A federal appeals judge found this week in a bias complaint that federal and Oregon bans on same-sex marriages violate the U.S. Constitution.

Harry Pregerson, a judge with the

made the declarations in

against Portland lawyer Alison "Tex" Clark based on her sexual orientation.

Clark, an assistant

, married photographer Anna Campbell last June 23 in British Columbia, where same-sex marriage is legal. On July 12, she applied for federal health care benefits for Campbell, but was denied and subsequently appealed.

"Getting the opinion was a salve for the pain of getting a letter from the government last year saying our marriage was not recognized by the federal government," Clark said Thursday.

More

It's not clear what effect Pregerson's order will have on same-sex marriage bans.

Jeff Manning, spokesman for the

, said the state agency is still evaluating the ruling and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has yet to weigh in.

"Our initial impression is that this will have a limited impact," Manning said. "It doesn't appear that this will have sweeping changes in Oregon because of two factors. The ruling was made by one judge and the case appears to be a federal personnel matter.

"Our main event is still the two pending U.S. Supreme Court rulings," he said.

The high court heard arguments last month on the constitutionality of the

, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits, and California's Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban.

Pregerson handles federal employee matters and ruled as chair of the Federal Public Defenders Standing Committee. The order -- first reported by Willamette Week -- was sealed, but Clark released a copy Thursday and said she would give the court permission to publish it.

The judge noted that Clark got a letter last July 20 from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts denying her request for benefits. The letter cited the Defense of Marriage Act and regulations of the Office of Personnel Management.

Twelve days later, Clark filed a complaint under the government's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan, which covers federal public defenders and staff. She accused the government of discrimination because of her sexual orientation and argued that her treatment violated the U.S. Constitution.

Pregerson ruled that she was correct.

"The only reason Clark was unable to make her spouse a beneficiary under the (employee benefits program) was that, as a homosexual, she had a same-sex spouse," the judge wrote. "Therefore, the denial of Clark's request for spousal ... benefits was based on Clark's sexual orientation, and thus violates the plan's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

Pregerson's decision also analyzed

an initiative passed by voters in 2004. The law changed the Oregon Constitution to say that "only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."

The judge wrote that he found three possible objectives of those behind Measure 36: encouraging responsible procreation; ensuring that children will be raised in stable an enduring families; and providing a "proceed with caution" change to the legal definition of marriage in Oregon.

"While other possible objectives of Measure 36 exist, I can see no objective that is rationally related to banning same-sex marriages, other than the objective of denigrating homosexual relationships," Pregerson wrote. "This objective amounts to a desire to harm a minority group and is therefore impermissible under (case law)."

Teresa Harke, a spokeswoman for Protect Marriage Oregon, a group campaigning against same-sex marriage in the state, called the ruling a "far-reaching opinion."

"It's not striking down Measure 36," she said. "It's a judgement on Oregon's Constitution and our nation's definition of marriage. Those issues are being worked out by the Supreme Court."

Basic Rights Oregon, the state's leading gay-rights group, shares the judge's opinion.

"I think we would agree that the Oregon Constitution is not the place to exclude citizens," said Amy Ruiz, the group's communications director. "Oregonians would agree that everyone should be allowed basic freedoms, such as the freedom to marry."

Ruiz said that while the ruling was a victory, the best route to making Oregon a state that supports same-sex marriage is to put the matter to a vote of Oregonians on the November 2014 ballot. Basic Rights Oregon is collecting signatures to do that.

-- Bryan Denson

-- Everton Bailey Jr.