|
 |
 |
 Friday, November 04, 2005
Oregon Judge Upholds State Marriage Amendment
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1282101 Judge Upholds Oregon's Gay Marriage Ban Which Was Approved by Voters in Nov. 2004 By BRAD CAIN The Associated Press SALEM, Ore.n--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. . . . |
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
The Oregon amendment, passed overwhelmingly in November 2004, 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."
...
"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.
He's right you know.
The gay rights group Basic Rights Oregon said it will appeal.
Appeal against the Consent of the Governed, from which all government authority is derrived? Not a smart move, friend...
If we believed that, we never would have desegregated schools, allowed interracial marriages, made sodomy laws unconstitutional. The constitution and courts provide for protection from the tyranny of the majority.
This suit was about a technicality in how the amendment was worded. Did it cover two seperate issues, which should have been presented as two seperate amendments, or just one as the constitution allows?
He ruled it covered just one issue, therefore it was constitutional. He never considered the question of gay marriage itself.
>This suit was about a technicality in
>how the amendment was worded.
Would that be the pro-SS'M' focus if the suit had been successful?
Marty: Appeal against the Consent of the Governed, from which all government authority is derrived?
Interesting idea, Marty, but not one I'd have expected to hear from you: equating one judge's decision with the Consent of the Governed.
This judge merely affirmed the consent of the governed Jesu, refusing to overrule their Constitutional Authority.
This judge merely affirmed the consent of the governed Jesu, refusing to overrule their Constitutional Authority
It's still only one judge's decision that is being appealed against, Marty. Trying to inflate this one judge into the decision-maker for a whole state? Not very democratic of you.
It's not like those anti-Constitutional groups in Massachusetts who are still trying to overrule the Consent of the Governed and ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. I am sure you do not approve of that... but anyone can appeal against one judge making a decision.
Both Massachusetts and Oregon have a majority against same-sex marraige. The difference is Oregon people got to vote on it, and their judge didn't force it on them.
Actually, Mass. had a democratic opportunity to elect officials who were opposed to SSM and overturn the ruling through a constitutional convetion. Instead, they elected an even more pro-SSM legislature.
How do you figure that? Name some names and the vote tallies.
Money and volunteers poured into the state to beat some popular traditional marraige legislators, the Globe of course endorsed the progressive candidates, and they hid their priorities. In terms of voting for legislators, people chose based on other things besides how they feel about SSM, and lots of didn't want to have their district represented by someone who would be cast as a bigot by they media when it wouldn't make much of a difference anyhow. Intimidation rules here now. If we could vote on marriage, we'd vote like every other state, and they know that, that's why they scuttled the pure amendment back in 2002.
Unsure of why you voted the way you did? Just ask john howard, he'll explain it to you. Why do I doubt if anti-ssm candidates would have been voted in john would be making this same nuanced argument about the true intentions of voters?
I advise john howard, and the like, to abandon these "will of the people" arguments as quickly as possible. It will not be long before majorities across the country support SSM, as shown through polling, elections and initiatives.
Will the john howards hold true to their principle of "will of the people" and accept SSM where it's democratically chosen? Something tells me they'll abandon it the second no one is looking.
Some advice: find a principle you won't have to waffle on, and people might actually consider your view to be truly principled.
[That's free advice that is worth its price.]
What is the principled reason that society, through the state, is compelled to enact preferential status for the unisexed relationship?
If it is principled, it will not be a "me-too-claim" that piggybacks on the existing preferential status for the conjugal relationship, but would stand SSM on its own two feet.
The previoius comment is mine.
Post a Comment
<< Home