Thomas R. Johnson, OSB No.

010645
-f
RJ ohnso n (rlperkinsco i e. com
Kristina J. llolm, OSII No. 117607
K.lI{ohn@perkinscoie.com
Misha lsãak, OSB No. 086430
MI saak(rlperkin sco ie, com
PIIRKINS COIET-t.p
1 120 N.W. Couch Street,
'fenth
Floor
Portlancl, OR 97209 -4128
Telephorre: 503.7?7.20t0
Facsinrile: 503.727 .?222
.Iennifer Middlcton, OSR No. 071510
J Middl etort(rìtjj lsl arv. com
.]OHNSON JOHNSON & SC]FIALLER PC
975 Oak Street, Suite 1050
lìugene, OIì 97401
'f
elephone: 54 1 .683 .2506
F'acsimile: 541.484.0882
Kevin Díaz. OSB Ncr. 970480
KDiazlglaclu-or.org
ACI,I] FOT]NDAI.ION OI- ORIìGON, NC.
P.O. ISox 40585
Ponland, OR 97240
Telephone: 503.227,6928
lracsimile: 503,227 .61)48
Rose Saxe.
¡t'o
hac rice
RSaxe@aclu,org
.,lmanda Goad, prts hac vic'e
AGoad(glaclu.org
AMËRIC AN CIVIL I,IBI]IìTII]S UNION
FOL]NDA]IION
125 l3road Street. 18th FIoor
Ner.v York. NY 1000ji
Teleplrorie: ?12.549,?627
Facsinrile: 212.549.2650
Cooncratirls attornevs on bchalf ol'thc
ACLU Fouirdation óf'Oregon, Inc.
Attorneys for
plaintiffs
Rummell, West. Chickadonz,'lanrìer,
an<J Basic Rights Education Fr'urc1
T]NITED ST,,\TES DISTITICT COURl
DISTRICT OF'OIIEGON
EUGIINE DIVISION
PAUL RUMMEi-L an<J BBNJAIvIIN
WË'S'f;
LISA CHICKADONZ and CIFIRISTINII'I'ANNHR;
BASIC RIGHTS EDUCAT'ION
I"'UND'
No. 6:13-cv-02256-MC
Plaintiffs,
DECL¡\IìATION OF JE,NNIFER
MIDDLETON IN OPPOSITION
TO
MOTION TO INTEIìVENII
JOI-IN KITZI{.,\BER, irr his o1Ïcial
capacity as Governor of Oregon; LiLLEN
ROSENBI-UM, in her official capacity as Attorne¡'
General o1' Oregon; JENNIIjHR WOOIJWARD' in
her official capacity as Statc I{egistrar. Center for
I-lealth St¿ltistics, Oregon l{ealth Autholity, and
RANDY WALRUþ-!-, in his oflioial capacity as
Multnomah CountY Assessclr,
DeJtndunt.s.
1 DECLAITATION OF JHNNIITEIì N4IDQLIITON IN
lN OPPOSI'I'ION'fO Mol"ION 1-0 IN"llr'RVENìì
Perkins Coie t.r.P
I120 N.W. Couch Streef, l'enth l:'lclor
Por:tland, Olì 97209'41 28
Phone:503.727.3000
l:itx 503,121 .2222
.q6qs9-0002/L lj( ìi\ l-l 2071ì6902, I
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 3 Page ID#: 1013
PIaintifl.s.
JOHN KITZI-IABER, in his official
capacily as Governor of Oregon; ELLEN
Iì.OSENBLLJM, in her o1-f-rcial capacity as Attomey
General of Orcgon;JIINNIFER
WOOD'W¡\RD. in
her ofl-lcial capacity as State Registritr. Cetlter for
Llealth statistics. Oregon ilealth Authorìt¡'. and
RANDY WALRIJI"F, in his official capacity as
Multnomah Countl' Assessor,
DeJèndanrs
I, Jennifer Micldleton, do herebl' declare as f'ollows:
l. I am an Oregon attclrriey wíth .Tohnson Johnson & Sch¿lller PC. I ant couusel for
paul
lìn'nnell, ßeniarnin'West, Lisa Chickac]onz. Chrisline
"l'anner.
and Basic Riglrts Education
I;r.rnd (collectively, the "Rumnrell
plaintills") in thc above-captioned consolidated acLions.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a lrue ancl Çorrecl copl'oI-the text of a letter from
Attome¡,General Eric Il. llolder, .lr'., to Speakcrr ol'the l-louse John,A. Bochner, clated lìebruary
23, 201 | .
3. Attached hcrcto as Exhibit Il is a true and corect copv olan article fi'om the
Washington Post website dated l''etrruary 20.2014.
4. Anac¡ed þereto as ljxhibit C is a true and coffect copy of an article lrom the
St¿tesrna¡r Journal newspaller, dated .Ianuary 25,2014.
DEANNA L. GEIGER ancl .lANINll M
NELSON; I{OIIER] DI-ll'ìHl\4lG and
WILLIAM GRIESAR.
2- DI]CI-AIìATION OF Jì]NNII.'EIT MIDDI-ETON IN
IN OPPOSII'ION TO MOTION T'O INT]]IìVI]NTJ
869s9-00()lll,li(ì¡\ l- I 207ti6902 1
No. 6:13-cv-O1 834-MC
Pcrkins Coic r.r.l'
I 120 N.W. Couch Sf reel,
'lorth
Floor
Poñland. OIì 97209-4 128
Phortc. -503.727.?000
I:ax: 503.727.2?22
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 3 Page ID#: 1014
5. Attached hereto as Ëxhibit D is a tme and correct copy of the text of Attorney
General Ellen Rosenblum's public st¿tement regarding this litigation. dated February 20,2014,
which she delivered at a press cotlference at the Oregon Capitol.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an article fiom the
Willamette Week newspaper, dated October 15, 2013.
7 , Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an article from the
Oregonian newspaper, dated December 20, 2013'
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a prcss release issued
by tlre National Orgarrization for Marriage, dated February 20,2014
'
g,
On April 2l,2}l4,Roger Llarris called rne by telephorie and left a tnessage. I
retumed his call and spoke with him later that morning. Neither I, nor my co-counsel, nor as far
as I know any other counsel in these consolidated cases, had ever heard from Mr' Harris or any
representative of the National Organizafion for Maniage about this casc prcviously. Mr. Harris
told me that NOM planned to file a motion to intervene, a motion to delay the oral argument, and
a s¡-lbstantive brief in opposition to the pending motions 1'or summary
judgment'
I tleclure that the
foregoing
slulements are lt'ue and correcl lr¡ lhe best of my
¡ter,sonal
btou,ledge and belief and are nrade undet' penalty of pe$ury.
Dated t'l
J
3- DI]CLARATION OF JENNIFER MIDDLETON IN
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION'fO INTI]RVENE
8(r959-0002/l-liGA l. I 20786902, I
Perkins Coie ¡.lr
ll20 N.W. Couch Street,'l'enth Flqor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
Phone: 503.727.2000
l:ax: 503.727 .2222
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106 Filed 05/02/14 Page 3 of 3 Page ID#: 1015
4t30t2014 US Justice: Print FnendlyVersion
:.:t..,:' . :.. \::. >> Jff StiCe NefVS
Wffi
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FORIMMEDIATERELEASE Wednesday, February 23,2o7r
Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation
Involving the Defense of Marriage Act
WASHINGTON
-
The Attorney General sent the following lettel today to Congressional leadership to inform
them of the Department's coulse of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen u. OPMand Windsor u. United States,
challenging Section
3
of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as
only betweerì a man and a woman. A copy of the ìetter is also attached.
The Honorable John A. Boehner
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20S15
Re: Defense of Marriage Act
Dear Mr. Speaker
After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the
United States has made the determination that Section
3
of the Defense of Malriage Act ("DOMA"), r U.S.C.
g
7 ,i
as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married und.er state law, violates the equal protection
component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to zB U.S.C. $ 53oD,
I am writing to advise you of the
Executive Branch's determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending
DOMA cases to implement that determination.
While the Department has previously defended DOMA against legal challenges involving legally
married same-sex couples, recent lawsuits that challenge the constitutionaìity of DOMA Section
3
have
caused the President and the Department to conduct a new examination of the defense of this provision. In
particular, in November 2o1o, plaintiffs filed two new ìawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Section
3
of DOMA in jurisdictions
without precedent on whether sexuaì-orientation classifications are subject to
rational basis review or whether they must satisfy some form of heightened scrutiny . Windsor u. United
Sfates, No. t:to-cv-B+gS (S.D.N.Y.); Pedersenu. OPM, No.
3:ro-cv-77 So
(D. Conn.). Previously, the
Administration has defended Section
3
in jurisdictions where circuit courts have aìready held that
classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to rational basis review, and it has advanced
arguments to defend DOMA Section
3
under the binding standarcl that has applied in those
"or"s.
ii
These new lawsuits, by contrast, will require the Department to take an afñrmative position on the
level of scrutiny that should be applied to DOMA Section
3
in a circuit without binding precedent on the
issue. As described more fuìly below, the President and I have concluded that classifications based on
sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married
under state law, Section
3
of DOMÂ is unconstitutional.
Standard of Review
The Supr-eme Court has yet to rule on the appropriate level of scrutiny fol classifications based on
http://wrruu.justi ce.g ov/pr i ntf/Pri ntOut3.j sp 115
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 5
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 5 Page ID#: 1016
413012014 US Justice: Print FriendlyVersion
sexual orientation. It has, however, rendered a nunlbel of decisions that set folth the criteria that should
inform this and any other
judgment as to whether heightened scrutiny applies: (r) whether the group in
question has suffered a history of discrimination; (z) whether individuals "exhibit
obvious, immutable, or
distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group"; (3) whether the gloup is a minority or is
politically powerless; and (+) whether tìre characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to
legitimate policy objectives or to an individual's "ability to perform or contribute to society." See Bouen
u.Gilliard,+BSU.S.
SB7,6c2-0g(rqBZ);AtAofCleburneu.CleburneLiuinç;¡
Ctr.,473U.S.452,44t-42
(rqBs).
Each of these factors counsels in favor of being suspicious of classifications based on sexual
orientation. First and most importantly, there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposefuÌ
discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities, based on
prejudice and stereotypes that continue to have ramifications today. Incleed, until very recently, states
have "demean[ed] the[] existence" of gays and lesbians "by making their private sexuaÌ conduct a crime."
Lanurence u. Texas,
S39
U.S.
SSB, 57
B (zoo3).
iii
Second, while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts
that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable, seeRichard A. Posner, Sex and Reason tor
(tggz);it is undoubtedly unfair to require sexual orie ntation to be hidden from view to avoid
discrimination, seeDon't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of zoro, Pub. L. No. 11.7-32L, rz4 Stat.
35r5
(zoro).
Third, the adoption of laws like those at issue in Romer u. Eu ans,5t
7
U.S. 6z o (r
996),
and
Lanurence, the longstanding ban on gays and lesbians in the urilitary, and the absence of federal pi-otection
for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation show the group to have limited political
power and "ability to attract the
[favorable]
attention of the lawmakers." Cleburne,473 U.S.at
445.
And
while the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act and pending repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell indicate that
the political process is not closed entirelyto gay and lesbian people, that is not the standard by which the
Court has judged "political powerlessness." Indeed, when the Court ruled that gender-based classifications
were subject to heightened scrutiny, women already had won major political victories such as the
Nineteenth Amendment (right to vote) and protection under Title VII (employment discrimination).
Finally, there is a growing acknowledgment that sexual orientation
"beals
no relation to ability to
perform or contribute to society ." Frontiero u. Richardson,
4r
r U.S. 67
7 ,
686 (tgZ
Ð
(plurality). Recent
evolutions in legislation (including the pending repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell), in community practices and
attitudes, in case law (including the Supreme Court's holdings in Laurenceand Romer), and in social science
regarding sexual orientation all make clear that sexual orientation is not a characteristic that generally
bears on legitimate policy objectives. See, e.g.,Slaternent by the President on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Repeal Act of zoro ("It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual
orientation than they ale by race or gender, religion or creed.")
To be sure, there is substantial circuit court authority applying rational basis review to sexual-
orientation classifications. We have carefuìly examined each of those decisions. Many of them leason only
that if consensual same-sex sodomy may be criminalized under Botuers u. Harduick, then it follows that no
heightened review is appropriate
-
a line of reasoning that does not survive the overruling of Boiuersin
Laturence u. Texas,
S3B
U.S.
558
(zoo3).
it
Othe.s lely on claims regarding "procreational responsibility"
that the Department has disavowed already in litigation as urìreasonable, or claims regarding the
immutability of sexual orientation that we do not believe can be reconciled with more recent social science
understandings.
v
And none engages in an examination of all the factors that the Supreme Court has
identified as relevant to a decision about the appropriate level of scrutiny. Finally, many of the more recent
decisions have relied on the fact that the Supreme Court has not recognized that gays and lesbians
constitute a suspect class or the fact that the Court has applied rational basis review in its most lecent
decisions addressing classifications based on sexual olientation
,
Laturenceand Rorner'.
t i
But neithel of
those decisions reached, let alone resolvecl, tl-re level of scrutiny issue because in both the Court concluded
that the laws could not even survive the more deferential rationaì basis standard.
Application to Section
3
of DOMA
http://www.j usti ce. g ov/pri ntf/Pri ntOut3.j sp 2t5 Exhibit A
Page 2 of 5
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 5 Page ID#: 1017
413012014 US Justice: Print FriendlyVersion
In reviewing a legislative classification under heightened scrutiny, the government must establish
tlrat the classification is
"substantially related to an important government objective." Clark u. Jeter,
486
U.S.
456, 46r
(t9BB). Under heightened scrutiny, "a tenable justification must clescribe actual state
pulposes, not rationalizations for actions in fact differently gr-ounded." United States u . Virginia,
S
1B U.S.
515,535-36(rgg6).
"The justificationmustbegenuine,nothypothesizedorinventedposthocinresponse
to litigation." Id. at
S33.
In other words, under heightened scrutiny, tlie United States cannot defend Section
3
liy advancing
hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent
mandates application of rational basis review. Instead, the United States can defend Section
3
only by
invoking Congress' actual
justifications for the law.
Moreover, the legislative recold underlying DOMA's passage contains discussion and debate that
undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions leflecting
moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and farnily relationships
-
precisely the kind of
stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Cìause is designed to guard against.
v ii
5nn
Cleburne,4T
3
U.S. at
448
("rnere negative attitudes, or fear" are not permissible bases for discriminatory
treatment); see also Romer,5r7 U.S. at 635 (rejecting rationale that lawwas supportedby "the liberties of
landlords or employers who have personal or r-eligious objections to homosexuality"); Palmore u. Sidotti,
466
U.S.
429, 439 GgB+)
("Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly
or indirectly, give them effect.").
Application to Second Circuit Cases
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded
that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on
sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded
that Section
3
of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is
therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to
defend the statute inWindsorand Pedersen, now pending in the Southern Dstrict of New York and the
District of Connecticut. I concur in this determination.
Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section
3
will continue to
be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to
continue to comply with Section
3
of DOMA, consistent with the Executive's obligation to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congless repeals Section
3
ol the judicial branch rendels a
definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior
Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims
raised.
As you know, the Depaltment has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-
enacted statutes if reasonabìe arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect
appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. Howcver, the Department in the past has declined to
defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the
Department does not consicler every plausible argument to be a "reasonable" one. "fD]ifferent cases carl
raise very different issues with lespect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity," and thus there are "a
variety of factors that bear on whethel the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute." Letter
to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew l-ois at
7
(Mar. zz, tg96). This is the rare
case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined
to defend a statute "ilì cases in which it is manifest that the Plesident has concluded that the statute is
unconstitutional," as is the case hele. Seth P. Waxman, Defending Congress,
Tg
N.C. L.Rer'. ro73, ro83
(zoor).
In light of the foregoing, I r¡¡ilì instruct the Department's lawyels to immediately inform the district
coults in Windsorand Pedersenof the Erecutive Branch's view that heightened scrutiny is the appr-opriate
stancLard of review and that, consistent with that standard, Section
3
of DOMA may not be constitutionally
http://ww.j usti ce.g ov/pr i ntf/Prr ntout3..i sp 3/5 Exhibit A
Page 3 of 5
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 3 of 5 Page ID#: 1018
413012014 US Justice: Print FriendlyVersion
appìied to same-sex couples whose marriages ar-e legally recognized uncìer state ìaw. If asked by the clistrict
courts in the Second Circuit for the position of the United States in the event those courts deterrnine that
the applicable standard is rational basis, the Department will state that, consistent with the position it has
taken in priol cases, a reasonable argument for Section
3's
constitutionality rnay be ploffered uncler that
permissive standard. Our attorneys will aìso notify the coults of our interest in providing Congress a full
and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases. We wilì remain parties to the case and
continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the lìtigation.
Furthermore, pursuant to the President's instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I
will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and
my concìusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section
3
is unconstitutional under that
standard and that the Department wilì cease defense of Section
3.
A motion to dismiss in the Windsorand Pedersencases would be due on March Lr, 2or\. Please do
not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
Eric H. Holder, Jr
Attorney Generaì
rDOMA
Section
3
states:
"In
determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or
interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word'marriage'
rleans only a legal union between one man and one woÍran as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse'
refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
rt
See, e.g., Dragouich u. tJ.S. Departtnent of the Treasury
,
zo r r WL 1T
5So2
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, zott); G|II u
Office of PersonnelManagernent,6ggF. Supp. zdgZ
4
(D. Mass. zoro); Smeltu. County of Orange,gT4F.
Supp.zd 86r, BBo (C.D. Cal.,zooS);Wilsonu.Ake,354 F.Supp.zdtzg9, rgoB (M.D. Fla. zoo5);Inre
Kandu,3r5 B.R. 129, r45 (Bkrtcy. W.D. Wash.2oo4); Inre Leuenson,5BT F.3d
925,
qgr (gth Cir. E.D.R.
Plan Administrative Ruling 2oo9).
uìWhile
significant, that history of disclimination is different in some respects from the discrimination that
burdenedAfrican-Americansandwomen. SeeAdarandConstructors,Inc.u.Pene,5r5U.S. zoo,2t6
(rgqS) (classifications based on race "must be viewed in light of the historical fact that the central purpose
of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate racial discrimination emanating from ofñcial sources in the
States," and "ft]his strong policy renders racial classifications 'constitutionally suspect."'); United States u.
Vir:ginia,5rB U.S.
S1S, S31
(tgg6) (obselving that
"'our
Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of
sex discrimination"'and pointing out the denial of the light to vote to women until rgzo). In the case of
sexual orientation, some of the discrimination has been based on the incorrect belief that sexual orientation
is a behavioral characteristic that can be changed or subject to moral approbation. Cf. Cleburne,4T
3
U.S. at
44r
(heightened scrutiny may be warranted for characteristics
"beyond
the individual's control" and that
"very
likely reflect outmoded notions of the relative capabilities of' the gloup at issue); Boy Scouts o;f
Anterica u. DaIe,53o U.S. 64o (zooo) (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("Unfavorable opinions about hc¡mosexuals
'have ancient roots."'(quoting Botuers,
+ZB
U.S. at r9z)).
iu
See Equalíty Foundationu. City of CincituLafi,
54
F.3d z6t,266-67 &n. z. (6th Cir. r995); Steffunu.
Pen'y,4r F.3d 677,685 (D.C. Cir. tgg4);Wooduardu. United States, B7r F.zd ro6B, ro76 (Fed. Cir. t9B9);
Ben-Shulomu.Marslt, BBr F.zd
454,464
(Zth Cir. tgBq); Paclulau.Webstet",B22F.zdgT, rog (D.C. Cir.
tg9z
).
v
See, e.g., Lof7onv. Secretary of t'l"te Dep't of Childrert& Fttrnily Serus.,
SSB
F.Sd Bo4, BrB (rrth Cir. zoo4)
(discussing child-rearing rationale
);
Ilígh Tech Gays u. Defense Intlust. Sec. Clearance Office,895 F.zcl563,
57r
(9th Cir. r99o) (cliscussing immutability). As noted, this Adnrinistration has already disavorved in
http://wurrar.j usti ce.g ov/pri ntf/Pri ntOut3.j sp 4t5 Exhibit A
Page 4 of 5
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 4 of 5 Page ID#: 1019
413012014 US Justice: Print FriendlyVersion
litigation the argurnent that DOMA serves a govelrlmental irìterest in "r'esponsible procl'eation and child-
rearing." H.R.Rep.No.ro4-664,at75. AstheDepartmenthasexplainedinnumerousfilings,sincethe
enactment of DOMA, many leading medícal, ps)'chological, and social welfare organizations have
concluded, based oìr rlumelons stuclies, that chilclren laised by guy and lesbian parents are as likely to be
well-adjusted as childlen raised by hetelosexual parents.
ut,SeeCooku.Gates,5z8F.3d4z,6t
(rstCir.zooB); Aüzens.forEqualProt.u.Bruning,45SF.3dB59,866
(Bth Cir. zoo6);Johnsonu.Johnson,385 F.3d
So3,532
(Sth Cir. zoo4);Veney u.Wyche,zggF.gd7z6,
752
(4Ih Cir. zooz); Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati,Inc. u. City of Ancinnati, rzB F.3d zB9,
292-94 (6th Cir. 1997).
utt
See, e.g.,H.R. Rep. at 1S-16
Qudgment [opposing
same-sex marriage] entails both moral disapproval of
homosexuality and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially
Judeo-Christian) morality "); id. at r 6 (same-sex marriage
"legitimates
a public union, a legal status that
mostpeople ...feel oughttobeillegitimate" and"put[s] astamp of approval ... on aunionthatmany
people . . . thinh is immoral"); id.at rS ("Civil laws that perrnit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor
a collective moral judgment about human sexuality"); fd. (reasons behind heterosexual marriage-
procreation and child-rearing-are
"in
accord with nature and hence have a moral component"); id. at
3r
(favorably citing the holding in Bor¿ersthat an "anti-sodomy law served the rational pulpose of expressing
the presumed belief . . . that homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable"); id. at 17 n.56 (favorably
citing statement in dissenting opinion in Romerthat
"lt]his
Court has no business . . . pronouncing that
'animosity'
toward homosexuality is evil").
tt-229 Attorney General
http:/Áama,v.j usti ce.g ov/pr i ntf/Pri ntout3.j sp
FIE
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 5
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 5 of 5 Page ID#: 1020
Real Estate Renlals Cars Today's P¿per Goìng Out Gu¡de Fnd&Sa./e
Tlr¡litics iì.,iiiì.,.:.. l:¡::, ' ::: .'
GovBeat
The Puise of lìtirte ¡rnri L ocal Govcr-rì rreni
Archir,es f w h
Harm 3ü,ttü ffionus tuüiles
Seven attorneys
gen
eral won't defend their
own state's gay-marriage
bans
BY NIRAJ CHOKSHI g i:'r¡r :r.rv lìlj.ri .:l: J I i,rl
f w B
More -
I
Comments
Sh¡¡ror¡ Bt:rli. ieft, ard ir,l<;íiyW;;¡1îef errl)i¡riì+d outside iiìo liu¡;rorne Gor.¡fi i¡Ìst.JL¡¡'i. rjfter llì¿ courl aleârsrl thc
rvaylorsarre-sr,rx r,íJïia.cje ii (l;lliÍorrli¿j. (,¡rF ll:oloiCha:lr:s îjhari:,¡-.ai)
Ultrlate
S/4/zot7:
Kentucky's attorneg general joinexl the list, rnakíng
seuefl.
Tìre attorneys general of at least six st¿rtes have in lecent yeals saicl they won't defend
.
their states's bans on sallle-sex nrarriage becanse the1, vi91u1a the fetlelal or state
:
constitution.
Olegon Attolnev Genelaì llììen Rosenblurl becalne the laiest to join that gloup olì
Tìrulsday u4ren, in a lììing clrallenging Olegon's ban on same-sex man-iage, she sajd the
st¿ìte "cannot rvithstand a Iecleral constitutiol-ral challenge under any standarcl of
levien'."
Here's how these attorrìevs genelaì
-
the states' Lop larv enforcement officel-s
-
e xpìainecì tìreil lefusal to support tìrcir state's ban on ga1, rnalliage:
Also on GovBeat
Ohio Republ¡cans move to curb early,
absentee voting
Oregon
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 3
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-2 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 3 Page ID#: 1021
"State Defcndants rvill noi defend tìrc Oregon bau on sarne-sex malliage in thrs
litigation. Ratl'rer', the.v i'viìl tal<e the position in their sunììïaly judgrnent bliefing that
the ban cannot withstand a fèderal constitutional challenge under any standard of
revien'. In the meantime, as tbe State Defendants ale ìegally obligatecl to enfol'ce tìre
Oregon Col-r.stitutìon's ban on same-sex uralliage, they will crontinue to do so uuless and
until this Conlt grants thc lclicfsought bl' the plaintiffs."
(I;iling bt' Attornel, Gene ral Eìlen Rosenbìum via the Ot'egoníatr, Feb. zo, zor
4)
Traveling This Spring?
S usaa.ccrlitravel
Shop Crurse Deals Exclusively For
USAA Members. Bool< Todayl
Nevada
Neu'ruìings from the U.S. Suprerne Coult and Ninth Circuit set plecedent that made
Nevada's defense unsustainabìe, accordir-rg to the state's attorney general.
, "When the I'-ederal District Court decided this case in November zorz, the law
regarding treatment of sarne-sex conpìes under tracìitional marriage laws was
, uncertain. But the legaì landscape has since changed. ... After thoughtful t'eview and
analysis, the State has deterrnìned that
jts
arguments
¡¡,r'ounded
upon equal plotection
ancl due process are no longer sustainable."
(Statement by Attomey Genelal Cathel'ine Cortez Masto, Feb. ro, zor4)
Virginia
"I swol'e an oath to both the United States Constjtution and the Vilginia Constitution.
Aftel thorougb legal review, I have now concìudecl that Virginia's ban on mart'iage
betwccn samc scx couples violates the Foulte enth Amcndmcnt of the U.S. Constitution
on t'n'o glounds: malriage i.s a fundanrentaì right being denied to some Vilginians, and
the ban unlau{uìÌr, <liscr-iminates on the basis of both sexuaÌ olientation ancì gender.
... The su¡r¡rolters of Virginia's ban on same-sex tnarriage have algued in their legaì
blief that rnarriage betlvcen a nan and a wor-uan best prornotes lesponsibìe procreation
and optimaì cì-rikl rearing.'I'his argurnent not only dislespects Virginia's sane-sex
couple farnilies, but ii is ìllogical. It is simpìy inconceivable that denying samc-scx
couples the rig,ht to nìarr-v rvill rnake hetel'osexual couples more litely to nrarry and
have cìrildlen."
(Statcrrcrrt b1' Attorney Gener¿rì X,f ark I'lelring,,Ian. zg, zt'tt4)
Pennsylvania
"I cannot ethicaìly defend tlle constitutionalit)' of l'ennsyÌvaria's version of DOMA
where I believe it to be ivhoìì-v nnconstitntìon¿rl. ... It is a lanryer''s ethicaì obligation
unclcr Pcnnsl'lvania's l{ulcs of Profession¿rl Concluct to withdraw from a case in lvhich
the la.,rryer has a tirnclarnental tìisagrccurent rvith the client. ... I knoi,v that in this statc
thel'e ale peo¡rle u'ho clon't believe iu uùat n'e :rre doing, and I'nr not ashing thenr to
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 3
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-2 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 3 Page ID#: 1022
believe in ì1". I'nr asking thcnr to believe in thc Constitution."
(Stitterneut lt¡r :\ttor-nev Genelal Kathìcen Kane, ..lult, 11, 2ol3)
California
"I
declined to defend Proposition I because it violates the Constitution. The Supreme
Cottrt has described nrarriage as a fundamental right r4 times since rUflB. The titne has
conre fbl this li.ght to be allblcled to every citizen."
(Statcrntent b¡r Attorrtey General Karnaìa D. I-Iarrís, March 26, zor3)
lllinois
In t'"vo ûlings on June 1,2012, state Attorney General Lisa Madigan asked that her
office be aìkxved to join tu'o cases against the state's gay marriage ban. Madigan wrote
that the office "r'espectfully
lequests the light to intervene in this case to plesent the
Court with arguments that explain why the cìtallenged statutory provisions do not
satisfy the guarantee of equaìity under the Illinois Constitution."
(Filirrgs by Attorney Genelaì Lisa Madigan via Nletlo Weekl)', June t,2072)
Niraj Choks hi reports lor Go!8eat, The Pos t's s tate and local pol¡cy blog. Before that he had
covered economic, budget, taxand transportation policyfor Nalional Journal. blogged at The
Atlantic and reported on the bus ¡nes s of the nat¡on's largesl law firms in Californ¡a for The
Recorder. Get Go!€]eal news ¡n yûur inbox S¡gn up for our twice-weekly newsletler.
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 3
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-2 Filed 05/02/14 Page 3 of 3 Page ID#: 1023
W*ctIaw"
II25I14 SI'ATESMANJ AI
HeuwRoom
Page I
ll25l14 Statesman J. (Salern, Or.) A I
2014 WLNR 4403929
Loaded Date: 021 11 /201 4
Statesllan Journal (Salern, OR)
Copyright 2014 Gannett
Jarruary 25,2014
Section: Page one
State weighs options on gay marriage ban
January 25,2014
When Virginia's new aftorney general announced this week that he would not defend the state's ban on same-sex
marriages against a legal challenge, it made national news.
Sirnilar hands-off actions were taken earlier by attorneys general in California and Pennsylvania.
Salem Salem
Oregon has taken a diffel'ent tack.But so far, it appears as less than a robust defense of its own ban.
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is scheduled to respond by March l0 to two federal lawsuits challenging the
state constitutional ban, which voters approved as Measure 36 in 2004.Judge Michael McShane agreed this week
to consolidate the cases for argument on April 23 in U.S. District Courl in Eugene.
The cases wele filed a couple of months apart but raise similar issues.Both narne three state officials, including
Gov. John Kitzhaber and the Multnomah County assessor, as defendants.
The sponsor of the 2004 rneasure was the Defense of Marriage Coalition, a political action committee that in-
cluded two officials of the Oregon Family Council.
Although the council has not sought to intervene as a participant in the Oregon cases, "we call on Gov.
Kitzhaber and Attorney General Rosenblum to uphold their oaths of offrce to defend the constitution of Oregon
by defending the people's duly enacted marriage amendrnent," said Shawn Lindsay, the council's legal counsel
and a lonner state leplesentative.
The American Civil Libenies Union of Olegon represents the plaintiff's in one of the cases
@ 2014 Thornson Reuters. No Clainl to Orig. US Cov. Works
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstrearr.aspx?prft:HTMLE&vr:2.0&destination:atp&... 413012014
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 5
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-3 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 5 Page ID#: 1024
II25II4 STATESMANJ AI Page 2
"l thinl( it's a little early to characterize the state's defense of Measure 36," said Dave Fidanque, ACLU Oregon
executive directol'.
"l think we will not have a clear picture until. the state responds to our rrotions for summary judgment," which
allows the judge to decide a case without a full-blown trial or expert testimony. "We could have a decision by
late spring or early summer.Of course, it's up to the judge."
But based on an earlier opinion by the Oregon Departrrent of Justice and the agency's preliminary response to
one of the federal lawsuits, the state's lawyers have signaled that the ban rnay not stand up against the federal
constitutional guarantee ofequal protection ofthe laws.
"The state recognizes that significant and serious questions exist as to the legal defensibility of laws that deny
sarre-sex couples the oppoftunity into civil marriage in Oregon," wrote Sheila Potter, deputy chief trial counsel
for the Depallment of Justice, in a Dec. 13 response to one of the lawsuits.
"These legal questions are ultimately for the court to decide."
On Oct. 16, Deputy Attorney General Mary Williams
--
the No. 2 official at the Departrnent of Justice, who
since has retired
-
advised state agencies that it is "legally defensible" to recognize lnarriages of same-sex
couples performed elsewhere.
"The DOJ lnerno does not answer the question regarding a same-sex couple's ability to legally wed in Oregon,"
Michael Jordan, the state's chief operating officer and director of the Depaftnlent of Administrative Services,
wrote in response. "However, it makes a clear case for all legal marriages perforrned in other states and coun-
tries to be recognized in Oregon."
The opinion is binding only on state agencies.
McShane has not received requests from other organizations to participate as intervenors.But ACLU's Fidanque
said questions ale raised if other parties, such as the Oregon Family Council, seek to substitute for the state.
Background
Last summer, the U.S. Suprerne Court let stand a decision by the California Suprerne Court to overluln that
state's 2008 ban on rnarriage by same-sex couples.The justices never decided that case on its merits, only that
the case did not reach the courl properly.
Neithel Gov. Jerry Brown nor Attorney General Karnela Halris chose to represent Califolnia, and the justices
decided that advocates ofthe state's ban could not step into the case.
@ 2014l'homson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works
l'ttÍp:llweb2.westlaw.corri/plint/printstream.aspx?prft:l{TMi,E&vr-2.0&destination:atp&... 413012014
Exhibit C
Page 2 of 5
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-3 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 5 Page ID#: 1025
II25II4 STATESMANJ A1 Page 3
"lt is clear fi'orn the California case that even if thele were intervenors and a fìnding by the judge that Measure
36 violates the U.S. Constitution, they would not be able to appeaì," ACLU's F idanque said.
The high court, in a separate decision announced the same day, struck down part of a 1996 law barring federal
benefits to same-sex couples.The justices did not decide whether state bans on same-sex marriages in 33 states
violate federal constitutional rights.
Seventeen states and Washington, D.C., allow marriage by sarne-sex couples.
The rnanager of Oregon United for Mariage said that the campaign for a ballot initiative to repeal Oregon's ban
would proceed, regardless ofthe result ofthe legal challenges.
"The lawsuit is entirely in the judge's hands, and as we're seeing in Utah and Oklahoma, federal marriage equal-
ity cases are full of twists and turns," Mike Marshall said. "Even if the judge fìnds Measure 36 unconstitutional,
the discriminatory language that excludes same-sex couples from rnarriage will be in Oregon's constitution until
Oregonians vote to remove it."
The U.S. Suprerne Courl put a stay on the Dec. 20 decision by a U.S. district judge in Utah, pending an appeal
from that state to the 1Oth Circuit Couft of Appeals, so it blocks new rnarriages by same-sex couples.Such law-
suits, including those in Pennsylvania and Virginia, are likely to reach the Suprerne Court eventually.
Oregon lawsuits
One of Oregon's federal lawsuits was filed Oct. l5 by two same-sex couples, both from Portland.Two are wo-
men who want to marry in Oregon; two are rnen who have married in Canada and Washington.They are repres-
ented by Portland lawyers.
That lawsuit was filed the day before the Oregon Department of Justice advised state agencies that they should
recognize all out-of-state marriages, including those ofsanre-sex couples.
The other federal lawsuit was filed Dec. 19, also by two same-sex couples and the Basic Rights Oregon Educa-
tion Fund.Staff lawyers for the ACLU of Oregon, and cooperating lawyers who are employed by other finns,
represent the plaintiffs.
"We were not planning to file a lawsuit in Oregon because we were going f'orward with the (r'epeal) campaign,"
ACLU's Fidanque said. "But two things happened.One was the filing of the first case, and the second was the at-
torney genelal's opinion that the state has to recognize valid marriages from out-of-state."
A couple named in the second lawsuit are Christine Tanner and Lisa Chicl<adonz, whose names also were on the
@2014 Thornson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works
hfrp:llweb2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft:HTMLE&vr:2.0&destination:atp&... 413012014
Exhibit C
Page 3 of 5
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-3 Filed 05/02/14 Page 3 of 5 Page ID#: 1026
II25II4 STATESMANJ AI Page 4
state lawsuitthat resulted in a landmark decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 1998
The appeals couft ruled in that case that state agerlcies, including Olegon Health & Science University, could
not deny benefits to same-sex couples that al'e offered to opposite-sex couples.The decision effectively canceled
a ballot measure that voters approved in 1988 to overturn a governor's executive order banning discrirnination
based on sexual orientation.
Previous state case
A similar challenge to Oregon's 2004ban on same-sex man'iages failed in state cour-ts
Juan Martinez, now development director at Basic Rights Oregon, and 21 others sued in Marion County Circuit
Couft to ovefturn the ban.They argued that Measure 36 resulted in rnultiple changes amounting to a "revision" of
the Oregon Constitution, which only the Legislature can propose.
But they lost in circuit couft in 2005, and the Oregon Courl of Appeals upheld the earlier decision onMay 21,
2008.The Oregon Suprerne Court declined to review it.
More inside
Gay Rights petition gathers the minmuln signatures needed for a ballot rneasure.Page 5A
What's next
Judge Michael McShane is scheduled to hear oral arguments in two cases challenging Oregon's state constitu-
tional ban on marriage by same-sex couples.The arguments are scheduled at 1:30 p.m. April 23 in U.S. District
Court in the Wayne Morse Courlhouse, 405 E. Eighth Ave., Eugene.Entry to a federal building requires govern-
ment-issued photo identifi cation.
The cases, which have been consolidated for the hearing, are Geiger v. Kitzhaber and Rummell v. Kitzhaber
---- INDI]X REFERENCES ---
NEWS SUBJECT: (Government Litigation (lGOl8); Social lssues (lSO05); Legal (lLE33); Gay &. Lesbian Is-
sues (lGA65); Judicial Cases & Rulings (l JU36))
REGION: (Americas (14M92); California (lCA98); North Arnerica (lN039); USA (lUS73); Olegon (lOROl);
U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region (lMll8); District of Columbia (lDI60); U.S. West Region (lWEa6); Utah (lUT90);
Pennsylvania (1PE7l))
Language: EN
@2014 Thornson Reuters. No Clainr to Olig. US Gov. Works
http://web2.westlaw.corn/print/prinlstream.aspx?prft:HTMLE&vr:2.0&destination:atp&. .. 413012014
Exhibit C
Page 4 of 5
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-3 Filed 05/02/14 Page 4 of 5 Page ID#: 1027
II25II4 STATESMANJ AI Page 5
OI'FIER INDEXING: (Salem Salern; Ellen Rosenblurr; Mike Marshall; Michael McShane, Jerry Brown; Mary
Williarns; John Kitzhaber; Kamela Harris; Michael Jordan; Lisa Chickadonz; Dave Fidanque; Juan Maltinez;
Shawn Lindsay; Christine Tanner; Sheila Potter)
EDITìON: I
Word Count: 1297
1125/14 STATESMANJ AI
END OF DOCUMENT
O2014 Thorlson Reuters. No Clainr to Orig. US Gov. Works
Itttp:llweb2.westlaw.com/print/prinlstreanl.aspx?prfi:HTMLE&vr:2.0&destination:atp&... 413012014
Exhibit C
Page 5 of 5
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-3 Filed 05/02/14 Page 5 of 5 Page ID#: 1028
4l3Ol2O14 Oregon Department of Justice - STATEMENT OF OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL ELLEN ROSENBLUM ON THE SUBJECT OF PENDING LlTlG.
Ski¡t tr, c,rrttctttSk¡P lo n1\'iSalton
OrcgÒn DOJ llonÈ
|
\.lcdja
|
('urr.';;l lìclc¡scs
|
20l4lr4cdia Rclcasc
STATEMENT OF OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL ELLEN ROSENBLUM
ON THE SUBJECT OF PENDING LITIGATION CHALLENGING SAME-
SEX MARRIAGE BAN
lìbruary 20, 20 I 4
Cood nromilg. As nuny Oregonians are awarr. f'our couplcs have bronght suit against the state , askillg a
lèderâl coult to fìnd that Oregon's ban on nuniage by couples o1-the sanre scxviolates the rìght of
equality enshrined in the United Statcs Co¡rstitution. I anr nanred as a def'eudant in the lawsuits, a)org
with the Covel¡or, and it làlls on my oflce to appear on behalf olthe state belbre tlìe courl antl auswet
thc couplcs'clairru.
Usually-thoughnotalways-nryofficcdcfèndsthcstatcinlitigation, AsAttonrcy(icncral, lhavc
swonì ar) oath to uphold our slate's constitu(ion. The lawyers in rny offìce have swom the sanre oalh.
The oath we took also rcquiles us to uphold the Constitution ofthe United States
-
rvhich is the supretue
law ofour land. Ofcourse, we all take tlresc oatlìs very seriously.
So it is alÌermuclì careful study and consideratiorì thât I stand bef'ore you totìay to announce tlìat the
Oregon Deparlnrent of Justice will not de fend the prohibitìon i¡r our state 's constjtutror agailrst muÏiagcs
bctwccn pco¡rlc of thc sanrc scx A docunrcnt callcd an "answcr" filcd with thc coutl carlicr this morring
infonræd Judge McShanc ofonr dccìsion. Copics arc availablc loryou.
Ilecause ouroffice also rcprcscnls the peo¡rle olOregon, a blief'e4rlanatiotr is in order.
The F4ual Protection Clause of the U.S. Constjtution gives
¡reoplc
the right to be trcated equally by their
goverrrrcnt, ullless tlìere is a good reasor fìrr uneqnal t¡ratnrent.
'fhat
¡s, âny tinìe the govelìrnrent
establishes diffèrent sels of rulcs orlaws f'or diflèrent sets of pcople , tllere rnìJSt at least be what the law
calls a "rational basis" 1òr those differences.
Thc law ir this arca is dcvclo¡ring and ìt is now clcar that thcrc is no mtionâl basìs for Orcgon to relìsc lo
honorthe corrrrihlcnts nudc by sarm-scxcouplcs in thc sârre rvay it honots lhc couulitr¡cnts of
opposìte-sexcouples. Marriage is the way that loving conples beconre farnìly to each other and to their
e)d endcd families, and the re is n o goocl reas on to e xcludc s arle -s ex cou
¡r
les fì om nurrìage in Oregon, or
fronr h avin g th eir- nra[iages reco gn ized hcre.
Because we cannot identify a valid reason 1òr tlle state to plcvert rhe coùples rvho have filed these
l¿wsu its fìom marryin g in Orrgon, u,e fi¡ d ou rs elves u rablc to s tand betòre fèrleral Jud ge M cSh ane to
de1ènd the state's
Prohibition
agailrst rutÙìages between two merì or lu¡o s¡orllel].
We rvill bc oqtlaining our lcgal rcasonlng to Judgc McShanc âs th
js
casc procccds. Thosc of you who arc
intcrcstcd will bc nrorc tllan wclcourc to rrvrcw our plcâdings as thcy arc filcd. Lcgal papcrs that arc duc
by April rvill fully addrcss our analysrs rnd that ofthe othcr Irarlics
in the tu,o cases that are now
cons o lidatcd.
Thank you.
Plaintiffs' Cornrlaint in Gcigrl c¡. ¿rl r,. Ki¡:iraácr'¿'l ¿1.
Slatc olOrcgon's r\nsrvcr in G¡rlS¿r't'¡ ¡rl r'. Älr:/r¿l,cr .'r ,t/.
I
l:\hibil A
PlaintitïS' OuttplatnÍ h Ilunnall ct. ttl v. Kit:h¿h¿r et ¿l
Slatc of'Ortr.¡on's Ansrvcr in rR¡r¡nrr¿l/ ¿1 ¿/. r, Kl¡:/¡nl¡el e ¿ a1.
Contâct:
Kristina Iìnrnrson,lJcpailnrcrìl o1'.lustice, Kristina.lrlnrunsoní¿¿itlo.i.state.or.us.503-378-6002
http://rr,nrvu.doj.state.or.us/rel eas es I P ag es l2O1 4lrel 02201 4.aspx 111
Exhibit D
Page 1 of 1
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-4 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 1 Page ID#: 1029
4t30t2014 Gay Couples File Federal Suit To O\,erturn Oreg on Ban on Same.Sex Marriag e
Clit:I; lr¡ 11r'inl
tctober 151h, 2013lby.'\lìDltl;.rr I)^li l',l,\/{}lil} þiews
lPosted
ln: Actívisnr, Gay Rights, Politics, PtX News, Öaps and Ûourts
Gay Couples File F'ederal Suit To Overturn Oregon Ban
on Same-Sex Marriage
Lawsuit is separate from 2oL4 campaign to end Measure
36
I)e anna Ge ig e r, Ie
ft,
arñ Ja nine Ne l.s o n, rig ltt, ar e o ne o,f tu o
couples askíng a.fedet'al judge to ouerturnMeasu'e 36
-
aliciajr o s e pho to g t aplty . c o t tt
Opponents of Oregon's constitutional ban
on same-sex marriage have filed a lawsuit
in federal court today, asking a
judge
to
overturn it.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene
by Portland attorneys Lake Perriguey and
Lea Ann Easton on behalf of two gay couples,
seeks to have 2oo4's Measure
36
ruled
unconstitutional. It names Gov. John
Kitzhaber and Attolney G eneral Ellen
Rosenblum, as well as a few other officials,
as defendants.
It argues that one couple-Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson-should be able to ìegally
marry. The other plaintiffs, Roberl Deuhmig and William Griesar, were legally married in
Vancouver, 8.C., and wish to have their rights recognized in Oregon.
The suit is separate from the anticipatecl
$rz
million campaign to overturn Measure
36
being
orchestrated by Oregon United for Marriage. Volunteers are collecting signatures to put an
initiative on the ballot next year.
Measure
36
was challenged in state courts; the Oregon Supreme Court tleytiç:tl" an appeal to
hear the case in 2oog. Perrigue¡' says that Measure
36
is a federal question because it
violates the U.S. Constitution.
"We would like a 1ècleral district
judge in Oregon to find that there is no rational, legitimate or
cornpelling governmental interest that r.vould allorn¿ Oregon's anti-gay constitutional
amendrnent to stand," Perriguey says. "It rt'ill not vvithstand constitutional scrutiny."
http://tmwv.tanaieekcorn/portland/pri nt-blog - 30807-pri nt.html 1t2
Exhibit E
Page 1 of 2
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-5 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#: 1030
413012014 GayCouples File Federal Suit To O\erturn Oregon Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Geiger,
54,
and Nelson,
53,
tell WW they have been together for more than
3r
years, and were
amolìg the first in line to obtain rnarriage licenses when same-sex marriage was briefly
legalizecl in Multnomah County. They've faced discrimination their whole relationship, which
began when they met rvorking at a camp together.
Thel' even avoided having children because at the tirne stigrna would have been too great.
They say they support Oregon United for Marriage's efforls, but also want to see if a legal
remedy will see them married in their hometown even quicker.
"We are trying to go this route to see if perhaps we can get it sooner, but either way we're very
supportive of any route," Geiger says.
As WWhas r*porlccl, national gay rights organizers have said that they want as many states
to approve same-sex marriage via the ballot box as possible, in order to show a groundswell of
popular support.
"I believe that securing equal access to marriage in Oregon through a popularity
contest or througþ a federal decision will advance rnarriage equality nationwide,"
Perriguey says. "There's nothing guaranteeing a vote wiÌl come out in our favor, and there's
no guarantee that a legal opinion will come out in our favor. But we're very optimistic."
Oregon United for Marriage says it's aware of the suit and staff has met with Perriguey and
Easton about it.
"\Me share the same goal as the plaintiffs in this case, to make marriage legal for all loving
and committed couples in Oregon," spokeswoman Amy Ruiz says. "No one should be denied
the freedom to marry the person they love."
http.//u,u,r,rr.wu,reekconr/portl and/pri nt-bl og - 30807- pri nt.html 212
Exhibit E
Page 2 of 2
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-5 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#: 1031
Wcsilaw
I2I2OII3 PTLDOGN 82
HeuwEoom
Page I
l2l20l13 Po¡tland Oregonian 82
20t3 V/LNR 31891403
Loaded Date: 1212912013
Oregonian, The (Portland, OR)
Copyright 2013 Oregonian Publishing Co.
December 20,2013
Section: B
No Headline Available
Christian Gaston; Kelly House; Jeff Mapes
The Oregonian
More couples sue to allow gay mariages
Two more couples
-
Lisa Chickadonz and Christine Tanner and Paul Rummell and Benjamin West, all of Port-
land
-
filed suit Thursday in federal couft seeking to ovefturn Oregon's ban on gay maniage.
ln October Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson filed suit along with Robefi Duehmig and William Griesar, claim-
ing the ban violated their rights to due process and equal protection.
Later that month, the Oregon Depaftment of Justice issued an opinion requiring state agencies to recognize out-
of-state gay rnarliages.
"Since the Oregon Attorney General recently concluded that it is unconstitutional for Oregon to refuse to recog-
nize valid out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, we think the time is right for the coult to decide that the
state lnust also allow couples who reside in Oregon to marry here," said David Þ-idanque, ACLU of Oregon ex-
ecutive director.
Lawyers for the couples that filed Thursday hope to combine the two suits into one legal proceeding before the
federal court.
Voters approved Ballot Measure 36 in November 2004, barring the state fi'orn issuing rnarriage licenses to gay
and lesbian couples. Suppofiers of gay marriage are gatheling signatures fol a ballot measure that would over-
tuln that decision.
Christian Gaston
@ 2014 Thornson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http:l/wel:2.westlaw.com/print/printstreanì.aspx?mt:Westlaw&prft:l-ITMLE&vr:2.0&des... 413012014
Exhibit F
Page 1 of 1
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-6 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 1 Page ID#: 1032
Statement from the National Organization lòr Marriage Regarding Oregon Attorney Gene.
w
NOM BLOG
Mariâge Regârding Oregon Anorney General s Decision to Abandon Defense of Mariage Amendmenl
}.¡'r't{)IÀr.
i)li(].\ri¡).i.1: li 1I
l:111ì \1,\1.):i;.\{:l:
lhft
p://M.nationf omarñaqe.orq/l
DONATE! (HTTPS:/ vww.NATloNFoRlMARRlAGE.oRG/DoNAf E4
Ne)!,! En!ry
¡ì.(Þt!Êl¿!ry!4!-re ¡nÞ19s,ç c.{rF-q9-4.-l)
NOM BLOG {HTTPJ/NOMBLOG.COM4
(http://tpetersrecovêru.bloqspot.ca/l
lDLtp..:l¿v¡fl rv.ta-çeÞ-s-s8.ç-o-a¿[!eti-o-nf--oruê.rlìe-se¿l
lh!!p!'/l!, w,{..3ò{¡!!er,.ç..smlN9.M.sp.q.êl9l
!! Pf€viq!¡g Entrv
lhllp://M.nombloq.com/38946/l
Washington, D.C.
-
The following may be attributed lo Brian Brown, pres¡denl of
the Nalional Organ¡zalion for ¡,larr¡age (NON4):
'Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is shamefully abandoning her const¡lutional
duty to defend the marr¡age amendment oveMhelmìngly enacted by lhe people
of Oregon She swore an oath of off¡ce that she would enforce a¡l the laws, not
just those she personally agrees w¡th. The people are ent¡tled to a vigorous
defense of the laws lhey enact, and the marriage amendment is no exception
to lhat solemn obligation. Further, ¡rs. Rosenblum is dead-wrong in her
Statement from the National Organization for Marriage
Regarding Oregon Attorney General's Decision to Abandon
Defense of Marriage Amendment
FEBRUARY 20, 2014 Al 3:35 PM
Like 213
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Febuary 20,2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Mat¡lle Theboll (703-683-5004)
"Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum ¡s shamefully abandoning her const¡tutional duty to defend the
mariage amendment overyhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon. She swore an oath of office that
she would enforce all the laws, not ¡ust those she personally agrees with."
-
Br¡an BroM, NOM
pres¡denl
-
N.ATTOI"NAT,
o1ìü1NI7-,À't'r Oli
IìOIì lJ¿1Iìl{L\(ìD
conclusion lhal the amendment cannot be supported by rational legal arguments. Just last June, the U.S.
Supreme Coufl ruled thal regulating marrìage is the purvìew of the stales, not lhe federal government.
l\¡ost recently, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ordered a decision lo rnvalidate Utah's marnage
amendment to be stayed, strongly signaling that the Court believes there is a good likelihood that the state
will win ¡ls appeal againsl the rulìng ¡ssued by an activist federal judge. Marnage is our only inst¡tul¡on that
ex¡sts to bring men and women together to beneflt the couple and to provide an ideal envjronment for any
children produced by their union lt can and must be defended as a unique, essential and profoundly good
¡nst¡tution."
###
To schedule an interuiew with Br¡an Brown, President of lhe National Organizat¡on for lvlarriage, please contact
Elizabeth Ray, eray.(@cr_çpuþliçLel_q_ti.9n9.ç9.fLímc!!!9.le.Ey,@ç-rç-p.sÞ_!iç_rp.!9!i,o.¡Þ.ç_9.fl.1 , or M alille Thebolt,
mfhgþ_o_l!.(@ç.t'çp_u.þli_cfe!-a!¡_o_ns,.qgm.l¡tl9¡l!9inth9þ_o-l!@çrçpeþl¡qrele.tje¡s,ç9.m)., at 703-683-5004
Pa¡d for by The Nalional Organ¡zal¡on for Marríage, Bnan Brown, presidenl. 2029 K Slreet NW, Su¡Íe 300
Wash¡nglon, DC 20006, nol aulhor¡zed by any cand¡date or cand¡date's comm¡llee. New S
68,4 405(1)(f) & (h).
thltpi{¿w!¡lu,q! mp-!!.ar-þ-!¡ehr, ç.-o ¡,41?
u!¡a...s9!!.rç9 -¡g¡tþ 199-q ul.q!-mgd!u rr-' :Þq.n npr.Ês!m...qal!!-palr
Categories
Adoot¡on
(hlto://www. nombloo. com/cateoorv/adootion/)
Ads
(http://www. nombloq.com/cateqory/ads/)
Afrìca
f ¡-t!p-1wqs.lel0þþs.egrD/cêþsa¡laf içê4
Alerts
{htto://www. nombloq.com/cateoory/alerts/)
Austral¡a
{htto://www. nombloq.comicateoory/auslralia/)
C anada
lhttp://www. nombloo.com/caleqory/canada/)
Cathol¡c Church
lhtto://www. nombloq.com/caleaory/catholic
-church/)
lhttp://M.capw¡z.com/nat¡onformar¡aqe/¡ssues/alerU?
alen¡d=62750806ì
lhltps://donale.nationformaraiaqe.org/donatenom,php?
8EF1Wq00q!çGENÞ31
L¡ke i213i .{11
306
This entry was wr¡tten by Nolvl Staff, posted on at 3r35 pm. frled under Or€go_n
(.b!.tpil-l-www-,¡sq¡1s9,çeml.ç.?!e.ssrllslBle.t.ere9enl.)., P.re'Es..Releases
(hLþil lwtrrry,¡a mþ199,çqml çrlegsry I pre-9.sire!e.asesl.). , S-a ¡4e s-ex..Ma r.f¡age
{¡tßpj/lywwÃ9-mÞl9g,sLLcè\99-.9Íy./ÉmL)-. Bookmark the permalink
lhttpi.ll.www.n.gmÞl9.s.c9m.l.1.g9A?..1.)... Foilow any comments here with lhe R55..feed..fg.r
th¡s posLû!$prl_fuwy¿.!9nÞLog.!9_!1,/*99-911lleeill. Both comments ônd trackbacks are
currently cìosed.
w
lrttp ://www.nornblo g. c oml 3 89 47 I 413012014
Exhibit G
Page 1 of 1
Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 106-7 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 1 Page ID#: 1033

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful