Oregon: Judge Halts Law Granting Same Sex Couples Marriage Rights
Gribbet has the details on the whole sordid mess. He cross posted it at STACLU. Here is a taste:
A federal judge in Portland, OR has ruled in favor of the Alliance Defense fund’s motion to issue an injunction pending review of the state’s invalidating signatures on petitions which would have brought the state’s domestic partnership law to the people.
One of the provisions granted by the law that WAS set to take effect January 1st is that inmates in the state’s Department of Corrections who are involved in “domestic partnerships” would be permitted to be housed at the same facilities and in the same cells. A right not granted to heterosexual couples in the state’s prison system. Another example of liberal America attempting to grant special rights to homosexuals not equal rights.
According to a report on World Net Daily, the state of Oregon has for 148 years recognized that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The voters of Oregon have on 4 occasions re-affirmed this.
I am for gay benefits. I feel that gays should be afforded the same financial benefits that I have with my husband, but I do not support gay marriage. That being said, I don’t agree with the games being played here, and that is exactly what it is. Oregon is a liberal state, and yet the voters don’t favor gay marriage, so where do these state legislators get the stones to try and disenfrancise the will of the people?
December 30, 2007 - 09:50 AM on December 30th, 2007
Unfortunately the ‘will of the people’ has been ignored on numerous occassions by the likes of the ACLU and liberal activists and judges. That’s exactly why the ADF needs money as well as support so they can fight these bastards and their quest for social anarchy.
I’m with Pam on this one. I believe if two people want to share a life together then fine. Go see a lawyer and draw up a contract. That should be legal but marriage? No way.
December 30, 2007 - 10:55 AM on December 30th, 2007
At last a judge makes the right ruling and this was not the nafaroius 9th curcut court
December 30, 2007 - 11:20 PM on December 30th, 2007
“I believe if two people want to share a life together then fine. Go see a lawyer and draw up a contract. That should be legal but marriage? No way.”
——
Can’t you see how that creates a “seperate but equal” situation for homosexual couples?
Try to honestly put yourselves in their shoes for a moment and imagine how that would make you feel.
If you felt your love was no different from a straight couple, why should you settle for anything less that what they are allowed?
This truly is the civil rights issue of our time. Decades from now people will look back on homosexual discrimination in a way that we look back on racial discrimination in the 1960’s.
I know most of you don’t feel that way, but I am confidant that time and love will change your hearts on this issue.
December 30, 2007 - 11:23 PM on December 30th, 2007
“According to a report on World Net Daily, the state of Oregon has for 148 years recognized that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The voters of Oregon have on 4 occasions re-affirmed this.”
————————
And I’m sure that slavery and all kinds of other forms of injustices have been recognized by voters often many times before people came to their senses and changed their opinions and laws.
December 31, 2007 - 07:57 AM on December 31st, 2007
SFL…slavery and same sex marriage are two completely different issues with two completely different sets of moral standards.
December 31, 2007 - 08:06 AM on December 31st, 2007
And in any case, don’t we live in a country where the majority rules? I thought we did anyway. That, imo, would mean if the voters say no, then it should be no.
December 31, 2007 - 08:20 AM on December 31st, 2007
3- I have yet to see a case successfully argued using the 14th amendment SFL. I looked back on history, and it was the SCOTUS and the POTUS that made the rulings outlawing slavery and the injustices that go along with it, not the legislators. 4 votes have come before the Oregon voters. The time for the legislator to act was before the 1st vote.
December 31, 2007 - 09:39 AM on December 31st, 2007
This is a good ruling from a judge who is not from the 9th curcut court we ned a judge like him in the supreum court so we dont have any more kelo decisions
December 31, 2007 - 12:21 PM on December 31st, 2007
Injustices? Talk about injustices…how about the Boy Scouts denied the use of public property, paid for by taxes collected from their families, because of attacks by the homosexual radicals?
Sorry, but until the homosexuals stop attacking and destroying everything that doesn’t cater to them, they get no sympathy from me. On anything.
December 31, 2007 - 01:48 PM on December 31st, 2007
“And in any case, don’t we live in a country where the majority rules? I thought we did anyway. That, imo, would mean if the voters say no, then it should be no.”
————–
If that were the case, BonBon, blacks would still be drinking from different drinking fountains and sitting in the backs of busses, down in the south.
Majority rule is OVERRULED when moral issues are at stake.
Injustice is injustice, period. sexual discrimination is not as evil as slavery of course, but the they are of the same cloth.
December 31, 2007 - 01:50 PM on December 31st, 2007
“how about the Boy Scouts denied the use of public property, paid for by taxes collected from their families”
————
….AND gay people, some with families and many atheists too. (!)
What about THEM, Robert? Do you think they are happy about sending their tax dollars to an organization that discriminates against them?
I don’t think so…
December 31, 2007 - 02:06 PM on December 31st, 2007
You fail to grasp the difference. In the case of the public property, the use is to denied to the Boy Scouts. It is not denied to other users. You want that used to enforce mores. It isn’t the same thing.
December 31, 2007 - 05:47 PM on December 31st, 2007
SFL…how do you tell a person is gay without asking?
December 31, 2007 - 07:05 PM on December 31st, 2007
SFL is an idiot. He can’t grasp basic facts, therefore he is doomed to be wrong and outraged at every turn.
January 2, 2008 - 07:28 PM on January 2nd, 2008
“SFL:how do you tell a person is gay without asking?”
————
“Gay-dar” (think radar) skills is something that develops from living and working around gay people.
I guess if I had to pick ONE identifying factor to find out if someone is gay or not: are they an unusually good dresser? Like, are they good with colors, rarely wear ratty or torn things, nice selection of shoes…those bits of information might help you just a bit.
In-the-closet gays, midwestern style, are harder to figure out for obvious reasons.
January 2, 2008 - 07:34 PM on January 2nd, 2008
“In the case of the public property, the use is to denied to the Boy Scouts. It is not denied to other users.”
——————
Help me out here, who else discriminates against gays and atheists that also receive tax dollars?
All I’m saying is that gays and atheist taxpayes have everyright to be outraged by their dollars going to an organization – The Boy Scouts – that discriminates against them.
Put yourself in their shoes. Wouldn’t you feel the same? Don’t you alreay about YOUR tax dollars going to things YOU don’t support, like…I dunno, family planning or something?
The boy scout/gay discrimination thing isn’t hard to grasp at all. Clearly, tax dollars should not go to an organization that discriminates.
How pissed off would blacks be if their tax money went to some publicly funded racist group?
There is a simple solution to this problem. The Boy Scouts SIMPLY let gays and atheists into their organization.
Problem solved.
January 2, 2008 - 08:00 PM on January 2nd, 2008
The boyscouts own that building on that property, and the boyscouts were actually given the land too. This is not your typical case of a non profit just moving into some building and discriminating at the taxpayers expence…This is their property and they have the SCOTUS on their side..
January 2, 2008 - 11:40 PM on January 2nd, 2008
Show me how this involves TAX DOLLARS going to the Boy Scouts? Your argument has holes big enough to drive trucks through.
January 3, 2008 - 01:34 AM on January 3rd, 2008
The difference is SFL, the racist group won’t be held accountable if a black joins and then molests the juvenile members. The Boy Scouts would be. A private organization can choose it’s membership requirements, that’s why it’s called a PRIVATE organization.
Maybe you want your children being taken on camping trips by gay males with no other supervision, but that would make you a VERY small minority. I belong to an organization that is currently defending itself against a lawsuit because an adult member used his position as a youth activity supervisor to molest children during camping trips where the parents were actually elsewhere at the campsite. The molester’s name is Benjamin Schragger if you want to look it up. Noone suspected Ben of being a molester. He is such a “nice” guy.
You’re simply a gay molester apologist and need to understand that until it’s your child, your friend’s children, or in my case some kids I played little league with when I was a kid are the ones molested, your opinion is worth just slightly less than previously processed bovine feed.
Why don’t you go out and try to organize a youth organization for NAMBLA? Let parents choose whether they want their kids going camping with a bunch of molesters.