Judge Upholds Oregon's Gay Marriage Ban

[Nascar_James]

Things are looking up in Oregon ...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-04-ore-marriage_x.htm

USA Today:

Posted 11/4/2005 4:54 PM
Judge upholds Oregon's gay marriage ban

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — A judge on Friday upheld a gay marriage ban adopted by Oregon voters last year, rejecting claims that the amendment made too many changes at once and interfered with local government.
In his ruling, Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond backed supporters of the law who said the measure only clarified marriage law in a single, simple sentence.

The Oregon amendment, passed overwhelmingly in November 2004 as Measure 36, reads: "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."

Seventeen other states have similar constitutional bans.

The Defense of Marriage Coalition, which led the effort to pass a gay marriage ban in Oregon, hailed Friday's ruling as a victory for voters.

"If this language, as simple as it is, had been struck down by the courts, it would have taken away the people's rights to amend their constitution at all," said Tim Nashif, political director for the group.

The gay rights group Basic Rights Oregon said it will appeal.

"We continue to believe that Measure 36 was too radical a change to the equal protection clause of the Oregon Constitution to simply be considered an amendment," said Roey Thorpe, the group's executive director.

In their lawsuit, opponents had argued that the measure contained too many changes because it not only amended the state constitution to forbid same-sex marriage, but also interfered with local governments' home-rule rights by barring them from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Under Oregon law, a ballot measure can make only one change to the state constitution.

The challengers also claimed the measure was improperly placed on the ballot because it was a constitutional revision, not just an amendment, that "violates the fundamental principles of liberty and justice" by banning same-sex marriage.

Such a change would require a two-thirds vote of the state House and Senate before it could be submitted to voters, they said. The judge disagreed, saying that no court has conclusively defined the difference between an amendment and a revision.

Friday's ruling was the latest setback for gay rights backers in Oregon, where more than 3,000 marriage licenses were granted to same-sex couples in Multnomah County in spring 2004, until a judge halted the practice.

Short of achieving full marriage rights, gay rights backers mounted an effort in the Legislature earlier this year to pass a civil unions bill extending most of the benefits and rights of marriage to same-sex couples, but the bill died in the Oregon House.

 

[no1important]

RE: Judge Upholds Oregon'

I say when freedoms and what other countries have determined are rights, things are looking down.

 

[Nascar_James]

Don't forget no1, several states had a referendum a year ago to ask if they were in favor of gay marriage. They all voted against it.

In a democracy, we need to respect the will of the people.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Judge Upholds Oregon'

Ah well, there is some progress. Oregon is the only state that allows physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill. I'm sure they'll come around on the gay marriage thing soon too.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

NJ: ........and HOW is that "looking up"? (or from which end are you looking?? :wink:

seems it isn't moving /looking anywhere. Locked in tradition and old fashioned belief systems where only "some" rights matter , while others are denied/ignored. This kind of thinking belongs with the horse and carriage days.

 

[Nascar_James]

NJ: ........and HOW is that "looking up"? (or from which end are you looking?? :wink:

seems it isn't moving /looking anywhere. Locked in tradition and old fashioned belief systems where only "some" rights matter , while others are denied/ignored. This kind of thinking belongs with the horse and carriage days.

And what's wrong with tradition and old fashioned principles?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

NJ: ........and HOW is that "looking up"? (or from which end are you looking?? :wink:

seems it isn't moving /looking anywhere. Locked in tradition and old fashioned belief systems where only "some" rights matter , while others are denied/ignored. This kind of thinking belongs with the horse and carriage days.

And what's wrong with tradition and old fashioned principles?

Not a thing.........and particularly when they can apply to EVERYONE EQUALLY..... so if a gay couple wants a TRADITIONAL wedding.....they should have the same right.

but tradition isn't the issue here......is it?? It is the outdated legal measures.

Maybe the law should be more concerned about PEOPLE , as opposed to the who's who in someone's bedroom.

 

[no1important]

Don't forget no1, several states had a referendum a year ago to ask if they were in favor of gay marriage. They all voted against it.

In a democracy, we need to respect the will of the people.

I hate rehashing old topics but Nascar don't you think the rights of the minority should be protected as well? Shouldn't they have the same rights?

 

[Nascar_James]

Don't forget no1, several states had a referendum a year ago to ask if they were in favor of gay marriage. They all voted against it.

In a democracy, we need to respect the will of the people.

I hate rehashing old topics but Nascar don't you think the rights of the minority should be protected as well? Shouldn't they have the same rights?

Correct and as such, minorities have the right to live their lives as they see fit. However, when it comes down to overrriding my traditional values and/or the historical definition of marriage, it is not up to the courts or government decide this. As far as I am concerned there is only one super power who can make that decision.

The people of the US agree with maintaining our traditional defintion of marriage. That is why they voted NO in a several state level referendums last year to legalize gay marriage. By the way there was no referendum here in Oklahoma since it is a non issue here.

 

[peapod]

This is more re-hashing of the same topic in different thread, there are a number of topics and threads about this topic. You are spamming. Start posting the same old same old, in the same old same old threads.

 

[marcarc]

I would far rather have the american system, at least they are taking part in the decisions. Here in canada it was deeply divisive, moreso because people don't actually take part. Keep in mind that a future conservative government can quite easily undo what has been done. When you have the will of the people behind you it is far more difficult.

When Oregon finally votes it in, or if..but I suspect when, it will be far more accepted in the society than in canada. Before canadians get too smug, this is only one small issue when it come to rights, there are plenty of other groups whose rights are routinely trampled on. At least in Oregon they have a shot at getting them voted on (like the doctor assisted suicides mentioned).

 

[no1important]

RE: Judge Upholds Oregon'

How can the conservatives undo it? The only way would be the notwithstanding clause to over rule all the courts that passed it and that aint gonna happen as the tories if they do win (they wont) would only get a miniority and basically most members of other 3 parties support it. So it aint going to happen.

SSM was not that deeply a divisive like it is in the US, just the religious right and rednecks were basically against it. Now not even a peep about it, it is time for the right to move on and deal with important issues instead of grandstanding on an issue that has been beaten to death.