Oregon Domestic Partnership Law Halted

AP, by Sarah Skidmore, via Common Dreams:

PORTLAND, Ore. – A federal judge on Friday placed on hold a state domestic partnership law that was set to take effect Jan. 1, pending a February hearing.

The law would give some spousal rights to same-sex couples.

Opponents asked U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman to intercede after the Oregon secretary of state’s office ruled in October that they had failed to collect enough valid signatures on a referendum to block the law.

The Oregon measure covers benefits related to inheritance rights, child-rearing and custody, joint state tax filings, joint health, auto and homeowners insurance policies, visitation rights at hospitals and others. It does not affect federal benefits for married couples, including Social Security and joint filing of federal tax returns.

After the Legislature approved the domestic partnership law this year, gay rights opponents launched an effort to collect enough signatures to suspend the law and place it on the November 2008 ballot for a statewide vote.

But state elections officials said this fall that the effort fell 116 valid signatures short of the 55,179 needed to suspend the law.

Funny how certain people try so hard to keep basic rights away from an entire segment of our population, especially when it costs them none of their own rights.

Some might say it’s the “gay,” but I think it’s just the “hate.”

Read the rest of the article here.

55 thoughts on “Oregon Domestic Partnership Law Halted

  1. It must be the hate, Zooey, because the opposition to giving same-sex couples the right to join in civil unions giving them the same “spousal” rights as heterosexual married couples (and sometimes unmarried, too) is not founded in anything logical.

    If their arguments against it are religious, it is rooted in a part of the Old Testament that also declares many other things “abominations” punishable by death, and yet we donp;t see religious people advocating those. Just the anti-gay stuff.

    And if their arguments are secular, then what is wrong with treating all people (males and females alike) as “equal under the law”? They, therefore, should be allowed to marry someone of one gender as much as of the other. And, as you said, it doesn’t affect the heterosexual couples one bit.

    I have a co-worker whose immediate argument against it concerns whether or not here is a “financial gain” to allowing gays to marry. I seem to remember hearing all this stuff about a “marriage penalty” that makes married people pay more in taxes than singles living together. I’m really not sure what point he’s trying to make, but I am sure that he is one of those men who is absolutely terrified at the thought of being made to have anal sex. And I believe that thjis fear drives his opposition to allowing gays to marry. And like many heterosexual men, he has no problem with lesbians, especially good-looking ones. He really is illogical in his views.

  2. Maybe he’s just terrified of people finding out he’s curious about anal sex. 😉

    If this guy’s argument is the “marriage penalty,” you’d think he’d want the gays married so they’d have to pay more, and the straights single.

    What a nut case.

  3. Maybe I’m just ignorant, but I really don’t see what the big deal is with domestic partnerships, or other gay/lesbian issues (like gays in the military). I honestly think this is the last frontier of discrimination. To me, the same people that say “faggots shouldn’t serve in the military” are the same ones that were saying “niggers shouldn’t vote” not too long ago.

  4. If two people want to share a life, as a married couple, let em. Being married is a shitload of work, it’s not like they’re taking some kind of easy way in or out…Geebus.

  5. “Being married is a shitload of work”
    RUCerious

    Agreed. This is why I’ve never understood polygamy ( I live in Utah). One wife is hard enough as is.

  6. “Mistress Z, TP looks to have faded to a once every ten minute Ron Paul posting…zzzz…..”

    I just had to whack on the pro-Paul poster this time, hehe

    “To me, the same people that say “faggots shouldn’t serve in the military” are the same ones that were saying “niggers shouldn’t vote” not too long ago.”

    Agreed.

  7. Zooey, thanks for putting this up. I meant to attend to it this morning but got distracted.

    During the ballot issue a few years ago in which the forces of evil were banning gay marriage, they claimed repeatedly and more or less uniformly that they were only talking about gay “marriage” and that they would not stand in the way of legislation that allowed civil unions. Obviously, this was a goddamn lie designed to cater to the middle-of-the-road voters who weren’t comfortable with the notion of gay people showing up at their church but also were fair-minded enough to think that gay couples should get a fair shake. Once the legislature called their bluff, the masks were dropped and the hoods were donned.

    This is yet another example of “conservative” hypocrisy in re: states’ rights. This is a federal judge interfering in what is clearly a State issue. He has no business being involved at all and he certainly has no business intervening on behalf of those who would suppress the civil rights of other citizens. Surprise, surprise, surprise, he’s a Bush appointee.

    More christofascist interference in the lives of those they don’t approve of. The people who pushed through the ballot initiative claim not to be homophobic and make the totally bogus claim that they’re protecting the institution of marriage. The truth is, they hate gay people and just want all the faggots and dykes to disappear — up until the point at which they all burn in Hell and the righteous people can watch from above as they smoke on their spits.

    I’m sorry if this seems a little cranky, but bigots piss me off.

  8. “Agreed. This is why I’ve never understood polygamy ( I live in Utah). One wife is hard enough as is.”

    The Chinese symbol for War is two women under one tent/roof.

  9. Wait…. the judge put the domestic partnership law on hold even though the anti-gay rights group failed to raise enough signatures?

    Doesn’t this mean the reichwingers are changing the law with judges instead of popular votes? Wouldn’t this make this judge an “activist judge”, and the reichwingers a bunch of flaming hypocrites?

    You are shocked, I know….

  10. “Doesn’t this mean the reichwingers are changing the law with judges instead of popular votes?”

    Like in a not too distant ago election, when the court ruled that Bush won, regardless of the number of votes? Noooo. They would never do a thing like that ….

  11. Chris,

    I just finished your article. It certainly helped me understand the issue better, and I thank you for that.

    It’s interesting that BushCo wants to get rid of the big bad AQ in Iraq, but won’t pull the troops out — which, as you said in your article, might very well mean the destruction of AQI.

    I think AQ is a very convenient boogeyman for this administration.

  12. “You guys do know I’m a woman, right…?”

    Yeah.
    It is the symbol of war, don’t blame me, blame the guy that made the symbol, I was just stating a fact…..

    **ducks =)

  13. “willyloman – I was hoping to see you around again”
    well, you said the magic words “lesbian porn” and “poof” I appear.

  14. In my cultural anthropology course we looked at a number of polygynous cultures that had been successful for centuries. The one thing they had in common, which was antithetical to the Mormon version, was that (sorry, Zooey) the women never “shared a hearth.” The point was that, although there was a common male figure responsible for providing a living to the entire family, no one expected that the wives would live under the same roof.

    The reality is that the Mormon version requires complete subjugation by the male figure of all the women. It’s inherently disempowering. In the successful versions, each woman controls her own household and the sperm donor visits on some cyclical basis.

  15. Wolverine – Thank you.

    Zooey – re: Boogeyman – exactly. Attacking AQ / AQI was never the true focus, which as seriously pissed off a lot of troops.

  16. “Chris — Of course it would piss off the troops. It’s their asses on the line. Not BushCo’s.”

    OK, I know I said I was heading out, but I want to respond to this first. Troops love to fight. It is what we joined for and what we want to do. We will attack anywhere, if ordered. However, many vets like myself and a number of troops currently in Iraq feel that OIF has led us away from the real enemy. We are wasting time, resources, and lives in Iraq, while Al-Qeada grows stronger. AQ does not care about Iraq, and they will not be defeated. As I said, soldiers love to fight, but to do that we need the one thing we don’t have in Iraq – an enemy.

  17. […] the Mormon version requires complete subjugation by the male figure of all the women.
    ~gummitch

    I am still at a loss to understand the women who are obedient to a religion that places them at the very bottom of the social, family scale.

    But I guess if this is the way they are raised, any other option looks like a straight path to hell or something like that…

  18. I understand what you’re saying, Chris. My point would be that even if you love the fight, you probably don’t want to get killed for whatever the troops are getting killed for over there.

  19. However, many vets like myself and a number of troops currently in Iraq feel that OIF has led us away from the real enemy.

    Not that Zooey isn’t perfectly capable of responding herself, but I think this was the point of her post.

    One thing is being on the line of fire for a cause you believe in, and another is risking limb and life on a war that didn’t need to be -and that is actually a distraction from the real fight…

  20. “…a war that didn’t need to be -and that is actually a distraction from the real fight…”

    maybe I can help sum this up. This isn’t a war. And that may well be what is frustrating some of these troops Chris is talking about.

    This is an occupation, and as far as I know, that isn’t what most soldiers signed up for.

  21. I agree, this is not a war. It’s an occupation -not what the troops volunteered for.

    It’s also an oil grab to secure access to natural resources -not what the troops volunteered for.

    The occupation of Iraq is a disgrace, and a terrible legacy of death and destruction that the Bush administration will leave behind…

  22. absolutely. It’s an illegal resource grab… just like Saddam’s in Kuwait. But not just in Iraq either. Remember, the Taliban publicly declared they would hand over bin Laden if we were to provide evidence of his quilt.

    Any evidence…

    Bush never replied. He didn’t want to. He wanted Afghanistan, not bin Laden.

  23. Sorry to have to do this to you, willy, my friend, but you provided my nominee for funniest typo of the week:

    Remember, the Taliban publicly declared they would hand over bin Laden if we were to provide evidence of his quilt.

    “Hand over the binky, and we’ll hand over bin Laden.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s