Oregon's Supreme Courts Rules Gay Marriages Null and Void

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/14/national/14cnd-gay.html?hp&ex=1113537600&en=1270af7c962c5578&ei=5094&partner=homepage

What are your thoughts about this latest development? What do you believe will be the impacts and/or unintended consequences of "separate but equal" civil unions, should they be enacted in states such as Oregon?

Dang it that sucks....

Well they can still come up here to Washington and get married... it's not too far.

Lianne, its a nice thought but I don't think it would be a legal marriage in Oregon, if it is a Washington marriage lisence.

Oregon's homophobia is a natural outgrowth of its own deeply conflicted nature. The strange, compelling longing it feels to caress the sinewy twinings of neighboring Washington's Cascades offends its own sense of morality, driving it to lash out at any that openly flaunt what it regards as its own secret sin. The guilt and shame compound themselves and are directed outwards in ever more violent fashion.

If Oregon were only to accept its attraction to Washington as natural and normal, then it could move on with its life. Who knows... if Washington were to return the interest, the two might find themselves in a happy state indeed.

First off, I think anyone at or above the age of majority, who is mentally sound should be able to wed a like individual (read: WED..not Civil Unionized), but this is MHO only.

But...the state's citizens voted, they adopted a definition of what a marriage is, and that is law....In this case, a county decided not to follow suit with the state's dictates, and amazingly the state judges sided with state law (and did not try to legislate from the bench). So, other than repealing of their state's "definition of marriage", there is nothing much that Oregonians can do...except maybe hope that the federal government may enact legislation allowing unions between two same sex individuals (which it won't, both on "moral" grounds, and also not to trump state's rights). Even so, should the feds make a law, these judge could just pull a Florida...and ignore it. But, at least nobody's life is at stake in this case...hmm?
Mr. Shoe...meet Mr. Other Foot.

As the question seemed more general then specifically related to Oregon?

Well .. I sort of imagine what will happen over all is ..

There will be concentrated efforts to ban same sex marraiges and civl unions from more and more states.

Atempts to fight these ammendments through voting will probably fail in the short term due to the majority of voters this issue seems to receive

Attempts by civil liberties groups in court may over turn the laws in some states .. but the ones that are constitutional ammendments will stand.

The supreme court will not do much claiming Marriage is one of the inherent State Rights type of powers.

Eventually close minded people's hearts will soften, or they will age and be lost through attrition.

Younger and more open minded people will see that homosexual relationships are just as valuable and fufilling to those in them as heterosexual ones are to straight people.

New initiatives will repeal these close minded laws and marriages (by whatever politicly correct name) will eventually be legal for same sex couple throughout the United States.

Sadly it will probably take many many years for these rights to be given. It will also be a huge effort on the part of people looking to ensure civil liberties for same sex couples.

It is troubling though for people who have to live out their lives now while they get lesser rights becuase of sexual orientation.

Also sad is people who will see these temporary "wins" on banning same sex marriage as an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals.

I for one truly hope it does not take as long as I fear it will for all people to have the rights they deserve, reguardless of who they choose to be with.

Well said, Colette. And yes, I was asking more of an open-ended series of questions as opposed to just seeking comments on the specific Oregon Supreme Court decision, today. As I re-read my initial post, I realize they were probably "leading" questions that imply my own biases. Let me just own up to that now so as to hopefully pre-empt any flaming hijacks.

From my perspective, the statement in the article that really caught my attention was this:


(emphasis mine)

I think civil unions are probably a step in the right direction, and are probably the "best" we can hope for in the short term. I just wonder if people really understand the implications of a separate but equal class of people in regards to marriage.

Ok...well then generally, I'd have to say that I am in favor of same sex marriage, as long as it is the will of a majority of the voters. Want change? Change laws, or propose new ones. Legislate, enact, enforce..just as it has been since states became states.

Yup. Easier said than done, but yup.

You'd think the US would have learned all about "seperate but equal" by now. How many times do we have to fight this battle?

Just wanted to give my 2 cents.. not that their worth much.

1. I think this is a horrible decision
2. I feel as a tax payer i should have the same rights as other tax payers.
3. Love is love no matter how you slice it and its NEVER wrong.
4. Why can't I legally adopt kids as other people do.. would it be better to leave them with undeserving people (crack addicts and abusers?) who don't care for them or don't want them? Dont' they deserve love too?
5. What about medical decisions for my partner and I? Why do I have to pay extra to have SPECIAL court documents written up when nobody else does? What about insurance coverage that I DO/AM WILLING to pay for out of my own pocket?

There are many other issues but I shan't rant. IMO though... .if I can't have equal rights as others? STOP RAPING MY PAYCHECK OF TAXES AND FORCING ME TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN (ie. school supplies, welfare benefits, and, and, and) and the many other things my tax money supports in my community and this country.

Equal rights = Equal Taxes.... No rights = NO TAXES IMO.

Thanks.. love ya!!

I've been looking around for a quote, but haven't been able to find it again. In any case the gist of it was this:

The expression of something in art often precedes the acceptance of it in life. In America we've now had several decades' worth of narrative and artistic expression explaining that gays and lesbians exist, are human beings, and have the right to life. The problem with gay marriage is we have not had the same sort of narrative. For so many people, the concept has come out of left field, and they've had no real stories they can relate to.

I can relate personally to this idea, because for most of my life I found no narrative that could explain how I felt, as a being who was born male but wanted to be female, and yet wasn't interested in being some sort of fetishist.

I think the tide will turn if enough artists can tell the story of true love and family in all the myriad possibilities.

Wow, a very appropriate paraphrase of a poignant observation. It very much rings true for me, someone who chose to hide his sexual orientation for decades rather than face up to the social stigma and ostracization that I feared would be the natural result of outing myself. Truth be told, I am personally having to un-learn all of the social stereotypes I've acquired with regard to the gay community -- and I am gay! Imagine the artistic narrative necessary for that to occur within the general populace.

Given the raging privacy-related threads over in General, I'm not very comfortable sharing much more. But, I will say this: Now that I am a (generally) openly gay man in a loving relationship with another man, I am exceedingly overwhelmed with how to communicate the joy I feel. Art may well be the one universal avenue by which to dispel the fear.....hmmm.....my mind is going a million miles, now. Thanks a lot, Ananda!

Paolo, forgive me, but I am speaking from experience, here. I think that before we look at gay marriage we need to look at issues like child custody and making divorce a WHOLE lot easier. I just have the feeling that the only ones really likely to benefit from legal gay marriage are divorce lawyers.
In any case, the camel of legal precedent has firmly jammed its nose under the tent in Vermont and Massachusetts, and these busybody nitwits in other states are ultimately just fighting an expensive delaying tactic that is in many cases, being used by politicians to distract voters from real issues. In the long run, though, we really shouldn't care less if Gay Marriage is illegal in tacky holes like Kansas and Utah, since only a moron would live there anyway.

I think it would be a wonderful idea to make divorce easier.. then the gov't could rape my check even further to pay for children that dead beat dads don't pay for. NOT!

Divorce lawyers wouldn't benefit if people married for the RIGHT reasons ...IMO.

As for Kansas and Utah, I don't live in either state but what makes Virginia so special? *sigh* In the long run, we shouldn't care about posts from shallow minded redneck morons living in Virginia either i suppose.

~cheers~

David, you know enough about my personal situation with my own family to know that I don't take this issue lightly. I'm not looking at marriage for gays as some panacea of social acceptance, nor am I treating it as some flippant excuse to squeeze every last dime out of a sugar daddy. Among other things, I look at it as providing a legal venue for redress of legitimate grievances and the mediation of disputes. I would say more about my personal situation, but I am still too freaked out by the goings on in the General thread... Needless to say, my sexual orientation currently puts me at a major disadvantage.

I've been in a relationship with the same guy since 1986. When you can match that maybe we can discuss it. I might live in Virginia, but not on Walton's Mountain, and my neighbours aren't rude fucking assholes who would assume or say something like that without knowing me at all.

I've been in a relationship with the same man since 1986 also.. neat coincidence. Congrats to you! I merely was making the statement that rude fucking assholes might ought not assume that only morons live in Kansas and Utah.

Congrats on your relationship, keep up the good work! *hugs*

~cheers~

No thanks. It's basically a sugar-coated second-class handout. Thanks, but since I pay into the system like everyone else - I won't be shoved to that level.

Nice try though.

maybe you'd like to give an example of the sugar coating?

I have a better idea, why dont we ditch this whole marriage thing.
Jesus. I cant believe that we're still clinging to the same old prehistoric social structure.

wow, very "progressive" eggy.

ok, if my last link was a sugar coated second-class handout, do you have any thoughts on this?

What is marriage anyway? You share finances, kids, and you make some half-hearted promise not to sleep with anyone else for the rest of your life. It's not what it used to be.

Gay marriage, right or wrong, isn't the issue. Whether gays are married or not, the thing that disgusts people who are against it is the fact they have sex with each other. Allowing them to draw benefits off of each other, or adopt children, or make medical decisions is not going to make homosexuality any more right or wrong. Guess what people, these people are still going to have sex with each other. And if it's right then good for them...if they're wrong, they'll answer to someone.

Oh...and another note....

There are morons in every state....