaintiII,
v.
1OHN KITZHABER, in his oIIicial capacity as Governor oI Oregon, ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her oIIicial capacity as Attorney General oI Oregon, 1ENNIFER WOODWARD, in her oIIicial capacity as State Registrar, Center oI Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY WALRUFF, in his oIIicial capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,
DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
JENNY M. MADKOUR, COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON Jenny M. Madkour, OSB No. 98298 County Attorney Katharine von Ter Stegge, OSB No. 032300 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 Telephone: (503) 988-3138 Facsimile: (503) 988-3377 E-mail: jenny.m.madkourmultco.us katevtsmultco.us OI Attorneys Ior DeIendant Randy WalruII Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 59 Filed 03/04/l4 Page l of 5 Page lD#: 557 Page 2 DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 Multnomah County supports equality and inclusion Ior all minorities and opposes illegal discrimination oI any kind. (Declaration oI Marissa Madrigal 10). The Geiger and Rummell lawsuits seek to secure the rights oI all Oregonians to wed, regardless oI sexual orientation. Multnomah County joins the PlaintiIIs oI both cases in asking this Court to careIully consider the constitutionality oI Oregon laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and then strike them down. For many years Multnomah County has taken the position that state laws excluding same- sex couples Irom marrying are discriminatory and unconstitutional. For this reason, Multnomah County issued more than 3000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004 beIore opponents raised legal challenges and passed a statewide reIerendum that made issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples plainly illegal under Oregon law. (Madrigal Declaration 12-14). The County is proud to have stood Iirm on this core civil rights issue a decade ago when backing marriage rights Ior all was neither easy nor politically saIe. Fortunately, in only one short decade, public opinion has shiIted dramatically in our state and in our country in support oI marriage equality. While Multnomah County may not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples under current Oregon law, the County agrees with the PlaintiIIs` assertion that the United States Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The County also urges this Court to resolve the conIlict between Iederal and state law by joining other Iederal courts in recognizing this most Iundamental right. Multnomah County now Iinds itselI in the unavoidable position oI being subject to suit Ior currently Iailing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite its commitment to issuing marriage licenses to same sex-couples. None oI Oregon`s 36 counties issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because the Oregon Supreme Court`s ruling in Li et al. v State and Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 59 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 2 of 5 Page lD#: 558 Page 3 DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 the prohibition on same-sex marriage contained in Article 15 5a oI the Oregon Constitution are still Oregon law. In her Answer in the Rummell case, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum stated that she will not deIend these suits, but will continue to enIorce the ban on same sex-marriage in Oregon. (State DeIendants` Answer and AIIirmative DeIenses to the Rummell Amended Complaint 28). Recently Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that State Attorneys General are not obligated to deIend lawsuits challenging same-sex marriage bans, but has remained silent on whether they should continue to enIorce the ban. (Declaration oI Katharine von Ter Stegge 2, Exhibit A). Multnomah County will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as it receives clear direction Irom the courts, the voters, the Legislature, or the Attorney General oI Oregon that it is legal to do so. POSITION Like the PlaintiIIs in these lawsuits, Multnomah County recognizes that the marriage laws currently in eIIect in the State oI Oregon conIlict with Ireedoms secured to all Americans by the United States Constitution. Multnomah County agrees with the Iollowing assertions and legal analysis set Iorth in PlaintiIIs` Motions Ior Summary Judgment: Article 15 5a oI the Oregon Constitution prohibits same-sex couples Irom marrying lawIully in Oregon.
Oregon Domestic Partnerships do not extend protections to same-sex couples equal to those extended to opposite-sex couples who may marry under current Oregon law.
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 59 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 3 of 5 Page lD#: 559 Page 4 DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is harmIul to same-sex couples and their children.
Same-sex couples are no less capable oI entering into long-term committed relationships and successIully parenting children than opposite-sex couples.
Under the reasoning set Iorth in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. January 21, 2014), this Court should use a heightened scrutiny standard oI review in deciding whether or not Oregon laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the Equal Protection guarantees oI the United States Constitution.
Oregon`s exclusionary marriage laws will Iail to pass this heightened standard oI review because they are motivated chieIly by Iear, misunderstanding, and a desire to exclude; as such, they violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Marriage is a Iundamental right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause oI the United States Constitution; restrictions on marriage are similarly subject to a heightened level oI scrutiny under the Due Process Clause as set Iorth in Witt v. Dept of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008).
Oregon`s exclusionary marriage laws will likewise Iail to pass this heightened standard oI review; because they are motivated chieIly by Iear, misunderstanding, and a desire to exclude, they violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Oregon`s exclusionary marriage laws cannot even pass a rational basis review iI this Court employs a lesser standard oI review in considering the constitutionality oI the laws.
As individuals who are impacted by the existence oI Oregon`s discriminatory same-same ban, PlaintiIIs have standing to bring this suit.
CONCLUSION The law should not be used to draw needless and hurtIul classiIications between equally capable, equally valuable members oI our society. Current Oregon law discriminates against same-sex couples seeking to marry. The guarantees oI the United States Constitution, however, extend to all Oregonians, regardless oI whom they choose to love and with whom they choose to make a liIe. Oregon`s exclusionary marriage laws should be struck down because they violate Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 59 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 4 of 5 Page lD#: 560 Page 5 DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses oI the United States Constitution. II this Court makes such a declaration, Multnomah County will swiItly begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. DATED this 4th day oI March, 2014. RespectIully submitted, JENNY M. MADKOUR, COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON
/s/ Katharine von Ter Stegge
Jenny M. Madkour, OSB No. 98298 County Attorney Katharine von Ter Stegge, OSB No. 032300 OI Attorneys Ior DeIendant WalruII Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 59 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 5 of 5 Page lD#: 56l
Page 1 DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Eugene Division
DEANNA L. GEIGER and 1ANINE M. NELSON, ROBERT DUEHMIG and WILLIAM GRIESAR,
PlaintiII,
v.
1OHN KITZHABER, in his oIIicial capacity as Governor oI Oregon, ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her oIIicial capacity as Attorney General oI Oregon, 1ENNIFER WOODWARD, in her oIIicial capacity as State Registrar, Center oI Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY WALRUFF, in his oIIicial capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,
DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
JENNY M. MADKOUR, COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON Jenny M. Madkour, OSB No. 98298 County Attorney Katharine von Ter Stegge, OSB No. 032300 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 Telephone: (503) 988-3138 Facsimile: (503) 988-3377 E-mail: jenny.m.madkourmultco.us katevtsmultco.us OI Attorneys Ior DeIendant Randy WalruII Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 60 Filed 03/04/l4 Page l of 5 Page lD#: 562
Page 2 DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 I, Marissa Madrigal, do declare and state as Iollows: 1. I am the Chair oI the Multnomah County Board oI Commissioners. 2. In my capacity as County Chair, I am the ChieI Executive OIIicer and Personnel OIIicer Ior the County in accordance with the County Charter. I oversee County operations including the Multnomah County Department oI Assessment and Taxation ('DART), which is supervised by Randy WalruII, the County Assessor and a named DeIendant in this lawsuit. 3. Mr. WalruII is responsible Ior ensuring that the County`s marriage license program complies with the law. 4. The County does not currently issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because state law bars that action. II same-sex couples apply Ior marriage licenses at the Multnomah Building, their applications will unIortunately be rejected. 5. It is heartbreaking Ior me personally, Ior many County employees, and Ior many residents oI this County, that Multnomah County cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I know Irom my own experience as a marriage license recipient in Multnomah County that marriage has conIerred important legal and social beneIits on myselI, my husband and our two children. 6. I believe there is no lawIul reason to deny same-sex couples the beneIits, legitimacy and security that marriage provides. Multnomah County has no second-class citizens. The law should not be used to draw needless and hurtIul classiIications between equally capable, equally valuable members oI our County and larger society. /// /// /// /// /// /// Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 60 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 2 of 5 Page lD#: 563
Page 3 DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 7. I believe that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is harmIul to same-sex couples and their children. I believe that same-sex couples are also no less capable oI entering into long-term committed relationships and successIully parenting children than opposite-sex couples. 8. When I took my oath oI oIIice as Multnomah County Chair, I swore to uphold both the United States Constitution and the Constitution oI the State oI Oregon. With regard to same-sex marriage as a civil right, it appears the United States and Oregon Constitutions conIlict. I cannot uphold one without violating the other. This is an untenable position. I ask the Court to resolve this conIlict oI law as quickly as possible. 9. As County Chair, I believe that state laws excluding same-sex couples Irom marrying are discriminatory and unconstitutional. In my role as County Chair, I will swiItly authorize the issuance oI marriage licenses to same-sex couples when Multnomah County receives clear direction Irom the courts, the electorate, the Legislature, or the Attorney General that it is legal to do so. 10. Multnomah County supports equality and inclusion Ior all minorities and opposes discrimination oI any kind. Multnomah County has a diverse and devoted workIorce, some oI whom are sexual minorities. Toward that end, Multnomah County proudly hosts an employee resource group that Iocuses on ensuring equity and inclusion Ior lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer county employees and on providing a place Ior those employees to support each other`s proIessional growth. Multnomah County also provides critical services to County residents, some oI whom are sexual minorities. Among the many milestones demonstrating Multnomah County`s attention to sexual minorities is its Health Department`s regular Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 60 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 3 of 5 Page lD#: 564
Page 4 DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 recognition nationally as a 'Leader in LGBT Healthcare Equality. II we are to treat all employees and clients with respect and dignity, we must continue to stand Ior marriage equality and against any law that cripples that right. 11. Current state law boxes Multnomah County in the unavoidable position oI being subject to suit Ior currently Iailing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite its long history oI supporting marriage equality and issuing marriage licenses a decade ago to same sex- couples. 12. On March 3, 2004, Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same- sex couples on the advice oI the Multnomah County Attorney. Multnomah County ultimately issued more than 3000 licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. Multnomah County`s stand Ior marriage equality was Iiercely criticized and opposed by some Oregonians. 13. Multnomah County - together with nine same-sex couples, Basic Rights Oregon, and the American Civil Liberties Union - subsequently sued the State oI Oregon Ior declaratory and injunctive relieI, arguing that certain state statutes describing marriage as between a husband and a wiIe violated Article I 20 oI the Oregon Constitution prohibiting discrimination on the basis oI sexual orientation or gender (Li et al. v. State). Prevailing in that case would have allowed Multnomah County to continue perIorming its constitutional duty and employing its best independent judgment to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Multnomah County and the other plaintiIIs prevailed at the trial court level, but the deIendants appealed the judgment. 14. In November 2004, voters passed Measure 36, amending the Oregon Constitution to deIine marriage as between one man and one woman. That amendment is set Iorth in Article 15 5a oI the Oregon Constitution. In December 2004, the Supreme Court oI Oregon heard Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 60 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 4 of 5 Page lD#: 565
Page 5 DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 argument in Li et al. v. State, ultimately deciding in 2004 that Multnomah County lacked authority to issue the marriage licenses. 15. Only aIter being directed to stop by the Supreme Court and the electorate, did Multnomah County stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT I UNDERSTAND IT IS MADE FOR USE AS EVIDENCE IN COURT AND IS SUBJECT TO PENALTY FOR PERJURY.
/s/ Marissa Madrigal
Marissa Madrigal
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 60 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 5 of 5 Page lD#: 566 Page 1 DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Eugene Division
DEANNA L. GEIGER and 1ANINE M. NELSON, ROBERT DUEHMIG and WILLIAM GRIESAR,
PlaintiII,
v.
1OHN KITZHABER, in his oIIicial capacity as Governor oI Oregon, ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her oIIicial capacity as Attorney General oI Oregon, 1ENNIFER WOODWARD, in her oIIicial capacity as State Registrar, Center oI Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY WALRUFF, in his oIIicial capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,
DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
JENNY M. MADKOUR, COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON Jenny M. Madkour, OSB No. 98298 County Attorney Katharine von Ter Stegge, OSB No. 032300 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 Telephone: (503) 988-3138 Facsimile: (503) 988-3377 E-mail: jenny.m.madkourmultco.us katevtsmultco.us OI Attorneys Ior DeIendant Randy WalruII Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 59 Filed 03/04/l4 Page l of 5 Page lD#: 557 Page 2 DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 Multnomah County supports equality and inclusion Ior all minorities and opposes illegal discrimination oI any kind. (Declaration oI Marissa Madrigal 10). The Geiger and Rummell lawsuits seek to secure the rights oI all Oregonians to wed, regardless oI sexual orientation. Multnomah County joins the PlaintiIIs oI both cases in asking this Court to careIully consider the constitutionality oI Oregon laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and then strike them down. For many years Multnomah County has taken the position that state laws excluding same- sex couples Irom marrying are discriminatory and unconstitutional. For this reason, Multnomah County issued more than 3000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004 beIore opponents raised legal challenges and passed a statewide reIerendum that made issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples plainly illegal under Oregon law. (Madrigal Declaration 12-14). The County is proud to have stood Iirm on this core civil rights issue a decade ago when backing marriage rights Ior all was neither easy nor politically saIe. Fortunately, in only one short decade, public opinion has shiIted dramatically in our state and in our country in support oI marriage equality. While Multnomah County may not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples under current Oregon law, the County agrees with the PlaintiIIs` assertion that the United States Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The County also urges this Court to resolve the conIlict between Iederal and state law by joining other Iederal courts in recognizing this most Iundamental right. Multnomah County now Iinds itselI in the unavoidable position oI being subject to suit Ior currently Iailing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite its commitment to issuing marriage licenses to same sex-couples. None oI Oregon`s 36 counties issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because the Oregon Supreme Court`s ruling in Li et al. v State and Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 59 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 2 of 5 Page lD#: 558 Page 3 DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 the prohibition on same-sex marriage contained in Article 15 5a oI the Oregon Constitution are still Oregon law. In her Answer in the Rummell case, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum stated that she will not deIend these suits, but will continue to enIorce the ban on same sex-marriage in Oregon. (State DeIendants` Answer and AIIirmative DeIenses to the Rummell Amended Complaint 28). Recently Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that State Attorneys General are not obligated to deIend lawsuits challenging same-sex marriage bans, but has remained silent on whether they should continue to enIorce the ban. (Declaration oI Katharine von Ter Stegge 2, Exhibit A). Multnomah County will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as it receives clear direction Irom the courts, the voters, the Legislature, or the Attorney General oI Oregon that it is legal to do so.
Like the PlaintiIIs in these lawsuits, Multnomah County recognizes that the marriage laws currently in eIIect in the State oI Oregon conIlict with Ireedoms secured to all Americans by the United States Constitution. Multnomah County agrees with the Iollowing assertions and legal analysis set Iorth in PlaintiIIs` Motions Ior Summary Judgment: Article 15 5a oI the Oregon Constitution prohibits same-sex couples Irom marrying lawIully in Oregon.
Oregon Domestic Partnerships do not extend protections to same-sex couples equal to those extended to opposite-sex couples who may marry under current Oregon law.
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 59 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 3 of 5 Page lD#: 559 Page 4 DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is harmIul to same-sex couples and their children.
Same-sex couples are no less capable oI entering into long-term committed relationships and successIully parenting children than opposite-sex couples.
Under the reasoning set Iorth in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. January 21, 2014), this Court should use a heightened scrutiny standard oI review in deciding whether or not Oregon laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the Equal Protection guarantees oI the United States Constitution.
Oregon`s exclusionary marriage laws will Iail to pass this heightened standard oI review because they are motivated chieIly by Iear, misunderstanding, and a desire to exclude; as such, they violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Marriage is a Iundamental right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause oI the United States Constitution; restrictions on marriage are similarly subject to a heightened level oI scrutiny under the Due Process Clause as set Iorth in Witt v. Dept of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008).
Oregon`s exclusionary marriage laws will likewise Iail to pass this heightened standard oI review; because they are motivated chieIly by Iear, misunderstanding, and a desire to exclude, they violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Oregon`s exclusionary marriage laws cannot even pass a rational basis review iI this Court employs a lesser standard oI review in considering the constitutionality oI the laws.
As individuals who are impacted by the existence oI Oregon`s discriminatory same-same ban, PlaintiIIs have standing to bring this suit.
The law should not be used to draw needless and hurtIul classiIications between equally capable, equally valuable members oI our society. Current Oregon law discriminates against same-sex couples seeking to marry. The guarantees oI the United States Constitution, however, extend to all Oregonians, regardless oI whom they choose to love and with whom they choose to make a liIe. Oregon`s exclusionary marriage laws should be struck down because they violate Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 59 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 4 of 5 Page lD#: 560 Page 5 DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses oI the United States Constitution. II this Court makes such a declaration, Multnomah County will swiItly begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. DATED this 4th day oI March, 2014. RespectIully submitted, JENNY M. MADKOUR, COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON
/s/ Katharine von Ter Stegge
Jenny M. Madkour, OSB No. 98298 County Attorney Katharine von Ter Stegge, OSB No. 032300 OI Attorneys Ior DeIendant WalruII Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 59 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 5 of 5 Page lD#: 56l
Page 1 DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Eugene Division
DEANNA L. GEIGER and 1ANINE M. NELSON, ROBERT DUEHMIG and WILLIAM GRIESAR,
PlaintiII,
v.
1OHN KITZHABER, in his oIIicial capacity as Governor oI Oregon, ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her oIIicial capacity as Attorney General oI Oregon, 1ENNIFER WOODWARD, in her oIIicial capacity as State Registrar, Center oI Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY WALRUFF, in his oIIicial capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,
DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
JENNY M. MADKOUR, COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON Jenny M. Madkour, OSB No. 98298 County Attorney Katharine von Ter Stegge, OSB No. 032300 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 Telephone: (503) 988-3138 Facsimile: (503) 988-3377 E-mail: jenny.m.madkourmultco.us katevtsmultco.us OI Attorneys Ior DeIendant Randy WalruII Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 60 Filed 03/04/l4 Page l of 5 Page lD#: 562
Page 2 DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 I, Marissa Madrigal, do declare and state as Iollows: 1. I am the Chair oI the Multnomah County Board oI Commissioners. 2. In my capacity as County Chair, I am the ChieI Executive OIIicer and Personnel OIIicer Ior the County in accordance with the County Charter. I oversee County operations including the Multnomah County Department oI Assessment and Taxation ('DART), which is supervised by Randy WalruII, the County Assessor and a named DeIendant in this lawsuit. 3. Mr. WalruII is responsible Ior ensuring that the County`s marriage license program complies with the law. 4. The County does not currently issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because state law bars that action. II same-sex couples apply Ior marriage licenses at the Multnomah Building, their applications will unIortunately be rejected. 5. It is heartbreaking Ior me personally, Ior many County employees, and Ior many residents oI this County, that Multnomah County cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I know Irom my own experience as a marriage license recipient in Multnomah County that marriage has conIerred important legal and social beneIits on myselI, my husband and our two children. 6. I believe there is no lawIul reason to deny same-sex couples the beneIits, legitimacy and security that marriage provides. Multnomah County has no second-class citizens. The law should not be used to draw needless and hurtIul classiIications between equally capable, equally valuable members oI our County and larger society. /// /// /// /// /// /// Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 60 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 2 of 5 Page lD#: 563
Page 3 DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE AND CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 7. I believe that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is harmIul to same-sex couples and their children. I believe that same-sex couples are also no less capable oI entering into long-term committed relationships and successIully parenting children than opposite-sex couples. 8. When I took my oath oI oIIice as Multnomah County Chair, I swore to uphold both the United States Constitution and the Constitution oI the State oI Oregon. With regard to same-sex marriage as a civil right, it appears the United States and Oregon Constitutions conIlict. I cannot uphold one without violating the other. This is an untenable position. I ask the Court to resolve this conIlict oI law as quickly as possible. 9. As County Chair, I believe that state laws excluding same-sex couples Irom marrying are discriminatory and unconstitutional. In my role as County Chair, I will swiItly authorize the issuance oI marriage licenses to same-sex couples when Multnomah County receives clear direction Irom the courts, the electorate, the Legislature, or the Attorney General that it is legal to do so. 10. Multnomah County supports equality and inclusion Ior all minorities and opposes discrimination oI any kind. Multnomah County has a diverse and devoted workIorce, some oI whom are sexual minorities. Toward that end, Multnomah County proudly hosts an employee resource group that Iocuses on ensuring equity and inclusion Ior lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer county employees and on providing a place Ior those employees to support each other`s proIessional growth. Multnomah County also provides critical services to County residents, some oI whom are sexual minorities. Among the many milestones demonstrating Multnomah County`s attention to sexual minorities is its Health Department`s regular Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 60 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 3 of 5 Page lD#: 564
Page 4 DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 recognition nationally as a 'Leader in LGBT Healthcare Equality. II we are to treat all employees and clients with respect and dignity, we must continue to stand Ior marriage equality and against any law that cripples that right. 11. Current state law boxes Multnomah County in the unavoidable position oI being subject to suit Ior currently Iailing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite its long history oI supporting marriage equality and issuing marriage licenses a decade ago to same sex- couples. 12. On March 3, 2004, Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same- sex couples on the advice oI the Multnomah County Attorney. Multnomah County ultimately issued more than 3000 licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. Multnomah County`s stand Ior marriage equality was Iiercely criticized and opposed by some Oregonians. 13. Multnomah County - together with nine same-sex couples, Basic Rights Oregon, and the American Civil Liberties Union - subsequently sued the State oI Oregon Ior declaratory and injunctive relieI, arguing that certain state statutes describing marriage as between a husband and a wiIe violated Article I 20 oI the Oregon Constitution prohibiting discrimination on the basis oI sexual orientation or gender (Li et al. v. State). Prevailing in that case would have allowed Multnomah County to continue perIorming its constitutional duty and employing its best independent judgment to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Multnomah County and the other plaintiIIs prevailed at the trial court level, but the deIendants appealed the judgment. 14. In November 2004, voters passed Measure 36, amending the Oregon Constitution to deIine marriage as between one man and one woman. That amendment is set Iorth in Article 15 5a oI the Oregon Constitution. In December 2004, the Supreme Court oI Oregon heard Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 60 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 4 of 5 Page lD#: 565
Page 5 DECLARATION OF MARISSA MADRIGAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF`S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN THE GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Rm. 500 Portland, Oregon 97214-3587 (503) 988-3138 argument in Li et al. v. State, ultimately deciding in 2004 that Multnomah County lacked authority to issue the marriage licenses. 15. Only aIter being directed to stop by the Supreme Court and the electorate, did Multnomah County stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT I UNDERSTAND IT IS MADE FOR USE AS EVIDENCE IN COURT AND IS SUBJECT TO PENALTY FOR PERJURY.
/s/ Marissa Madrigal
Marissa Madrigal
Case 6:l3-cv-0l834-MC Document 60 Filed 03/04/l4 Page 5 of 5 Page lD#: 566