Oregon jumps on the equality bandwagon

Anakha1

Banned
Oregon jumps on the equality bandwagon

(CNN) -- Same-sex marriage licenses being issued from coast to coast are fueling legal arguments, lawsuits and criminal charges and one Senate opponent warned Wednesday that Americans are "gambling with our future."

In Portland, Oregon, Multnomah County officials began handing out marriage licenses Wednesday to waiting *** and lesbian couples after county attorney Agnes Sowle said refusing them would violate Oregon's ban on discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.

Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski asked the state attorney general to look into the legality of the marriages, but will not seek an injunction to stop them in the meantime, said spokeswoman Mary Ellen Glynn.

Attorney General Hardy Myers is expected to have an answer "within days," she said.

Couples began lining up outside the courthouse before dawn Wednesday after County Chairwoman Diane Linn ordered the county to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Many of them clutched bouquets, some had children in tow and several sang the 1964 Dixie Cups song "Chapel of Love" as they waited.

One woman, holding up her license, said she had been waiting 16 years for this day and planned to marry her partner immediately.

Myers spokesman Kevin Neely described Oregon's marriage law as "ambiguous." It defines marriage as "a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable."

Criminal charges in New York
But in New York state, where one village mayor began presiding over same-sex marriages last week and another vowed to do so Thursday, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer urged them to stop until the courts can resolve the issue. (Full story)

Spitzer said the state's marriage laws refer to unions of men and women, but they "raise important constitutional questions involving the equal protection of the laws." And he said that under state court precedent, same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in other states should be recognized in New York.

The state Health Department, where licenses are filed once a couple is married, previously told local officials not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and the mayor of New Paltz, about 75 miles north of New York City, faces misdemeanor charges of solemnizing an unlicensed marriage after presiding over 19 same-sex weddings last week.

Mayor Jason West pleaded not guilty in court Wednesday evening.

West told supporters after the hearing that same-sex marriages are an issue of civil rights.

"What we're witnessing in this country today is the largest flowering of a civil rights movement this country has seen in a generation," West said, adding that the law is gender-neutral.

Despite those charges, Nyack Mayor John Shields said he would begin solemnizing same-sex marriages Thursday.

"The phones have been ringing off the hook with people wanting to get married, some as early as tomorrow," Shields said. "I still maintain it's legal and the right thing to do."

Spitzer warned that local officials "subject themselves to potentially serious sanctions" if they ignore his advice. But he said he would leave decisions about whether to bring charges against local officials who perform same-sex marriages to local prosecutors.

The state supreme court in Massachusetts brought the issue to the forefront in November, ruling that the state had failed to identify any "constitutionally adequate reason" to forbid *** or lesbian couples to marry.

San Francisco officials began issuing same-sex wedding licenses last month under orders from Mayor Gavin Newsom, who cited the state constitutional ban against discrimination.

The issue has landed in California's Supreme Court which refused to stop or invalidate the marriages already performed. But the court gave opponents until Friday to submit legal briefs against *** marriages.

Senate mulls amendment
Last week, President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but said it should leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.

And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said Wednesday that the Constitution needs to be changed to ensure that the traditional definition of marriage would not be overturned by court rulings. (Full story)

"It is clear today we must act," Frist said. "We are gambling with our future if we allow activist judges to redefine marriage for our whole society."

At a Senate judiciary subcommittee hearing on the issue, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said that although the document that frames the U.S. government "should not be amended casually ... serious people have reluctantly recognized that an amendment may be the only way to ensure the survival of traditional marriage in America."

But Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, called an amendment "unnecessary, divisive and utterly inconsistent with our constitutional traditions."

"This amendment targets a specific group of Americans and permanently excludes them from certain rights and benefits," Feingold said. "The most often discussed text for a marriage amendment would not only ban same-sex marriages, it would threaten civil union and domestic partnerships laws at the state and local levels."

He suggested the purpose of the debate was to bolster Republican political fortunes in November, calling it "a divisive political exercise in an election year, plain and simple."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/03/same.sex.main/index.html

Like it or not, this has become a civil rights movement. Homosexual marriage will become a reality eventually, despite Bush and co.'s moronic homophobic and predjudiced drivel.
 

Ash Housewares

Diabloii.Net Member
here's what I think on this whole issue

I say let *** couples get married

I say increase tax benefits for having children, show some support to those that are reproducing, or those *** couples that are capable of adopting and raising children, I don't want to get into the implications of same-sex couples being allowed to adopt, ok, shutting up now, almost 4am, writing paper, incoheremt, Antebellum South, emancipation *** marriage haywire braindead g'night
 

Anakha1

Banned
Ash Housewares said:
here's what I think on this whole issue

I say let *** couples get married

I say increase tax benefits for having children, show some support to those that are reproducing, or those *** couples that are capable of adopting and raising children, I don't want to get into the implications of same-sex couples being allowed to adopt, ok, shutting up now, almost 4am, writing paper, incoheremt, Antebellum South, emancipation *** marriage haywire braindead g'night

Cool! I broke his brain...
 

Ash Housewares

Diabloii.Net Member
I could get a coke, but it's my last one... hmm.. dillemma, I need my brain juice, I guess I've no choice, oh, sorry, continue with your *** thing, yea, what also bugs me is this is about same-sex marriage and while being ambiguous on gender it also seems ambiguous on oh... I don't know... LOVE? here I would agree with those "sanctity of marriage" people in that something like this is bad
 

Anakha1

Banned
Apparently love is only incidental to marriage. What really matters is the proper ratio of dingdongs to hoohoos.
 

Silvermyst

Diabloii.Net Member
Good to hear/see (read?). While on this topic, is San Fransisco still marrying gays? Or did the Governator do something about that. :scratch:

This might actually be resolved sooner rather then later :thumbsup:
 

Anakha1

Banned
Silvermyst said:
Good to hear/see (read?). While on this topic, is San Fransisco still marrying gays? Or did the Governator do something about that. :scratch:

This might actually be resolved sooner rather then later :thumbsup:

They're still marrying them. The Superior Court has decided that anti-*** proponents have not shown that there is a good enough constitutionally valid reason to forbid homosexual marriage. They've given them time to come up with a new ******** excuse to ban it, but so far at least three attempts have been shot down.
 

Silvermyst

Diabloii.Net Member
Anakha1 said:
They're still marrying them. The Superior Court has decided that anti-*** proponents have not shown that there is a good enough constitutionally valid reason to forbid homosexual marriage. They've given them time to come up with a new ******** excuse to ban it, but so far at least three attempts have been shot down.
Hmm, I wonder how many attempts it will take them to realize that there is literally no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to wed.
 

Anakha1

Banned
Silvermyst said:
Hmm, I wonder how many attempts it will take them to realize that there is literally no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to wed.
They have until friday to submit their reasons. If none of them hold any water with the court, *** marriages will be held as legal.
 

Silvermyst

Diabloii.Net Member
Anakha1 said:
They have until friday to submit their reasons. If none of them hold any water with the court, *** marriages will be held as legal.
Unfortunately while that's all well and good, it still won't be socially acceptable (in some areas) for many years to come.

It should mean the end of ***-marriage threads here though :clap: :buddies:
 

Anakha1

Banned
Silvermyst said:
Unfortunately while that's all well and good, it still won't be socially acceptable (in some areas) for many years to come.

It should mean the end of ***-marriage threads here though :clap: :buddies:

Not likely. It will only be legal in San Fran and the other areas that have legalized it. Even that could be taken away if Bush forces his bigoted ideals and gets his constitutional amendment through.
 

Silvermyst

Diabloii.Net Member
Anakha1 said:
Not likely. It will only be legal in San Fran and the other areas that have legalized it. Even that could be taken away if Bush forces his bigoted ideals and gets his constitutional amendment through.
aww jeez. Although he's not much better, I hope John Kerry wins this election.
 

thejdawg2

Diabloii.Net Member
"It is clear today we must act," Frist said. "We are gambling with our future if we allow activist judges to redefine marriage for our whole society."
I like guys like this.

It's not war, or an energy crisis, or an environmental breakdown, or a million other things that threaten our future, it's same sex marriage. Awesome.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
The best part is, perhaps unwittingly, Oregon lawmakers defined marriage ambiguously.

106.010 Marriage as civil contract; age of parties. Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS 106.150. [Amended by 1965 c.422 §1; 1975 c.583 §1]
the horse's mouth

If you read it correctly, there's no legal reason to stop a dude from marrying another dude. Even in the 60's, Oregon was progressive. I knew there was a reason for me to go to school there.
 

toader

Banned
Im a little confused on *** marriages. (sorry this is a little OT)...

Why do *** people want to get married? Cant they love each other enough just being together? They cant procreate. I guess they could adopt, but I dont really think you need to be married to adopt (not sure on that one). The only real reason I can fathom for the big push to get marreid is $$$.

I dont really know whether Im for or against *** marriages yet. But as of now, I cant really see a reason they need to be married. Im guessing its kinda like the little kid syndrom right now....you tell them NO, so they want to do it even more.
 

Anakha1

Banned
toader said:
Im a little confused on *** marriages. (sorry this is a little OT)...

Why do *** people want to get married? Cant they love each other enough just being together? They cant procreate. I guess they could adopt, but I dont really think you need to be married to adopt (not sure on that one). The only real reason I can fathom for the big push to get marreid is $$$.

I dont really know whether Im for or against *** marriages yet. But as of now, I cant really see a reason they need to be married. Im guessing its kinda like the little kid syndrom right now....you tell them NO, so they want to do it even more.

I have a question (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything)... why don't we ask straight people the same question? No one questions hetero's desire to get married... why do we question homosexuals' desire? That makes no sense to me. Procreation has already been proven not to be a very good reason to get married given all the hetero people who can't/won't have kids.

How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't marry the love of your life?
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Anakha1 said:
How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't marry the love of your life?
I wouldn't care. I reckon love is stronger than the government.

Toader, as I see it, it's a combo platter of homosexuals wanting the same benefits as straight folks with respect to the social and financial pluses of being married and just being treated equally under the law.
 

Anakha1

Banned
maccool said:
I wouldn't care. I reckon love is stronger than the government.

Some people don't see it that way. Marriage is an expression of love to many people. Marriage to some is a recognition of their relationship and feelings for one another, not just a method for governmental bonuses. If it was just that, I doubt that anti-same sex marriage proponents would be so vehement in their denouncement. If it were only about tax deductions and the like, would anti-*** marriage supporters be so adament about preventing them from marrying? Instead they argue that homosexuals' relationship aren't as good or as legitimate, if at all, as heterosexual marriages and therefore don't warrant the right to marry. Marriage is a symbol to many people, including homosexuals, of their devotion and link to one another. As long as marriage is not allowed for homosexuals some believe, including me, that their relationship is not considered legitimate. It's not equal and that's not right.
 
Top