Gay marriage amendment challenged in court.

Byline: David Steves The Register-Guard

SALEM - The fate of Oregon's same-sex marriage ban - for most voters a straightforward matter of right or wrong - could hinge on whether backers complied with the fine print for amending the constitution.

Dueling legal arguments before a trial judge Monday dealt almost entirely with whether last fall's Measure 36 campaign complied with court opinions that have set tough standards for what is permissible - and what is not - regarding initiatives aimed at amending the constitution.

The challenge, filed by the gay-rights group Basic Rights Oregon, contends that the initiative asked voters to approve a single measure that improperly contained multiple amendments to the Oregon Constitution. Basic Rights Oregon also contended that the effect of Measure 36 is so sweeping that it is not an amendment to but a revision of the Oregon Constitution. Under Oregon's system of government, only the Legislature has the authority to revise the Constitution.

The measure, approved by 57 percent of the vote last November, consists of a single sentence: "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 a marriage."

Outside the courtroom Monday, after arguments had concluded, Basic Rights Oregon Director Roey Thorpe said the case was important because "there are tens of thousands of Oregonians here who have waited to see these arguments made because they are terribly hurt by Measure 36."

Such broad-brush concerns had little to do, however, with arguments inside the courtroom.

Charles Fletcher, an assistant attorney general who defended Measure 36, told Marion County Circuit Court Judge Joseph Guimond he could assume the measure was poor public policy and terribly unfair. "And yet, that wouldn't change the result here: The people are sovereign over their state constitution," he said.

Mark Johnson, a lawyer for Basic Rights Oregon, said Measure 36 violates local governments' home-rule rights by barring them from recognizing gay marriages that might have been performed elsewhere.

While the issues before Judge Guimond may be technical, Johnson said they were fundamental to whether Measure 36 belonged in the constitution. Because the same-sex marriage ban has such broad implications for couples - from child-rearing responsibilities to the application of insurance policies to inheritances - he said it was not merely a technicality to invoke the requirement that constitutional revisions be left to the Legislature.

Lawyers on both sides said that however Guimond rules, the case would be appealed to the Supreme Court. The judge planned to rule by Nov. 1.

Separate from the lawsuit, the effort to give Oregon gay couples marriagelike benefits in the form of legal civil unions is expected to continue.

A civil union bill failed in the Legislature this year. But Basic Rights Oregon is considering mounting a petition drive to put a civil union measure on the November 2006 ballot.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.