NOM Questions Gay Judge’s Ethics, Now Claims Standing In Oregon Marriage Case

Less than 48 hours before a federal judge is scheduled to hear two cases attempting to overturn Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage, NOM, the National Organization For Marriage has said it will file a motion claiming standing. Currently, the attorney general and governor of Oregon are not defending the law in court, believing as many do, that it is unconstitutional. No other entity has come forward to defend the ban.

“As a membership organization, we speak on behalf of our members, including a County Clerk in the state, several professionals in the wedding industry, and voters, Brian Brown, NOM’s president said in a statement just now. “All of these individuals have a particularized interest in the outcome of the litigation, yet their interests are not being represented. We are working to protect the interests of our members who support true marriage against a collusive lawsuit that has the state joining with the plaintiffs against the interests of our members, and the state’s voters.”

John Eastman (image), NOM’s Chairman, would defend the anti-gay marriage law in court if the judge agrees.

Of course, Eastman had to take a swipe at McShane.The judge happens to be U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, “one of just nine openly gay members of the federal judiciary,” OregonLive, quoting HRC, reports.

“Eastman … said that news reports over the weekend that Judge Michael McShane is in a long-term relationship with another man and that the two are raising a child together raise serious ethical questions about whether the judge should continue to hear the case,” NOM’s blog states.

Of course, as Eastman knows, after the Prop 8 trial, the group NOM funded, Protect Marriage, sued to have the decision of Judge Vaughn Walker overturned because Walker is gay and in a long-term relationship. A federal judge tossed that argument out rather pointedly, stating it had no merit and was “unreasonable.”

(Read some excellent excerpts from Judge Ware’s decision supporting Judge Walker.)

But Eastman seems unfazed by that decision.

“These recent news reports suggest that Judge McShane is in the same position as the two gay men challenging the marriage amendment, raising troubling questions about his impartiality,” Eastman said. “But regardless of what judge eventually hears this matter, it is wrong that a challenge to Oregon’s marriage law would proceed in federal court with no meaningful defense of the constitutional amendment adopted overwhelmingly by voters. Their interests, and the particular interests of those involved in performing or celebrating wedding ceremonies deserve a defense. If our motion to intervene is granted, we intend to fully and aggressively defend the state constitutional amendment.”

Would Eastman argue that a heterosexual judge shouldn’t rule in a heterosexual divorce case?