Oregon voids gay marriages

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ_Pinoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JMJ_Pinoy

Guest
Posted 4/14/2005 11:31 AM Updated 4/14/2005 2:58 PM

Oregon voids gay marriages

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to gay couples a year ago by Portland’s Multnomah County, saying a county cannot go against state matrimonial law.
“Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state’s legislative power,” the high court said in its unanimous ruling.

The court said state law bans gay marriage. It also noted that Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment last November that even more explicitly prohibits the practice.

Kevin Neely, spokesman for the state attorney general’s office, said the court left the big issue — civil unions for gay couples — for another day. “I suspect the issue will be resolved by either legislation or by additional litigation,” he said.

Legislators had been waiting for the court’s ruling for guidance. On Wednesday, Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he will push for a law allowing gay couples to form civil unions that would give them many of the rights and privileges of marriage.

Multnomah County, which includes much of Portland and is the state’s most populous county, began issuing marriages to gay couples last March, its county commissioners arguing that not doing so would violate the Oregon Constitution.

A judge stopped the practice about six weeks later, but not before nearly 3,000 gay couples had wed.

Similarly, San Francisco started issuing thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples in February 2004. The spree of gay weddings was also shut down by the courts, and those marriages were likewise declared invalid, though a constitutional challenge to California’s law against gay marriage is still pending.

In Oregon, Marte Sheehan, who married Linda Duchek last March, said she was disappointed with the ruling but hopes the Legislature passes a bill allowing civil unions.

“I believe that ultimately the Legislature will do the right thing,” she said.

But Kelly Clark, the attorney for the Defense of Marriage Coalition noted, “Two West Coast liberal states now, both California and Oregon, have both said that local governments don’t have authority to take the law into their own hands.”

“It certainly sends a signal to the rest of the country,” Clark said.

The ruling came a day after Connecticut lawmakers passed legislation that would make it the second state, after Vermont, to offer civil unions to same-sex couples.

Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since last May.

usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-14-oregon-marriages_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno
 
Moscow on the Willamette gets tweaked. Good.

At the risk of getting flamed, if Kulongoski gets the civil unions bit passed, I could care less. My complaint is with the homosexual lobby hijacking of the reality of marriage. At least that term, if nothing else in our increasingly corrupt civil system, needs to be reserved for a man and a woman.
 
This happened in Oregon, who’s motto is “Keep Oregon wierd”.
 
Gay marriage banned…does this mean that all those homosexuals who thought they were married are now living in Sin? 😃
 
The incredible arrogance of those three harpies to unilaterally decide that THEY were protectors of the Constitution and thus allowed homosexual marriage without bothering to ask the people, their fellow commissioner, the governor, the AG, etc etc is beyond comprehnesion. Diane Lind who is the one behind this act used to head NARAL. Need I say more about the location of her head.

I am beyond thrilled. Not only did the negate these ‘marriages’ but they reprimanded the Three Witches of Hawthorne for acting out of their scope of authority. They are of course defiant to the end and the ACLU of course is planning yet another lawsuit.

Lisa N
 
40.png
demolitionman65:
Moscow on the Willamette gets tweaked. Good.

At the risk of getting flamed, if Kulongoski gets the civil unions bit passed, I could care less. My complaint is with the homosexual lobby hijacking of the reality of marriage. At least that term, if nothing else in our increasingly corrupt civil system, needs to be reserved for a man and a woman.
The Church says that civil unions should not be approved either.
 
Lisa N:
The incredible arrogance of those three harpies to unilaterally decide that THEY were protectors of the Constitution and thus allowed homosexual marriage without bothering to ask the people, their fellow commissioner, the governor, the AG, etc etc is beyond comprehnesion. Diane Lind who is the one behind this act used to head NARAL. Need I say more about the location of her head.

I am beyond thrilled. Not only did the negate these ‘marriages’ but they reprimanded the Three Witches of Hawthorne for acting out of their scope of authority. They are of course defiant to the end and the ACLU of course is planning yet another lawsuit.

Lisa N
It is amazing when in it is considered a miracle for the court to do what it is supposed to do and perhaps just a little bit less. What they really should do is prosecute those responsible for breaking the law. But it is very good that they did not engage in activism and instead decided to interpret the law as it stands. How refreshing.
 
Wow! I just about fell out of my chair when I read this article. I am delighted, but I am also waiting for the other shoe to drop…am I worried about nothing? Is there any way for pro-homosexual marriage groups to appeal or challenge this decision?
 
40.png
Rivera:
Wow! I just about fell out of my chair when I read this article. I am delighted, but I am also waiting for the other shoe to drop…am I worried about nothing? Is there any way for pro-homosexual marriage groups to appeal or challenge this decision?
There is always a way. They are as persistent as any group. We must match their persistence.
 
40.png
Brad:
The Church says that civil unions should not be approved either.
Have you a source for that? I know that the Church opposes homosexuals being able to marry, but I don’t think that it has taken a stance against their having certain legal rights in civil law vis-a-vis their personal relationships.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Have you a source for that? I know that the Church opposes homosexuals being able to marry, but I don’t think that it has taken a stance against their having certain legal rights in civil law vis-a-vis their personal relationships.
Consideration Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homsexual Persons

**10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.**
 
Brad said:
%between%**10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions,
**

This does not elaborate as to what is meant by “homosexual unions.” If the union meant is “marriage,” yes, Catholics are obliged to oppose it.

But, a civil union intended to extend rights and recognize mutual obligations may not fall under the obligation.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Have you a source for that? I know that the Church opposes homosexuals being able to marry, but I don’t think that it has taken a stance against their having certain legal rights in civil law vis-a-vis their personal relationships.
Richard,

The Church always has an obligation to coform Civil Law to match up with Natural Law.

The fact is, homosexual relationship are damaging to those in the relationship and to society in general. The Church is quite correct to oppose civil unions as well.

Those with SSAD need treatment, not unions.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Richard,

The Church always has an obligation to coform Civil Law to match up with Natural Law.

The fact is, homosexual relationship are damaging to those in the relationship and to society in general. The Church is quite correct to oppose civil unions as well.

Those with SSAD need treatment, not unions.
I would depends on what is intended as a “civil union.” One would have to read a state’s proposed law to see what is being extended to the homosexuals.
 
40.png
Richardols:
But, a civil union intended to extend rights and recognize mutual obligations may not fall under the obligation.
Note the lack of a qualifer in what unions were are obligated to oppose.

The Church requires us to oppose ALL unions between homosexual, religious, civil, and yes, physical.
 
40.png
Richardols:
This does not elaborate as to what is meant by “homosexual unions.” If the union meant is “marriage,” yes, Catholics are obliged to oppose it.

But, a civil union intended to extend rights and recognize mutual obligations may not fall under the obligation.
It doesn’t mean “marriage”. It means “unions”. This is clearly demonstrated by the recognition of disctinction here:

5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

If you read the entire document it will be better understood.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Note the lack of a qualifer in what unions were are obligated to oppose.

The Church requires us to oppose ALL unions between homosexual, religious, civil, and yes, physical.
It said “legal recognition of homosexual unions.” It did not say “all unions.” I would have to see the Church’s definition of a homosexual union and compare it with what some state might be offering in a civil union before I could determine whether the two are incompatible.

One’s state’s civil union might be acceptable, another’s might not. One would have to examine any proposed bill IMO, and the local bishop’s office would also, I presume, do the same before passing judgment.
 
40.png
Richardols:
It said “legal recognition of homosexual unions.” It did not say “all unions.” I would have to see the Church’s definition of a homosexual union and compare it with what some state might be offering in a civil union before I could determine whether the two are incompatible.

One’s state’s civil union might be acceptable, another’s might not. One would have to examine any proposed bill IMO, and the local bishop’s office would also, I presume, do the same before passing judgment.
Boy you really like to call an apple an orange don’t you?

If a state is offering a civil union between homosexual, that IS legal recognition of homosexual unions. It is the SAME thing per the document. Per the document, the Church is opposed to ANY legal recognition of homosexual couples.
 
40.png
Brad:
If a state is offering a civil union between homosexual, that IS legal recognition of homosexual unions.
But, what is the definition of the particular civil union being offered?
It is the SAME thing per the document. Per the document, the Church is opposed to ANY legal recognition of homosexual couples.
What you posted didn’t say “any” and it didn’t say “homosexual couples.”

I see no point in going around and around on this. As a lawyer, I’m always very careful to read all the definitions and to careful read what a law is providing. I’m not saying that a particular state’s laws won’t be contrary to what the Church insists upon. They well may be. I’d have to read the fine print.

I’d have to see just what is being offered in a particular situation, and I think that the bishops in a particular state would do the same.

I’ll reserve judgment until I read the Bill being proposed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top