Byron Beck, left, Juan Martinez

I asked Martinez about the ordeal, the toll it seemed to take, and what was it like as an experience.

Martinez stated, “It was…it was something that I had never done in my life. To be outspoken about my life, you know my personal situation, my relationship. To tell our stories to a wider audience. This whole thing started in 2005, which is when we agreed to sign on as plaintiffs. It made me nervous at first, but Byron and I talked and talked about it over and over again. We both agreed this was an opportunity to stand up for what was right. To take this chance to help make a difference in any way that we could.”

Martinez continued, “Because he and I are committed as a couple and we want to have the rights that come along with marriage equality. We truly believe in that and we won’t settle for anything less. We love each other so much and we want to take care of each other in every way that we can. so that’s why we stuck it out for the four years the lawsuit took it’s course. It just wrapped up the beginning of last year, when we were denied appellate level.”

The last part, of the first quote is often overlooked (by those not involved) by the LGBT community. Martinez and Beck, among others saw it as an opportunity to stand up for what was right. For four long years their lives were engulfed in this case. Though they were lead plaintiffs Martinez and Beck were not alone, the other plaintiffs included: Dan O’Neil, Steven Kenison, Rupert Kinnard, Scott Stapley, Marc Acito, Christina Caravaca, Sandra Naranjo, Michelle Snyder, Heidi Thorstad, Diane Groff, Liz Cahill, Tim Smith, Kebt Kullby, Kelley Burke, Dolores Doyle, Daniel E.H. Bryant and Glenna Shepard.

Beck used his best tool, journalism, to give the Oregonian a wake-up call when they wrote in their editorial that (paraphrasing), the last thing Oregon needs is another battle over same sex marriage (meaning the Martinez vs. Kulongoski case.) Beck was at Willamette Week during this time and replied to them in his Queer Window column:

“A small item about the arguments was buried in the “Around the Region” section. But it was the O’s editorial board warning Basic Rights Oregon it “should be careful what it wishes for” that made me angry. Although the unsigned piece said, “Editorial pages are not in the business of telling judges how to interpret the law,” it went on to say we have no business going against the will of the voter. And if we were to overturn Measure 36, on what they see as a “technicality,” our opponents would mount another “bitter” campaign and defeat us by an even larger margin. In other words, the editorial board believes we should settle for less, rather than alienate fellow Oregonians,” he wrote.

Concluding he stated, “I ask you, did that kind of crap work for civil-rights workers in the South, women who wanted the vote or those radical American Revolutionaries? “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” said Barry Goldwater, an old fart if there ever was one.

The Oregonian’s board of white, well-to-do (and nearly all married) nay-sayers doesn’t have a clue when it comes to knowing what is good for gays or any other minority. I’m not going to even get into the argument that they’d never dare say this to another minority. I’m just going to clarify the facts. The main arguments in this case, that Measure 36 is so sweeping as to be a “revision” and that it altered more than one part of the state constitution, are not technicalities; they’re based on the fundamental principle that no one’s rights can be taken out of the constitution by the voters. Furthermore, if we win, there will be no more ballot measures like Measure 36. Period. End of discussion. That’s all, folks. I know the editorial board is pushing for civil unions, but Juan and I want to get married. No one should deny us our constitutional right.”

Oddly enough, people in our community don’t know about this battle, nor do they know it took four years, only to get denied by the Supreme Court. These people sacrificed their lives, personal and business, and had to deal with the stress and obstacles that the case bore onto them. Without this case, we would not be where we are today. We would not have known that a court won’t work for us, and BRO’s new strategy may have not been a reality. Now we know, and finally we can be n our way to put this to bed, for good. We owe them a thanks of gratitude, and though many have already done so in the past, we should thank them again regardless.

Thank you for doing the hard work necessary for our community’s battle for marriage equality. We can’t imagine what those four years were like for you all, but we do know it must have taken a toll. Thank you for being courageous and expecting nothing less than marriage equality.