PDA

View Full Version : Oregon also granting same-sex marriage licenses


IndyGopher
Mar 4, 2004, 03:12 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/03/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Whether you agree with the idea of same-sex marriages or not, it is good to see people standing up for what they believe in.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 4, 2004, 06:47 AM
This whole thing has a very 1989 feel to it. Its like watching something happen and knowing that noone has any control over it.

toaster_oven
Mar 4, 2004, 10:13 AM
I think the song "the times they are a-changin'" is particularly apt for all this stuff...

kuyu
Mar 4, 2004, 10:50 AM
Portland won't be the last city to allow same-sex marriages. I feel like the media is telling us to get mad, but I just can't get angry about it. I've known many gay individuals, and they are all really nice people. I think the best bet is to throw out this amendment idea, and let the people of each particular state decide. The old addage "live and let live" comes to mind :)

Vlade
Mar 4, 2004, 11:33 AM
and let the people of each particular state decide.

Look what happened when states decided on slavery... BUT that would be better than an amendment banning it altogether... I think I should shut up before I start a flame war :o

1macker1
Mar 4, 2004, 11:36 AM
What are people going to do when they ban same sex marriages? Do the get a refund for the marriage certificate. It has to be a national vote, the states cant not decide. Because all the gay people would just take a trip to that state and get married.

TEG
Mar 4, 2004, 11:58 AM
As someone who lives in the PDX (Portland) I'd like to clear up a few things.

1) State law says that Marrage involves Males and Females over the age of 17, but it does not state between Males and Females, hence the percieved legality.

2) It is Multinomah County handing out the liscenses, not the City of Portland. Therefore, Multinomah is the first county (only) to permit same-sex marrage. (SF is both City and County, but doesn't count because of that fact)

3) This is all stemming from an opinion of the Lawyer that there is a loophole in the above law.

Personally, I have no problem for the most part (I'm 75% for, 25% against). My problem is that "the people" had no input on "the decission". If there was a vote, and it was approved, I'd have no problems at all, it is all the cloak and dagger politics that are bothering me. That is also what is bothering me about a possible Constitutional Ammendment, not that one may be in the works, but that the Ammendment process side steps "the people" by having all the ratification done in Congresses and Senates, not by a State Popular Vote.

TEG

MongoTheGeek
Mar 4, 2004, 12:42 PM
As someone who lives in the PDX (Portland) I'd like to clear up a few things.

1) State law says that Marrage involves Males and Females over the age of 17, but it does not state between Males and Females, hence the percieved legality.


But that would say to me that you would have to have at least one male and one female in the marriage.


2) It is Multinomah County handing out the liscenses, not the City of Portland. Therefore, Multinomah is the first county (only) to permit same-sex marrage. (SF is both City and County, but doesn't count because of that fact)

3) This is all stemming from an opinion of the Lawyer that there is a loophole in the above law.


That is their job, to find loopholes...


Personally, I have no problem for the most part (I'm 75% for, 25% against). My problem is that "the people" had no input on "the decission". If there was a vote, and it was approved, I'd have no problems at all, it is all the cloak and dagger politics that are bothering me. That is also what is bothering me about a possible Constitutional Ammendment, not that one may be in the works, but that the Ammendment process side steps "the people" by having all the ratification done in Congresses and Senates, not by a State Popular Vote.

TEG

The thing that bugs me is the mutilation of the language and the meaning of words.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 4, 2004, 12:43 PM
What are people going to do when they ban same sex marriages? Do the get a refund for the marriage certificate. It has to be a national vote, the states cant not decide. Because all the gay people would just take a trip to that state and get married.

Sue the issuer for fraud. :) Claim malice and collect treble damages? :)

MongoTheGeek
Mar 4, 2004, 12:53 PM
Portland won't be the last city to allow same-sex marriages. I feel like the media is telling us to get mad, but I just can't get angry about it. I've known many gay individuals, and they are all really nice people. I think the best bet is to throw out this amendment idea, and let the people of each particular state decide. The old addage "live and let live" comes to mind :)

The media isn't trying to make you mad about this. Fox News as a whole isn't trying to incite people (listen to the 'droids not the commentators like O'Really). The spin I feel is more the opposite. They are expressing shock from genuine shock, "You mean all we had to do was get someone to issue licenses and call them married?" I would say the bulk of the media people view this as a good thing. They way it is proceeding makes it happening inevitable.

As for the legality individual states can allow it. As long as federal judges stay out of it this will be handled like so many other things in this country on a state by state basis and it won't affect anything until all 50 states do it. You might end up with pockets of oddness before then like louisiana. The full faith and credit clause says that congress interprets the relationships between states. Congress says that the states don't have to honor gay marriage. I imagine that california will honor vermont and vice versa out of courtesy.

the whole should settle out by next april 15th. If not that's when its going to get real interesting.:)

trebblekicked
Mar 4, 2004, 01:23 PM
cheers to those involved in oregon, california, new york and massachusetts. i wish to thank the civil servants for standing up and serving their constituents, even if those constituents are in the minority, and continued happiness to the loving couples who finally get to enjoy equal legal status.

rainman::|:|
Mar 4, 2004, 02:42 PM
But that would say to me that you would have to have at least one male and one female in the marriage.
Legally, they are quite correct. Little is implied in law, it must be made explicit...

I can't discuss this issue rationally, i think, because i'm one of the people being discriminated against. I don't want to hear "it's for the children" or any of that BS, you can justify it all you want-- slave owners did, male chauvenists did. Doesn't make them less filthy of people.

paul