The Oregon Supreme Court just ruled that the marriages last year are invalid. This is partially based on Measure 36, an Oregon Constitutional amendment recently passed by a coalition of religious fundamentalists, yokels and other lazy thinkers. The measure passed by a slim margin, but a majority vote's all it takes to amend the Oregon constitution.
So I was surprised by the ruling, but now I see the particular case was really not very strong.
But here's something I think illustrates how we might be able to argue successfully.
Imagine a coalition of Oregonians, through signature-gathering, were to get a Constitutional amendment on the ballot creating a new benefit (like health care) for all non-interracial married couples in Oregon. Suppose it passed.
The case comes before the Oregon Supreme Court. Do they say the state can offer a benefit explicitly defined to be racist? Or do they say there's no way to reconcile offering the benefit with the requirements of due process and equality under the law?
(more)
The only coherent way to interpret the Oregon Constitution would be for the court to prohibit the state from offering that new benefit at all.
This logic was applied successfully in a case where young people whose gay-straight alliance had been denied status as a school club sued. The court demanded the school treat gays equally--either include the gay-straight alliance or allow no clubs at all.
I say we should ask the court to prohibit the state from offering any marriage licenses to anyone until the state can stomach applying the law equally to all.