posted on November 20, 2004 05:06:06 AM new
ACLU Drops Gay Marriage Case in Oregon
Fri Nov 19, 6:16 PM ET
PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - After Oregonians voted to ban same-sex marriages earlier this month, a gay rights advocate has given up its fight to take its case to the state's supreme court, activists said on Friday.
The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU) will instead argue for a legal civil unions between same-sex couples giving them the same rights and benefits as married couples.
"This changes our case in only one way. We are no longer seeking marriage," said Ken Choe, a New York attorney with the ACLU who will argue the Oregon case. "But we do believe that the Oregon Constitution requires equality with respect to the protections that come with marriage."
Also at issue is the fate of 3,000 same-sex couple who were married in Portland's Multnomah County after county commissioners started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in March before halting the practice amid a flurry of lawsuits nationwide both for an against same-sex marriages.
The constitutional amendment to Oregon's state constitution, known as Measure 36, that passed earlier this month "in no way affects those 3,000 marriages. Measure 36 cannot retroactively undo those marriages," Choe said.
Oregon's Defense of Marriage Coalition, which pushed for Measure 36's passage, disagrees. "The licenses are not valid because they were issued in contradiction of the law," Tim Nashif, a spokesman for the Coalition said.
The Coalition contends that as a result of the gay marriage ban "the suit should be dismissed," Nashif said.
Oregon was one of 11 states that voted in the Nov. 2 election to prohibit gay marriage. Some political pundits have argued that the push for gay marriage was too much too soon for many Americans and the initiatives on the 11 state ballots brought out more conservative voters, leading to President Bush (news - web sites)'s reelection.
Oregon went against that trend. About 57 percent of voters agreed to ban gay marriage, but Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) won in Oregon.
"Whether it is called civil unions or it is called domestic partnerships or whether it is called something else," Choe said, the arrangements must "contain the full range of legal protections that married couples enjoy."
Vermont pioneered the civil union in 2000. It entitles same sex couples to "all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities" as marriage, according to the state.
The Oregon Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on December 15.
I think they will get their civil unions... but marriage will be between a man and woman
posted on November 20, 2004 07:18:02 AM new
"I think they will get their civil unions... but marriage will be between a man and woman"
Which is not unreasonable. This is how it should have been all along.
However, they have really hurt themselves in some states. I'm in Ohio. With the passage of issue 1 a few weeks back, not only is gay marriage now banned, but anything resembling it banned too. I don't think they will be able to get civil unions in Ohio for a long time.
Itg even set back existing gay benefits. Proctor & Gamble for instance, a huge Cincinnati company had great benefits packages for gays. They were treated pretty much the same as married couples by the company. Now they have been legally required not to do this.
The gays fought too hard, and the system pushed back. They are literally worse off in Ohio than before all the gay marriage questions were brought up.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on November 20, 2004 08:43:41 AM new
Tsk tsk, there are consequences to refusing to compromise. Not that they aren't willing to compromise themselves.....
__________
The Democrats were rejected by a majority of Americans
posted on November 20, 2004 09:35:49 AM new
Let's see how many companies will drop their health insurance? 401K's etc. It's only a matter of time when each individual will have to purchase everything themselves with no partner clause. JMHO
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on November 20, 2004 02:02:55 PM new"I think they will get their civil unions... but marriage will be between a man and woman"
Twelve, it's legal here and I haven't heard of any cases of people turning gay or saying that their heterosexual union held less sanctity. What are you afraid of happening if marriage between gays ever became legal in the U.S.??
posted on November 20, 2004 02:22:43 PM new
WHAT THE FCK DON"T YOU UNDERSTAND KRAFT!
HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG... I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS TIME AND AGAIN ARE YOU THAT FCKING DUMB?
Only those on the left pull the fear card... there is no fear... it is wrong that lifestyle is wrong..... it is not more correct than homosexual priests praying on alter boys... but then you must condone that, after all it is none of your business...
Welcome them all to Canada, but I see one province doesn't share your liking it...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
posted on November 20, 2004 03:28:07 PM new
"And the vast majority of Americans think it's wrong because...???"
The majority of Americas agree with Twelve.
It doesn't matter why.
The gays won't win unless they convince the majority that they are right.
They can scream and whine and gripe about the last election all they want, but until they present their argument in a logical way, nothing will change. Resorting to name calling and personal attacks is only going to hurt ANY cause.
And I mean out in the real world, not just here on Vendio.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on November 20, 2004 03:41:07 PM new
It does matter why, Replay. The vast majority (whatever vast means) of Americans feel it's wrong based on religion or ignorance. There's no other reason. You want the government to decide for you because as a vast group you have more justification to wallow in ignorance, especially if God's backing you.
posted on November 20, 2004 03:59:41 PM new
KD - There are so many things you just refuse to 'hear'. They've been said over and over.
Also, you're not getting that this gay marriage issues IS NOT a decree from our government as you continue to say. It's come about by a VOTE of the people in each of our States. THEY'VE decided they don't want to see gay marriage....for a multitude of reasons....some having nothing to do with being religious nor ignorant....period.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on November 20, 2004 04:05:35 PM new
Kraft you are dense as brick on somethings...
Not all of canada accepts homosexual marriage... why is that kraft? I believe Alberta is fighting it...
Replay answered your question, you don't want to hear... people don't have to have any specifiec reason... and especially make an explaination to you...
Linda has made a valid point... the states have decided this issue... that is where it stands... the people of the US do not want homosexual marriage... do you understand now?
Why does the left fear letting things stay as they are?
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
posted on November 20, 2004 04:14:17 PM new
I don't refuse to hear anything. This issue shouldn't be a voting issue in the first place. You all talk about freedom but don't realize that every time you run to the government to help you decide something, you've given up another freedom and try to disguise it as keeping up tradition. Stay out of others people's business. Why is that so difficult for everyone to do?
posted on November 20, 2004 04:19:02 PM new"Replay answered your question, you don't want to hear... people don't have to have any specifiec reason... and especially make an explaination to you..."
That's a pretty lame excuse Twelve. You want to have a say over others but don't know why. And I suppose you don't see how ludicrous that is.
posted on November 20, 2004 09:00:05 PM new
Who ran to get the government involved in marriage in the first place Twelve? - heterosexuals. Gays simply want equal rights. And Twelve, my hearing is A-OK. Even if 99.9999% of the population disagreed with me, I'd still feel the same way.
posted on November 21, 2004 05:36:38 AM new
What you are not hearing kraft is that homosexuals do not deserve equal rights... they have chosen a deviant lifestyle and that is the ir choice... but to legitimize through marriage is wrong.
But as you have said, no matter what you will feel the same way... well so will I...
The difference between me and you... if the people would of supported homosexual marriage, then I could of lived with that... because the American people voted on it... and that is something I agree with.
Wanted to add, are you against voting in general kraft or just in the US?
Seems Ralph Klein is one of the few Canadians with any sense... the good people of Alberta also...may they stand proud.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
[ edited by Twelvepole on Nov 21, 2004 07:41 AM ]
posted on November 21, 2004 10:00:16 AM new
From a poll taken in March 2004:
The latter survey found 54 percent of respondents favor civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, with 42 percent opposing them. In a poll conducted in July by the same organizations, 57 percent opposed civil unions and 40 percent favored them.
The Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 51 percent of respondents favor allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions with the same basic legal rights as married couples, up 6 percentage points in less than a month.
Kraft: I don't refuse to hear anything. This issue shouldn't be a voting issue in the first place. You all talk about freedom but don't realize that every time you run to the government to help you decide something, you've given up another freedom and try to disguise it as keeping up tradition. Stay out of others people's business. Why is that so difficult for everyone to do?
Very true. Here is something I bet those on the right did not know:
There is also a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared marriage to be "one of the 'basic civil rights of man' " and that the right to marry was covered by the constitutionally protected right to privacy implicit in the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause.
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 21, 2004 10:09:24 AM newWhat you are not hearing kraft is that homosexuals do not deserve equal rights... they have chosen a deviant lifestyle and that is the ir choice... but to legitimize through marriage is wrong.
I am glad the laws are not left up to twelve to decide. Twelve must have been living at the never land ranch to long. Our entire country was formed on the premise that all people are created equal. I guess you have forgotten what has happen over the past two hundred years. Slavery ended, women were granted equal right so they could vote, the civil rights movement granted equal rights for blacks.
Just because you do not agree with homosexuality does not make a deviant lifestyle. Nobody is asking you to have sex or marry another man.
How would you like it if Bush all of suffen decided to ban interracial marriages because he felt they would corrupt society? (Go ahead and laugh but in the 50's and 60's that is what America thought).
You have nothing to show how gay marriages will corrupt society? Now that gay marriages have been legal in Mass. for the past 6 months, how have they corrupted society? Show me proof. There isn't any.
I wonder what your attitude would be if you were a black man instead of being Archie Bunker.
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 21, 2004 10:39:08 AM new
What if's mean nothing... you can no longer make your case for homosexual marriage, only one state allows it, for now, and only one state allows civil unions, the people of the US have voted on the issue, the states have decided just as the homosexuals had wanted... must be a surprise and a blow to your ego at how the votes actually turned out...
I know I was surprised but pleased... now even the ACLU has dedided it is a lost cause...best you can hope for are civil unions...
You being nothing new the issue, you and the rest of the homosexual community should be thanked for helping President Bush win reelection... the backlash caused by the criminals in SF and other outlandish actions brought out the vote and with 11 states going to amend their constitutions, it will take another vote to repeal it...
posted on November 21, 2004 10:57:14 AM newit will take another vote to repeal it...
It is obvious you know nothing about the law. All it will take is the USSC to decide these state laws are unconstitutional. And then were you cry baby conservatives be?
Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.
--------------------------------------
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 21, 2004 12:29:24 PM new
Twelve, what you don't seem to understand, is no matter who decides what's OK or not OK for the country, minorities still exist and their plight doesn't lessen or cease just because of existing laws. From your posts it sounds like you want people to stop talking about gay marriage just because it's not allowed. That, of course, is silly.
posted on November 21, 2004 03:41:58 PM new
"All it will take is the USSC to decide..."
And that's the biggest problem facing our country right now.
THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED.
THE PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED.
It is NOT up to the SCOTUS to throw out the laws that the PEOPLE have ratified. The SC is there to decide legal matters that are in dispute. This matter is no longer in dispute, and the people have settled it.
"I am glad the laws are not left up to twelve to decide."
I think you're not getting something here. The laws ARE for people like Twelve and me and you to decide. They HAVE decided. Right now, at this time, in this country, there are more people who think like twelve than think like you. They ARE the ones making the laws.
You hear people say things like "If you don't agree, move to another country." which usually sounds pretty stupid. But this is one of those cases where it actually is your best alternative. This country has spoken.
There really are only two alternatives:
1) Learn to live with it or
2) go elsewhere.
Nothing is going to change in the near future. The issues voted on Nov. 2nd were a big deal to a lot of people. If the SCOTUS overturns them, there will be some serious hell to pay.
[ edited by replaymedia on Nov 21, 2004 03:44 PM ]
posted on November 21, 2004 04:29:16 PM new
The simplist resolution to this problem is as follows:
1) Following seperation of church and state, no government should sanction marriage even if it is between a man or a woman. If the "morality" is founded within religious beliefs and marriage is a "sacred" act, then government should not interfere and should only be able to issue civil union certificates for anyone who wishes to enter into a government sanctioned civil union.
2) Marriage should be reserved as a ceremonial religious observance. If your religious belief is that marriage is only for a man and a woman, then it should stay within your sect. However, if a group feels that their religious belief does not meet their needs, then they should have the right to join or form a new church that will meet their religious beliefs.
This is the only way that the government should change in order to maintain civil liberties for all Americans. No individual, group, etc. should be banned from the same rights that others may have, whether it is to join with another for a civil union, to own a gun, to apply for a job, to receive an education, rent or buy a house, start a business or any other action that would require government involvement.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Nov 21, 2004 04:38 PM ]
posted on November 21, 2004 04:56:14 PM new
Rusty- I agree completely. This is the ONLY solution to keep everyone happy.
Marriage is a religious ceremony. Marriage licenses are a civil procedure.
1) Everyone who currently has a marriage license from a state gets an automatic civil union grandfathered in. A civil union would be legal between ANY TWO people. Get a union with your own mother if you want. Gays are certainly OK under this rule.
2) Anyone married in a church(or other religious establishment) can say they were married. The church can decide what constitutes marriage. You probably cannot marry your own mother under church rules. Gays probably cannot be married.
There are:
1) Legal and tax advantages for members of a civil union. Just like marriage has today.
2) NO Legal or tax advantages for couples who are married only.
Keep in mind everyone married as of now would have BOTH of these things.
In the future, give people a choice.
1) Get married, which means nothing to anyone other than two people and God.
2) Get a civil union, which has legal benefits similar to marriage now.
3) Most straight people will opt for both. Gays wlll stick with the civil union only, and hardcase religious people will stick with marriage only.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on November 21, 2004 05:49:12 PM new
Also replay there is a bill in the senate right now that will prevent the USSC from even hearing a case from a state on this issue...
with the new members, I see it passing readily and being signed shortly into the new year...
I wanted to add, why would the homosexuals run to the government? Thought they want the government to stay out of it... LOL
Their agenda backfired...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Nov 21, 2004 07:20 PM ]
