Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 1 of 30 Page ID#: 1

Thomas R. Johnson, OSB No. 010645 TRJohnson@perkinscoie.com Kristina J. Holm, OSB No. 112607 KJHolm@perkinscoie.com Misha Isaak, OSB No. 086430 MIsaak@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: 503.727.2000 Facsimile: 503.727.2222
Jennifer Middleton, OSB No. 071510 JMiddleton@jjlslaw.com JOHNSON JOHNSON & SCHALLER PC 975 Oak Street, Suite 1050 Eugene, OR 97401 Telephone: 541.683.2506 Facsimile: 541.484.0882
Cooperating attorneys on behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc.

Kevin Díaz, OSB No. 970480 KDiaz@aclu-or.org ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON, INC. P.O. Box 40585 Portland, OR 97240 Telephone: 503.227.6928 Facsimile: 503.227.6948
Rose Saxe * RSaxe@aclu.org Amanda Goad * AGoad@aclu.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212.549.2627 Facsimile: 212.549.2650
* Pro hac vice applications to be submitted

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

PAUL RUMMELL and BENJAMIN WEST; LISA CHICKADONZ and CHRISTINE TANNER; BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION FUND,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN KITZHABER, in his official capacity as Governor of Oregon; ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Oregon; JENNIFER WOODWARD, in her official capacity as State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY WALDRUFF, in his official capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,
Defendants.

No. ____________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

1- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 2 of 30 Page ID#: 2

I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs Paul Rummell and Benjamin West, and Lisa Chickadonz and Christine

Tanner are two loving, committed same-sex couples. Plaintiff Basic Rights Education Fund is a

not-for-profit organization that works to advance the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender Oregonians through education and advocacy. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution caused by the exclusion of

same-sex couples from the freedom to marry under the laws of the state of Oregon.

2. Marriage plays a unique role in society as the universally recognized and

celebrated hallmark of a couple’s commitment to build family life together. It confers upon

couples a dignity and status of immense import. Plaintiffs have formed committed, enduring

bonds equally worthy of the respect afforded by the state of Oregon to different-sex couples

through marriage. Since 2008, Oregon has allowed same-sex couples to enter into domestic

partnerships, which offer only some of the legal protections of marriage, and provide none of the dignity of that status. Yet, Plaintiffs and other committed same-sex couples in Oregon are barred

from marrying as a result of existing Oregon statutes and because the Oregon Constitution was

amended in 2004 to single out lesbian and gay Oregonians by excluding them from the freedom

to marry, based solely on their sexual orientation and their sex.

3. On October 16, 2013, the Deputy Attorney General for the state of Oregon issued

a legal opinion that the State could begin to respect the marriages of same-sex couples who

married in other states, because refusing to do so would likely be unconstitutional after the

Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor. The next day, the Chief Operating Officer for the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, Michael Jordan, directed all state

agencies immediately to recognize all marriages performed outside of Oregon, including

marriages of same-sex couples. Nevertheless, the State continues to refuse to allow same-sex

2- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 3 of 30 Page ID#: 3

couples to marry in Oregon. Further, Mr. Jordan’s directive binds only state agencies, not other entities like courts and local governments.
4. The exclusion from marriage inflicts serious and irreparable harms upon same-sex couples and their children. For example, Plaintiffs Paul and Ben are unmarried, and wish to marry for the same reasons as different-sex couples — to publicly declare their love and commitment before their family, friends, and community, and to give one another and their child L.B. the security and protections that only marriage provides.
5. Plaintiff Basic Rights Education Fund (“Basic Rights”) is a statewide civil rights organization that has a long history of public education and advocacy for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. These efforts include opposition to restrictions on marriage for same-sex couples. Basic Rights opposed amending the Oregon Constitution to exclude same-sex couples from marriage, and it is active in ongoing efforts to repeal that provision.
6. Our courts and our society have discarded, one by one, marriage laws that violated the Constitution’s mandate of equality, such as anti-miscegenation laws and laws that denied married women legal independence and the right to make decisions for themselves. History has taught us that the vitality of marriage does not depend on maintaining such discriminatory laws. To the contrary, eliminating these unconstitutional restrictions has enhanced the institution. Ending the exclusion of lesbian and gay couples from marriage is no different. Indeed, as of today, in 17 states and the District of Columbia, same-sex couples are marrying and the institution of marriage continues to thrive.
7. Plaintiffs seek equal access to marriage as the only means to secure their rights to due process and equal protection of the law, and to eliminate the myriad serious harms inflicted on them by the marriage ban and Defendants’ enforcement of it. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the State’s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage through the Oregon Constitution

3- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 4 of 30 Page ID#: 4

and Oregon statutes violates the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
II. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs
8. Paul Rummell (“Paul”) and Benjamin West (“Ben”) are a gay couple residing in Portland, Oregon. Paul, age 43, is a veteran of the United States Air Force, in the past worked in the theatre arts, and for the last nine years has been working in the renewable energy field. Ben, age 35, worked for twelve years in the financial services industry and is currently in a program he expects to complete in 2015 to become a registered nurse. Paul and Ben were born and raised in Oregon and had religious upbringings.
9. Paul and Ben met during Gay Pride in 2006. Paul does not usually attend Pride but decided to go with some friends because of the unseasonably good weather. As soon as Ben walked into a pub after a Pride block party, Paul was struck by his presence. They started up a conversation and Paul was touched by the fact that Ben had spent time earlier in the day with his father because it was Father’s Day. Their first date, the following evening, ended with a single kiss after walking around Portland for hours. They began seeing each other regularly and after three months they decided to live together.
10. Paul and Ben have combined their finances. Even though they live as one household, they were denied a low-interest veteran’s loan because they needed to include Ben’s income to qualify. However, they were unable to include his income because they were not married. They ultimately did purchase a house, but not at the more favorable veteran’s interest rate. Fortunately, Paul’s employer provides domestic partner insurance benefits, but Paul and Ben are concerned about what might happen to their medical coverage if Paul has to change jobs sometime in the future.
11. In 2010, Paul and Ben knew they wanted to be committed to one another. Even though they could not marry under Oregon law, or their respective faiths, they decided to hold a

4- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 5 of 30 Page ID#: 5

wedding-like ceremony to declare their love and commitment to each other. The ceremony took place on August 21, 2010, with family and friends present. Paul and Ben asked Portland’s thenMayor Sam Adams to officiate to make the proceedings feel more legitimate. Although Paul’s parents attended, Ben’s declined. Paul was raised to believe in the sanctity of marriage and he very much wants to have a civil marriage because of what it represents.
12. Early in their relationship Paul and Ben were candid about their desire to be fathers. They ultimately decided they wanted to become foster parents to focus on helping children who had been dealt a particularly difficult hand in life. Paul and Ben completed all of the training, home studies, and background checks necessary to begin caring for children in their home. In the course of about a year-and-a-half, they had long-term placements of three children and provided respite care for almost ten additional children.
13. In June of 2012, L.B., a six-year old boy with serious behavioral issues, was placed with Paul and Ben. L.B.’s history made the likelihood of finding a long-term placement for him very low. Paul and Ben worked extensively and exclusively with L.B. and in the process developed a deep parental love for him. They decided to adopt L.B. and are now waiting for the last step of the adoption to be finalized.
14. Paul and Ben want to make sure that L.B. grows up in a safe and stable home without the repeated message from society that their family is less worthy of dignity and respect than anyone else’s family. They are concerned about L.B. being teased or bullied by his classmates because Paul and Ben are a same-sex couple and L.B.’s peers may not understand their relationship. When they travel, they are concerned about whether or not their relationship, and especially their relationship to L.B., would be recognized by other people or government officials. They very much want to be legally married in Oregon, not just so that others recognize the love and commitment of their relationship, but so that they will have the important legal protections for each other and their new family.

5- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 6 of 30 Page ID#: 6

15. Lisa Chickadonz (“Lisa”) and Christine Tanner (“Chris”) are a lesbian couple residing in Portland, Oregon. Lisa, age 56, is a nurse and midwife and also is an assistant professor of nursing. Chris, age 66, is currently semi-retired and has had a long career in nursing that included work in clinical, research, teaching, and administrative capacities. Both Lisa and Chris have lived in Oregon for over 30 years.
16. Lisa and Chris met in 1982 and began dating in 1985. In September 1986, they had a private commitment ceremony and exchanged rings. Shortly thereafter, they decided to create and raise a family together. Lisa is the birth mother for their two children. Katie was born in 1991 and Jacob was born in 1994. The couple spent thousands of dollars in attorney fees, home studies, and related expenses to perform second parent adoptions for each child so that Chris would be a legal parent to both children. The couple did what they could to come as close as possible to creating the same legal rights and responsibilities of married couples with respect to the two children.
17. In addition to having raised their children together, the couple shares everything. They jointly own all of their major assets and have planned for retirement and the possibility of medical emergencies with the help of attorneys. Again, they have tried to approximate the same legal rights and responsibilities between each other that married couples enjoy in Oregon. Doing so has cost them thousands of dollars they otherwise would not have had to spend if they could marry in Oregon. These costs are ongoing and most recently involved issues about the couple’s respective wills and health care directives.
18. When the news broke that Multnomah County would begin to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on March 3, 2004, Lisa and Chris did not hesitate. They had wanted to be legally married for years and headed down to the county building the night before. Chris, with a broken leg and a lawn chair, stayed out all night to be first in line. The following morning Lisa brought their children so they could all be together as a family. While waiting in line, the children were subjected to derogatory comments about homosexuality from opponents

6- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 7 of 30 Page ID#: 7

of marriage for same-sex couples. Undaunted, and with marriage certificate in hand, Lisa and Chris were married the afternoon of March 3, 2004, by a minister in their church.
19. Lisa and Chris were surprised at how meaningful it was to them, and to their community, that they were legally married. Their love and commitment was acknowledged, respected, and celebrated by their fellow church members with whom they shared years of involvement. Upon their arrival home from the wedding ceremony, their neighbors joined in the celebration. And both Lisa and Chris experienced a significant difference in how their extended family interacted with them.
20. Family members now understood what their relationship meant to each other and what a central part of their life it represented. When introducing each other as a spouse there was no question of the level of commitment that relationship entailed. Importantly, the state of Oregon also recognized their love and commitment by granting the same rights and responsibilities to the couple as any other married couple. After almost 20 years of not being able to marry, Lisa and Chris memorialized the recognition of their relationship by hanging their framed marriage license in their home.
21. Lisa and Chris were devastated after their marriage was invalidated by the Oregon Supreme Court and the passage of Measure 36, which amended the Oregon Constitution to prohibit state recognition of marriages for same-sex couples. They felt awful that, under the laws of Oregon, their marriage didn’t exist. Their love and commitment was no longer recognized by the State they called home. If someone now asked them if they were married, they would have to say they were not. Their marriage license now serves as a painful reminder of the fact that they are not married, so they took it down.
22. After the Oregon Legislature passed a domestic partnership law in 2007, Lisa and Chris considered whether or not they should register. They knew what it was to be married and recognized that registering was not the same. Lisa and Chris decided to wait until they could get married again; they wanted the real thing.

7- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 8 of 30 Page ID#: 8

23. Lisa and Chris have been together for almost 30 years. They have raised a family and plan to spend the rest of their lives together. They want to get legally married in Oregon, amongst friends and family, in their church, and by their minister.
24. Plaintiff Basic Rights Education Fund (“Basic Rights”) is a not-for-profit organization formed under the laws of Oregon. Basic Rights is a statewide civil rights organization dedicated to education about and advocacy for equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Oregonians. Basic Rights’ mission statement provides that it “will ensure that all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Oregonians experience equality by building a broad and inclusive politically powerful movement, shifting public opinion, and achieving policy victories.”
25. Basic Rights has been deeply involved in advocating for the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Oregon. In 2004, before the Oregon Constitution was amended to prohibit state recognition of marriage for same-sex couples, Basic Rights worked with the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners and its legal counsel to assess the constitutionality of Oregon’s marriage statute. The County’s counsel and the State’s legislative counsel both concluded that Oregon’s marriage statute was unconstitutional and the County began to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. When the State Registrar refused to register the licenses, Basic Rights’ affiliate entity Basic Rights Oregon (“BRO”), along with the American Civil Liberties Union and nine same-sex couples, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. Later that year, Basic Rights and BRO helped to organize the campaign in opposition to Measure 36 — the ballot initiative that amended the Oregon Constitution to prohibit state recognition of marriages for same-sex couples. After narrowly losing that campaign, Basic Rights was an organizing force behind a lawsuit that challenged the validity of Measure 36 under the Oregon Constitution (although Basic Rights was not a named party in the suit). Basic Rights continues to work to repeal or overturn Measure 36.

8- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 9 of 30 Page ID#: 9

26. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage injures both Basic Rights’ constituents and Basic Rights itself. For instance:
a. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage promotes an impression that gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are less than equal members of the civic community, entitled to diminished respect and inferior rights. This exclusion disproportionately impacts people of color, who are more likely to be raising children and living in poverty, further isolating communities already experiencing the impacts of systemic racism, homophobia, and transphobia. This creates additional work for Basic Rights inasmuch as Basic Rights must organize in the community to promote the equal dignity of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals, and resist the message of inequality conveyed by the State’s marriage laws.
b. As a result of the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, Basic Rights had to innovate and advocate for an alternative, inferior mechanism to ensure rights of same-sex couples: the Oregon Family Fairness Act, ORS 106.300. Raising awareness about and promoting the passage of this legislation required a significant expenditure of resources by Basic Rights.
c. The Oregon Family Fairness Act creates significant confusion about the status and rights of same-sex couples. Basic Rights must expend resources educating the public, including same-sex couples, about what domestic partnerships are and what rights they do and do not provide. For instance, Basic Rights created a Domestic Partnership Resource Guide to educate people about the unfamiliar institution. In addition, Basic Rights participated with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries to convene various state agencies to re-write forms and state websites. Basic Rights also regularly fields inquiries about Oregon domestic partnerships and assists same-sex couples who have been subject to unequal

9- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 10 of 30 Page ID#: 10

treatment in violation of the Oregon Family Fairness Act. These efforts require the expenditure of significant resources by Basic Rights. d. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage also imposes significant and unique burdens on transgender people who are in or wish to enter permanent relationships, many of whom confront uncertainty about the legal status of their marriages. Due to the complexity and cost of changing gender markers on legal identification documents, transgender Oregonians seeking relationship recognition are rarely able to do so with certainty, leaving their relationships vulnerable. Basic Rights expends resources advising transgender people on their relationship rights. e. The right of same-sex couples to marry in Oregon is of such fundamental importance to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Oregonians that it requires the majority of the organizational capacity and resources available to Basic Rights for public education and advocacy. This limits the organization’s ability to engage in other critical work. For instance, Basic Rights worked to advance the Oregon Safe Schools Act of 2009 to create a safe environment for all students in Oregon. This has been an organizational priority, especially in light of incidents of gay and transgender youth being bullied and committing suicide. Nonetheless, nearly five years after the law’s passage, more than one-third of Oregon school districts are still not in compliance with the law. If same-sex couples had the freedom to marry in Oregon, Basic Rights could devote significantly more resources to addressing this and other important issues. B. Defendants 27. Defendant John Kitzhaber is sued in his official capacity as Governor of the state of Oregon. He is vested with the chief executive power of the State, and has the duty to see that the State’s laws, including the marriage ban, are faithfully executed. Or. Const. art. V, §§ 1, 10.

10- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 11 of 30 Page ID#: 11

Governor Kitzhaber and his subordinates also bear the authority and responsibility for the formulation and administration of the policies of the executive branch, including administrative agency policies relating to health insurance coverage, vital records, tax obligations, state employee benefits programs, and regulation of health professions — all of which involve recognizing marital status. ORS 180.060(10). Governor Kitzhaber appoints the heads of various agencies with responsibility for recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples and may remove those appointees for various reasons, including for how they administer laws relating to the ability of same-sex couples to marry, or to have their valid marriages from other jurisdictions recognized. Governor Kitzhaber also has authority to remove from office members of boards, commissions, councils and collegial bodies for misconduct, including a failure to comply with the obligations of the federal Constitution. Governor Kitzhaber is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
28. Defendant Ellen Rosenblum is sued in her official capacity as the Attorney General for the state of Oregon. As the chief legal officer of the state of Oregon, her duties include enforcement of the State’s laws, including the marriage exclusion. ORS 180.060, 180.210. She also has “[f]ull charge and control of all the legal business of all departments, commissions and bureaus of the [S]tate,” including advising such departments, commissions, and bureaus of their obligations under the U.S. Constitution. ORS 180.220(1)(b). She also has the power to enforce obligations created by the U.S. Constitution through her ability to initiate suit to protect the interests of the State’s citizens. ORS 180.220, 180.240. Ms. Rosenblum is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
29. Defendant Jennifer Woodward is sued in her official capacity as the State Registrar, Center of Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority (“State Registrar”). Ms. Woodward’s duties include directing and supervising the Center for Health Statistics and its

11- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 12 of 30 Page ID#: 12

system of vital records; directing, supervising, and controlling the activities of all persons pertaining to the operation of the system of vital records. ORS 432.030. She is responsible for furnishing forms for the marriage license, marriage certificate, and application for marriage license used in the State. ORS 432.405(2). All marriages performed in the State must be filed with the State Registrar and she is responsible for registering marriage records that have been filed. ORS 432.405(1). Ms. Woodward must ensure compliance through all of these functions with relevant state laws, including those that currently exclude same-sex couples from marriage. Ms. Woodward is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
30. Defendant Randy Waldruff is sued in his official capacity as the County Assessor for Multnomah County. Mr. Waldruff’s duties include issuing marriage licenses; levying and collecting a fee on each marriage license; solemnizing marriages; maintaining records relating to marriages licensed in the county; and forwarding a record of each marriage to the State Registrar. Mr. Waldruff must comply with state law in performing his duties, including those laws that exclude same-sex couples from marriage. Mr. Waldruff is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
31. Defendants, through their respective duties and obligations, are responsible for enforcing the State’s marriage ban. Each Defendant, and those subject to their direction, supervision, and control, intentionally performed, participated in, aided and/or abetted in some manner the acts alleged here, proximately caused the harm alleged herein, and will continue to injure Plaintiffs irreparably if not enjoined. Accordingly, the relief requested herein is sought against each Defendant, as well as all persons under their supervision, direction, or control, including but not limited to their officers, employees, and agents.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 32. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United States Constitution.

12- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 13 of 30 Page ID#: 13

33. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
34. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because Defendant Kitzhaber maintains official offices in Marion County, Oregon, and all Defendants reside within the state of Oregon; and because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims took place within this District and Division.
35. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
36. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are domiciled in the State.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Plaintiff-couples’ Eligibility to Marry
37. Plaintiff-couples are residents of Oregon who experience the same joys and challenges of family life as their heterosexual neighbors, co-workers, and other community members who freely may marry. Plaintiffs are productive, contributing citizens who support their families and nurture their children, but must do so without the same legal shelter, dignity, and respect afforded by the State to other families through access to the universally celebrated status of marriage. The State’s exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage, and Defendants’ enforcement of that exclusion, subjects Plaintiffs to an inferior “second class” status relative to the rest of the political community and deprives them and their children of equal dignity, security, and legal protections afforded to other Oregon families.
38. But for the fact that they are of the same sex, both of the Plaintiff-couples — Paul and Ben, and Lisa and Chris — are legally qualified to marry under the laws of the Oregon, and wish to marry in this State. Each is over the age of 17, fully competent, and is not precluded

13- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 14 of 30 Page ID#: 14

from marriage as a result of having another spouse or being closely related to the other. They are
willing to provide the requisite information to receive a marriage license and to pay the required
fee. They are able and eager to assume the responsibilities of marriage.
B. The Oregon Marriage Ban
39. In 2004, following a ballot initiative campaign, voters approved Measure 36, an
amendment to the Oregon Constitution providing: “It is the policy of Oregon, and its political
subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally
recognized as marriage.” Or. Const. art. 15 § 5a.
40. Measure 36 passed narrowly. Proponents of Measure 36 secured its passage by
leveraging public fear of and animus against gay men and lesbians. For instance, proponents
submitted the following statements for publication in the statewide Voters’ Pamphlet regarding
Measure 36:
a. “If we normalize homosexual marriage, the state will be forced to place foster children in same-sex households. Schools, and society, will be teaching the next generation the ‘equality’ of same-sex marriage, changing our views of the importance of gender and the nature of family. It will cause kids to question their sexual identity, and increase experimentation with a behavior that is neither emotionally nor physically healthy.”
b. “To radically and fundamentally change the definition of marriage to include what God considers an ‘abomination’ is to reject God’s purpose in marriage for men, women, children, and a nation. … Providing equivalent legal standing to unnatural relationships will force devastating and irreversible changes to our society.”
c. “Vote YES on [Measure] 36, Because It’s the Way Nature Meant it to Be. A Marriage between a man and woman is more than just about a loving relationship, it’s also about the laws of nature.”
d. “MYTH: Homosexuals suffer serious harm because they’re denied the protections of marriage. / REALITY: Many of the ‘protections’ granted by marriage are already available to same-sex couples through the use of private contractual arrangements ….”

14- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 15 of 30 Page ID#: 15

e. “[Same-sex marriage] is a vast, untested social experiment on children. … It is never wise or compassionate to intentionally subject children to social experimentation.”
f. “If … the Oregon Constitution requires two individuals of the same sex be [sic] able to marry simply because they want to, it is difficult to argue larger groups of individuals of any sex (polygamy or ‘polyamory’) should not also be able to join in group marriage.”
g. “Defining marriage as between one female and one male does not violate anyone’s civil rights. … For example, no one can marry their [sic] sister, brother, mother or father. A parent cannot marry his or her children. And it’s not considered discrimination to forbid marrying a child or having two spouses.”
41. Also, a recurring claim in Voters’ Pamphlet statements was that scientific studies
had proven same-sex relationships to be unhealthy and bad for children being raised by same-sex
parents. This and similar claims were and are untrue.
42. The Oregon marriage statute provides that “[m]arriage is a civil contract entered
into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age.” ORS
106.010. Numerous other Oregon statutes refer to a husband and wife. For instance, ORS
106.150(1) requires the parties to a marriage to declare that “they take each other to be husband
and wife.” Similarly, under ORS 106.041(1), the authorization accompanying a properly-issued
marriage license requires the official conducting the marriage ceremony “to join together as
husband and wife the persons named in the license.”
43. In 2008, the Oregon legislature passed the Oregon Family Fairness Act, which
provides same-sex couples with some of the legal protections and obligations of marriage by
creating a parallel institution of domestic partnerships. ORS 106.300. The Family Fairness Act
clearly states that a domestic partnership is not a marriage. ORS 106.305(7). In fact, the
legislative findings of the statute explicitly “recognize[] that numerous distinctions will exist
between these two legally recognized relationships. The Legislative Assembly recognizes that

15- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 16 of 30 Page ID#: 16

the legal recognition of domestic partnerships under the laws of this state may not be effective beyond the borders of this state and cannot impact restrictions contained in federal law.” Id.
44. On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal “Defense of Marriage Act,” which had prevented the federal government from respecting the valid marriages of same-sex couples.
45. On October 17, 2013, the Deputy Attorney General issued an opinion letter to the Chief Operating Office of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services. That letter states that because Oregon generally respects out-of-state marriages, the State may respect the marriages of same-sex couples who marry in other states.
46. In the opinion letter, the Deputy Attorney General recognized that Measure 36 likely barred recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, but concluded that the denial of such respect would be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. Specifically, the opinion letter noted that, “we cannot identify any legitimate (much less compelling) state interest in requiring that each marriage recognized in Oregon contain one partner of each sex; no benefit to Oregon results from that limitation, and no injury would result from recognizing the marriages.” The letter continues: “[s]ame-sex relationships are given legal recognition in Oregon, in the form of domestic partner registration. To defend a refusal to acknowledge marriages, the state would have to articulate a state interest in allowing partnerships but refusing to recognize marriages — and again, we cannot point to any such interest that would pass constitutional muster even at the lowest possible level of scrutiny, rational basis review.” C. The State’s Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Inflicts Profound Harm
on Plaintiffs 47. Barring same-sex couples from marriage disqualifies them from critically important rights and responsibilities that different-sex couples rely upon to secure their

16- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 17 of 30 Page ID#: 17

commitment to each other, and to safeguard their families. By way of example only, same-sex couples are denied:
a. The ability to solemnize their relationships through state-sanctioned marriage ceremonies. The denial of state sanction or recognition deprives same-sex couples of important legal protections that automatically come with statesanctioned marriage.
b. The ability to safeguard family resources under an array of laws that protect spousal finances, including for example, the exemption from federal taxable income of the value of health insurance coverage that one partner receives through the other’s employment, and the exemption or deferral of federal taxes on the property of certain elderly or disabled residents.
c. A host of federal rights and responsibilities that span the entire United States Code and the whole realm of federal regulations. Unmarried couples are denied recognition for virtually all purposes throughout the more than 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations relating to marriage, including laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. Many of these deprivations drain family economic resources, causing financial harm not only to same-sex couples but to their children as well.
48. Although the Chief Operating Officer for the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, Michael Jordan, has directed state agencies to recognize all marriages performed outside Oregon, this directive binds only state agencies, not other entities like courts and local governments. Thus, married same-sex couples in Oregon are denied rights and responsibilities of marriage, to the extent enjoyment of such rights and responsibilities is contingent on entities not bound by Mr. Jordan’s directive, whether government or private. By way of example only, same-sex couples may be denied:

17- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 18 of 30 Page ID#: 18

a. The ability to make caretaking decisions in times of death and disaster, including priority to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, the ability to petition a circuit court for an autopsy; the automatic right to authorize interment, and the automatic right and priority to make anatomical gifts of a decedent’s body.
b. The ability to support each other in end-of-life circumstances, such as being assured privacy for visits with a spouse if an individual is in a nursing home, and the right to share a room with a spouse if both reside in the same nursing home.
c. The right to inheritance under the laws of intestacy, to claim an elective share in a deceased spouse’s estate; rights in the family residence pending final determination of the estate; and other survivor benefits, including for example, survivor benefits for a spouse and children of an individual killed while performing firefighting duties.
d. In the event that a couple separates, access to an orderly dissolution process for terminating the relationship and assuring an equitable division of the couple’s assets and debts.
49. While same-sex couples are eligible to enter into domestic partnerships under Oregon law, those domestic partnerships are not identical to marriage, and do not offer the full protections of marriage. For example:
a. Couples who have entered into domestic partnerships under Oregon law will be ineligible for virtually all the federal protections otherwise available to validly married couples.
b. Couples who enter into domestic partnerships in Oregon who travel to other states may not have those relationships respected, to the extent those states do not recognize domestic partnerships or statuses apart from marriage.

18- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 19 of 30 Page ID#: 19

50. In addition to the tangible harms listed above, Plaintiffs are denied the unique social recognition that marriage conveys. Without access to the familiar language and legal label of marriage, Plaintiffs are unable instantly or adequately to communicate to others the depth and permanence of their commitment, or to obtain respect for that commitment as others do simply by invoking their married status.
51. The substantive and dignitary inequities imposed on committed same-sex couples include particular harms to same-sex couples’ children, who are equally deserving of the stability, permanence, and legitimacy that are enjoyed by children of different-sex couples who marry. Civil marriage affords official sanctuary to the family unit, offering parents and children critical means to secure legal parent-child bonds, and a familiar, public way of demonstrating those bonds to third parties. By denying same-sex couples marriage, the State reinforces the view that the family bonds that tie same-sex parents and their children are less consequential, enduring, and meaningful than those of different-sex parents and their children. Same-sex couples and their children accordingly must live with the ever-present possibility that others may question their familial relationship — in social, legal, educational, and medical settings and in moments of crisis — in a way that spouses can avoid by simple reference to being married.
52. Children from a young age understand that marriage signifies an enduring family unit, and likewise understand when the State has deemed a class of families as less worthy than other families, undeserving of marriage, and not entitled to the same societal recognition and support as other families. The State has no adequate interest to justify marking the children of same-sex couples, including the children of Plaintiffs, with a badge of inferiority that will invite disrespect in school, on the playground, and in every other sphere of their lives.
53. The government is a powerful teacher of discrimination to others. By decreeing that the relationships of same-sex couples are not worthy of the protections of marriage and enforcing that policy, the State and Defendants instruct all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including those couples’ own children, that their relationships are less worthy than

19- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 20 of 30 Page ID#: 20

others. Bearing the imprimatur of the government, the State’s statutory and constitutional marriage ban, and Defendants’ enforcement of it, communicates a view that same-sex couples are unfit for the dignity, respect, and stature afforded to different-sex couples, and this encourages others to follow the government’s example in discriminating against them.
54. Many private entities defer to the State’s conferral of marital status in defining “family” for purposes of an array of important benefits, often resulting in the exclusion of samesex couples and their children from important safety nets such as private employer-provided health insurance for family members. The State and Defendants also encourage disrespect of committed same-sex couples and their children by others in workplaces, schools, businesses, and other major arenas of life, in ways that would be less likely to occur and more readily corrected if marriage were available to same-sex couples. D. The State’s Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from Marriage is Not Even Rationally
Related to a Legitimate Governmental Purpose, Let Alone Substantially Related to an Important Government Purpose or Narrowly Tailored to a Compelling Governmental Purpose 55. No legitimate, let alone important or compelling, interest exists to exclude samesex couples from the historic and highly venerated institution of marriage. An individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship does not depend upon that individual’s sexual orientation or sex in relation to his or her committed life partner, nor is there even a legitimate interest in justifying same-sex couples’ exclusion from marriage and the spousal protections it provides on such bases. 56. The Deputy Attorney General already has recognized that denying respect to the marriages of same-sex couples does not benefit heterosexual couples. Different-sex spouses will continue to enjoy the same rights and status conferred by marriage regardless of whether samesex couples may marry in Oregon, unimpaired by the acknowledgment that this freedom belongs equally to lesbians and gay men.

20- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 21 of 30 Page ID#: 21

57. Because the State already grants same-sex couples many but not all of the legal protections associated with marriage through domestic partnership registration, and now respects the out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, denying same-sex couples the ability to secure a marriage license within the state of Oregon advances no possible government interest.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF V. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Deprivation of Due Process U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all of the paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
59. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
60. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
61. Oregon Constitution Article 15, section 5A, ORS 106.010, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples violate the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.
62. The right to marry the unique person of one’s choice and to direct the course of one’s life in this intimate realm without undue government restriction is one of the fundamental liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants’ actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe this right for all lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, interfering with a core, life-altering, and intimate personal choice.
63. The Due Process Clause also protects choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, including each individual’s rights to family integrity and association. Defendants’ actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe upon the deeply intimate,

21- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 22 of 30 Page ID#: 22

personal, and private decisions of lesbian and gay Oregonians regarding family life, and preclude them from obtaining full liberty, dignity, and security for themselves, their families, and their children.
64. As the State’s chief executive officer, Defendant Kitzhaber’s duties and actions to enforce the State’s marriage ban, including those taken pursuant to his responsibility for the policies of the executive branch relating to, for example, health insurance coverage, vital records, tax obligations, state employee benefits programs, and regulation of motor vehicles and health professions, violate the fundamental right to marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, as well as their constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
65. As the Attorney General, Defendant Rosenblum’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with state law, including the marriage ban, violate the fundamental right to marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, as well as their constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
66. As the State Registrar, Defendant Woodward’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with the State’s discriminatory marriage ban by, for example, furnishing forms for marriage licenses that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying by requiring a “Bride” and a “Groom,” and refusing to register marriage licenses of same-sex couples, violate the fundamental right to marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, as well as their constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
67. As the County Assessor for Multnomah County, Defendant Waldruff’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with the State’s discriminatory marriage ban by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses, violate the fundamental right to marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, as well as rights, protected under the Fourteenth

22- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 23 of 30 Page ID#: 23

Amendment to the United States Constitution, to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process of Paul and Ben, and Lisa and Chris.
68. Defendants’ actions thus deny and abridge Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry, and liberty and due process interests in autonomy, and family integrity and association, by penalizing Plaintiffs’ self-determination in the most intimate sphere of their lives.
69. Defendants cannot satisfy the Due Process Clause’s decree that governmental interference with a fundamental right or liberty interest may be sustained only upon a showing that the burden is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling or even important governmental interest, as the marriage ban is not even tailored to any legitimate interest at all.
VI. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Deprivation of Equal Protection U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all of the paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
71. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
72. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
73. Oregon Constitution Article 15, section 5A, ORS 106.010, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples or prevent recognition of their marriages violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. Moreover, by enshrining discrimination in the form of a constitutional amendment, Oregon Constitution Article 15, section 5A, deprives lesbian and gay Oregonians of equal protection of the laws by locking them out of the political process and making it uniquely more difficult to secure legislation on their behalf. The conduct of Defendants in enforcing these

23- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 24 of 30 Page ID#: 24

laws violates the right of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, to equal protection by discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and sex.
74. As the State’s chief executive officer, Defendant Kitzhaber’s duties and actions to enforce Measure 36, including those taken pursuant to his responsibility for the policies of the executive branch relating to, for example, health insurance coverage, vital records, tax obligations, state employee benefits programs, and regulation of motor vehicles and health professions, violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to equal treatment, without regard to sexual orientation or sex, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
75. As the Attorney General, Defendant Rosenblum’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with state law, including the marriage ban, violate the constitutional rights of all lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, to equal treatment.
76. As the State Registrar, Defendant Woodward’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with the State’s discriminatory marriage ban by, for example, furnishing forms for marriage licenses that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying by requiring a “Bride” and a “Groom,” and refusing to register marriage licenses of same-sex couples, violate the constitutional rights of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, to equal treatment.
77. As the County Assessor for Multnomah County, Defendant Waldruff’ duties and actions to ensure compliance with the State’s discriminatory marriage ban by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses, violate the constitutional rights to equal treatment of Paul and Ben, and Lisa and Chris.
78. The State’s marriage ban, and Defendants’ actions to enforce it, denies same-sex couples equal dignity and respect, and deprives their families of a critical safety net of rights and responsibilities. The marriage ban brands lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, as well as their children, as second-class citizens through a message of government-imposed stigma and fosters private bias and discrimination, by instructing all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their relationship is less worthy than others. The State’s

24- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 25 of 30 Page ID#: 25

marriage ban and Defendants’ actions reflect moral disapproval and antipathy toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.
79. Same-sex couples such as the Plaintiff-couples are identical to different-sex couples in all of the characteristics relevant to marriage.
80. Same-sex couples make the same commitment to one another as different-sex couples. Like different-sex couples, same-sex couples fall in love, build their lives together, plan their futures together, and hope to grow old together. Like different-sex couples, same-sex couples support one another emotionally and financially and take care of one another physically when faced with injury or illness.
81. Plaintiffs seek to marry for the same emotional, romantic, and dignitary reasons, and to provide the same legal shelter to their families, as different-sex spouses.
82. Like some different-sex couples, some same-sex couples are parents raising children together.
83. Plaintiffs and their children are equally worthy of the tangible rights and responsibilities, as well as the respect, dignity, and legitimacy that access to marriage confers on different-sex couples and their children. For the many children being raised by same-sex couples, the tangible resources and societal esteem that access to marriage confers is no less precious than for children of different-sex couples. A. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
84. The marriage ban targets lesbian and gay Oregonians as a class for exclusion from marriage and discriminates against each Plaintiff based on his or her sexual orientation both facially and as applied.
85. The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sexual orientation subjects Defendants’ conduct to strict or at least heightened scrutiny, which Defendants’ conduct cannot withstand because the exclusion does not even serve any legitimate governmental

25- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 26 of 30 Page ID#: 26

interests, let alone any important or compelling interests, nor does it serve any such interests in an adequately tailored manner.
86. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals have suffered a long and painful history of discrimination in Oregon and across the United States.
87. Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual’s ability to perform in or contribute to society.
88. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one’s identity and conscience that a person may not legitimately be required to abandon it (even if that were possible) as a condition of equal treatment.
89. Sexual orientation generally is fixed at an early age and highly resistant to change through intervention. No credible evidence supports the notion that such interventions are either effective or safe; indeed, they often are harmful and damaging. No mainstream mental health professional organization approves interventions that attempt to change sexual orientation, and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning professionals and the public about these treatments.
90. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are a discrete and insular minority, and ongoing prejudice against them continues seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes that might ordinarily be relied upon to protect minorities. Gay people have fewer civil rights protections at the state and federal level than racial minorities and women had when race- and sex-based classifications were declared to be suspect and quasi-suspect, respectively.
91. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals lack express statutory protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing at the federal level and in more than half the states; are systematically underrepresented in federal, state, and local democratic bodies; have been stripped of the right to marry through 30 state constitutional amendments and are currently not permitted to marry in a total of 35 states; and have been targeted across the nation through the voter initiative process more than any other group.

26- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 27 of 30 Page ID#: 27

B. Discrimination Based on Sex 92. The marriage ban discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex, both facially
and as applied, barring Plaintiffs from marriage or from being recognized as validly married, solely because each of the Plaintiffs wishes to marry a life partner of the same sex.
93. Because of these sex-based classifications, Lisa is precluded from marrying her devoted life partner because she is a woman and not a man; were Lisa a man, she could marry Chris. Similarly, Paul is precluded from marrying Ben because he is a man and not a woman; were Paul a woman, he would be able to marry Ben under Oregon law.
94. The State’s marriage ban also serves the impermissible purpose of enforcing and perpetuating sex stereotypes by excluding same-sex couples from marriage, or from being recognized as validly married, because those couples fail to conform to sex-based stereotypes that men should marry women, and women should marry men.
95. Given that there are no longer legal distinctions between the duties of husbands and wives, there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility requirements for marriage.
96. The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sex and the enforcement of gender-based stereotypes cannot survive the heightened scrutiny required for sex-based discrimination. C. Discrimination With Respect to Fundamental Rights and Liberty Interests Secured
by the Due Process Clause 97. The marriage ban discriminates against lesbian and gay Oregonians based on sexual orientation and sex with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right to marry, and their liberty interests in dignity, autonomy, and family integrity and association. Differential treatment with respect to Plaintiffs’ exercise of fundamental rights and liberty interests, based on their sexual orientation and sex, subjects Defendants’ conduct to strict or at least heightened scrutiny, which Defendants’ conduct cannot withstand.

27- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 28 of 30 Page ID#: 28

VII. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 57 and 65 98. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all of the paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 99. This case presents an actual controversy because Defendants’ present and ongoing denial of equal treatment to Plaintiffs subjects them to serious and immediate harms, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 100. A favorable decision enjoining Defendants would redress and prevent the irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs identified herein, for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law or in equity. 101. Oregon currently allows same-sex couples to access some but not all of the protections of marriage through domestic partnerships, and respects out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples. The State will incur little to no burden in allowing same-sex couples to marry in Oregon, whereas the hardship for Plaintiffs of being denied equal treatment is severe, subjecting them to an irreparable denial of their constitutional rights. The balance of hardships thus tips strongly in favor of Plaintiffs.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment: A. Declaring that the provisions of and enforcement by Defendants of Article 15, section 5A of the Oregon Constitution, Oregon Revised Statutes 106.010, and any other sources of state law that (1) exclude same-sex couples from marrying, or (2) refuse recognition to the marriages of same-sex couples, violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; B. Permanently enjoining enforcement by Defendants of Article 15, section 5A of the Oregon Constitution, Oregon Revised Statutes 106.010, and any other sources of state law to

28- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 29 of 30 Page ID#: 29
exclude same-sex couples from marriage or to refuse recognition to the marriages of same-sex couples validly married in another jurisdiction;
C. Requiring Defendants in their official capacities to permit issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples to marry, pursuant to the same restrictions and limitations applicable to different-sex couples’ freedom to marry;
D. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and
E. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. //

29- COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382.6

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 1 Filed 12/19/13 Page 30 of 30 Page ID#: 30

F. The declaratory and injunctive relief requested in this action is sought against

each Defendant; against each Defendant's officers, employees, and agents; and against all

persons acting in active conceft or participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant's

supervision, direction, or control.

DATED: f)ecember 19,2013

Th omas R.

B No. 010645

TRJohnson@perkinscole. com

Kristina J. Holm, OSB No. 112607

KJHolm@perkinscoie. com

Misha Isaak, OSB No. 086430

MIsaak@perkinscoie, com

Perkins Coie t-t-p

Telephone: 503.727.2000

Jennifer Middleton, OSB No. 071510
JMi ddleton@jj lslaw. com
Johnson Johnson & Schaller Pc
Telephone: 541.683.2506

Cooperating attorneys on behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc.

Kevin Díaz, OSB No. 970480 ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc. KDiaz@aclu-or.org Telephone: 503.227.6928
Rose Saxe*
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
RSaxe@aclu.org Telephone: 212.549.2627
Amanda Goad* American Civil Liberties Union Foundation AGoad@aclu.org Telephone: 213.977 .5244
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

* Pro hac vice applications to be submitted

30- COMPLAINT
Í.F.GAL28727382.6

Perl<ins Coie l.lp 1120 N.W, Couch Street, Tenth þ-loor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
Phone: 503.121 .2000
Fax 503.721 .2222

 
 Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 1 of 30 Page ID#: 109

Thomas R. Johnson, OSB No. 010645 TRJohnson@perkinscoie.com Kristina J. Holm, OSB No. 112607 KJHolm@perkinscoie.com Misha Isaak, OSB No. 086430 MIsaak@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: 503.727.2000 Facsimile: 503.727.2222
Jennifer Middleton, OSB No. 071510 JMiddleton@jjlslaw.com JOHNSON JOHNSON & SCHALLER PC 975 Oak Street, Suite 1050 Eugene, OR 97401 Telephone: 541.683.2506 Facsimile: 541.484.0882

Kevin Díaz, OSB No. 970480 KDiaz@aclu-or.org ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON, INC. P.O. Box 40585 Portland, OR 97240 Telephone: 503.227.6928 Facsimile: 503.227.6948
Rose Saxe, pro hac vice RSaxe@aclu.org Amanda Goad, pro hac vice AGoad@aclu.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212.549.2627 Facsimile: 212.549.2650

Cooperating attorneys on behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

PAUL RUMMELL and BENJAMIN WEST; LISA CHICKADONZ and CHRISTINE TANNER; BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION FUND,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN KITZHABER, in his official capacity as Governor of Oregon; ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Oregon; JENNIFER WOODWARD, in her official capacity as State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY WALRUFF, in his official capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,
Defendants.

No. 6:13-cv-02256-TC
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

1- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 2 of 30 Page ID#: 110

I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs Paul Rummell and Benjamin West, and Lisa Chickadonz and Christine

Tanner are two loving, committed same-sex couples. Plaintiff Basic Rights Education Fund is a

not-for-profit organization that works to advance the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender Oregonians through education and advocacy. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution caused by the exclusion of

same-sex couples from the freedom to marry under the laws of the state of Oregon.

2. Marriage plays a unique role in society as the universally recognized and

celebrated hallmark of a couple’s commitment to build family life together. It confers upon

couples a dignity and status of immense import. Plaintiffs have formed committed, enduring

bonds equally worthy of the respect afforded by the state of Oregon to different-sex couples

through marriage. Since 2008, Oregon has allowed same-sex couples to enter into domestic

partnerships, which offer only some of the legal protections of marriage, and provide none of the dignity of that status. Yet, Plaintiffs and other committed same-sex couples in Oregon are barred

from marrying as a result of existing Oregon statutes and because the Oregon Constitution was

amended in 2004 to single out lesbian and gay Oregonians by excluding them from the freedom

to marry, based solely on their sexual orientation and their sex.

3. On October 16, 2013, the Deputy Attorney General for the state of Oregon issued

a legal opinion that the State could begin to respect the marriages of same-sex couples who

married in other states, because refusing to do so would likely be unconstitutional after the

Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor. The next day, the Chief Operating Officer for the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, Michael Jordan, directed all state

agencies immediately to recognize all marriages performed outside of Oregon, including

marriages of same-sex couples. Nevertheless, the State continues to refuse to allow same-sex

2- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 3 of 30 Page ID#: 111

couples to marry in Oregon. Further, Mr. Jordan’s directive binds only state agencies, not other entities like courts and local governments.
4. The exclusion from marriage inflicts serious and irreparable harms upon same-sex couples and their children. For example, Plaintiffs Paul and Ben are unmarried, and wish to marry for the same reasons as different-sex couples — to publicly declare their love and commitment before their family, friends, and community, and to give one another and their child L.B. the security and protections that only marriage provides.
5. Plaintiff Basic Rights Education Fund (“Basic Rights”) is a statewide civil rights organization that has a long history of public education and advocacy for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. These efforts include opposition to restrictions on marriage for same-sex couples. Basic Rights opposed amending the Oregon Constitution to exclude same-sex couples from marriage, and it is active in ongoing efforts to repeal that provision.
6. Our courts and our society have discarded, one by one, marriage laws that violated the Constitution’s mandate of equality, such as anti-miscegenation laws and laws that denied married women legal independence and the right to make decisions for themselves. History has taught us that the vitality of marriage does not depend on maintaining such discriminatory laws. To the contrary, eliminating these unconstitutional restrictions has enhanced the institution. Ending the exclusion of lesbian and gay couples from marriage is no different. Indeed, as of today, in 17 states and the District of Columbia, same-sex couples are marrying and the institution of marriage continues to thrive.1
7. Plaintiffs seek equal access to marriage as the only means to secure their rights to due process and equal protection of the law, and to eliminate the myriad serious harms inflicted

1 This number excludes Utah and Oklahoma, where courts have struck down marriage bans, but those decisions are stayed pending appeal. Prior to entry of the stay, same-sex couples were permitted to marry in Utah.

3- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 4 of 30 Page ID#: 112

on them by the marriage ban and Defendants’ enforcement of it. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the State’s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage through the Oregon Constitution and Oregon statutes violates the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
II. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs
8. Paul Rummell (“Paul”) and Benjamin West (“Ben”) are a gay couple residing in Portland, Oregon. Paul, age 43, is a veteran of the United States Air Force, in the past worked in the theatre arts, and for the last nine years has been working in the renewable energy field. Ben, age 35, worked for twelve years in the financial services industry and is currently in a program he expects to complete in 2015 to become a registered nurse. Paul and Ben were born and raised in Oregon and had religious upbringings.
9. Paul and Ben met during Gay Pride in 2006. Paul does not usually attend Pride but decided to go with some friends because of the unseasonably good weather. As soon as Ben walked into a pub after a Pride block party, Paul was struck by his presence. They started up a conversation and Paul was touched by the fact that Ben had spent time earlier in the day with his father because it was Father’s Day. Their first date, the following evening, ended with a single kiss after walking around Portland for hours. They began seeing each other regularly and after three months they decided to live together.
10. Paul and Ben have combined their finances. Even though they live as one household, they were denied a low-interest veteran’s loan because they needed to include Ben’s income to qualify. However, they were unable to include his income because they were not married. They ultimately did purchase a house, but not at the more favorable veteran’s interest rate. Fortunately, Paul’s employer provides domestic partner insurance benefits, but Paul and

4- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 5 of 30 Page ID#: 113

Ben are concerned about what might happen to their medical coverage if Paul has to change jobs sometime in the future.
11. In 2010, Paul and Ben knew they wanted to be committed to one another. Even though they could not marry under Oregon law, or their respective faiths, they decided to hold a wedding-like ceremony to declare their love and commitment to each other. The ceremony took place on August 21, 2010, with family and friends present. Paul and Ben asked Portland’s thenMayor Sam Adams to officiate to make the proceedings feel more legitimate. Although Paul’s parents attended, Ben’s declined. Paul was raised to believe in the sanctity of marriage and he very much wants to have a civil marriage because of what it represents.
12. Early in their relationship Paul and Ben were candid about their desire to be fathers. They ultimately decided they wanted to become foster parents to focus on helping children who had been dealt a particularly difficult hand in life. Paul and Ben completed all of the training, home studies, and background checks necessary to begin caring for children in their home. In the course of about a year-and-a-half, they had long-term placements of three children and provided respite care for almost ten additional children.
13. In June of 2012, L.B., a six-year old boy with serious behavioral issues, was placed with Paul and Ben. L.B.’s history made the likelihood of finding a long-term placement for him very low. Paul and Ben worked extensively and exclusively with L.B. and in the process developed a deep parental love for him. They decided to adopt L.B. and are now waiting for the last step of the adoption to be finalized.
14. Paul and Ben want to make sure that L.B. grows up in a safe and stable home without the repeated message from society that their family is less worthy of dignity and respect than anyone else’s family. They are concerned about L.B. being teased or bullied by his classmates because Paul and Ben are a same-sex couple and L.B.’s peers may not understand their relationship. When they travel, they are concerned about whether or not their relationship, and especially their relationship to L.B., would be recognized by other people or government

5- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 6 of 30 Page ID#: 114

officials. They very much want to be legally married in Oregon, not just so that others recognize the love and commitment of their relationship, but so that they will have the important legal protections for each other and their new family.
15. Lisa Chickadonz (“Lisa”) and Christine Tanner (“Chris”) are a lesbian couple residing in Portland, Oregon. Lisa, age 56, is a nurse and midwife and also is an assistant professor of nursing. Chris, age 66, is currently semi-retired and has had a long career in nursing that included work in clinical, research, teaching, and administrative capacities. Both Lisa and Chris have lived in Oregon for over 30 years.
16. Lisa and Chris met in 1982 and began dating in 1985. In September 1986, they had a private commitment ceremony and exchanged rings. Shortly thereafter, they decided to create and raise a family together. Lisa is the birth mother for their two children. Katie was born in 1991 and Jacob was born in 1994. The couple spent thousands of dollars in attorney fees, home studies, and related expenses to perform second parent adoptions for each child so that Chris would be a legal parent to both children. The couple did what they could to come as close as possible to creating the same legal rights and responsibilities of married couples with respect to the two children.
17. In addition to having raised their children together, the couple shares everything. They jointly own all of their major assets and have planned for retirement and the possibility of medical emergencies with the help of attorneys. Again, they have tried to approximate the same legal rights and responsibilities between each other that married couples enjoy in Oregon. Doing so has cost them thousands of dollars they otherwise would not have had to spend if they could marry in Oregon. These costs are ongoing and most recently involved issues about the couple’s respective wills and health care directives.
18. When the news broke that Multnomah County would begin to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on March 3, 2004, Lisa and Chris did not hesitate. They had wanted to be legally married for years and headed down to the county building the night before.

6- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 7 of 30 Page ID#: 115

Chris, with a broken leg and a lawn chair, stayed out all night to be first in line. The following morning Lisa brought their children so they could all be together as a family. While waiting in line, the children were subjected to derogatory comments about homosexuality from opponents of marriage for same-sex couples. Undaunted, and with marriage certificate in hand, Lisa and Chris were married the afternoon of March 3, 2004, by a minister in their church.
19. Lisa and Chris were surprised at how meaningful it was to them, and to their community, that they were legally married. Their love and commitment was acknowledged, respected, and celebrated by their fellow church members with whom they shared years of involvement. Upon their arrival home from the wedding ceremony, their neighbors joined in the celebration. And both Lisa and Chris experienced a significant difference in how their extended family interacted with them.
20. Family members now understood what their relationship meant to each other and what a central part of their life it represented. When introducing each other as a spouse there was no question of the level of commitment that relationship entailed. Importantly, the state of Oregon also recognized their love and commitment by granting the same rights and responsibilities to the couple as any other married couple. After almost 20 years of not being able to marry, Lisa and Chris memorialized the recognition of their relationship by hanging their framed marriage license in their home.
21. Lisa and Chris were devastated after their marriage was invalidated by the Oregon Supreme Court and the passage of Measure 36, which amended the Oregon Constitution to prohibit state recognition of marriages for same-sex couples. They felt awful that, under the laws of Oregon, their marriage didn’t exist. Their love and commitment was no longer recognized by the State they called home. If someone now asked them if they were married, they would have to say they were not. Their marriage license now serves as a painful reminder of the fact that they are not married, so they took it down.

7- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 8 of 30 Page ID#: 116

22. After the Oregon Legislature passed a domestic partnership law in 2007, Lisa and Chris considered whether or not they should register. They knew what it was to be married and recognized that registering was not the same. Lisa and Chris decided to wait until they could get married again; they wanted the real thing.
23. Lisa and Chris have been together for almost 30 years. They have raised a family and plan to spend the rest of their lives together. They want to get legally married in Oregon, amongst friends and family, in their church, and by their minister.
24. Plaintiff Basic Rights Education Fund (“Basic Rights”) is a not-for-profit organization formed under the laws of Oregon. Basic Rights is a statewide civil rights organization dedicated to education about and advocacy for equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Oregonians. Basic Rights’ mission statement provides that it “will ensure that all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Oregonians experience equality by building a broad and inclusive politically powerful movement, shifting public opinion, and achieving policy victories.”
25. Basic Rights has been deeply involved in advocating for the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Oregon. In 2004, before the Oregon Constitution was amended to prohibit state recognition of marriage for same-sex couples, Basic Rights worked with the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners and its legal counsel to assess the constitutionality of Oregon’s marriage statute. The County’s counsel and the State’s legislative counsel both concluded that Oregon’s marriage statute was unconstitutional and the County began to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. When the State Registrar refused to register the licenses, Basic Rights’ affiliate entity Basic Rights Oregon (“BRO”), along with the American Civil Liberties Union and nine same-sex couples, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. Later that year, Basic Rights and BRO helped to organize the campaign in opposition to Measure 36 — the ballot initiative that amended the Oregon Constitution to prohibit state recognition of

8- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 9 of 30 Page ID#: 117

marriages for same-sex couples. After narrowly losing that campaign, Basic Rights was an organizing force behind a lawsuit that challenged the validity of Measure 36 under the Oregon Constitution (although Basic Rights was not a named party in the suit). Basic Rights continues to work to repeal or overturn Measure 36.
26. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage injures both Basic Rights’ constituents and Basic Rights itself. For instance:
a. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage promotes an impression that gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are less than equal members of the civic community, entitled to diminished respect and inferior rights. This exclusion disproportionately impacts people of color, who are more likely to be raising children and living in poverty, further isolating communities already experiencing the impacts of systemic racism, homophobia, and transphobia. This creates additional work for Basic Rights inasmuch as Basic Rights must organize in the community to promote the equal dignity of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals, and resist the message of inequality conveyed by the State’s marriage laws.
b. As a result of the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, Basic Rights had to innovate and advocate for an alternative, inferior mechanism to ensure rights of same-sex couples: the Oregon Family Fairness Act, ORS 106.300. Raising awareness about and promoting the passage of this legislation required a significant expenditure of resources by Basic Rights.
c. The Oregon Family Fairness Act creates significant confusion about the status and rights of same-sex couples. Basic Rights must expend resources educating the public, including same-sex couples, about what domestic partnerships are and what rights they do and do not provide. For instance, Basic Rights created a Domestic Partnership Resource Guide to educate people about the unfamiliar institution. In addition, Basic Rights participated with the Oregon Bureau of

9- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 10 of 30 Page ID#: 118

Labor and Industries to convene various state agencies to re-write forms and state websites. Basic Rights also regularly fields inquiries about Oregon domestic partnerships and assists same-sex couples who have been subject to unequal treatment in violation of the Oregon Family Fairness Act. These efforts require the expenditure of significant resources by Basic Rights. d. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage also imposes significant and unique burdens on transgender people who are in or wish to enter permanent relationships, many of whom confront uncertainty about the legal status of their marriages. Due to the complexity and cost of changing gender markers on legal identification documents, transgender Oregonians seeking relationship recognition are rarely able to do so with certainty, leaving their relationships vulnerable. Basic Rights expends resources advising transgender people on their relationship rights. e. The right of same-sex couples to marry in Oregon is of such fundamental importance to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Oregonians that it requires the majority of the organizational capacity and resources available to Basic Rights for public education and advocacy. This limits the organization’s ability to engage in other critical work. For instance, Basic Rights worked to advance the Oregon Safe Schools Act of 2009 to create a safe environment for all students in Oregon. This has been an organizational priority, especially in light of incidents of gay and transgender youth being bullied and committing suicide. Nonetheless, nearly five years after the law’s passage, more than one-third of Oregon school districts are still not in compliance with the law. If same-sex couples had the freedom to marry in Oregon, Basic Rights could devote significantly more resources to addressing this and other important issues.

10- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 11 of 30 Page ID#: 119

B. Defendants 27. Defendant John Kitzhaber is sued in his official capacity as Governor of the state
of Oregon. He is vested with the chief executive power of the State, and has the duty to see that the State’s laws, including the marriage ban, are faithfully executed. Or. Const. art. V, §§ 1, 10. Governor Kitzhaber and his subordinates also bear the authority and responsibility for the formulation and administration of the policies of the executive branch, including administrative agency policies relating to health insurance coverage, vital records, tax obligations, state employee benefits programs, and regulation of health professions — all of which involve recognizing marital status. ORS 180.060(10). Governor Kitzhaber appoints the heads of various agencies with responsibility for recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples and may remove those appointees for various reasons, including for how they administer laws relating to the ability of same-sex couples to marry, or to have their valid marriages from other jurisdictions recognized. Governor Kitzhaber also has authority to remove from office members of boards, commissions, councils and collegial bodies for misconduct, including a failure to comply with the obligations of the federal Constitution. Governor Kitzhaber is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
28. Defendant Ellen Rosenblum is sued in her official capacity as the Attorney General for the state of Oregon. As the chief legal officer of the state of Oregon, her duties include enforcement of the State’s laws, including the marriage exclusion. ORS 180.060, 180.210. She also has “[f]ull charge and control of all the legal business of all departments, commissions and bureaus of the [S]tate,” including advising such departments, commissions, and bureaus of their obligations under the U.S. Constitution. ORS 180.220(1)(b). She also has the power to enforce obligations created by the U.S. Constitution through her ability to initiate suit to protect the interests of the State’s citizens. ORS 180.220, 180.240. Ms. Rosenblum is a

11- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 12 of 30 Page ID#: 120

person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
29. Defendant Jennifer Woodward is sued in her official capacity as the State Registrar, Center of Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority (“State Registrar”). Ms. Woodward’s duties include directing and supervising the Center for Health Statistics and its system of vital records; directing, supervising, and controlling the activities of all persons pertaining to the operation of the system of vital records. ORS 432.030. She is responsible for furnishing forms for the marriage license, marriage certificate, and application for marriage license used in the State. ORS 432.405(2). All marriages performed in the State must be filed with the State Registrar and she is responsible for registering marriage records that have been filed. ORS 432.405(1). Ms. Woodward must ensure compliance through all of these functions with relevant state laws, including those that currently exclude same-sex couples from marriage. Ms. Woodward is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
30. Defendant Randy Walruff is sued in his official capacity as the County Assessor for Multnomah County. Mr. Walruff’s duties include issuing marriage licenses; levying and collecting a fee on each marriage license; solemnizing marriages; maintaining records relating to marriages licensed in the county; and forwarding a record of each marriage to the State Registrar. Mr. Walruff must comply with state law in performing his duties, including those laws that exclude same-sex couples from marriage. Mr. Walruff is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.
31. Defendants, through their respective duties and obligations, are responsible for enforcing the State’s marriage ban. Each Defendant, and those subject to their direction, supervision, and control, intentionally performed, participated in, aided and/or abetted in some manner the acts alleged here, proximately caused the harm alleged herein, and will continue to injure Plaintiffs irreparably if not enjoined. Accordingly, the relief requested herein is sought

12- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 13 of 30 Page ID#: 121

against each Defendant, as well as all persons under their supervision, direction, or control, including but not limited to their officers, employees, and agents.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 32. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United States Constitution. 33. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. 34. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because Defendant Kitzhaber maintains official offices in Marion County, Oregon, and all Defendants reside within the state of Oregon; and because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims took place within this District and Division. 35. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 36. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are domiciled in the State.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Plaintiff-couples’ Eligibility to Marry
37. Plaintiff-couples are residents of Oregon who experience the same joys and challenges of family life as their heterosexual neighbors, co-workers, and other community members who freely may marry. Plaintiffs are productive, contributing citizens who support their families and nurture their children, but must do so without the same legal shelter, dignity, and respect afforded by the State to other families through access to the universally celebrated status of marriage. The State’s exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage, and Defendants’ enforcement of that exclusion, subjects Plaintiffs to an inferior “second class” status relative to

13- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 14 of 30 Page ID#: 122

the rest of the political community and deprives them and their children of equal dignity,
security, and legal protections afforded to other Oregon families.
38. But for the fact that they are of the same sex, both of the Plaintiff-couples — Paul
and Ben, and Lisa and Chris — are legally qualified to marry under the laws of the Oregon, and
wish to marry in this State. Each is over the age of 17, fully competent, and is not precluded
from marriage as a result of having another spouse or being closely related to the other. They are
willing to provide the requisite information to receive a marriage license and to pay the required
fee. They are able and eager to assume the responsibilities of marriage.
B. The Oregon Marriage Ban
39. In 2004, following a ballot initiative campaign, voters approved Measure 36, an
amendment to the Oregon Constitution providing: “It is the policy of Oregon, and its political
subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally
recognized as marriage.” Or. Const. art. 15 § 5a.
40. Measure 36 passed narrowly. Proponents of Measure 36 secured its passage by
leveraging public fear of and animus against gay men and lesbians. For instance, proponents
submitted the following statements for publication in the statewide Voters’ Pamphlet regarding
Measure 36:
a. “If we normalize homosexual marriage, the state will be forced to place foster children in same-sex households. Schools, and society, will be teaching the next generation the ‘equality’ of same-sex marriage, changing our views of the importance of gender and the nature of family. It will cause kids to question their sexual identity, and increase experimentation with a behavior that is neither emotionally nor physically healthy.”
b. “To radically and fundamentally change the definition of marriage to include what God considers an ‘abomination’ is to reject God’s purpose in marriage for men, women, children, and a nation. … Providing equivalent legal standing to unnatural relationships will force devastating and irreversible changes to our society.”

14- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 15 of 30 Page ID#: 123

c. “Vote YES on [Measure] 36, Because It’s the Way Nature Meant it to Be. A Marriage between a man and woman is more than just about a loving relationship, it’s also about the laws of nature.”

d. “MYTH: Homosexuals suffer serious harm because they’re denied the protections of marriage. / REALITY: Many of the ‘protections’ granted by marriage are already available to same-sex couples through the use of private contractual arrangements ….”

e. “[Same-sex marriage] is a vast, untested social experiment on children. … It is never wise or compassionate to intentionally subject children to social experimentation.”
f. “If … the Oregon Constitution requires two individuals of the same sex be [sic] able to marry simply because they want to, it is difficult to argue larger groups of individuals of any sex (polygamy or ‘polyamory’) should not also be able to join in group marriage.”

g. “Defining marriage as between one female and one male does not violate anyone’s civil rights. … For example, no one can marry their [sic] sister, brother, mother or father. A parent cannot marry his or her children. And it’s not considered discrimination to forbid marrying a child or having two spouses.”
41. Also, a recurring claim in Voters’ Pamphlet statements was that scientific studies
had proven same-sex relationships to be unhealthy and bad for children being raised by same-sex

parents. This and similar claims were and are untrue.

42. The Oregon marriage statute provides that “[m]arriage is a civil contract entered

into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age.” ORS

106.010. Numerous other Oregon statutes refer to a husband and wife. For instance, ORS

106.150(1) requires the parties to a marriage to declare that “they take each other to be husband

and wife.” Similarly, under ORS 106.041(1), the authorization accompanying a properly-issued

marriage license requires the official conducting the marriage ceremony “to join together as husband and wife the persons named in the license.”

43. In 2008, the Oregon legislature passed the Oregon Family Fairness Act, which

provides same-sex couples with some of the legal protections and obligations of marriage by

15- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 16 of 30 Page ID#: 124

creating a parallel institution of domestic partnerships. ORS 106.300. The Family Fairness Act clearly states that a domestic partnership is not a marriage. ORS 106.305(7). In fact, the legislative findings of the statute explicitly “recognize[] that numerous distinctions will exist between these two legally recognized relationships. The Legislative Assembly recognizes that the legal recognition of domestic partnerships under the laws of this state may not be effective beyond the borders of this state and cannot impact restrictions contained in federal law.” Id.
44. On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal “Defense of Marriage Act,” which had prevented the federal government from respecting the valid marriages of same-sex couples.
45. On October 17, 2013, the Deputy Attorney General issued an opinion letter to the Chief Operating Office of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services. That letter states that because Oregon generally respects out-of-state marriages, the State may respect the marriages of same-sex couples who marry in other states.
46. In the opinion letter, the Deputy Attorney General recognized that Measure 36 likely barred recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, but concluded that the denial of such respect would be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. Specifically, the opinion letter noted that, “we cannot identify any legitimate (much less compelling) state interest in requiring that each marriage recognized in Oregon contain one partner of each sex; no benefit to Oregon results from that limitation, and no injury would result from recognizing the marriages.” The letter continues: “[s]ame-sex relationships are given legal recognition in Oregon, in the form of domestic partner registration. To defend a refusal to acknowledge marriages, the state would have to articulate a state interest in allowing partnerships but refusing to recognize marriages — and again, we cannot point to any such interest that would pass constitutional muster even at the lowest possible level of scrutiny, rational basis review.”

16- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 17 of 30 Page ID#: 125

C. The State’s Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Inflicts Profound Harm on Plaintiffs 47. Barring same-sex couples from marriage disqualifies them from critically
important rights and responsibilities that different-sex couples rely upon to secure their commitment to each other, and to safeguard their families. By way of example only, same-sex couples are denied:
a. The ability to solemnize their relationships through state-sanctioned marriage ceremonies. The denial of state sanction or recognition deprives same-sex couples of important legal protections that automatically come with statesanctioned marriage.
b. The ability to safeguard family resources under an array of laws that protect spousal finances, including for example, the exemption from federal taxable income of the value of health insurance coverage that one partner receives through the other’s employment, and the exemption or deferral of federal taxes on the property of certain elderly or disabled residents.
c. A host of federal rights and responsibilities that span the entire United States Code and the whole realm of federal regulations. Unmarried couples are denied recognition for virtually all purposes throughout the more than 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations relating to marriage, including laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. Many of these deprivations drain family economic resources, causing financial harm not only to same-sex couples but to their children as well.
48. Although the Chief Operating Officer for the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, Michael Jordan, has directed state agencies to recognize all marriages performed outside Oregon, this directive binds only state agencies, not other entities like courts and local governments. Thus, married same-sex couples in Oregon are denied rights and

17- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 18 of 30 Page ID#: 126

responsibilities of marriage, to the extent enjoyment of such rights and responsibilities is contingent on entities not bound by Mr. Jordan’s directive, whether government or private. By way of example only, same-sex couples may be denied:
a. The ability to make caretaking decisions in times of death and disaster, including priority to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, the ability to petition a circuit court for an autopsy; the automatic right to authorize interment, and the automatic right and priority to make anatomical gifts of a decedent’s body.
b. The ability to support each other in end-of-life circumstances, such as being assured privacy for visits with a spouse if an individual is in a nursing home, and the right to share a room with a spouse if both reside in the same nursing home.
c. The right to inheritance under the laws of intestacy, to claim an elective share in a deceased spouse’s estate; rights in the family residence pending final determination of the estate; and other survivor benefits, including for example, survivor benefits for a spouse and children of an individual killed while performing firefighting duties.
d. In the event that a couple separates, access to an orderly dissolution process for terminating the relationship and assuring an equitable division of the couple’s assets and debts.
49. While same-sex couples are eligible to enter into domestic partnerships under Oregon law, those domestic partnerships are not identical to marriage, and do not offer the full protections of marriage. For example:
a. Couples who have entered into domestic partnerships under Oregon law will be ineligible for virtually all the federal protections otherwise available to validly married couples.

18- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 19 of 30 Page ID#: 127

b. Couples who enter into domestic partnerships in Oregon who travel to other states may not have those relationships respected, to the extent those states do not recognize domestic partnerships or statuses apart from marriage.
50. In addition to the tangible harms listed above, Plaintiffs are denied the unique social recognition that marriage conveys. Without access to the familiar language and legal label of marriage, Plaintiffs are unable instantly or adequately to communicate to others the depth and permanence of their commitment, or to obtain respect for that commitment as others do simply by invoking their married status.
51. The substantive and dignitary inequities imposed on committed same-sex couples include particular harms to same-sex couples’ children, who are equally deserving of the stability, permanence, and legitimacy that are enjoyed by children of different-sex couples who marry. Civil marriage affords official sanctuary to the family unit, offering parents and children critical means to secure legal parent-child bonds, and a familiar, public way of demonstrating those bonds to third parties. By denying same-sex couples marriage, the State reinforces the view that the family bonds that tie same-sex parents and their children are less consequential, enduring, and meaningful than those of different-sex parents and their children. Same-sex couples and their children accordingly must live with the ever-present possibility that others may question their familial relationship — in social, legal, educational, and medical settings and in moments of crisis — in a way that spouses can avoid by simple reference to being married.
52. Children from a young age understand that marriage signifies an enduring family unit, and likewise understand when the State has deemed a class of families as less worthy than other families, undeserving of marriage, and not entitled to the same societal recognition and support as other families. The State has no adequate interest to justify marking the children of same-sex couples, including the children of Plaintiffs, with a badge of inferiority that will invite disrespect in school, on the playground, and in every other sphere of their lives.

19- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 20 of 30 Page ID#: 128

53. The government is a powerful teacher of discrimination to others. By decreeing that the relationships of same-sex couples are not worthy of the protections of marriage and enforcing that policy, the State and Defendants instruct all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including those couples’ own children, that their relationships are less worthy than others. Bearing the imprimatur of the government, the State’s statutory and constitutional marriage ban, and Defendants’ enforcement of it, communicates a view that same-sex couples are unfit for the dignity, respect, and stature afforded to different-sex couples, and this encourages others to follow the government’s example in discriminating against them.
54. Many private entities defer to the State’s conferral of marital status in defining “family” for purposes of an array of important benefits, often resulting in the exclusion of samesex couples and their children from important safety nets such as private employer-provided health insurance for family members. The State and Defendants also encourage disrespect of committed same-sex couples and their children by others in workplaces, schools, businesses, and other major arenas of life, in ways that would be less likely to occur and more readily corrected if marriage were available to same-sex couples. D. The State’s Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from Marriage is Not Even Rationally
Related to a Legitimate Governmental Purpose, Let Alone Substantially Related to an Important Government Purpose or Narrowly Tailored to a Compelling Governmental Purpose 55. No legitimate, let alone important or compelling, interest exists to exclude samesex couples from the historic and highly venerated institution of marriage. An individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship does not depend upon that individual’s sexual orientation or sex in relation to his or her committed life partner, nor is there even a legitimate interest in justifying same-sex couples’ exclusion from marriage and the spousal protections it provides on such bases. 56. The Deputy Attorney General already has recognized that denying respect to the marriages of same-sex couples does not benefit heterosexual couples. Different-sex spouses will

20- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 21 of 30 Page ID#: 129

continue to enjoy the same rights and status conferred by marriage regardless of whether samesex couples may marry in Oregon, unimpaired by the acknowledgment that this freedom belongs equally to lesbians and gay men.
57. Because the State already grants same-sex couples many but not all of the legal protections associated with marriage through domestic partnership registration, and now respects the out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, denying same-sex couples the ability to secure a marriage license within the state of Oregon advances no possible government interest.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF V. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Deprivation of Due Process U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all of the paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
59. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
60. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
61. Oregon Constitution Article 15, section 5A, ORS 106.010, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples violate the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.
62. The right to marry the unique person of one’s choice and to direct the course of one’s life in this intimate realm without undue government restriction is one of the fundamental liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants’ actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe this right for all lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, interfering with a core, life-altering, and intimate personal choice.

21- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 22 of 30 Page ID#: 130

63. The Due Process Clause also protects choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, including each individual’s rights to family integrity and association. Defendants’ actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe upon the deeply intimate, personal, and private decisions of lesbian and gay Oregonians regarding family life, and preclude them from obtaining full liberty, dignity, and security for themselves, their families, and their children.
64. As the State’s chief executive officer, Defendant Kitzhaber’s duties and actions to enforce the State’s marriage ban, including those taken pursuant to his responsibility for the policies of the executive branch relating to, for example, health insurance coverage, vital records, tax obligations, state employee benefits programs, and regulation of motor vehicles and health professions, violate the fundamental right to marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, as well as their constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
65. As the Attorney General, Defendant Rosenblum’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with state law, including the marriage ban, violate the fundamental right to marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, as well as their constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
66. As the State Registrar, Defendant Woodward’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with the State’s discriminatory marriage ban by, for example, furnishing forms for marriage licenses that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying by requiring a “Bride” and a “Groom,” and refusing to register marriage licenses of same-sex couples, violate the fundamental right to marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, as well as their constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

22- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 23 of 30 Page ID#: 131

67. As the County Assessor for Multnomah County, Defendant Walruff’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with the State’s discriminatory marriage ban by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses, violate the fundamental right to marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, as well as rights, protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, association, and due process of Paul and Ben, and Lisa and Chris.
68. Defendants’ actions thus deny and abridge Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry, and liberty and due process interests in autonomy, and family integrity and association, by penalizing Plaintiffs’ self-determination in the most intimate sphere of their lives.
69. Defendants cannot satisfy the Due Process Clause’s decree that governmental interference with a fundamental right or liberty interest may be sustained only upon a showing that the burden is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling or even important governmental interest, as the marriage ban is not even tailored to any legitimate interest at all.
VI. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Deprivation of Equal Protection U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all of the paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
71. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
72. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
73. Oregon Constitution Article 15, section 5A, ORS 106.010, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for same-sex couples or prevent recognition of their marriages violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. Moreover, by enshrining discrimination in the form of a constitutional

23- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 24 of 30 Page ID#: 132

amendment, Oregon Constitution Article 15, section 5A, deprives lesbian and gay Oregonians of equal protection of the laws by locking them out of the political process and making it uniquely more difficult to secure legislation on their behalf. The conduct of Defendants in enforcing these laws violates the right of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, to equal protection by discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and sex.
74. As the State’s chief executive officer, Defendant Kitzhaber’s duties and actions to enforce Measure 36, including those taken pursuant to his responsibility for the policies of the executive branch relating to, for example, health insurance coverage, vital records, tax obligations, state employee benefits programs, and regulation of motor vehicles and health professions, violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to equal treatment, without regard to sexual orientation or sex, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
75. As the Attorney General, Defendant Rosenblum’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with state law, including the marriage ban, violate the constitutional rights of all lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, to equal treatment.
76. As the State Registrar, Defendant Woodward’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with the State’s discriminatory marriage ban by, for example, furnishing forms for marriage licenses that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying by requiring a “Bride” and a “Groom,” and refusing to register marriage licenses of same-sex couples, violate the constitutional rights of lesbian and gay Oregonians, including Plaintiffs, to equal treatment.
77. As the County Assessor for Multnomah County, Defendant Walruff’s duties and actions to ensure compliance with the State’s discriminatory marriage ban by, for example, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses, violate the constitutional rights to equal treatment of Paul and Ben, and Lisa and Chris.
78. The State’s marriage ban, and Defendants’ actions to enforce it, denies same-sex couples equal dignity and respect, and deprives their families of a critical safety net of rights and responsibilities. The marriage ban brands lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, as well as their

24- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 25 of 30 Page ID#: 133

children, as second-class citizens through a message of government-imposed stigma and fosters private bias and discrimination, by instructing all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their relationship is less worthy than others. The State’s marriage ban and Defendants’ actions reflect moral disapproval and antipathy toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.
79. Same-sex couples such as the Plaintiff-couples are identical to different-sex couples in all of the characteristics relevant to marriage.
80. Same-sex couples make the same commitment to one another as different-sex couples. Like different-sex couples, same-sex couples fall in love, build their lives together, plan their futures together, and hope to grow old together. Like different-sex couples, same-sex couples support one another emotionally and financially and take care of one another physically when faced with injury or illness.
81. Plaintiffs seek to marry for the same emotional, romantic, and dignitary reasons, and to provide the same legal shelter to their families, as different-sex spouses.
82. Like some different-sex couples, some same-sex couples are parents raising children together.
83. Plaintiffs and their children are equally worthy of the tangible rights and responsibilities, as well as the respect, dignity, and legitimacy that access to marriage confers on different-sex couples and their children. For the many children being raised by same-sex couples, the tangible resources and societal esteem that access to marriage confers is no less precious than for children of different-sex couples. A. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
84. The marriage ban targets lesbian and gay Oregonians as a class for exclusion from marriage and discriminates against each Plaintiff based on his or her sexual orientation both facially and as applied.

25- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 26 of 30 Page ID#: 134

85. The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sexual orientation subjects Defendants’ conduct to strict or at least heightened scrutiny, which Defendants’ conduct cannot withstand because the exclusion does not even serve any legitimate governmental interests, let alone any important or compelling interests, nor does it serve any such interests in an adequately tailored manner.
86. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals have suffered a long and painful history of discrimination in Oregon and across the United States.
87. Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual’s ability to perform in or contribute to society.
88. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one’s identity and conscience that a person may not legitimately be required to abandon it (even if that were possible) as a condition of equal treatment.
89. Sexual orientation generally is fixed at an early age and highly resistant to change through intervention. No credible evidence supports the notion that such interventions are either effective or safe; indeed, they often are harmful and damaging. No mainstream mental health professional organization approves interventions that attempt to change sexual orientation, and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning professionals and the public about these treatments.
90. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are a discrete and insular minority, and ongoing prejudice against them continues seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes that might ordinarily be relied upon to protect minorities. Gay people have fewer civil rights protections at the state and federal level than racial minorities and women had when race- and sex-based classifications were declared to be suspect and quasi-suspect, respectively.
91. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals lack express statutory protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing at the federal level and in more than half the states; are systematically underrepresented in federal, state, and local

26- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 27 of 30 Page ID#: 135

democratic bodies; have been stripped of the right to marry through 30 state constitutional amendments and are currently not permitted to marry in a total of 33 states; and have been targeted across the nation through the voter initiative process more than any other group. B. Discrimination Based on Sex
92. The marriage ban discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex, both facially and as applied, barring Plaintiffs from marriage or from being recognized as validly married, solely because each of the Plaintiffs wishes to marry a life partner of the same sex.
93. Because of these sex-based classifications, Lisa is precluded from marrying her devoted life partner because she is a woman and not a man; were Lisa a man, she could marry Chris. Similarly, Paul is precluded from marrying Ben because he is a man and not a woman; were Paul a woman, he would be able to marry Ben under Oregon law.
94. The State’s marriage ban also serves the impermissible purpose of enforcing and perpetuating sex stereotypes by excluding same-sex couples from marriage, or from being recognized as validly married, because those couples fail to conform to sex-based stereotypes that men should marry women, and women should marry men.
95. Given that there are no longer legal distinctions between the duties of husbands and wives, there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility requirements for marriage.
96. The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sex and the enforcement of gender-based stereotypes cannot survive the heightened scrutiny required for sex-based discrimination. C. Discrimination With Respect to Fundamental Rights and Liberty Interests Secured
by the Due Process Clause 97. The marriage ban discriminates against lesbian and gay Oregonians based on sexual orientation and sex with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right to marry, and their liberty interests in dignity, autonomy, and family integrity and association. Differential treatment with respect to Plaintiffs’ exercise of fundamental rights and liberty interests, based on

27- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 28 of 30 Page ID#: 136

their sexual orientation and sex, subjects Defendants’ conduct to strict or at least heightened scrutiny, which Defendants’ conduct cannot withstand.
VII. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 57 and 65 98. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all of the paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 99. This case presents an actual controversy because Defendants’ present and ongoing denial of equal treatment to Plaintiffs subjects them to serious and immediate harms, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 100. A favorable decision enjoining Defendants would redress and prevent the irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs identified herein, for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law or in equity. 101. Oregon currently allows same-sex couples to access some but not all of the protections of marriage through domestic partnerships, and respects out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples. The State will incur little to no burden in allowing same-sex couples to marry in Oregon, whereas the hardship for Plaintiffs of being denied equal treatment is severe, subjecting them to an irreparable denial of their constitutional rights. The balance of hardships thus tips strongly in favor of Plaintiffs.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment: A. Declaring that Article 15, section 5A, of the Oregon Constitution violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and, further, issuing a permanent injunction that bars enforcement by the State and its subdivisions, including Defendants, of Article 15, section 5A, of the Oregon Constitution;

28- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 29 of 30 Page ID#: 137
B. Declaring that ORS 106.010, ORS 106.041(1), and ORS 106.150(1), are unconstitutional insofar as they deny same-sex couples full and equal recognition, rights, privileges, responsibilities, obligations, and immunities of married couples;
C. Declaring that ORS 40.135(1)(u), ORS 40.255(1)(b), ORS 59.350(1), ORS 93.180(1)(b), ORS 108.020, ORS 108.040(1), ORS 136.655(1), ORS 314.105(2)(a), and all other Oregon statutes referring to “husband and wife,” are unconstitutional but only insofar as they deny same-sex couples full and equal recognition, rights, privileges, responsibilities, obligations, and immunities of married couples;
D. Issuing a permanent injunction that the State and its subdivisions, including Defendants, must in all respects grant to same-sex couples full and equal recognition, rights, privileges, responsibilities, obligations, and immunities of different-sex couples.
E. Requiring the State and its subdivisions, including Defendants, to issue and register marriage licenses for same-sex couples, pursuant to the same restrictions and limitations applicable to different-sex couples;
F. Recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples validly married in another jurisdiction;
G. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and
H. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. //

29- AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055.1

Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 17 Filed 01/22/14 Page 30 of 30 Page ID#: 138

L

The declaratory and injunctive relief requested in this action is sought against

each Defendant; against each Defendant's officers, employees, and agents; and against all

persons acting in active concert or participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant's

supervision, direction, or control

DATED: January 22,2014

Thomas R.

No.010645

TRJohnson

com

Kristina J. olm, OSB No. 112607

KJHolm@perkinscote. com

Misha Isaak, OSB No. 086430

M I saak@perkinscoie.com
Perkins Coie llp

Telephone: 503.727 .2000

Jennif'er Middleton, OSB No. 071510 JMiddleton@jj lslaw. com Johnson .Iohnson & Schaller Pc Telephone: 541.683.2506

Cooperating attorneys on behalf of the ACLU lìoundation of Oregon, Inc.

Kevin Díaz, OSB No. 970480 KDiaz@aclu-or.org ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc Telephone: 503.227 .6928
Rose Saxe, pro hac vice RSaxe@aclu,org 1'elephone: 212.549.2627 Amanda Goad, pro hac vice AGoad@aclu.org 'I'elephone: 213.977,5244 American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

30- AMENDED COMPLAINT
t.l.]GAr.290230s5. ì

Perkins Coie llp
I 120 N,W. Couch Street, Tenth Fìoor Portland, OR 91209-4128 Phone: 503.121 .2000 Fax: 503.721 .2222

 
 Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 117 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DEANNA L. GEIGER and JANINE M. NELSON; ROBERT DUEHMIG and WILLIAM GRIESER,

Case No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC (lead case)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

V.

, JOHN KITZHA:BER, in his official capacity as Governor of Oregon; ELLEN _ROSENBLUM, in her official"capacity as Attorney General of Oregon; JENNIFER WOODWARD, in her official capacity as State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics, 'Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY . WALRUFF, in his official capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,

Defendants.

1-0RDER

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 117 Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 4

PAUL RUMMELL and BENJAMIN WEST; LISA CHICKADONZ and CHRISTINE TANNER; BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION FUND,
Plaintiffs,
JOHN KITZHABER, in his official capacity as Governor of Oregon; ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Oregon; JENNIFER WOODWARD, in her official capacity as State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY WALRUFF, in his official capacity as Multnornah County Assessor,
Defendants.

Case No. 6:13-cv-02256-MC (trailing case)

MCSHANE, Judge: The Court, having considered the Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment
(ECF Nos. 23 and 42), the Defendants' Responses (ECF Nos. 48 and 64), the oral arguments made by all parties on April23, 2014, and the briefs filed by amicus (ECF Nos. 66, 70, and 79), GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.
The Court finds that there is no legitimate state interest that would justify the denial of the full and equal recognition, attendant rights, benefits, protections,_· privileges, obligations, responsibilities, and immunities of marriage to same-gender .. couples solely on the basis that those couples are of the same gender.
2-0RDER

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 117 Filed 05/19/14 Page 3 of 4
NOW, THEREFORE, The Court GRANTS the Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 23 and 42)
filed by the plaintiffs in each of the consolidated cases. The Court hereby DECLARES that Article 1S, section SA, of the Oregon
Constitution violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmer:t to the United States Constitution, and that as such it is void and unenforceable. Defendants and their officers, agents, and employees are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing Article 1S, section SA, of the Oregon Constitution.
The Court also DECLARES that ORS 106.010, ORS 106.041(1), and ORS 106.1S0(1) violate the Equal Protection Clause and are unenforceable to the extent that they would prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same gender, or would deny same-gender couples the right to marry with full and equal recognition, attendant rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, responsibilities, and immunities of marriage, where the couple would be otherwise qualified to marry under Oregon law. Defendants and their officers, agents, and employees are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing or applying those statutes-or any other state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance-as the basis to deny marriage to same~gender couples otherwise qualified to marry in Oregon, or to deny married same-gender couples any of
3 -ORDER

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 117 Filed 05/19/14 Page 4 of 4
the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, responsibilities, and immunities that accompany marriage in Oregon.
The Court DECLARES that the Equal Protection Clause requires recognition of marriages of same-gender couples legally performed in other jurisdictions, where those marriages are in all other respects valid under Oregon law, and that no state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance can deny recognition of a same-gender couple's marriage validly performed in another jurisdiction. The Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants and their officers, agents, and employees from denying that recognition.
This Order shall be effective immediately upon filing. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ___·Laz___th day ofMay, 2014.
L--- l____.
Michael J. McShane United States District Judge
4-0RDER

 
 Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 26 Page ID#: 1413

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DEANNA L. GEIGER and JANINE M. NELSON; ROBERT DUEHMIG and WILLIAM GRIESER,

Case No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC (lead case)

Plaintiffs,

OPINION

V.

JOHN KITZHABER, in his official capacity as Governor- of Oregon; ELLEN ROSENBLUM; in her official capacity as Attorney General of Oregon; JENNIFER WOODWARD, iJ1 her official capacity as State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY WALRUFF: in his official capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,

Defendants.

1- OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 26 Page ID#: 1414

PAUL RUMMELL 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 of Oregon; JENNIFER WOODWARD, in her official capacity as State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority, and RANDY WALRUFF, in his official capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,
Defendants.

Case No. 6:13-cv-02256-MC (trailing case)

MCSHANE, Judge:
The plaintiffs include four Oregon couples seeking marriage in Multnomah County.
Although they meet the legal requirements of civil marriage in all other respects, their requests
for marriage licenses have been or would be denied because each couple is of 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 of sexua( orientation
1 In 1972, the Supreme Court found- a lack of "substantial federal question" in the appeal of two men seeking to marry one another after the Minnesota Supreme 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 th~ 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); but see
2 -OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 3 of 26 Page ID#: 1415
without a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmenfto the United States Constitution.
THE PARTIES All of the plaintiffs2 share in the characteristics that we would normally look_to when we describe the ideals of marriage and family. They present in the record as loving and committed couples who have established long~term relationships. Each has solemnized that relationship in the presence of their families and friends. One couple legally married in Canada, and others temporarily obtained marriage licenses in Multnomah County in 2004. Three of the four couples are parents, and are involved in their children's schools and activities. They support each other financially and emotionally and, by all accounts, their lives have become more meaningful in the single life that they share together. All of the plaintiffs have worked in Oregon to support each other and their children. They are a highly educated and productive group of individuals. Many of the plaintiffs work in the field of medicine and the health sciences. Mr. Griesar is a teacher. Mr. Rummell is a veteran of the United States Air Force. They pay taxes. They volunteer. They foster and adopt children who have been neglected and abused. They are a source of stability to their extended family, relatives, and friends. Despite the fact that these co,uples present so vividly the characteristics of a loving and supportive relationship, none of these ideals we attribute to marriage are spousal prerequisites under Oregon law. In fact, Oregon recognizes a marriage of love with the same equal eye that it recognizes a marriage of convenience. It affords the same set of rights and privileges to Tristan
Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1003 (D. Nev. 2012) ("[T]he present challenge is in the main a gardenvariety equal protection challenge precluded by Baker."). 2 Plaintiff Basic Rights Education lund is a "civil rights organization dedicated to education about and advocacy for equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Oregonians[.]" Rummell Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., 5, ECF No. 33.
3 -OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 4 of 26 Page ID#: 1416
and Isolde that it affords to a Hollywood celebrity waking up in Las Vegas with a blurry memory and a ringed finger. It does not, however, afford these very same rights to gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry within the confines of our geographic borders.
The defendants include the State Registrar, the Governor, and the Attorney General of Oregon, as well as the Assessor for Multnomah County. The defendants concede that Oregon's marriage laws banning same-gender marriage are unconstitutional and legally indefensible, but state they are legally obligated to enforce the laws until this court declares the laws unconstitutional. 3 The case, in this respect, presents itself to this court as something akin to a friendly tennis match rather than a contested and robust proceeding between adversaries.
BACKGROUND I. Same-Gender Marriage in Oregon and Measure 36
Article I, § 20 of the Oregon Constitution prohibits granting privileges or immunities to any citizen or class of citizens that are not equally available on the same terms to all citizens. In 1998, recognizing that same-gender couples were not permitted to marry, the Oregon Court of Appeals concluded Article I, § 20 of tl;le Oregon Constitution prohibited the state from denying insurance benefits to unmarried domestic partners ofhomosexual employees. Tanner v. Oregon Health Sci. Univ., 157 Or. App. 502, 525. The state responded by providing benefits to samegender couples who are able to demonstrate they share a committed relationship similar to a _marital relationship.
During this same period, challenges regarding the. rights available to same-gender couples begim to appear in the national spotlight. In 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 3 The record must reflect that Multnomah County concluded 10 years ~go that denying marriage licenses to same-
gender couples violated the Oregon Constitution. Waldruff's Resp. Mot.Summ. J. 1, ECF No. 59. ("The County is proud to have stood firm on this core civil rights issue a decade ago when backing marriage rights for all was neither easy nor politically safe."). Still, due to the State's marriage laws, Multnomah County requires a court order to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples.
4-0PINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 5 of 26 Page ID#: 1417
concluded that Massachusetts's same-gender marriage ban violated their state constitution. Goodridge v. Dep 't ofPub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 969. With that ruling, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-gender marriage.
On March 3, 2004, Multnomah County determined that its failure. to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violated Article I, § 20 of the Oregon Constitution. Li v..~tate, 338 Or. 376, 383-84 (2005). In the following weeks, approximately 3000 gay and lesbian couples received marriage licenses in Multnomah County.Jd. at 384. At the Governor's direction, the State Registrar refused to register the same-sex marriages and several same-gender couples brought a legal challenge to decide the inclusivity of Oregon's marriage laws. I d.
Before the Supreme Court of Oregon weighed in on the issue, Oregon voters provided their independent judgment on the question by approving a 2004 ballot initiative known as Measure 36. That measure amended the state constitution to define marriage as a union composed of"one man and one woman." Or. Const. art. 15, §SA. Measure 36 embedded constitutionally what the Oregon Supreme Court would later conclude the state's statutes had already required. Li, 338 Or. at 386 ("[A]lthough nothing ... expressly states that marriage is · limited to opposite-sex couples, the context ... leaves no doubt that, as a statutory matter, marriage in Oregon is so limited."). Nearly a year after Multnomah County began issuing marriage license~ to same-gender couples, those licenses were deemed invalid. ld. at 398.
In 2007, the Oregon State Legislature passed the Oregon Family Famess Act, allowing same-gender couples to register their domestic partnerships to receive certain state benefits. Oregon Family Fairness Act, 2007 Or. Laws, ch. 99, § 2 (codified at Or. Rev. Stat.§ 106.305). Domestic partnerships provided "more equal treatment of gays and lesbians and theirfamilies," § 106.305(6), by granting domestic partners similar rights and privileges to those enjoyed by
5 -OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 6 of 26 Page ID#: 1418
married spouses, § 106.305(5). The Legislature acknowledged, however, that domestic partnerships did not include the magnitude of rights inherent in the definition of marriage. § 106.305(7) (noting "that numerouS_,distinctions will exist between these two legally recognized relationships"). In the declarations submitted to this court, the plaintiffs maintain domestic partnerships have contributed greater confusion and expense to the lives of gay and lesbian couples and their families.
Last summer, the United States Supreme Court declared § 3 of the Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2695-96
(2013). As discussed below, DOMA defined marriage as a "union between one man and one
woman," 1 U.S.C. § 7 (2012), thereby prohibiting the federal government from extending marriage benefits to legally wed, same-gender spouses, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2683. The Court noted marriage regulations were traditionally a matter of state concern and that New York sought to protect same-gender couples by granting them the right to marry. DOMA violated due process ancl equal protection principles because it impermissibly sought to injure a class of persons New York specifically sought to protect. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693. The Court concluded "[t]he Act's demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law." Id. at 2693-94.
Following the landmark decision in Windsor, Oregon concluded its own agenciesrpust recognize same-gender marriages lawfully entered into in other jurisdictions. State Defs.' Answer & Affirmative Defenses to Pls.' Am. Compl. Ex. A, ECF No. 58-1.4 The state also joined an amicuscuriae brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,_which has been asked to
. 4 The State's recognition of out-of-state same-gender marriages is limited to administrative agencies, and does not apply to the court system, local governments, or the private sector. Or. Admin. R. 105-010-0018 (2013).
6~ OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 7 of 26 Page ID#: 1419
invalidate a same-gender marriage ban in Nevada. Brief of Massachusetts, et al., as Amici Curiae in Supp. Mot. App. 2, Sevcik v. Sandoval (No. 12-17668). In lending its support, the state endorsed the contention that "same-sex couples form families, raise children,.and avail themselves of the benefits and abide by the obligations of marriage in the same manner as different-sex couples." Id. In so doing, the state effectively acknowledged that its legit~mate interest in sustaining both families and communities would be furthered if gay -and lesbian
couples were able to marry. Ii
II. The Harm Caused to Plaintiffs by the State's Marriage Laws The state's marriage laws impact the plaintiffs in a myriad of ways. The laws frustrate the
plaintiffs' freedom to structure a family life and plan for the future. Mr. Rummell did not receive a low-interest veteran loan to aid in purchasing a home because his income was not considered together with Mr. West's income. Ms. Geiger had to ask her employer to extend spousal relocation benefits to Ms. Nelson; a benefit that automatically vests with married couples. When Ms. Chickadonz gave birth to her and Ms. Tanner's children, they encumbered adoption expenses in order for Ms. Ta1mer to be the legal parent of her own children.
Domestic partnerships pledged to gay and lesbian couples rights and responsibilities approximating those afforded to married couples. Or. Rev. Stat.§§ 106.340(1)-(4). The plaintiffs submit that time has tarnished the promise of domestic partnerships. The plaintiffs explain that a general confusion persists regarding domestic partnerships. They encounter institutional obstacles when lawyers, courts, and health care and funerary service providers are unfamiliar with the rights that domestic partners are entitled to under the law. Domestic partners must draft advance medical directives to ensure they will be able to make important medical decisions on their partner's behalf should the necessity arise. See§ 127.635(2). Such rights and protections
7 -OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 8 of 26 Page ID#: 1420
pass automatically to married couples. § 127.635(2)(b). Likewise, domestic partners must draw up legal devices to imitate marriage's estate-planning benefits. See§§ 112.025, .035. Domestic partners are not guaranteed the same treatment at retirement as married couples. §§ 106.340(6)(8).
Oregon's marriage laws foreclose its same-gender couples (even those registered as domestic partners) from enjoying newly available federal recognition and benefits. They cannot· file joint federal income tax returns. Rev. Rul. 13-17, 2013-38 I.R.B. 204. Instea?, unmarried gay and lesbian couples pay for costly measures that account for their mutual incomes, expenses, and assets. Decl. Clift 4, ECF No. 56. Oregon's marriage laws also foreclose the pathway to citizenship that a non-national can access by import of their marriage to a United States citizen. Employer-provided health insurance benefits covering unwed partners i~ federally taxable income. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 105(b), 106(b). Establishing joint ownership over an unwed couple's assets may trigger federal gift taxation. See Rev. Rul. 13-17 at 203; § 2503(b). Domestic partnership dissolution is taxable, unlike in marriage, see § 1041, as are the spousal-support payments arising from such dissolutions, see § 71. As compared to divorce, federally qualified retirement plans are indivisible among separating domestic partners. See I.R.S. Notice 2008-30, 2008-12 I.R.B. 638. Gay and lesbian couples waiting for the right to marry in Oregon risk a surviving partner being found ineligible for a deceased partner's Social Security benefits. See ·Soc. Sec. Admin., SSA Pub. No. 05-10084, Social Security: Survivors Benefits 5 (2013). Financial aid packages for the children of gay and lesbian families are calculated only on the basis of one parent's income. See § 1087nn(b).
Oregon's marriage laws weigh on the plaintiffs in ways less tangible, yet no less painful. The laws leave the plaintiffs and their families feeling degraded, humiliated, and stigmatized.
8 ~OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 9 of 26 Page ID#: 1421
Plaintiffs consider the time, energy, and sacrifice they devote to building a meaningful life with their loved ones, but find their efforts less worthy in the eyes of the law. They face a tiered
'
system of recognition that grants greater legal status to married felons, deadbeat parents, and mail-order brides. They see no rationale for such treatment, and are angered by what they perceive as state-sanctioned discrimination against them. Accordingly, the plaintiffs request that the state's laws withholding civil marriage from same-gender couples be found unconstitutional.
STANDARD OF REVIEW "The court shallgrant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
DISCUSSION I. A State's Right to Define Marriage within Constitutional Bounds
[M]arriage is often termed ... a civil contract ... [but] it is something more than a mere contract. ... It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210-11 (1888). 5 Society's significant interest in marriage is manifest by a state's "rightful a~d legitimate concern" for its citizens' marital statuses. Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298,(1942); see also Li, 338 Or. at 391-92 (quoting Dakin v. Dakin, 197 Or. 69, 72 (1952) ("The marital relationship [is] 'one in which the sta!e is deeply concerned and over which it exercises a jealous dominion."'). As the state eloquently notes:
It might be more helpful to think of marriage as just marriage- a relationship out of which spring duties to both spouse and society and from which are derived rights, [] such as the right to society and services and to conjugal love and affection- rights which generally prove to be either priceless or worthless, but which none the less the law sometimes attempts to evaluate in terms of money. Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 317 (1942) (Jackson, J., dissenting).
9 -OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 10 of 26 Page ID#: 1422
Simply put, marriage matters. It matters not only for the individuals who decide to enter into the civil union, but also for the state. This is why the state lin..ks so many rights and protections to the decision to marry. Strong, stable marriages create unions in which children may be raised to become healthy and productive citizens, in which family members care for those who are sick or in need and would otherwise have to rely on government assistance, and through which community is built and strengthened. State Defs.' Resp. Mot. Summ. J. 1, ECF No. 64 . .A state's concern in regulating marriage includes the power to decide what marriage is and who may enter into it. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2691. This principal role reflects the state governments' longstanding monopoly over marital relations, an arrangement prevailing even at the time of the Federal Constitution's adoption.ld. The federal government defers to state marriage authority, accepting that marital policies may vary from state to state. !d. Those variations reflect the dynamics of our federal system, ·which empowers citizens to "seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times," Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355, 2364 (2011), and to "form[] a consensus respecting the way [they] treat each other in their daily contact arid c;onstant interaction with each other," Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2692. Although states have wide latitude in regulating marriage, any such laws must abide by the Constitution. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1967). The Constitution commands that no state may "deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This pledge of equal protection ensures "that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike." FS. Royster Guano Co. v.
Virginia, 253 u_.s. 412,415 (1920). The clause presumes that one class of citizens will remain
entitled to the same benefits and burdens as the law affords to other classes. Yet, this presumption is tempered by "the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one · purpose or another," granting a degree of favor to some and disadvantage to others. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996). The courts balance the constitutional principle with practical
lU- UPlNlUN

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 11 of 26 Page ID#: 1423

reality by tolerating laws that classify groups and individuals only if such laws are rationally

related to a legitimate state purpose. Id.

States can and do rationally regulate marriage. A state may, for example, permit eighteen

year olds to marry, but not twelve year olds. See Jonathan Todres, ~Maturity, 48 Hous. L. Rev.

1107, 1143 (2012). A state may not, however, prevent a "white" adult from marrying a "non-

white"adult, Loving, 388 U.S. at 11 (overturning one such anti-miscegenation law in Virginia),

nor may it withhold marriage from either the destitute, Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 387-88

(1978) (overturning a Wisconsin law conditioning marriage on a non-custodial parent's ability to

satisfy existing child-support obligations), or the incarcerated, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96-

99 (1987) (overturning Missouri's requirement that inmates receive a warden's permission to

wed), superseded by statute, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000, Pub.

L. No. 106-274, § 3, 114 Stat. 804. One lesson to borrow from these and sirp.ilar precedents is

that laws regulating marriage must advance legitimate state interests, and not a mere desire to

harm a particular class of its citizens.

II. The Windsor Decision and its Applicability to the Plaintiffs'.Claims

As noted, DOMA was a federal attempt to regulate marriage. That law defined

"marriage" and "spouse" to encompass opposite-gender couples only. See 1 U.S.C. § 7. The

definition's effect was to make legally married same-gender couples less equal than married

opposite-gender couples by depriving the former of numerous federal marital benefits. Windsor,

133 S. Ct. at 2694. That result frustrated New York's rightful decision to confer the dignity and

\

.

privilege of marriage upon gay and lesbian couples. Id. at 2695-96. In striking down the federal

definition, the Supreme Court explained that the law's "principal purpose and ... 1?-ecessary

11 -,-OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 12 of 26 Page ID#: 1424

effect" was "to demean" legally married gay and lesbian couples.Jd. at 2695. "[N]o legitimate

purpose" behind DOMA could overcome such injury. Jd. at 2696.

The case before me is not a reproduction of Windsor. There, the Supreme Court

invalidated a federal act that impinged New York's ability to afford gay and lesbian couples the

full entitlements of marriage. I d. at 2693 ("[DOMA] ... impose[s] a disadvantage, a separate
I
status ... upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned

aut~ority of the States."). Here, the plaintiffs challenge not federal but state law, one which

reserves civil marriage to the ·exclusive enjoyment of opposite-gender couples. This and similar ·

state marriage laws elsewhere are simply beyond the ambit of the Windsor ruling. See Bishop v.

United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d. 1252, 1278 (N.D. Okla. 2013) ("Windsor does not

answer whether a state may prohibit same-sex marriage in the. first instance.").

W. indsor

may

be

distinguished

from

the

present .

case

in

several

respects.

Yet,

recounting

.

such differences will not detract from the underlying principle shared in common by that case

and the one now before me. The principle is one inscribed in the Constitution, and it requires that

the state's marri~ge laws not "degrade or demean" the plaintiffs in violation of their rights to

equalprotection. See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2695.

III. The State's Marriage Laws Viohite the Plaintiffs' Rights to Equal Protection

As discussed above, although states may regulate marriage, such laws must pass

constitutional muster. Plaintiffs argue the state's marriage laws violate their rights to equal

protection. When analyzing a law under the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth

Amendment, the court first determines the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply.

Strict scrutiny, the most exacting level of scrutiny, is reserved for "suspect"

classifications such as race or national origin. Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 505-06

12- OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 13 of 26 Page ID#: 1425
· (2005). Because suspect classifications "raise special fears that they are motivated by an invidious purpose," courts must engage in a "searching judicial inquiry" to ferret out any illegitimate uses of such classifications. !d. Under this level of review, the government has the burden of demonstrating the clas.sifications are narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.Jd. at 505.
Other classifications, such as those based on gender or illegitimacy, are subject to heightened scrutiny. City ofCleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,473 U.S. 432,440-41 (1985). Under this level of review, the classification must be "substantially related to· a sufficiently important government in~erest." !d. at 441.
Most classifications are presumed to be valid and receive less-exacting judicial scrutiny, known as rational basis review.
Under rational basis review, the Equal Protection Claus is satisfied if: (1) there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, (2) the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based rationally may have been considered to be true by the governmental decisionmaker, and (3) the relationship of the classification to its goal is not so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational. Bowers v. Whitman, 671 F.3d 905, 917 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992)) (internal quotations omitted). A. Discriminatory Classification. Plaintiffs argue the state's marriage laws discriminate based on gender, and therefore must receive heightened scrutiny. This argument reasons that because men may not marry other men, and women may not marry other women, the classification is necessarily one based on gender. Stated another way, if either person in a specific couple happened to be of the other gender, the couple could in facrmarry. Because the classification impacts each couple based
13- OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 14 of 26 Page ID#: 1426
solely on the gender of each person, plaintiffs argue the classification must be categorized as one based on gender. I disagree..
The state's marriage laws discriminate based on sexual orientation, not gender. In fact, the ban does not treat genders differently at all. Men and women are prohibited from doing the
exact same thing: marrying an individual of the same gender. T?e ban does not impact males and
females differently. Instead, the state's marriage laws classify same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. While opposite-gender couples may marry a partner of their
'
choice, same-gender couples may not. Plaintiffs argue the Supreme Court has rejected government arguments based on "equal
application" oflaws that discriminate based on suspect classes. See Loving, 388 U.S. at 8-9. The discriminatory laws in Loving, however, are not applicable to Oregon's marriage laws. First, the Court specifically noted the anti-miscegenation laws at issue there-because they involved racial classifications--could not survive an "equal application" explanation. !d. Second, the antimiscegenation laws there were "invidious racial discriminations," with proffered purposes of "preserv[ing] the racial integrity of its citizens" and preventing "the corruption ofbldod[.]" Id. at 7 (quoting Nairn v. Nairn, 87 S.E. 2d 749,756 (Va. 1955)).
There is no such invidious gender-based discrimination here. The state's marriage laws clearly were meant to, and indeed accomplished the goal of, preventing same-gender couples from marrying. The targeted group here is neither males nor females, but homosexual males and homosexual females. Therefore; I conclude the state's marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, not gender. See Sevcik, 911 F. Supp. 2d at 1005 (analyzing a similar Nevada law, the court concluded the law was not directed toward any one gender and did not affect one
14-0PINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 15 of 26 Page ID#: 1427
gender in a way demonstrating any gender-based aniinus, but was intended to prevent homosexuals from marrying). B. Applicable Level of Scrutiny
That the st~te's marriage laws discriminate based on sexual orientation does not answer the question of what level of scrutiny applies._For the past quarter century, laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation received rational basis review in the Ninth Circuit. High Tech Gays v. Def Ind. us. Sec. Clearance Off., 895 F.2d 563, 574 (9fu Cir. 1990)' . In High Tech Gays, a class of plaintiffs challenged the Department of Defense's policy of"refusing to grant security clearances to known or suspected gay applicants" on equal protection grounds. Id. at 565. The _court had to determine whether homosexuals were a "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" class justifying the classifications to heightened review. The court inquired whether homosexuals:
1) Have suffered a history of discrimination; 2) exhibit obvious immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group; and 3) show that they are a minority or politically powerless, or alternatively show that the statutory classification at issue burdens a fundamental right. Id. at 573. The court concluded that although homosexuals suffered a history of discrimination, they did not meet the other criteria required of suspect classes. Therefore, classifications based on sexual orientation received rational basis review. Id. at 574. A Ninth Circuit panel recently considered whether High Tech Gays remains good law in light of Windsor. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471,480-84 (9th Cir. 2014). After noting that Windsor was silent as to the precise level of scrutiny applied to the s~xual orientation discrimination at issue there, the SmithKline court looked at what Windsor
a "actually did" in analyzing that equal protection claim. Id. at 480. After thorough and
persuasive analysis, the court concluded: In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than
15- OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 16 of 26 Page ID#: 1428
rational basis review. In other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation. ld. at 481. No mandate issued from SmithKline and, although neither party requested a rehearing en bane, at least one active judge of the Ninth Circuit made '\sua sponte call for a rehearing en baric. March 27, 2014 Order (No. 11-17357, ECF No. 88). "An appellate court's decision is not final until its mandate issues." Beardslee v. Brown, 393 F.3d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 2004); accord United States v. Ruiz, 935 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation and internal quotations omitted) ("[T]he legitimacy of an expectation of finality of an appellate order depends on the issuance or not of the mandate required to enforce the order."). Absent a mandate's issuance, the circuit "retains jurisdiction ofthe case and may modify or rescind its opinion." Ruiz, 935 F.2d at 1037; accord Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869, 878 (9th Cir. 2009). In· other words, the panel's decision in SmithKline is not yet a truly final and binding decision. The opinion may be modifl.ed, rescinded, or receive a majority vote for en bane review. I could independently conclude the Supreme Court did what SmithKline persuasively concluded it did. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (circuit panels and district courts may reject a prior panel's opinion when that opinion is "effectively overruled" by higher court).
·A
That is unnecessary here, as the state's marriage laws cannot withstand even the most relaxed level of scrutiny. C. Rational Basis Review
As described above, it is beyond question that Oregon's marriage laws place burdens upon same-gender couples that are not placed upon opposite-gender couples. This classification implicates the Equal Protection Clause. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996) ("A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizensthan for all others to
16- OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 17 of 26 Page ID#: 1429
seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equ<:~.l protection of the laws in the most literal sense."). The Equal Protection Clause does not allow classifications drawn solely for the purpose of disadvantaging a particular group intentionally singled out for unequal treatment. !d. For this reason, courts inquire whether the classification is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.Jd. at 632-33. Courts presume the classification is valid, declaring it unconstitutional only when "the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature's actions were irrational." Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979). That a majority of Oregon voters enacted Measure 36 in order to constitutionally embed such classifications makes no difference to this analysis. Romer, 517 U.S. at 635.
As noted by the state, justifications offered in enacting Measure 36 are similar to those offered by other states in defending other bans on same-gender marriage. One such justification is protecting traditional definitions of marriage. Another is protecting children and encouraging stable families. As discussed below, only the latter justification is a legitim~te st~te interest. Especially when viewed in light of the state's other official policies, many of which are unique to Oregon, the state's ban on same-gender marriage is clearly unrelated to protecting children and ·encouraging stable families. The marriage laws place the plaintiffs and other gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry in Oregon at a disadvantage, andthe laws do so without any rationally related government purpose. i. Tradition
Marriage has traditionally been limited to opposite-gender couples. That the traditional definition of marriage excluded same-gender couples, however, does not end the inquiry. See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 326 (1993) ("Ancient lineage of a legal concept does not give it
17- OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 18 of 26 Page ID#: 1430
immunity from attack for lacking a rational basis."). If tradition alone was sufficient to withstand rational basis review, the right to equal protection would be quite hollow. "Tradition" would simply tum rational basis review into a rubber stamp condoning discrimination against longstanding, traditionally oppressed Il1inority classes everywhere. Limiting civil marriage to opposite-gender couples based only on a traditional definition of marriage is simply not a legitimate purpose. Golinski v. Off ofFers. JI;Jgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d 968,998 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ("[T]he argument that the definition of marriage should remain the same for the definition's sake is a circular argument, not a rational justification. Simply stating what has always been does not address the reasons for it. The mere fact that prior law, history, tradition, the dictionary and the Bible have defined a term does not give that definition a rational basis, it merely states what has been.").
Certain traditions may reflect personal religious and moral beliefs. Such beliefs likely informed the votes of many who favored Measure 36. However, as expressed merely a year
before Measure 36's passage, "[m]oral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate
governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be 'drawn for the purpose of.disadvantaging the group burdened by the law."' Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 583 (2003) (O'Coru;10r, J., concurringin the judgment) (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 633). That year, the Supreme Court concluded a Texas law criminalizing private, consensual, sexual acts between two.adults was unconstitutional. The Court explicitly adopted Justice Stevens' dissent in Bowers -v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 216 (1986); another case involving laws criminalizing homosexual conduct. Lawrence, 539 U.W. 577-78. Over a vigorous dissent from Justice Scalia, the Court adopted Justice Stevens' earlier conclusion that "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is
18'- OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 19 of 26 Page ID#: 1431
not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice[.]" Id. at 577. This remains
the law of the land, that mere moral disapproval of a particular group of citizens is not a
legitimate reason for intentionally withholding rights and benefits from that group.
To be clear, this case deals with civil marriage. The state recognizes that marriage is.a
civil contract. Or. Rev. Stat.§ 106.010. It is that right, to enter into a civil contract of marriage,
and the right to share in the benefits and obligations flowing from that civil contract, that are at
issue here. Judge John G. Heyburn II ofthe Western District ofKentucky, one of an ever-
increasing-and so far unanimous-number of state and federal judges to strike down similar
state bans following Windsor, put it very well:
Our religious and social traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons.
The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith's definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom from it.
Bourke v. Beshear, 3:13-750,2014 WL 556729, at *10 (Feb. 12, 2014).
Overturning the discriminatory marriage laws will not upset Oregonians' religious beliefs and freedoms. 6 As tradition alone does not provide a legitimate state interest supporting
6 The New Mexico Supreme Court succinctly noted what religious impact allowing same-gender marriage would h'ave: "Our holding will not interfere with the religious freedom of religious organizations or clergy because (1) no religious organization will have to change its policies to accommodate same-gender couples, and (2) no religious clergy will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." Griego v. Oliver, 316 P.3d 865, 871 (2013); see also Kitchen, 961 F, Supp. 2d at 1214 ("[T]he court notes that its decision does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage."):
19- OPINION '

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 20 of 26 Page ID#: 1432
classifications based on sexual orientation, I tum to other possible justifications for the state's marriage laws. ii. Protecting Children and Encouraging Stable Families
Supporters of Measure 36, and defenders of similar marriage laws throughout the
('
country, often tum to variations of the state's interest in protecting children and families in supporting such laws. These arguments range from state interests in encouraging responsible and "natural" procreation to arguments that-children fare better in opposite-gender families. Although protecting children and promoting stable families is certainly a legitimate governmental interest, the state's marriage laws do not advance this interest-they harm it.
Although the state has a legitimate interest in promoting stable families, its interest does not stop with families of opposite-gender couples. By enabling gay and lesbian couples to enter domestic partnerships, the state acknowledged the value and importance such families can provide. Specifically, the Oregon Legislature, in enacting the Oregon Family Fairness Act, found that "[t]his state has a strong interest in promoting stable and lasting families, including the families of same-sex couples and their children. All Oregon families should be provided with the opportunity to obtain necessary legal protections and status and the ability to achieve their fullest potential."§ 106.305(4). The legislature also found that "[m]any gay and lesbian Oregonians have formed lasting, committed, caring and faithful relationships with individuals of the same sex, despite long-standing social and economic discrimination. These couples live together, participate in their communities together and often raise children and care for family members together, just as do couples who are married under Oregon law." § 106.305(3). With this .finding, the legislature acknowledged that our communities depend on, and are strengthened by, strong, stable families of all types whether headed by gay, lesbian, or straight co1:1ples.
20-0PINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 21 of 26 Page ID#: 1433

Yet, because the state is unable to extend to opposite-gender relationships the full rights,

benefits, and responsibilities of marriage, it is forced to burden, demean, and harm gay and

lesbian couples and their families so long as its current marriage laws stand.·Although the state

created domestic partnerships to "ensure[e] more equal treatment of gays and lesbians and their

families," § 106.305(6), it also recognized domestic partnerships are not eq_ual to civil marriage,

§ 106.305(7). Recognizing domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage simply states the
'-
obvious. In Windsor, Justice Kennedy recently pointed out rather dramatically these inequalities.

Justice Kennedy recognized that prohibiting same-gender couples from joining in marriage

"humiliates" children being raised by same-gender couples and "makes it even more difficult for ·

the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with

. other families in their community and their daily lives." 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Creating second-tier

.

-

families does not advance the state's strong interest in promoting and protecting all families.

Nor does prohibiting same-gender marriage further Oregon's interest in protecting all

children. For example, the state's interest in protecting children concerns more than just those

children created in wedlock. § 109.060 (relationship between child and parents is the same

regardless of parents' marital status). The state has an interest in protecting all children,

including adopted children. § 109.050 (relationship of adoptive child and adoptive parents is the

same as would exist if the child had been the adoptive parents' biological child). And the state

does not treat "naturally and legitimately conceived" children any different than children

c;onceived in other ways. § 109.243 (rights between a child produced by artificial insemination

and a mother's husband are the same as those that exist in a naturally conceived birth). When the-

state seeks homes to provide security and support for vulnerable children, it does so without

asking if the adults in such households are married, same-gender partnered, or single. St. Defs.'

21- OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 22 of 26 Page ID#: 1434
Resp. Mot. Summ. J. 22, ECF No. 64. The state's policies clearly demonstrate its interest in supporting all children, including children raised by same-gender couples.
The above policies make perfect sense. Oregon's policies accept that children fare the same whether raised by opposite-gender or same-gender couples. See DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 1210285,2014 WL 1100794, at *12 (E.D. Mich. March 21, 2014) (noting approximately 150 sociological and psychological studies confirm "there is simply no scientific basis to conclude that children raised in same-sex households fare worse than those raised in heterosexual households."); De Leon v. Perry, No. SA-13-CA-00982-0LG, 2014 WL 715741, aJ *15 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014) ("[S]ame-sex couples can be just as responsible for a child's welfare as the countless heterosexual couples across the nation."); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 479 (E.D. Va. 2014) ("Same-sex couples can be just as responsible for a child's existence as the countless couples across the nation who choose, or are compelled to rely upon, enhanced or alternative reproduction methods for procreation."); P~rry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921,980 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (finding "[t]he gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology."). The. realization that same-gender couples make just as good parents as opposite-gender couples is supported by more than just common sense; it is also supported by "the vast majority of scientific studies" examining the issue. See Brief of the Am. Psychol. Ass'n, et al. as Amici Curia, United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675,2695-96 (2013) (12-307), 2013 WL 871958, at *19 (listing studies).
22-0PINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 23 of 26 Page ID#: 1435
Some argue the state's int~rest in responsible procreation supports same-gender marriage bans. Procreation, however, is not vital to the state's interest in marriage. Procreative potential is not a marriage prerequisite.§ 106.010 (marriage is a civil contract between males and females at least 17 years of age). There is no prohibition to marriage as to sterile or infertile persons, or upon couples who have no desire to have children. The only prohibited marriages, other than those between same-gender couples, are those involving first cousins or those in which either . party is already married. § 106.020.
Additionally, any governmental interest in responsible procreation is not advanced by denying marriage to gay a lesbian couples. There is no logical nexus between the interest and the exclusion. See Bishop, 962 F. Supp. 2d. at 1291 ("[T]here is no rational link between excluding same-sex couples fr;m marriage and the goals of encouraging 'responsible procreation' ...."). Opposite-gender couples will continue to choose to have children responsibly or not, and those considerations are not impacted in any way by whether sam~­ gender couples are allowed to marry. Nothing in this court's opinion today will effect the miracle of birth, accidental or otherwise. A couple who has had an unplanned child has, by definition, given little thought to the outcome of their actions. The fact that their lesbian neighbors got married in the month prior to conception seems of little import to the stork thai is flying their way.
The logical nexus between the state's interest in "natural" procreation and denying marriage to same-gender couples is as unpersuasive as the argument in favor of responsible procreation. Oregon law plays no favorites between "naturally and legitimately conceived" ·children and those conceived via artificial insemination.§ 109.243 (so long as the husband consented to the artificial insemination, the child will have the same rights and relationship as
23 -OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 24 of 26 Page ID#: 1436
between naturally conceived children). The state's interest is in a child's well-being regardless of the ndeans of conception. There is simply no rational argument connecting this interest to the prohibition of same-gender marriage.
Although protecting children and promoting stable families is a legitimate governmental purpose, prohibiting same-gender couples from marrying is not rationally related to that interest. To justify classifications singling out a particular class of persons, the law must, at a minimum, contain some "factual context" tying the classification to the purpose sought to be achieved. Romer, 517 U.S. at 632-33. There is no such factual context here. In,fact, the relationship between prohibiting same-gender couples from marrying and protecting children and promoting stable families is utterly arbitrary and completely irrational. The state's marriage laws fly in the face of the state's "strong interest in promoting stable and lasting families, including the families of same-sex couples and their children." § 106.305(4).
Expanding the embrace of civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples will not burden any legitimate state interest. The attractiveness of marriage to opposite-gender couples is not derived from its inaccessibility to same-gender couples. 0ee Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 972 ("Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of oppositesex marriages."). The well-being of Oregon's children is not enhanced by destabilizing and limiting the rights and resources available to gay and lesbian families. See Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968, 994~95 (S.D. Ohio 2013) ("The only effect the bans have on children's well-being is harming the children of same-sex couples who are denied the protection and stability of having parents who are legally married.").
24-0PINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 25 of 26 Page ID#: 1437
The state's marriage laws unjustifiably treat same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. The laws assess a couple's fitness for civil marriage based on their sexual orientation: opposite-gender couples pass; same-gender couples do not. No legitimate state purpose justifies the preclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage.
CONCLUSION I am aware that a large number of Oregonians, perhaps even a majority, have religious or moral objections to expanding the definition of civil marriage (and thereby expanding the benefits and rights that accompany marriage) to gay and lesbian families. It was' these same objections that led to the passage of Measure 36 in 2004. Generations of Americans, my own included, were raised in a world in which homosexuality was believed to be a moral perversion, a mental disorder, or a mortal sin. I remember that one of the more popular playground games of my childhood was called "smear the queer" 7 and it was played with great zeal and without a moment's thought to today' s political correctness. On a darker level, that same worldview led to an environment of cruelty, violence, and self-loathing. It was but 1~86 when the United States
Supreme Court justified, on the basis of a"millennia of moral teaching," the imprisonment of
gay men and lesbian women who engaged in consensual sexual acts. Bowers, 478 U.S. at 197 (Burger, C.J., concurring), overruled by Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578. Even today I am reminded of the legacy that we have bequeathed today' s generation when my son looks dismissively at the sweater I bought him for Christmas and, with a roll of his eyes, says "dad ... that is so gay."
It is not surprising then that many of us raised with such a world view would wish to protect our beliefs and our families by turning to the ballot box to enshrine in law those traditions
J The game entailed boys tackling one another "until one survivor remained standing." Frazier v. Norton, 334 N.W.2d 865, 866 (S.D. 1983). Children today continue to play the ga,me, now known as "kill the carrif2r."
25 -OPINION

Case 6:13-cv-02256-MC Document 116 Filed 05/19/14 Page 26 of 26 Page ID#: 1438

. we have come to value. But just as the Constitution protects the expression of these moral viewpoints, it equally protects the minority from being diminished by them.
It is at times difficult to see past the shrillness of the debate. Accusations of religious bigotry and banners reading "God Hates Fags" make for a messy democracy and, at times, test the First Amendmentresolve.ofboth sides. At the core of the Equal Protection Clause, however, there exists a foundational belief that certain rights should be shielded from the barking crowds; that certain rights are subject to ownership by all and not the stake hold of popular trend or shifting majorities.
My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families. Families who we would expect our Constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure. With discernment we see not shadows lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather, we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and service to the greater community.
Whe~e will this all lead? I know that many suggest we are going down a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other ... and rise. ORDER TO FOLLOW.

DATED this j_J_th day of May, 2014. 26-0PINION

"-----~
Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge

 
 Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 1 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>
TERMINATED,
U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Eugene (6)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:13−cv−02256−MC

Rummell et al v. Kitzhaber et al Assigned to: Judge Michael J. McShane Lead case: 6:13−cv−01834−MC Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Paul Rummell

Date Filed: 12/19/2013 Date Terminated: 05/19/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Amanda C. Goad American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5273 Email: agoad@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Middleton Johnson, Johnson & Schaller 975 Oak Street Suite 1050 Eugene, OR 97401 541−683−2506 Fax: 541−484−0882 Email: jmiddleton@justicelawyers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Diaz Compassion & Choices 4224 NE Halsey St Ste 335 Portland, OR 97231 503.943.6532 Email: kdiaz@compassionandchoices.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina J. Holm Perkins Coie, LLP 1120 NW Couch Street 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209−4128 503−727−2157 Fax: 503−346−2157 Email: KJHolm@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Misha A.D. Isaak Perkins Coie, LLP 1120 NW Couch Street 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209−4128 503−727−2086 Fax: 503−346−2086

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 2 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

Email: MIsaak@perkinscoie.com (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rose A. Saxe American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−549−2672 Fax: 212−549−2650 Email: rsaxe@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas R. Johnson Perkins Coie, LLP 1120 NW Couch Street 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209−4128 503−727−2176 Fax: 503−727−2222 Email: TRJohnson@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Benjamin West

represented by Amanda C. Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer J. Middleton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristina J. Holm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Misha A.D. Isaak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rose A. Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas R. Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 3 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lisa Chickadonz

represented by Amanda C. Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer J. Middleton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristina J. Holm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Misha A.D. Isaak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rose A. Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas R. Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Christine Tanner

represented by Amanda C. Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer J. Middleton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristina J. Holm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Misha A.D. Isaak (See above for address)

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 4 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rose A. Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas R. Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Basic Rights Education Fund

represented by Amanda C. Goad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Will Eidson Stoel Rives, LLP (Seattle) 600 University Street Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 206−624−0900 Fax: 206−386−7500 Email: jweidson@stoel.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer J. Middleton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristina J. Holm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Misha A.D. Isaak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rose A. Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas R. Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 5 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

Plaintiff Deanna L. Geiger

represented by Lake James H. Perriguey Law Works, LLC 1906 SW Madison Street Portland, OR 97205−1718 503−227−1928 Fax: 503−334−2340 Email: lake@law−works.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Janine M. Nelson

represented by Lake James H. Perriguey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William Griesar

represented by Lake James H. Perriguey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert Duehmig

represented by Lake James H. Perriguey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman Stoel Rives, LLP (Seattle) 600 University Street Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 206−624−0900 Fax: 206−386−7500 Email: ljfeldman@stoel.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
John Kitzhaber in his official capacity as Governor of Oregon

represented by Anna M. Joyce Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301 503−378−4402 Email: anna.joyce@doj.state.or.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Williams Oregon Department of Justice 5625 SW California St Portland, OR 97219 503−407−9048 Email: mary_h_williams@msn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 6 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

Defendant Ellen Rosenblum in her official capacity as Attorney General of Oregon
Defendant Jennifer Woodward in her official capacity as State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority
Defendant Randy Waldruff in his official capacity as Multnomah County Assessor

Sheila H. Potter Oregon Department of Justice Trial Division 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 971−673−1880 Fax: (971) 673−5000 Email: sheila.potter@doj.state.or.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anna M. Joyce (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila H. Potter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anna M. Joyce (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheila H. Potter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Katharine Von Ter Stegge Office of the Multnomah County Attorney 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500 Portland, OR 97214 503−988−3138 Fax: 503−988−3377 Email: katevts@multco.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny M. Madkour Office of the Multnomah County Attorney 501 SE Hawthorne Boulevard Suite 500 Portland, OR 97214 (503) 988−3138 Fax: (503) 988−3377 Email: jenny.m.madkour@multco.us

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 7 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID> ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant National Organization for Marriage, Inc. TERMINATED: 05/14/2014
Amicus Oregon United for Marriage
Amicus

represented by John C. Eastman Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence c/o Chapman University Fowler School of Law One University Drive Orange, CA 90807 (877) 855−3330 Fax: (714) 844−4817 Email: jeastman@chapman.edu LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roger K. Harris Harris Berne Christensen, LLP 5000 S.W. Meadows Road Suite 400 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503−968−1475 Fax: 503−968−2003 Email: roger@hbclawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven C. Berman Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter 209 S.W. Oak Street 5th Floor Portland, OR 97204 (503) 227−1600 Fax: (503) 227−6840 Email: sberman@stollberne.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nadine A. Gartner Stoll Berne 209 SW Oak St. Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 503−227−1600 Fax: 503−227−6840 Email: ngartner@stollberne.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 8 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

Oregon Says I Do

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven C. Berman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nadine A. Gartner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Nike, Inc.

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus NW Natural

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Portland General Electric Company

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Neil Kelly Company

represented by

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 9 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Weinstein PR

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Morel Ink

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Gerding Edlen

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Oregon Business Association

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 10 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus HM3 Energy, Inc.

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Intel Corporation

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Oregon State University

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Portland Timbers

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Tonkon Torp

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 11 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Portland State University

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus NW Evaluation Association

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Christopher David Experience Design

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Autodesk, Inc.

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Standard Insurance Company

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 12 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Oregon Health & Science University

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Columbia Sportswear Company

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Powell's Books

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Medford Fabrication

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Russell Development Company

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 13 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Torpet LLC

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Portland Business Alliance

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Portland Public Schools

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus salesforce.com, Inc.

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 14 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Gard Communications

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Celilo Group Media, Inc.

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Starbucks Coffee Company

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Moda Health Plan Inc.

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus EDJE Consulting

represented by

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 15 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus University of Oregon

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Jubitz Family Foundation

represented by James Will Eidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland

represented by Andrew M. Schlesinger 4111 S.W. Garden Home Road Portland, OR 97219 (503) 893−0002 Email: schlesinger.andrew@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather K. Cavanaugh Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP 111 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 3400 Portland, OR 97204 503−205−2417 Fax: 503−224−0155 Email: heather.cavanaugh@millernash.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Oregon Area Jewish Committee

represented by Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 16 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather K. Cavanaugh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Oregon Board of Rabbis

represented by Leonard J. Feldman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather K. Cavanaugh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/19/2013 12/19/2013
12/19/2013 12/19/2013 12/19/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/23/2013
12/23/2013

# Docket Text
1 Complaint. Filing fee in the amount of $400 collected. Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3524138 Jury Trial Requested: No. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Benjamin West, Paul Rummell, Lisa Chickadonz, Christine Tanner against John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Randy Waldruff, Jennifer Woodward (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet). (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
2 Notice of Case Assignment to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3−5. Discovery is to be completed by 4/18/2014. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 5/19/2014. Pretrial Order is due by 5/19/2014. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
3 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Amanda Goad . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3524866. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
4 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Rose Saxe . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3524888. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
5 Proposed Summons to John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward and Randy Waldruff Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
6 Motion to Consolidate . Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
7 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Consolidate. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion to Consolidate 6 .) (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
9 ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Amanda C. Goad for Basic Rights Education Fund,Amanda C. Goad for Lisa Chickadonz,Amanda C. Goad for Paul Rummell,Amanda C. Goad for Christine Tanner,Amanda C. Goad for Benjamin West. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−3524866 issued. Signed on 12/23/13 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
10 ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Rose A. Saxe for Basic Rights Education Fund,Rose A. Saxe for Lisa Chickadonz,Rose A. Saxe for Paul Rummell,Rose A. Saxe for Christine Tanner,Rose A. Saxe for Benjamin West.

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 17 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/26/2013 01/03/2014 01/03/2014 01/03/2014 01/08/2014 01/14/2014 01/20/2014 01/22/2014 01/22/2014 02/05/2014 02/05/2014
02/10/2014
02/10/2014 02/10/2014
02/11/2014

Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−3524888 issued. Signed on 12/23/13 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
8 Summons Issued Electronically as to John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Randy Waldruff, Jennifer Woodward. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3−5. (ljb) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
11 Response in Opposition to Motion to Consolidate 6 . Filed by Deanna L. Geiger, Janine M. Nelson, William Griesar, Robert Duehmig. (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 01/03/2014)
12 Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Consolidate 6 . Filed by Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson. (Perriguey, Lake James) Modified on for clarity of the record 1/9/2014 (ljb). (Entered: 01/03/2014)
13 Declaration of Misha Isaak of Service. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Isaak, Misha) (Entered: 01/03/2014)
14 Response to Motion to Consolidate 6 . Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward. (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
15 Response to Motion to Consolidate 6 . Filed by Randy Waldruff. (Von Ter Stegge, Katharine) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
16 Reply to Motion to Consolidate 6 . Filed by Paul Rummell. (Isaak, Misha) (Entered: 01/20/2014)
17 Amended Complaint . Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Benjamin West, Paul Rummell, Lisa Chickadonz, Christine Tanner against John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Randy Waldruff, Jennifer Woodward. (Isaak, Misha) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
18 Notice of Association of Attorney Sheila H. Potter,Anna M. Joyce for Jennifer Woodward,Anna M. Joyce for Ellen Rosenblum,Anna M. Joyce for John Kitzhaber. Filed by Jennifer Woodward, Ellen Rosenblum, John Kitzhaber (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
19 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint(17 in 6:13−cv−02256−TC). Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−TC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
20 Declaration of Sheila H. Potter . Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to Answer a Complaint/Petition, (19 in 6:13−cv−02256−TC, 34 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−TC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
21 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time and to Amend Memorandum. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−TC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
22 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Filed by Randy Waldruff. (Von Ter Stegge, Katharine) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
23 Declaration of Katharine von Ter Stegge in Support of Defendant Randy Walruff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Filed by Randy Waldruff. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to Answer a Complaint/Petition 22 .) (Von Ter Stegge, Katharine) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
24 Notice of Case Reassignment: This case has been reassigned from Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin to Judge Michael J. McShane. (eo) (Entered: 02/11/2014)

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 18 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/11/2014
02/12/2014 02/12/2014 02/12/2014 02/13/2014 02/13/2014
02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014

25 ORDER: Granting Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer (34) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC ((19) and (22)in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Granting Joint Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (36) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC ( 21 in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Answer is due by 2/12/2014. Dispositive Motions from Rummell plaintiffs' are due by 2/18/2014 and amended memorandums from Geiger plaintiffs' are due 2/18/2014. Responses to Dispositive Motions are due by 3/18/2014. Replies to Dispositive Motions are due by 4/1/2014. Oral Argument remains set for 1:30PM on 4/23/2014 in Eugene Courtroom 2 before Judge Michael J. McShane. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
26 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint(17 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
27 Declaration of Sheila H. Potter . Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to Answer a Complaint/Petition, (26 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
28 Answer to 17 Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses. Filed by Randy Waldruff. (Von Ter Stegge, Katharine) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
29 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Answer (38) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Answer (26) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Answer is due by 2/20/2014. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
30 Amended Order: Granting Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer (34) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC ((19) and (22)in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Granting Joint Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (36) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC ( 21 in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Answer is due by 2/12/2014. Dispositive Motions from Rummell plaintiffs' are due by 2/18/2014 and amended memorandums from Geiger plaintiffs' are due 2/18/2014. Responses to Dispositive Motions are due by 3/18/2014. Replies to Dispositive Motions are due by 4/1/2014. Amicus Briefs are due 4/1/2014. Oral Argument remains set for 1:30PM on 4/23/2014 in Eugene Courtroom 2 before Judge Michael J. McShane. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
31 Motion for Summary Judgment . Oral Argument requested. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
32 Plaintiffs' First Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(23 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/26/2014: # 1 Memo with Active Hyperlinks) (cp). Modified on 2/26/2014 to attach Memo with active hyperlinks.(cp). (Entered: 02/18/2014)
33 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
34 Second Declaration of Lea Ann Easton in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(23 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC).) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 02/18/2014)

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 19 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/18/2014
02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014

35 Declaration of Misha Isaak in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
36 Declaration of Paul Rummell in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
37 Declaration of Benjamin West in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
38 Declaration of Lisa Chickadonz in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
39 Declaration of Christine Tanner in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
40 Declaration of Jeana Frazzini in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
41 Declaration of Eric Marcoux in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
42 Declaration of Nicola Cowie in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
43 Declaration of Maura C. Roche in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
44 Declaration of Mark Johnson Roberts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
45 Declaration of Mark Clift . Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 20 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/18/2014 02/20/2014 03/04/2014 03/04/2014
03/04/2014
03/05/2014
03/17/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 04/01/2014 04/01/2014 04/01/2014

(Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
46 Declaration of Gregory A. Chaimov . Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
47 Answer to 17 Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses. Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward. (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
48 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC), Motion for Summary Judgment (23 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC). Filed by Randy Waldruff.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Von Ter Stegge, Katharine) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
49 Declaration of Marissa Madrigal in Support of Defendant Walruff's Response to Motions for Summary Judgment Filed in The Geiger and Rummell Cases. Filed by Randy Waldruff. (Related document(s): Response to Motion, (59 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 48 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Von Ter Stegge, Katharine) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
50 Declaration of Katharine von Ter Stegge in Support of Defendant Walruff's Response to Motions for Summary Judgment Filed in The Geiger and Rummell Cases. Filed by Randy Waldruff. (Related document(s): Response to Motion, (59 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 48 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Von Ter Stegge, Katharine) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
51 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 1/22/2014 before Judge Michael J. McShane, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number (541)431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 3/17/2014. Redaction Request due 3/31/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/10/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/6/2014. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
52 Notice of Association of Attorney Sheila H. Potter. Mary Williams. Filed by Jennifer Woodward, Ellen Rosenblum, John Kitzhaber, Jennifer Woodward, Ellen Rosenblum, John KitzhaberAssociated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
53 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC), Motion for Summary Judgment (23 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC). Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
54 Declaration of Sheila H. Potter . Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward. (Related document(s): Response to Motion, (64 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 53 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
55 Amicus Brief of Oregon Employers as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Pedersen, Amy) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
56 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment and Amici Curiae Memorandum. Filed by Oregon United for Marriage, Oregon Says I Do.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Berman, Steven) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
57 Declaration of Mike Marshall in Support of Oregon Says I Do and Oregon United for Marriage's Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment and Amici Curiae Memorandum. Filed by

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 21 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/01/2014 04/01/2014 04/01/2014 04/01/2014 04/01/2014 04/01/2014 04/02/2014
04/02/2014
04/02/2014

Oregon Says I Do, Oregon United for Marriage. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave, (56 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC, 66 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Berman, Steven) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
58 Declaration of Steven C. Berman in Support of Oregon Says I Do and Oregon United for Marriage's Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment and Amici Curiae Memorandum. Filed by Oregon Says I Do, Oregon United for Marriage. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave, (56 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC, 66 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC).) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Berman, Steven) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
59 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Leonard J. Feldman . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3628993. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Pedersen, Amy) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
60 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney James Will Eidson . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3629020. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Pedersen, Amy) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
61 Amicus Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Cavanaugh, Heather) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
62 ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of James W. Eidson for Oregon Says I Do,James W. Eidson for Oregon United for Marriage. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−3629020 issued. Signed on 4/1/14 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (ljb) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
63 ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Leonard J. Feldman for Oregon Says I Do,Leonard J. Feldman for Oregon United for Marriage. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−3628993 issued. Signed on 4/1/14 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (ljb) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
64 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Brief of Oregon Employers as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs. Filed by Amici, Nike, Inc., NW Natural, Portland General Electric Company, Neil Kelly Company, Weinstein PR, Weinstein PR, Morel Ink, Gerding Edlen, Oregon Business Association, HM3 Energy, Inc., Intel Corporation, Oregon State University, Portland Timbers, Tonkon Torp, Portland State University, NW Evaluation Association, Christopher David Experience Design, Autodesk, Inc., Standard Insurance Company, Oregon Health & Science University, Columbia Sportswear Company, Powell's Books, Medford Fabrication, Russell Development Company, Torpet LLC, Portland Business Alliance, Portland Public Schools, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., salesforce.com, Inc., Gard Communications, Celilo Group Media, Inc., Starbucks Coffee Company, Moda Health, EDJE Consulting, University of Oregon, and Jubitz Family Foundation.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Pedersen, Amy) Modified on 4/4/2014 to correct party filer(cp). (Entered: 04/02/2014)
65 Brief of Oregon Employers as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs. Filed by Amici, Nike, Inc., NW Natural, Portland General Electric Company, Neil Kelly Company, Weinstein PR, Weinstein PR, Morel Ink, Gerding Edlen, Oregon Business Association, HM3 Energy, Inc., Intel Corporation, Oregon State University, Portland Timbers, Tonkon Torp, Portland State University, NW Evaluation Association, Christopher David Experience Design, Autodesk, Inc., Standard Insurance Company, Oregon Health & Science University, Columbia Sportswear Company, Powell's Books, Medford Fabrication, Russell Development Company, Torpet LLC, Portland Business Alliance, Portland Public Schools, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., salesforce.com, Inc., Gard Communications, Celilo Group Media, Inc., Starbucks Coffee Company, Moda Health, EDJE Consulting, University of Oregon, and Jubitz Family Foundation. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave(64 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Pedersen, Amy) Modified on 4/4/2014 to correct filer(cp). (Entered: 04/02/2014)
66 Amended Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Leonard J. Feldman . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3631582. Filed by All Plaintiffs.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Pedersen, Amy) (Entered: 04/02/2014)

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 22 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/02/2014 04/03/2014 04/04/2014
04/04/2014
04/04/2014 04/04/2014 04/04/2014

67 Amended Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney James Will Eidson . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3631584. Filed by All Plaintiffs.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Pedersen, Amy) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
68 Motion to Strike Amicus Brief of Oregon Employers as Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiff's (DKT NO. 55) and Memorandum in Support Thereof Brief 55 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Pedersen, Amy) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
69 Order for Administrative Correction of the Record pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) regarding Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Brief of Oregon Employers as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs(64 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC, 69 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC). A Clerical error has been discovered in the case record. The Clerk is directed to make the following administrative corrections to the record: The filing indicates it was filed by all plaintiffs, when in fact it was filed by Amici, Nike, Inc., NW Natural, Portland General Electric Company, Neil Kelly Company, Weinstein PR, Weinstein PR, Morel Ink, Gerding Edlen, Oregon Business Association, HM3 Energy, Inc., Intel Corporation, Oregon State University, Portland Timbers, Tonkon Torp, Portland State University, NW Evaluation Association, Christopher David Experience Design, Autodesk, Inc., Standard Insurance Company, Oregon Health & Science University, Columbia Sportswear Company, Powell's Books, Medford Fabrication, Russell Development Company, Torpet LLC, Portland Business Alliance, Portland Public Schools, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., salesforce.com, Inc., Gard Communications, Celilo Group Media, Inc., Starbucks Coffee Company, Moda Health, EDJE Consulting, University of Oregon, and Jubitz Family Foundation. The Clerk is directed to correct the docket text accordingly. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
70 Order for Administrative Correction of the Record pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) regarding Brief(70 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 65 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC). A Clerical error has been discovered in the case record. The Clerk is directed to make the following administrative corrections to the record: The filing indicates it was filed by all plaintiffs, when in fact it was filed by Amici, Nike, Inc., NW Natural, Portland General Electric Company, Neil Kelly Company, Weinstein PR, Weinstein PR, Morel Ink, Gerding Edlen, Oregon Business Association, HM3 Energy, Inc., Intel Corporation, Oregon State University, Portland Timbers, Tonkon Torp, Portland State University, NW Evaluation Association, Christopher David Experience Design, Autodesk, Inc., Standard Insurance Company, Oregon Health & Science University, Columbia Sportswear Company, Powell's Books, Medford Fabrication, Russell Development Company, Torpet LLC, Portland Business Alliance, Portland Public Schools, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., salesforce.com, Inc., Gard Communications, Celilo Group Media, Inc., Starbucks Coffee Company, Moda Health, EDJE Consulting, University of Oregon, and Jubitz Family Foundation. The Clerk is directed to correct the docket text accordingly. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
71 ORDER: Granting Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Brief of Oregon Employers as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs (69) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Motion for Leave (64) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
72 ORDER: Granting Oregon United for Marriage and Oregon Says I Do's Motion for Leave (66) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC (Granting Motion for Leave (56) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
93 ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Leonard J. Feldman for Autodesk, Inc.,Celilo Group Media, Inc., Columbia Sportswear Company, EDJE Consulting, Gard Communications, Gerding Edlen, HM3 Energy, Inc., Intel Corporation, Jubitz Family Foundation, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Medford Fabrication, Moda Health, Morel Ink, NW Evaluation Association, NW Natural, Neil Kelly Company, Nike, Inc., Oregon Business Association, Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon State University, Portland Business Alliance, Portland General Electric Company, Portland Public Schools, Portland State University, Portland

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 23 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/04/2014

Timbers, Powell's Books, Russell Development Company, Standard Insurance Company, Starbucks Coffee Company, Tonkon Torp, Torpet LLC, University of Oregon, Weinstein PR, salesforce.com, Inc., PECI. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−3631582 issued in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Signed on 4/4/14 by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (ljb) Modified on 4/24/2014 to clean up docket text and to remove parties not represented by this attorney(cp). (Entered: 04/23/2014)
94 ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of James W. Eidson for Autodesk, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Basic Rights Education Fund,James W. Eidson for Celilo Group Media, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Christopher David Experience Design,James W. Eidson for Columbia Sportswear Company,James W. Eidson for EDJE Consulting,James W. Eidson for Gard Communications,James W. Eidson for Gerding Edlen,James W. Eidson for HM3 Energy, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Intel Corporation,James W. Eidson for Jubitz Family Foundation,James W. Eidson for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Medford Fabrication,James W. Eidson for Moda Health,James W. Eidson for Morel Ink,James W. Eidson for NW Evaluation Association,James W. Eidson for NW Natural,James W. Eidson for Neil Kelly Company,James W. Eidson for Nike, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Oregon Business Association,James W. Eidson for Oregon Health & Science University,James W. Eidson for Oregon State University,James W. Eidson for Portland Business Alliance,James W. Eidson for Portland General Electric Company,James W. Eidson for Portland Public Schools,James W. Eidson for Portland State University,James W. Eidson for Portland Timbers,James W. Eidson for Powell's Books,James W. Eidson for Russell Development Company,James W. Eidson for Standard Insurance Company,James W. Eidson for Starbucks Coffee Company,James W. Eidson for Tonkon Torp,James W. Eidson for Torpet LLC,James W. Eidson for University of Oregon,James W. Eidson for Weinstein PR,James W. Eidson for salesforce.com, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Autodesk, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Celilo Group Media, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Christopher David Experience Design,James W. Eidson for Columbia Sportswear Company,James W. Eidson for EDJE Consulting,James W. Eidson for Gard Communications,James W. Eidson for Gerding Edlen,James W. Eidson for HM3 Energy, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Intel Corporation,James W. Eidson for Jubitz Family Foundation,James W. Eidson for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Medford Fabrication,James W. Eidson for Moda Health,James W. Eidson for Morel Ink,James W. Eidson for NW Evaluation Association,James W. Eidson for NW Natural,James W. Eidson for Neil Kelly Company,James W. Eidson for Nike, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Oregon Business Association,James W. Eidson for Oregon Health & Science University,James W. Eidson for Oregon Says I Do,James W. Eidson for Oregon State University,James W. Eidson for Oregon United for Marriage,James W. Eidson for Portland Business Alliance,James W. Eidson for Portland General Electric Company,James W. Eidson for Portland Public Schools,James W. Eidson for Portland State University,James W. Eidson for Portland Timbers,James W. Eidson for Powell's Books,James W. Eidson for Ellen Rosenblum,James W. Eidson for Russell Development Company,James W. Eidson for Standard Insurance Company,James W. Eidson for Starbucks Coffee Company,James W. Eidson for Tonkon Torp,James W. Eidson for Torpet LLC,James W. Eidson for University of Oregon,James W. Eidson for Weinstein PR,James W. Eidson for salesforce.com, Inc.. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−3631584 issued in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of James W. Eidson for Autodesk, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Basic Rights Education Fund,James W. Eidson for Celilo Group Media, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Christopher David Experience Design,James W. Eidson for Columbia Sportswear Company,James W. Eidson for EDJE Consulting,James W. Eidson for Gard Communications,James W. Eidson for Gerding Edlen,James W. Eidson for HM3 Energy, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Intel Corporation,James W. Eidson for Jubitz Family Foundation,James W. Eidson for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Medford Fabrication,James W. Eidson for Moda Health,James W. Eidson for Morel Ink,James W. Eidson for NW Evaluation Association,James W. Eidson for NW Natural,James W. Eidson for Neil Kelly Company,James W. Eidson for Nike, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Oregon Business Association,James W. Eidson for Oregon Health & Science University,James W. Eidson for Oregon State University,James W. Eidson for Portland Business Alliance,James W. Eidson for Portland General Electric Company,James W. Eidson for Portland Public Schools,James W. Eidson for Portland State University,James W. Eidson for Portland

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 24 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/08/2014
04/08/2014 04/08/2014 04/09/2014

Timbers,James W. Eidson for Powell's Books,James W. Eidson for Russell Development Company,James W. Eidson for Standard Insurance Company,James W. Eidson for Starbucks Coffee Company,James W. Eidson for Tonkon Torp,James W. Eidson for Torpet LLC,James W. Eidson for University of Oregon,James W. Eidson for Weinstein PR,James W. Eidson for salesforce.com, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Autodesk, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Celilo Group Media, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Christopher David Experience Design,James W. Eidson for Columbia Sportswear Company,James W. Eidson for EDJE Consulting,James W. Eidson for Gard Communications,James W. Eidson for Gerding Edlen,James W. Eidson for HM3 Energy, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Intel Corporation,James W. Eidson for Jubitz Family Foundation,James W. Eidson for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Medford Fabrication,James W. Eidson for Moda Health,James W. Eidson for Morel Ink,James W. Eidson for NW Evaluation Association,James W. Eidson for NW Natural,James W. Eidson for Neil Kelly Company,James W. Eidson for Nike, Inc.,James W. Eidson for Oregon Business Association,James W. Eidson for Oregon Health & Science University,James W. Eidson for Oregon Says I Do,James W. Eidson for Oregon State University,James W. Eidson for Oregon United for Marriage,James W. Eidson for Portland Business Alliance,James W. Eidson for Portland General Electric Company,James W. Eidson for Portland Public Schools,James W. Eidson for Portland State University,James W. Eidson for Portland Timbers,James W. Eidson for Powell's Books,James W. Eidson for Ellen Rosenblum,James W. Eidson for Russell Development Company,James W. Eidson for Standard Insurance Company,James W. Eidson for Starbucks Coffee Company,James W. Eidson for Tonkon Torp,James W. Eidson for Torpet LLC,James W. Eidson for University of Oregon,James W. Eidson for Weinstein PR,James W. Eidson for salesforce.com, Inc.. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−3631584 issued in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Signed on 4/4/14 by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (ljb) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
73 Request for Refund of Fees Paid Electronically regarding Amended Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney James Will Eidson . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3631584(67 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC, 72 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC), Amended Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Leonard J. Feldman . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3631582(66 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC, 71 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC) . Filed by Autodesk, Inc., Celilo Group Media, Inc., Christopher David Experience Design, Columbia Sportswear Company, EDJE Consulting, Gard Communications, Gerding Edlen, HM3 Energy, Inc., Intel Corporation, Jubitz Family Foundation, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Medford Fabrication, Moda Health, Morel Ink, NW Evaluation Association, NW Natural, Neil Kelly Company, Nike, Inc., Oregon Business Association, Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon State University, Portland Business Alliance, Portland General Electric Company, Portland Public Schools, Portland State University, Portland Timbers, Powell's Books, Russell Development Company, Standard Insurance Company, Starbucks Coffee Company, Tonkon Torp, Torpet LLC, University of Oregon, Weinstein PR, salesforce.com, Inc.. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Pedersen, Amy) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
74 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Brief of Oregon Religious Organizations as Amici Curaie in Support of Plaintiffs. Filed by Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland, Oregon Area Jewish Committee, Oregon Board of Rabbis.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Cavanaugh, Heather) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
75 Brief of Oregon Religious Organizations as Amici Curaie in Support of Plaintiffs. Filed by Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland, Oregon Area Jewish Committee, Oregon Board of Rabbis. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave, (74 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Cavanaugh, Heather) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
76 ORDER: Granting Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland, Oregon Area Jewish Committee, Oregon Board of Rabbis' Motion for Leave (78) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Motion for Leave (74) in case

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 25 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/16/2014 04/21/2014
04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014
04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014

6:13−cv−02256−MC. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
77 Clerk's Notice of Pay.gov Refund regarding Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3628993. The request has been granted and the amount of $100.00 will be refunded to Stoel Rives LLP Related Doc (77 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 73 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC) Request for Refund of Fees Paid Electronically. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (ljp) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
78 Clerk's Notice of Pay.gov Refund regarding Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3629020. The request has been granted and the amount of $100.00 will be refunded to Stoel Rives LLP Related Doc (77 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 73 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC) Request for Refund of Fees Paid Electronically. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC(ljp) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
79 ORDER: Granting Motion to Strike 68 . Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
80 Order: Judge McShane requests that the parties confer prior to the hearing to discuss the order in which the parties will proceed and to designate which attorneys will be making the oral arguments. Charlene Pew, my courtroom deputy, will escort the attorneys to chambers 15 minutes prior to the hearing for an in chambers discussion. The court would also like to know what parties or party representatives will be present for the arguments. The parties should be prepared to discuss their position regarding a stay of any court order pending further clarification by the Ninth Circuit or further action by Oregon voters. (Related Docs. Motion for Summary Judgment (23 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC), Scheduling Order (30 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC, 41 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC), Motion for Summary Judgment (42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
81 Notice re Motion for Summary Judgment 31 of Supplemental Authorities Filed by All Plaintiffs (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 31 .) (Middleton, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
82 Notice re Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC) of Supplemental Authorities Filed by All Plaintiffs (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Middleton, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
83 Order: Oral Argument regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment is currently set for 1:30 P.M. on 4/23/2014 in Eugene Courtroom 2 before Judge Michael J. McShane. The proceeding will be broadcast for overflow purposes to Courtroom 3 in Eugene and to Courtroom 12A in Portland. No electronic devices of any kind will be allowed in Courtroom 2 or the overflow courtrooms for this proceeding. Counsel for a named party unable to attend the hearing in person is directed to contact Charlene Pew, Courtroom Deputy to Judge McShane by 5:00 P.M. on 4/22/2014 to arrange for attendance via telephone conference. Counsel for the parties can arrange for overnight delivery of a transcript of the proceedings by contacting Court Reporter, Kristi Anderson at (541) 431−4112 prior to the hearing. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
84 Motion to Intervene . Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc..Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
85 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene. Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion to intervene(84 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
86 Declaration of Brian S. Brown in Support of Motion to Intervene. Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion to intervene(84 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 04/21/2014)

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 26 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/22/2014 04/22/2014
04/22/2014
04/23/2014 04/23/2014
04/28/2014 04/29/2014

87 Proposed Answer to 17 Amended Complaint . Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc.. (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
88 Corporate Disclosure Statement . Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc.. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
89 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney John C. Eastman . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3651249. Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc..Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
90 Motion to Postpone Summary Judgment Hearing and Extend Time for Submitting Rule 56 Memoranda. Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc..Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
91 ORDER: Oral argument on plaintiff's motion for summary judgement was scheduled on January 22, 2014, for tomorrow afternoon. Today, a proposed intervenor represented by California counsel, moves this court to postpone argument while the court considers their motion to intervene filed at 11:00 P.M. last night. The Motion to Postpone 92 is DENIED as untimely. In order to brief and participate in any motion for summary judgement, the proposed intervenor must first demonstrate it has standing to intervene. The court will not issue a decision on summary judgement pending resolution of the motion to intervene. If intervention is allowed, the court will schedule a second briefing schedule on summary judgement or the court will set the matter for trial. All responses to the Motion to Intervene 86 are due May 2, 2014. Proposed intervenor is to reply by May 9, 2014. Oral argument on the motion to intervene 86 is set for 9:00 A.M. on 5/14/2014 in Courtroom 2 of the Eugene Courthouse before Judge Michael J. McShane. The attorneys are to appear in person. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
95 ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of John C. Eastman for National Organization for Marriage, Inc.,John C. Eastman for National Organization for Marriage, Inc. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−3651249 issued in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of John C. Eastman for National Organization for Marriage, Inc.,John C. Eastman for National Organization for Marriage, Inc. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−3651249 issued in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Signed on 4/22/14 by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (ljb) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
92 Supplemental Declaration of Paul Rummell . Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Isaak, Misha) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
96 MINUTES of Proceedings: Motion Hearing Held regarding Motion for Summary Judgment(42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC) and Motion for Summary Judgment(23 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC). Lake Perriguey and Lea Ann Easton present as counsel for Geiger plaintiffs; Jennifer Middleton, Tom Johnson, Misha Isaak, Amanda Goad and Kevin Diaz present as counsel for Rummell plaintiffs. Sheila Potter, Mary Williams and Anna Joyce present as counsel for State of Oregon defendants; Kate von Ter Stegge present as counsel for Multnomah County defendant. Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. Judge Michael J. McShane presiding. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
97 Order: The Oral Argument hearing currently scheduled to be heard on 5/14/2014 will be broadcast for overflow purposes to Courtroom 3 in Eugene and to Courtroom 12A in Portland. No electronic devices of any kind will be allowed in Courtroom 2 or the overflow courtrooms for this proceeding. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
98 Notice REQUEST REGARDING RECUSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 455 Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 27 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/30/2014
05/02/2014 05/02/2014 05/02/2014 05/02/2014 05/02/2014
05/07/2014 05/08/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014 05/13/2014

99 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Oral Argument held on 4/23/2014 before Judge Michael J. McShane, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number (541)431−4112, e−mail Kristi_Anderson@ord.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 5/12/2014. Redaction Request due 5/27/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/5/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/1/2014. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
100 Joint Response of State and County Defendants to Motion to Intervene (84 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Joyce, Anna) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
101 Declaration of Jenny M. Madkour . Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward. (Related document(s): Response to Motion(100 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Joyce, Anna) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
102 Declaration of Sheila H. Potter . Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward. (Related document(s): Response to Motion(100 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Joyce, Anna) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
103 Joint Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene (86 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 84 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC, 84 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
104 Declaration of Jennifer Middleton in Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion, (103 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
105 Response in Opposition to Proposed Intervenor's Notification and Request Regarding Recusal. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West. (Related document(s): Notice(98 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
106 Notice of Supplemental Authority with Exhibits Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer WoodwardAssociated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
107 Reply in Support of to Motion to Intervene (86 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 84 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc..Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
108 Declaration of John C. Eastman in Support of Motion to Intervene. Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion to intervene(86 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 84 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
109 Notice of Association of Attorney Jenny M. Madkour,Jenny M. Madkour for Randy Waldruff,Jenny M. Madkour for Randy Waldruff. Filed by Randy WaldruffAssociated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Madkour, Jenny) (Entered: 05/13/2014)

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 28 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

05/13/2014 05/13/2014 05/14/2014
05/15/2014
05/16/2014 05/16/2014 05/19/2014 05/19/2014 05/19/2014 05/22/2014 05/22/2014 05/30/2014

110 Supplemental Declaration of John C. Eastman in Support of Motion to Intervene. Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion to intervene(84 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
111 Joint Motion to Strike Declaration of John C. Eastman In Support of Motion to Intervene Declaration, (108 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC, 110 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC). Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Johnson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
112 MINUTES of Proceedings: Motion Hearing Held in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC and 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Denying Motion to Intervene (86) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC and Motion to Intervene (84) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC; Denying Motion to Strike (113) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC and Motion to Strike (111) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Denying proposed intervenors oral motion to stay. Lake Perriguey and Lea Ann Easton; Jennifer Middleton, Tom Johnson, Misha Isaak, and Kevin Diaz present as counsel for plaintiffs. Ellen Rosenblum, Sheila Potter, Mary Williams and Anna Joyce; Jenny Madkour present as counsel for defendants. John C. Eastman and Roger K. Harris present as counsel for Proposed Intervenor Defendant. (Court Reporter Kristi Anderson.) Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
113 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 5/14/2014 before Judge Michael J. McShane, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number (541)431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 5/27/2014. Redaction Request due 6/9/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/19/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/18/2014. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
114 Order: The Court intends on issuing an opinion on the pending motions for summary judgment at noon on Monday, May 19, 2014. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
115 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit Filing fee $505 collected; Agency Tracking ID 0979−3683584: . Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc.. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
116 Opinion regarding Motion for Summary Judgment (23 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC), Motion for Summary Judgment (42 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 31 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).Signed on 5/19/2014 by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
117 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (23) and Motion for Summary Judgment (42) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (31) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Signed on 5/19/2014 by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
118 Judgment. Based upon the record, judgment for plaintiffs. Signed on May 19, 2014 by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
119 Amended Notice of Appeal Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
120 Notice of Appeal Filed by National Organization for Marriage, Inc.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Harris, Roger) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
121 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Attorney Fees. Filed by All Plaintiffs.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 05/30/2014)

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 29 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

05/30/2014 06/02/2014 06/04/2014 06/17/2014 06/17/2014 06/17/2014 06/17/2014 06/17/2014
06/17/2014 06/17/2014 06/17/2014 06/19/2014

122 Declaration of Lake James H. Perriguey in Support of Motion to Extend Time to File Petition for Attorney Fees. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time(121 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
123 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Attorney Fees (123) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Attorney Fees (121) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Petition for Attorney Fees due 6/17/2014. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
124 Order from USCA by the US Supreme Court re Notice of Appeal 115 . Received Supreme Court order dated 06/04/2014: The application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied. (ljb) (Additional attachment added on 6/6/2014: # 1Order in Pending Case) (ljb). (Entered: 06/04/2014)
125 Motion for Attorney Fees . Filed by Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
126 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Isaak, Misha) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
127 Memorandum in Support of Geiger Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees. Filed by Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees(125 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC, 127 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
128 Declaration of Lake James H. Perriguey in Support of Geiger Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees. Filed by Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees(125 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
129 Amended Declaration of Lake James H. Perriguey in Support of Geiger Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees. Filed by Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees(125 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit OSB Fee Economic Survey, # 2 Morones Survey, # 3 Attorney Time Reports)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
130 Declaration of Lea Ann Easton in Support of Geiger Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees. Filed by Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees(125 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
131 Declaration of Sage J. Teton in Support of Geiger Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees. Filed by Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees(125 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
132 Declaration of Charles F. Hinkle in Support of Geiger Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees. Filed by Robert Duehmig, Deanna L. Geiger, William Griesar, Janine M. Nelson. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees(125 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Perriguey, Lake James) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
133 ORDER: Granting Consolidated Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (128) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time (126) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Motion for Attorney fees is due 7/1/2014. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 06/19/2014)

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 30 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

07/01/2014 07/02/2014 07/03/2014 07/03/2014 07/07/2014 07/15/2014 07/15/2014 07/16/2014
07/18/2014 07/18/2014 08/27/2014 11/24/2014

134 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Isaak, Misha) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
135 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time (136) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Motion for Extension of Time (134) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC.Fee Petition is due 7/15/2014. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
136 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Attorney Fee Petition. Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
137 Declaration of Sheila H. Potter . Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time, (136 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC, 138 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
138 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Attorney Fee Petition (138)in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Attorney Fee Petition (136) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Response is due by 7/15/2014. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
139 Unopposed Motion to Suspend Deadline to File Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Filed by Basic Rights Education Fund, Lisa Chickadonz, Paul Rummell, Christine Tanner, Benjamin West.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Isaak, Misha) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
140 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Attorney Fee Petition. Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
141 ORDER: Granting Unopposed Motion to Suspend Deadline to File Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs(141) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Attorney Fee Petition(142) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Unopposed Motion to Suspend Deadline to File Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs(139) in case 6:13−cv−01834−MC; Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Attorney Fee Petition (140) in case 6:13−cv−02256−MC. Response is due by 7/18/2014. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (cp) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
142 Response (titled State and County Defendants' Response to Petition for Attorney Fees and Notice of Proposed Agreement on Fees) to Motion for Attorney Fees (127 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 125 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
143 Declaration of Sheila H. Potter . Filed by John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward, John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward. (Related document(s): Response to Motion, (144 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 142 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC).)Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Potter, Sheila) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
144 Order of USCA for the 9th Circuit, USCA # 14−35427, re Notice of Appeal(117 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 115 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC). The appeal is dismissed. Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (ljb) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
145 Order from USCA for the 9th Circuit, re Notice of Appeal(117 in 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 115 in 6:13−cv−02256−MC). Appellant the National Organization for Marriage's petition for rehearing en banc is denied. Associated Cases:

Case 6:13-cv-2256 As of 11/05/2017 10:58 PM PST Page 31 of 31 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/05/2014

6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (ljb) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
146 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: Leonard J. Feldman Filed by Autodesk, Inc., Celilo Group Media, Inc., Christopher David Experience Design, Columbia Sportswear Company, EDJE Consulting, Gard Communications, Gerding Edlen, Jubitz Family Foundation, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Medford Fabrication, Moda Health Plan Inc., Morel Ink, NW Evaluation Association, NW Natural, Neil Kelly Company, Nike, Inc., Oregon Health & Science University, Portland Business Alliance, Portland General Electric Company, Portland Public Schools, Portland State University, Portland Timbers, Powell's Books, Russell Development Company, Standard Insurance Company, Starbucks Coffee Company, Tonkon Torp, Torpet LLC, University of Oregon, Weinstein PR, salesforce.com, Inc.Associated Cases: 6:13−cv−01834−MC, 6:13−cv−02256−MC (Feldman, Leonard) (Entered: 12/05/2014)