Oregon Court tosses gay marriage licences

Yoda

From ABC News

Oregon Court tosses gay marriage licences

Oregon Supreme court throws out gay marriage licences, saying County can't act on its own

By CHARLES E. BEGGS Associated Press Writer

SALEM, Ore.*Apr 14, 2005 —*The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County a year ago, saying a single county couldn't take such action on its own.

The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.

The court noted that last November, Oregonians approved a constitutional amendment that limits marriages to a man and a woman. The court also said that long before that vote, state law had set the same limitations on marriages since Oregon became a state.

"Today, marriage in Oregon an institution once limited to opposite-sex couples only by statute now is so limited by the state Constitution as well," the court ruling said.

The court left the door open for state legislators to craft an alternative to gay marriages, such as civil unions.

"We conclude that Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state's legislative power," the court said.

Members of the Legislature have been awaiting the ruling to give them guidance on how to proceed on the issue.

A day earlier, Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he will push for a law allowing gay couples to form civil unions that would give them many of the rights available to married couples.

Multnomah County began issuing marriages to gay couples last April, arguing that not doing so violated the state Constitution. A judge ordered the practice to cease about six weeks later, but not before nearly 3,000 same-sex couples had wed.

Vermont is the first and still the only state to offer civil unions to gays, passing a law in 2000. Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since last May. Both those changes came about after court rulings.

Kulongoski's backing of a civil unions law expands on his announcement in January that he would support legislation extending anti-discrimination protections to gays.

"As I stated in January, we face a great moral challenge to make sure opportunity is an open door through which every citizen can pass not a revolving door which turns for some and doesn't budge for others," he said.

The state's leading gay rights group, Basic Rights Oregon, praised the governor's decision to move ahead on civil unions legislation.

dictatorcat

That might be happening in the States but this is happening here!

State to challenge lesbian couple's legal action

The Government has decided to contest a legal action brought by a lesbian couple seeking to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland and to have the Revenue Commissioners treat them as a married couple under the tax Acts, writes Carl O'Brien, Social Affairs Correspondent.

Ministers are fearful of the financial and social implications of recognising same-sex marriages. A successful ruling could also have wide-ranging tax implications for the estimated 77,000 cohabiting couples in the State.

The Cabinet agreed to contest the case this week after the Attorney General advised the Government that it had good grounds to fight the action.

A High Court hearing, which is likely to last several days, is expected later this year or early next year.

The decision to contest the action comes despite indications from Taoiseach Bertie Ahern last year that the Government was willing to grant legal recognition for tax and inheritance purposes to couples in same-sex relationships.

Although Mr Ahern said last November that marriage for homosexual couples was "a long way off", he agreed that such couples should be treated fairer within the tax and legal codes.

Census figures for 2002 show that just 1,300 couples described themselves as same-sex cohabiting couples. The census also showed that there were 77,600 family units based on cohabiting couples in the State. Two-thirds of these couples have children.

The Government is concerned at the financial implications of recognising cohabiting couples.

According to a Department of Finance discussion paper, the cost of extending the tax benefits of married couples to cohabiting couples would be €167 million a year.

The Tax Strategy Group, an interdepartmental committee, chaired by the Department of Finance, also said widening the standard rate band and removing married couple tax credit transfers, while also ensuring nobody was worse off than at present, would cost an estimated €2 billion in a full year.

The Department of Social and Family Affairs is also conducting a review into the social welfare code in the context of equal status legislation. Officials say this is likely to "take some years to complete".

In the meantime the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution is examining the issue of legal recognition of gay unions and the place of the non-marital family in Irish law.

The case was discussed at Cabinet this week after solicitors for the couple taking the case, Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan, warned that the State had failed to meet a deadline earlier this year to file a defence for the case.

The Attorney General is understood to have advised the Cabinet it may have strong grounds to contest the action as the Constitution does not make reference to sex and underlines the importance of the family.

Article 3.1 of the Constitution says: "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

Ms Zappone and Ms Gilligan claim there is no legal impediment to recognition of a same-sex marriage. They claim their right to marry and respect for their private and family life have been breached as have their rights to benefits under tax law. The conduct of the Revenue Commissioners and State has, they claim, caused them distress, inconvenience, loss and damage.

The couple say this discrimination breaches their rights under the Constitution, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.