There are many nuances to the process that are not readily reducible to sound bites.

The Monday statement by Multnomah County was a retreat on the legal issue to a position that there exists a colorable claim regardless of whether an action has actually been filed against the county. This is a position that is no more aggressive than seeking to avoid personal liability by the commissioners and county counsel alike. The Governor and AG put a legal blockade on any of the contested marriages outside of Multnomah County (and for state employees within) and saved us money. Thus, the PERS spousal benefits issues could only arise for Multnomah County employees -- which conveniently overlap with the MC4’s powers to negotiate for employment. At least we won’t have to pay for an army of outside counsels to defend lawsuits in any of the other jurisdictions, just this one. We get to defend against personal liability for the MC4 but indemnify them regardless of the outcome. My beef is that any lawyer can, by talking out loud, give personal immunity to a public official. I would like the public official immunity issue to move up the food chain to the lawyers offering that official advice and immunity, whom by operation of law are also public officers (though not elected). The Supreme Court is the final arbiter for the conduct of the members of the bar -- and the SC is subject to elections. The issue now is only whether the SC will let an ACLU attorney simultaneously grant personal immunity to an elected official and carry out their court agenda. The MC4 are mere pawns, they just don’t know it yet. The issue ultimately turns on discretionary authority of the Oregon SC, both as to attorney management issues and willingness to voluntarily give advisory opinions – I think the court is/will be wrong on both counts but will proceed anyway.

Democracy has far more to with placing limits on power than granting power.