News
Oregon AG won’t defend marriage ban in court
Says law cannot withstand scrutiny ‘under any standard of review’
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum won’t defend her state’s marriage ban in court. (Photo public domain)
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced on Thursday she won’t defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage against a legal challenge, saying the law cannot withstand judicial scrutiny “under any standard of review.”
Meanwhile, the campaign led by Oregon United for Marriage to bring marriage equality to the state via ballot measure in November says it is holding the surplus of signatures already collected pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
In a seven-page legal filing, Rosenblum says the state largely agrees with the contentions against the ban on same-sex marriage raised by plaintiffs in the case, known as Rummel v. Kitzhaber.
“State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation,” Rosenblum concludes. “Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review.”
A Democrat elected to office in 2012, Rosenblum’s decision is along the lines of her earlier determination in October that Oregon should respect same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
Among the allegations that Rosenblum says the state won’t dispute in the lawsuit is the assertion that domestic partnerships, which Oregon has allowed since 2008, aren’t the equivalent of marriage.
“State Defendants admit that performing same-sex marriages in Oregon would have no adverse effect on existing marriages, and that sexual orientation does not determine an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship,” Rosenblum writes. “State Defendants likewise admit that domestic partnership registration confers many legal protections but not all of the rights, obligations, and privileges associated with marriage.”
Her decision not to defend the ban is consistent with the position of Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. Both Nevada and Oregon lie in the Ninth Circuit, where the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided heightened scrutiny applies to laws related to sexual orientation in the case of SmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories.
Notably, Rosenblum never mentions the SmithKline decision or legal precedent for heightened scrutiny in announcing her decision that she won’t defend Oregon’s ban. Instead, she concludes the law fails under any standard of review.
Thomas Wheatley, director of organizing at Freedom to Marry and an adviser to Oregon United for Marriage, praised Rosenblum.
“Attorney General Rosenblum is right in refusing to waste taxpayers’ dollars by defending the indefensible anti-marriage law in Oregon,” Wheatley said. “Rosenblum is joined by other attorneys general from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada; and even Republican Governor Brian Sandoval in Nevada, who all came to the same conclusion that the state cannot in good conscience defend a law denying committed same-sex couples the freedom to marry.”
Brian Brown, president of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, nonetheless criticized Rosenblum for what he said was abandoning her constitutional duties.
“Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty to defend the marriage amendment overwhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon,” Brown said. “She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with. The people are entitled to a vigorous defense of the laws they enact, and the marriage amendment is no exception to that solemn obligation.”
The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon before U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, who’s gay and among the handful of openly gay federal judges serving on the federal bench. Oral arguments in the case are set for April 23.
Legal experts say the Ninth Circuit precedent for applying heightened scrutiny to matters related to sexual orientation bodes well for rulings in favor of marriage equality within this jurisdiction.
Campaign holding signatures for ballot initiative
At the same time the litigation is advancing, LGBT activists were preparing to bring the issue to the ballot once more in 2014 to reverse the ban and legalize same-sex marriage in Oregon.
Mike Marshall, campaign manager for Oregon United for Marriage, announced following Rosenblum’s decision that his campaign has already collected 160,000 signatures — more than the 116,284 needed by July 3 to qualify the measure for the ballot — but is placing those efforts on hold pending the outcome of the federal lawsuit.
“Now that we have done the hard work of assuring a place on the ballot and moving public opinion, we have the ability to wait for the courts to do the right thing,” Marshall said. “No one is interested in engaging in an expensive political campaign if we don’t have to. We have more than 4,000 volunteers across Oregon to thank for that.”
Meanwhile, Oregon United for Marriage is planning a statewide tour for the first two weeks of March to talk to supporters of same-sex marriage about the campaign’s next steps.
In 2004, Oregon voters approved at the ballot a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage with 57 percent of the vote. But public opinion has since changed. According to a poll unveiled Thursday by Oregon United for Marriage, 55 percent of likely November voters support same-sex marriage while 41 percent are opposed.
As preparations for the marriage initiative are underway, Oregon anti-gay groups are working to place on the ballot a religious exemption initiative on the ballot that would carve out a portion of state civil rights law to allow businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Marshall said he’s prepared for a campaign against the anti-gay measure regardless of what happens with the marriage initiative.
“At a moment when Oregonians should be celebrating the imminent end of discrimination against loving, committed couples—we’re gearing up to fight another effort to write discrimination back into our laws,” Marshall said.
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Obituary
Thomas A. Decker of Arlington dies at 73
Active in visiting AIDS patients, urging Congress to fight HIV
Thomas A. Decker Jr, of Arlington, Va., died March 3, 2026 following an extended illness, according to a statement released by his family. He was 73.
Born and raised in Canton, Ohio, Decker attended the University of Akron and earned his bachelor’s degree in political science. He then moved to the Washington, D.C. area and accepted a position with Beaver Press where he worked for 32 years, according to the statement.
He later worked in the Inova Juniper Program working with HIV/AIDS clients to assist them with support services and was active as a volunteer visiting AIDS patients in the hospital or advocating on Capitol Hill for HIV funding.
Tommy, as he was called by family, is survived by three sisters, a sister-in-law and two brothers-in-law: Carol Decker and Kathryn Kramer of West Newbury, MA, Margaret and Thomas Williams of Bluffton, SC, Mary Sue and Timothy Desiato of New Philadelphia, Ohio, Niece’s Trina and Chad Wedekind of Jacksonville Fl and great niece Isabella, Lindsay and Will Burgette of Dublin, Ohio and great nephews Colin and Luke and Nephews David Williams of Jacksonville, Florida, and Michael and Lucy Desiato of Dublin, Ohio and great nieces Lena and Stella. In accordance with Tom’s wishes, he will be buried at Calvary Cemetery in Massillon, Ohio.
District of Columbia
Gay candidate running for D.C. congressional delegate seat
Robert Matthews among 19 hoping to replace Eleanor Holmes Norton
Robert Matthews, a former director of the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency, is running in the city’s June 16 Democratic primary for the D.C. Congressional Delegate seat as an openly gay candidate, according to a statement released by his campaign to the Washington Blade.
Matthews is one of at least 19 candidates running to replace longtime D.C. Congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), who announced earlier this year that she is not running for re-election.
Information about the candidates’ campaign financing compiled by the Federal Elections Commission, which oversees elections for federal candidates, shows that Matthews is one of only six of the candidates who have raised any money for their campaigns as of March 17.
Among those six, who political observers say have a shot at winning compared to the remaining 13, are D.C. Council members Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) and Robert White (D-At-Large). Both have longstanding records of support for LGBTQ rights and the community.
The FEC campaign finance records show Matthews was in fourth place regarding the money raised for his campaign, which was $49,078 as of March 17. The FEC records show Pinto’s campaign in first place with $843,496 raised, and White in third place with $230,399 raised.
The Matthews campaign statement released to the Blade says Matthews’s “commitment to the LGBTQ community is not a campaign position. It is the foundation of his life and his life’s work.”
The statement adds, “As the former director of D.C.’s Child and Family Services Agency, Robert led the District’s child welfare system with an explicit commitment to LGBTQ-affirming care.” It goes on to say, “He ensured that LGBTQ, trans, and nonbinary youth in foster care — among the most vulnerable young people in our city — were served with dignity, cultural humility, and genuine support.”
Among his priorities if elected as Congressional delegate, the statement says, would be “fighting to end homelessness among queer and trans seniors and youth,” opposing “federal roadblocks” to LGBTQ related health services, and defending D.C.’s budget and civil rights laws “from federal interference that directly threatens LGBTQ residents.”
The other three candidates who the FEC records show have raised campaign funds and observers say have a shot at winning are:
• Kinney Zalesne, former deputy national finance chair at the Democratic National Committee and an official at the U.S. Justice Department during the Clinton administration, whose campaign is in second place in fundraising with $593,885 raised.
• Gordon Chaffin, a former congressional staffer whose campaign has raised $17,950.
• Kelly Mikel Williams, a podcast host and candidate for the Congressional Delegate seat in 2022 and 2024, whose 2026 campaign has raised $3,094 as of March 17.
The Blade reached out to the Zalesne, Chaffin, and Williams campaigns to determine their position on LGBTQ issues. As of late Wednesday, the Zalesne campaign was the only one that responded.
“Kinney believes LGBTQ rights are fundamental civil rights and central to what makes Washington, D.C. a strong and vibrant community,” a statement sent by her campaign says. “At a time when LGBTQ people (especially transgender and nonbinary neighbors) are facing escalating political attacks across the country, she believes the District must continue to lead in protecting dignity, safety, and freedom for all,” it says.
The statement adds, “Throughout her career in government, business, and nonprofit leadership, Kinney has worked alongside LGBTQ and queer advocates and leaders. She is committed to maintaining an active partnership with the community to make sure LGBTQ voices remain central to the District’s future.”
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
The frightening rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia
Thomas A. Decker of Arlington dies at 73
BMA celebrates enduring influence of Henri Matisse
Ensuring safer drinking water
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
