With Monday's federal court decision, same-sex marriage now seems firmly established in Oregon.
Unlike in several other states where federal judges have made similar rulings, no one has the legal standing at this point to appeal the ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael McShane.
McShane's decision was also constructed in a way that could well survive any future ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse decisions made by federal judges in such states as Utah and Virginia, legal observers say.
At the same time, however, gay marriage in Oregon faces some potential legal clouds on the horizon.
Most immediate is a continuing attempt by the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay marriage group, to intervene in the case.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday turned down NOM's request for an emergency stay to prevent McShane from issuing his ruling. However, the group now has an Aug. 25 deadline to submit a brief arguing why it should still be allowed to intervene in the case.
John Eastman, NOM's chairman, admits that could be an uphill battle but he said: "We're not without arguments."
Even if the 9th Circuit turns down the intervention request, the overall issue appears headed back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gwynne Skinner, a Willamette University law professor who has followed the gay marriage litigation, said she expects the court to move toward nationalizing same-sex marriage.
"I think the train has left the station," she said. "I just can't see a huge step back."
Eastman disagreed, saying he thought Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the Supreme Court on this and so many issues, would be reluctant to force gay marriage on the conservative states where it has faced more resistance. He said it's possible that same-sex marriage licenses issued in Oregon could someday be in "legal limbo."
David Fidanque, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union chapter in Oregon, said he thought any marriage licenses issued in Oregon under McShane's decision will remain legally secure. At worst, he said, the Supreme Court could someday limit the state's ability to issue future marriage licenses -- something he said he saw as unlikely in any event.
"It feels to me like we have reached a tipping point in this nation," he said, adding, "We're at most two years away from a resolution of this issue nationally."
ACLU attorneys represented some of the plaintiffs in the two lawsuits that led to McShane's ruling on Monday.
Fidanque noted that McShane's decision leaned on the findings made by the Legislature in 2007 when it set up domestic partnerships that acknowledged the importance of protecting same-sex couples and their children.
Still, Fidanque said gay marriage supporters still want to repeal the provision in the Oregon Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman. That, he said, would remove any lingering doubts.
Oregon United for Marriage has collected what it believes are enough signatures to put a gay marriage initiative on the state ballot in November. But in the wake of McShane's decision, Fidanque said, "the working assumption is that we probably will not" go forward with the measure.
He said the ACLU and other groups involved with Oregon United would like to avoid an expensive initiative fight if they can. One alternative, he said, is to ask the Legislature to refer a measure to the 2016 ballot, well after Oregonians have become accustomed to same-sex marriage.
The Oregon United executive committee plans to meet June 2 to decide, Fidanque said.
-- Jeff Mapes