Pro-Family Attorney: Gov't Collusion in Oregon Homosexual Marriage Lawsuit
by Allie Martin and Fred Jackson
March 29, 2004
(AgapePress) - An attorney with a pro-family ministry says lawmakers in Oregon have been denied the right to intervene in a lawsuit seeking to establish same-sex "marriage."
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of several same-sex couples seeking to establish homosexual marriage in Oregon. Shortly after that, several state legislators filed a motion to intervene in the case in an attempt to protect traditional marriage. But Portland Judge Frank Bearden denied lawmakers the right to intervene in the lawsuit because they refused to sign on to a "fast track" deal between the ACLU and the state's attorney general.
Brian Fahling, an attorney with the American Family Association's Center for Law & Policy, says the decision is one of the most blatant examples of government collusion over same-sex marriage.
"These individuals got together and decided how it would go: who could participate in the lawsuit, how fast it would go, and what issues could be addressed," Fahling explains. "It's called collusion by any other name."
The attorney says following that determination, the case was assigned to a particular judge "who was sent the terms of the agreement that somehow these people had reached in the absence of any lawsuit being filed."
According to Fahling, the boundaries have been set as to who can participate in the lawsuit -- and it does not include his clients. "We were kept out as interveners," he says. "We had Oregon legislators who had a strong claim to intervene in the case and were not allowed to intervene because we would not agree to follow their prearranged plan.
"That would be a denial of our rights to petition our government -- but they thought nothing of that," he adds.
The Center for Law & Policy is working on the case along with Florida-based Liberty Counsel.
On the Massachusetts Front
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage has moved a step forward in the state legislature. Lawmakers in the Bay State voted on Monday to adopt a new version of the ban. It would outlaw homosexual marriage, but would legalize civil unions -- which for many conservatives will still represent a defeat since civil unions would give homosexuals all the legal rights of marriage people.
If this amendment stands, it will still not be voted on by the people of Massachusetts until 2006. So the big question now is: What happens to the Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court ruling of last November?
The justices of the state's high court ordered the state to start allowing homosexual marriages as of May 17, about six weeks away. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has stated he plans to petition the court to have them stay that order until the people of his state have a chance to vote on the amendment.
