04/14/05 OR cancels gay marriages

[Freakapotimus]

Oregon Court Tosses Gay Marriage Licenses
By BRAD CAIN, Associated Press Writer

SALEM, Ore. - The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County a year ago.

The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.

Full story above. Taken from Yahoo! News.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 4/14/05 11:41 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: Oregon Court Tosses Gay Marriage Licenses
By BRAD CAIN, Associated Press Writer

SALEM, Ore. - The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County a year ago.

The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.

Full story above. Taken from Yahoo! News.

Unconstitutional. Once gays are married, it can't be nullified unless they file for a legal divorce.

[Freakapotimus]

Their post is that it was never legal in the first place, so they're only taking away something that shouldn't have been.

I don't want to defend them, because I think they are wrong, but I believe that's their stance.

[BrickMurus]

Oh yeah, gotta watch out for those evil gays, next thing you know, your sons will be dancing and interior decorating, and your daughters will have a strange attraction towards flannel and football. </SARCASM>
Hmmm..let me see if I can remember the joke correctly. "I think gays should marry, because frankly, I am tired of their happy go lucky lifestyle."
I can understand why they took away the licenses from the gay couples, since according to the 'state' it is not legal for them to marry. Though, I am still trying to figure out where Homosexual marriage=the end of civilization. Stupid religion, dictating the government, gays have a right to marry, simple as that. I mean, if you could just get the politicians to think of two women have hot sex instead of two men, gay marriage would be legal faster than, um, something thats really fast.

[Maus]

On a positive note, Connecticut has voluntarily started performing Civil Unions.

[Freakapotimus]

Yay Connecticut!

Although... I don't agree with the terms "civil union" for gays and "marriage" for straights, but that's another story. We'll take what we can get, for now I suppose.

[Maus]

Don't forget, it wasn't THAT long ago that America repealed anti-miscegenation laws. Start slow, with Civil Unions. Once people see that gays are not the morally bankrupt community they think we are, and we are just average people, attitudes will change.

[BrickMurus]

At 4/14/05 01:12 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: Although... I don't agree with the terms "civil union" for gays and "marriage" for straights, but that's another story. We'll take what we can get, for now I suppose.

Well, the whole thing is a religous matter really. They dislike the term 'marriage' since to them it represents the holy joining of two spirits under the power of God, or whatever those nutbags want to think. But God hate's gays they say, so under the power of God, gays shouldn't marry. A 'civil union' on the other hand, means that it is a government binding ceremony for tax purposes, child custody, insurance benefits, and all the other stuff, but without the religion. That is basically how it boils down for those against gay marriage, or something, I don't know, its all silly. I say gay's should be gay and don their gay apperal and have a gay time at a gay wedding. Notice: gay may mean either of homosexual preference or happiness, batteries not included, offer not valid on February 29.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 4/14/05 01:30 PM, Maus wrote: Don't forget, it wasn't THAT long ago that America repealed anti-miscegenation laws. Start slow, with Civil Unions. Once people see that gays are not the morally bankrupt community they think we are, and we are just average people, attitudes will change.

Why don't all Americans just go to Massachusetts to get married? That's what "self-loathing Republican" Arthur Finkelstein did (that's according to Bill Clinton, not me).

The other states really have no choice but to recognize it as a legal marriage. Gay marriage is going to happen in this country.

[Freakapotimus]

That's the problem, some states are saying that they won't recognize the marriage.

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/14/05 02:28 PM, Rooster349 wrote: Why don't all Americans just go to Massachusetts to get married? That's what "self-loathing Republican" Arthur Finkelstein did (that's according to Bill Clinton, not me).

The other states really have no choice but to recognize it as a legal marriage. Gay marriage is going to happen in this country.

Because if gays started doing this, that added gasoline being poured on the fire would be enough to pass a Federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage altogether. People don't want to be forced to recognize something in their state that they do not approve of or believe in. Yea, sometimes this is how it's gotta be, forced.... but if gay marriage advocates push too hard, they'll be pushed back with a Federal amendment overriding any of the state's own constitutions.

It's a give and take right now. I think if either side tries to take too much, or not give enough, we may have a much larger upheaval than what we currently are.

[naojason]

Bush hates gays, because Dick is with Bush.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 4/14/05 02:57 PM, naojason wrote: Bush hates gays, because Dick is with Bush.

lol no he doesn't. Remember that evangelist who leaked a phone interview with Bush?

[Maus]

At 4/14/05 02:57 PM, naojason wrote: Bush hates gays, because Dick is with Bush.

neither of them hate gays. Bush has been recorded saying as much, and Cheney has publicly supported his daughter. If Bush 'hated' gays, do you really think he would let a lesbian into the inner circles of his campaign?

[ReiperX]

This is why I think that marriage needs to be a federal thing, not a state thing, so things like this cannot happen.

I fully support homosexual marriage, there is no legal reason why it shouldn't be legal, at least in my opinion. And these marriages being nulled is rediculous.

[Maus]

At 4/14/05 03:45 PM, ReiperX wrote: This is why I think that marriage needs to be a federal thing, not a state thing, so things like this cannot happen.

Ye Gods, no. That opens the possibility of a federal BAN, and a slew of other problems. Look at age of consent for instance. It varies based on regional mores and folkways.

Leave it up to the states.

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/14/05 03:51 PM, Maus wrote:
Leave it up to the states.

Yes. This way the states that choose to have gay unions / marriages can serve as a sort of "guinea pig" for the other entire union. Let states choose, and let them only be recognized in those states that approve.

It's the first step, compromising, that will eventually lead to it being accepted federally.

[Ted-Easton]

Let's look at Holland. Same-sex marriages since 1986. Come for the wooden shoes, stay for the moral chaos.

[ReiperX]

At 4/14/05 03:51 PM, Maus wrote:

At 4/14/05 03:45 PM, ReiperX wrote: This is why I think that marriage needs to be a federal thing, not a state thing, so things like this cannot happen.

Ye Gods, no. That opens the possibility of a federal BAN, and a slew of other problems. Look at age of consent for instance. It varies based on regional mores and folkways.

Leave it up to the states.

Make many of these things a federal issue. There is no need for regional morals to effect a law that effects so many americans. What keeps a state from nullifying a homosexual marriage in Massachusettes <sp> if they decide to move to Texas or something? What can guarentee that same couple the same rights that they deserve. But I think many things need to be federal, to have more unity across the States, driver's liscneses and marriages to be the primary though, so that you have the right to move to another state and not be screwed over by stipulations.

[Maus]

At 4/14/05 03:58 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Let's look at Holland. Same-sex marriages since 1986. Come for the wooden shoes, stay for the moral chaos.

That's 15 years too early. It was 2001. Not to be nitpicky, but it was a watershed moment for gay rights around the globe.

[Maus]

At 4/14/05 04:00 PM, ReiperX wrote: There is no need for regional morals to effect a law that effects so many americans.

Why should a federal law affect ALL Americans?

if Texas keeps it banned, why would I ever CHOOSE to move there? I would saty in a state that welcomes me and mine.

I don't want the possibility of an all around ban.

[Catsofthebase]

Calling same sex marraiges morally bankrupt is kind of hypocritical on our part. How many normal marraiges are performed in Vegas and ended 5 days later? There isnt a problem with same sex marraiges, but as many of you have stated, it will take time for America to adjust to it. As for all the lawsuits and stuff.... those never go away, damn lawyers.

[Ted-Easton]

Sorry, wrong year, wrong country. Denmark has allowed same-sex marriages since 1988.

It was the right decade, the right part of the world. Cut me some slack. ; )

[Maus]

At 4/14/05 05:06 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Sorry, wrong year, wrong country. Denmark has allowed same-sex marriages since 1988.

It was the right decade, the right part of the world. Cut me some slack. ; )

Ted, I do not mean to bust your balls. In fact, I would rather you were right. But the Danes have not allowed same sex marriage.

[emphasis is mine]

The Danish government has released statistics showing the popularity of gay marriage following the introduction of 'registered partnership' legislation in the country in 1989. The statistics revealed that 2,083 lesbian and gay couples (nearly twice as many male as female) had taken advantage of the law which gives them all the rights of heterosexual marriage except the right to adopt children and to have artificial insemination and a church wedding.

It's not a marriage, and they aren't even accorded all the rights a heterosexual marriage is. Hell, they even dictate what the church can do.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 4/14/05 11:41 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: SALEM, Ore. - The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County a year ago.

The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.

If the county wasn't even issuing marriage licenses to straight couples before this matter, then I actually agree that they shouldn't have started off with issuing them to same-sex couples because of their lack of authority...BUT, that seems really far-fetched to me. Then again, I don't know shit about marriage laws, like if they're only "applicable" on a state-wide level or what, sooo yeah.

I figure they were already issuing marriage licenses to straight couples beforehand, so I really don't see why it can be said that issuing them to same-sex couples is a matter of "statewide concern". The only people concerned, are the ones getting married. It shouldn't really be anyone else's business...as long as people are making a living without harming anyone and paying their taxes and whatnot, the government shouldn't be getting into their personal lives.

I just hate how some people claim that gays getting married somehow "ruins the sanctity of marriage". Shit, contemporary American pop culture ruined it long before it became an issue of sexual orientation. Where else can you find people getting married and divorced to a DOZEN different spouses, still thinking they can take that thirteenth "till death do us part" vow seriously? Where else can you be wed at a Las Vegas drive-through chapel to someone you barely know, just to get it annulled hours later? Gimme a fuckin break. The government-in-general and too many judges (in upper AND lower courts) are so full of themselves and their own opinion on morality in private matters that it's disgusting. If that county had been issuing licenses to straight couples, why do they gotta take it to the State Supreme Court now that it's gay people, as if it's any of their friggin business.

there's so much more important shit these people can be spending time on OTHER THAN messing with people's personal lives. grrrr pompous beauracrats

[Ted-Easton]

Really? Huh. How about that. And I had been being pro-Denmark for years, thinking they were the most forward thinking country in Europe. Still better than some, I suppose.

Silly me.

It is a shame, though. I honestly cannot understand why someone would want to restrict the rights. I've heard the arguments, I've participated in the debates, but I still cannot get inside the heads of the other side.

[Elfer]

In Canada right now, we're sort of in a weird middle stage. The supreme court has said that we can't pass legislation BANNING gay marriage, but they also passed the buck on redefining marriage to the legislative assembly, so the actual law to change the defenition is going through at the moment.

A smart bit of ruling on the supreme court's part though also said that a clergyman or church can't be forced to perform gay marriages, because that's also unconstitutional. So really, the people against it have no legitimate reason to bitch anymore.

[Catsofthebase]

At 4/14/05 08:38 PM, Elfer wrote: In Canada right now, we're sort of in a weird middle stage. The supreme court has said that we can't pass legislation BANNING gay marriage, but they also passed the buck on redefining marriage to the legislative assembly, so the actual law to change the defenition is going through at the moment.

A smart bit of ruling on the supreme court's part though also said that a clergyman or church can't be forced to perform gay marriages, because that's also unconstitutional. So really, the people against it have no legitimate reason to bitch anymore.

Seems like you are dead center. Still, those decisions seem to contradict themselves. But I do not live in Canada (although Toronto sounds nicer every damn day). so I can only speculate.

[ReiperX]

At 4/14/05 04:20 PM, Maus wrote:

At 4/14/05 04:00 PM, ReiperX wrote: There is no need for regional morals to effect a law that effects so many americans.

Why should a federal law affect ALL Americans?

if Texas keeps it banned, why would I ever CHOOSE to move there? I would saty in a state that welcomes me and mine.

Why should one state be able to infringe on a person's rights? There are also other reasons for moving to another state, take care of an ill parent, better schools for your children, job that you simply cannot turn down, ect.

I don't want the possibility of an all around ban.

Unfortunately the person who is in the White House is already trying to do that. And I think soon enough, there will be enough pressure on the federal courts to allow homosexual marriages all over, because it is infringing on the rights of a minority. There is no good legal reason why to keep these rights being kept from the homosexual community.

[Maus]

At 4/15/05 04:49 AM, ReiperX wrote: Why should one state be able to infringe on a person's rights?

Why shouldn't they? As I said before, the mores and folkways differ from region to region. How would you like the Bible Belt's ideals as law of the land? Remember, it is up to the USSC to declare unconstitutionality. They don't seem too keen on the gay marriage thing. Maybe in about 20 years, when there is a new bench, and Scalia is gone.

There are also other reasons for moving to another state, take care of an ill parent, better schools for your children, job that you simply cannot turn down, ect.

Ill parent - temporary. TBH, in my eyes, taking care of a parent precludes any 'need' to be married. You can marry later, you can wait.
Better schools - Why not have some pride in your area, and work to make them better instead of running away? Be a solution, not a passive part of the problem.
Job - No job is worth it. None.

Unfortunately the person who is in the White House is already trying to do that.

Support for a ban =/= Push for a ban.

And I think soon enough, there will be enough pressure on the federal courts to allow homosexual marriages all over, because it is infringing on the rights of a minority. There is no good legal reason why to keep these rights being kept from the homosexual community.

Actually - If you push too hard, there is a backlash. That's part of the reason we're in the shit we're in now. Bush voiced support for a ban during one of the closest races ever. Political tactics. What he says publicly is different than what he has said privately.

The conversations spend much time on Bush's religious beliefs and his courting of the evangelical right. At one point, according to the Times report, Bush seemed concerned that evangelicals wanted him to come out publicly against homosexuality.

"I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Bush said after meeting high-profile Texas preacher James Robison.

The future president said he told Robison, " 'Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?' "

Referring to one conservative group, Bush said, "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."