From the Oregon Catholic Conference on today's ruling

"The Oregon Catholic Conference is deeply grieved by Judge Michael McShane's ruling to redefine marriage. It is a travesty of justice that marriage, as the foundation of society, received no defense in the U.S. District Court. Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, in an extreme dereliction of her sworn duty to uphold the law, refused to represent the interests and the people of Oregon. It is a sad day for democracy when one federally appointed judge can overturn, without any representation, the express will of the people of Oregon.
Despite the judge's ruling, authentic marriage remains what it has always and only been according to God's design: the loving union between one man and one woman for the mutual benefit of the two who have become one flesh and any children born of their union. Redefining marriage confuses the true purpose and meaning of marriage. An act deliberately ensuring that more children will grow up motherless or fatherless is not an act of love. The Oregon Catholic Conference will continue to uphold the true meaning of marriage and advocate for genuine marriages and families in Oregon, and it urges all people of good will to continue to reject the flawed notion that a pairing of two people of the same gender constitutes a marriage. "

Mr. McMenamin failed to cite the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

How does a Federal Judge overturn Oregon's Constitution sighting Violation of The Fourtenth Amendment and Our Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum will not do her job. When Ms. Rosenblum voted against the 14th Amendment when she served on the Oregon Court of Appeals. JURISDICTION::
This action concerns non-custodial parents’
due-process rights in legal matters that affect their
children generally and those rights in the context of
the custodial parent’s decision to change the
children’s names specifically. Pet. at 2. Ms. Ewing
protests that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
these issues because Mr. McMenamin failed to raise
them below. Resp.’s Br. at 2, 15-20. The entire
proceeding below concerned three due-process issues:
(1) Ms. Ewing’s benefiting from her false affidavit
stating that Mr. McMenamin had neither
supported nor resided with the children;
(2) Ms. Ewing’s failure to serve or notify Mr.
McMenamin of her name-change petition; and
(3) The trial court’s failure to follow the Oregon
Supreme Court’s binding precedent.
The jurisdictional question that Ms. Ewing asks –
but answers incorrectly – is whether these dueprocess
issues constitute a federal question if Mr.
McMenamin failed to cite the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
plus.google.com/100073774932782445025/posts/dww6r4...BQZYp