PAUL RUMM ELL and BENJAMIN WEST; LISA CHICKADONZ and

CI: IRISTINE

TANNER; BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION FUND, Plaintiffs, JOHN KITZHABER, in his official capacity as Governor Df Oregon; ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity

as

Attorney General

o f

Oregon; JENNIFER WOODWARD, in her official capacity as State Regist rar, Ce nter for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY WALRUFF, in his official capacity as Multnomah County Assessor, Defendants. MCSHANE, Judge: Case No. 6:13-cv-02256-MC (trailing case) The plaintiffs include four Oregon couples seeking marriage in Multnomah County. Although they meet the legal requirements

o f

civil marriage in all other respects, their requests for marriage licenses have been or would be denied because each couple is

o f

the same gender. I am asked to consider whether the state's constitutional and statutory provisions ( marriage laws ) that limit civil marriage to one man and one woman violate the United States Constitution.

1

Because

Or~gon

s marriage laws discriminate on the basis

o f

sexu a( orientation

1

In

1972,

the

Supreme Court found- a la ck

of

substantial federal questio n in

the

appeal

of two

men seeking

to

marry one

another

after the

Minnesota Suprem e Court rejected

their

equal

protection

and due process claims.

Baker

v

Nelson

409

U.S.

810;

dismissing appeal

from

191 N.W.2d 185 {1971). Considering 40 years

of

Supreme Court decisions, the Court's summary order in

Baker

yields no lasting precedential effect in 2014.

Kitchen

v

Herbert

961

F

Supp. 2d 1181, 1194-95

D.

Utah 2013) ( [D]octrinal developments in

t ~

Court's analysis

of

both

the Equal Protection Clause and

the

Due Process Clause

as

they

apply

to

gay men and lesbians demonstrate

that

the Court's summary dismissal in

Baker

has

little

if

any precedential effect today. );

accord DeBoer

v

Snyder

No. 12-CV-10285, 2014 WL 1100794, at *15 n.6

E.D.

Mich. Mar. 21, 2014);

Bishop

v

United States ex

ref

Holder

962

F.

Supp.

2d

1252, 1277 (N.D. Okla. 2013);

De

Leon

v

Perry

No.

SA-13- A-00982-0LG,

2014 WL 715741,

at

*10

(W.O.

Tex. Feb.

26, 2014);

Bostic

v

Rainey

No. 2:13cv395, 2014 WL 561978, at

*10

E.D. Va. Feb.

13, 2014);

ut

see

2

OPINION