After much activity in recent weeks, the issue of same-sex “marriage” has moved to the sidelines in many states, although only temporarily.
Multnomah County in Oregon remains the only jurisdiction handing out “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples.
Last week, county commissioners voted 4-1 to continue the practice after holding a public forum. The commissioners started issuing licenses in March because they said it was unconstitutional to deny them to same-sex couples.
Multnomah’s stance — which defies the state attorney general’s nonbinding opinion that such “marriages” are illegal — contrasts with a March 23 decision by commissioners in Benton County, Ore., to stop issuing any marriage licenses until a court ruling on the legality of same-sex “marriage.”
“We ask for the public’s patience with this temporary inconvenience,” Benton County Commission Chairman Linda Modrell said at the time.
In California, the issue of whether San Francisco had the right to issue more than 4,100 same-sex “marriage” licenses has largely moved to the California Supreme Court.
The high court has stayed three lower-court cases, including ones that were to have been heard March 29 before Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay. But two more cases, brought by the city of San Francisco and newly “married” same-sex couples, are still active in San Francisco Superior Court. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has asked the high court to stay those cases, too.
In Massachusetts, May 17 remains a landmark date. That is when state officials are expected to start issuing legal licenses to same-sex couples, in compliance with a Nov. 18 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Last week, Massachusetts lawmakers passed a bill to change the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and create civil unions for same-sex couples. But, because of state laws, such an amendment cannot be voted on until November 2006 at the earliest.
This creates the likelihood of 31 months of homosexual “marriages” that could become illegal after November 2006.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had said he wanted state Attorney General Tom Reilly to ask the high court to stay its Nov. 18 decision until a constitutional vote; however, Mr. Reilly quickly said he would not make such a request.
Mr. Romney told reporters last week that he is now considering “other options.”
Mr. Reilly said last week that he believes out-of-state homosexual couples cannot “marry” in Massachusetts because of a 1913 residency law. That law says out-of-state couples cannot marry in Massachusetts if they cannot be married in their home state.
Homosexual-rights advocates have downplayed the significance of the residency law, saying states normally recognize each others’ marriages.
Meanwhile, in recent weeks:
• Lawmakers in Utah and Georgia have passed constitutional amendments to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and reject out-of-state same-sex unions. Voters will go to the polls on these amendments in November.
• Wisconsin lawmakers passed a similar marriage amendment, but it must be approved by next year’s legislature before it can go to voters, similar to the process in Massachusetts.
• State legislatures in Alabama, Missouri and Mississippi are among those still considering state marriage amendments, while lawmakers in Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Wyoming have defeated such amendments.
• Traditional-values advocates are planning pro-marriage ballot initiatives this year in Arkansas, Montana and Oregon.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.