A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman lifted a temporary injunction he placed on the Oregon domestic partnership law in late December, thus allowing the law to go into affect.
The injunction was placed until Mosman could review a lawsuit, which challenged Secretary of State Bill Bradbury’s Oct. 8 rejection of initiative petitions that would have sent the new domestic partnership law to the ballot. The plaintiffs’ argued that the way Bradbury’s office counted initiative signatures unconstitutionally disenfranchised thousands of people across the state who signed petitions for Referendum 303, the initiative that could have referred the civil-unions law to voters.
This injunction was lifted late this afternoon.
So does this mean there will be a measure on the May or November ballot for us to vote upon? Or does it mean domestic partners can now get hitched?
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 08:59 AM
Well, the people *ought* to get a chance to vote on it, but I wouldn't hold your breath. The legislature should have referred it to the people to begin with.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:02 AM
we can now get hitched.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:02 AM
dear platypussy
why should you vote on my partnership. I did not and will not get a chance to vote on your marriage!
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:04 AM
"Well, the people *ought* to get a chance to vote on it, "
Uh...they did. There was an initiative to place it on the ballot, but not enough Oregonians cared enough to see it there. The people spoke, and they said domestic partnerships are fine with us.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:11 AM
Yay! Finally...and all the anti-gay bigots who said they opposed equal marriage rights but wouldn't oppose civil unions will have to put their money where their mouths are. Read the law - domestic partnerships are not marriage, unfortunately. But they are a good half step toward equal rights.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:15 AM
finally, heres one for equality for all! We're probably doing it monday!
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:22 AM
"The legislature should have referred it to the people to begin with."
You're wrong. Why should you get to vote on whether thousands of your fellow Oregon citizens are entitled the same rights as you?
Why should heterosexuals have special rights for their relationships alone? If you answer "because we have kids", you'd better notice you're telling tens of thousands of heterosexual Oregonians who don't have kids that they're relationships don't count either.
Americans don't believe in bigotry. Sometimes we need to think things through a little. But we don't believe in bigotry. It's Un-American.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:28 AM
Rick,
I'm not anti-anything. I simply do not agree with same sex marriage, or civil unions.
By the way, name calling is never an effective way to change someone's mind.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 11:22 AM
The problem with some people is that they dont want to believe that homosexual couples love each other. If you allow same sex unions then people have to accept that homosexuals are in commited relationships. Homophobes can't accept that gay people are not so different than themselves.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 11:37 AM
If you don't agree with domestic partnerships or civil unions or same-sex marriage, don't have one.
Let other people live their lives as they see fit.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 11:53 AM
As for "the people getting a chance to vote..."
We have a representative democracy, therefore we did vote. We voted for the legislators that put the law into effect. Vote against them if you don't like it.
There are far more important issues that can go to the ballot that do not include anything to do with the irrelevant sexual and romantic lives of strangers.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Not agreeing with same sex marriage or civil unions = anti-equality. You can try to self-justify and say you're "not anti-anything", if it helps you get past your cognative dissonance, though.
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:16 PM
Posting on this article is a no win situation no matter what side one is on. My concern is how many million's of dollars it will cost to re-write company policies as well as all the ensuing lawsuits that will come from this ruling. It will cost every last one of us no matter what your feelings are on this and I am one of those that believes in live and let live and takes neither side...
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:34 PM
Our Right to Petition Weakened by Secretary of State and Judge.
No matter your position on Domestic Partnerships or Same Sex Marriage, or even whether the Legislature, Judges, or Voters should decide these issues, the sad fact is that our right to petition our government via referendum was weakened by this decision. The Progressives fought for referendums and initiatives in order to give voters the ability to bypass abusive governmental powers and create law.
This ruling allows County Clerks to select out valid signatures on petitions without recourse. This is bad law that allows for mischief making, and you can't know which side of an important issue you will be on in the next close petition. Its not right and the next Secretary of State needs to fix it quick. Better petition signature validation standards should be an election issue.
What is the test the judge used to allow counties to throw out proven valid, but somewhat messy signatures?
"I don't find that this is an utterly standardless inquiry leading to irrationally different results between counties." Pretty weak protection.
He sees no equal protection problem (unlike Bush v. Gore) even though he says the Secretary of State should be troubled by "the difficulty the State has had in actually articulating the standard to be applied to these differing judgments in different counties"?
Why should the State have to "articulate"? Shouldn't the standards be clear and written?
So, is it OK to have "utterly standardless" rules about signature validation so long as it leads to "rational" differences?
or is it, so long as the rules are not "utterly standardless, then "irrationally different outcomes" are OK.
Well, I think he really means the State can have the barest wafer thin minute standard that does, in fact, lead to different outcomes, so long as they are not totally "irrational" differences. Seems to me he might have considered some higher level of fairness or compelling public interest, at least, before allowing the State to capriciously dispose of voters rights. How about deciding "close" issues with deference to voter rights?
One's joy in achieving a certain outcome on this particular issue of civil unions should not be used to rationalize and champion harming one of our most vital civil rights. Remember, this ruling is actually about statistical sampling techniques, not the subject of the petition. The County Clerks don't even bother to determine the actual number of valid signatures. Would you like these same standards applied to votes?
Forest / Trees...
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 06:05 PM
Mosman pointed out that it would be nice if there were a requirement to make a phone call to the signor before tossing their signature... just to verify & be certain.
However, he acknowledged there is no such regulation currently. Also, all of the counties were able to prove to him that there was some sense of standardization set up for the process, though he felt it wasn't COMPLETELY standardized, and would like the SOS to shore that one up. That was the bulk of his criticism of the SOS.
Other than that, he noted that a signor does not have a right to expect their petition signature will always be counted (so long that they actually signed) the same as a vote would always be counted.
A vote goes from your home to a government employee (a mail carrier) and then to SOS.
A petition signature goes from you to some guy on the street, to his boss, who might toss out that sheet of signatures for too many duplicates, missing information, whatever. Then it goes to SOS, who might toss out that page because it was part of the group of eliminations that were represented by a statistical analysis fail.
In short, SOS has no way to guaranty a right that a signature will count. They can’t grant that to some signors, and not to others. So the right could never be there in the first place, so the plaintiff can’t claim it was violated.
I would love to see this group of homophobes continue to lose money on this case in legal fees & appeals.
It is a great day to be an Oregonian.
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 02:26 AM
Well this issue should maybe cause us to think of why in heck does the government need to bet involved with who anyone wants to marry?
As long as all are over 18 and of sound mind...it is not government's business. Personally i do not support domestic partnerships....but on the otherhand who cares?
And most of all why in heck does the government care?
I think we should be able to have multiple partners also. Remember that gays used to tell us that animals have gay sex so therefore it is only natural? Well guess what animals have multiple partners hahaha
but seriously...why should government care one way or the other what 2 or 3 or 4 consenting adults want to do and also whether or not 2 or 3 or 4 consenting adults want to form a legal binding relationships?
It is said government should stay out of our bedrooms...well i suggest they stay out of our personal lives.
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 02:30 AM
An unintended consequence of the first time when two people of the same gender were allowed to marry, was that couples came from out of state to do so here. If equality adds a few tourist dollars to out economy, all the better!
If you are against gay marriage, I suggest you do not do it, but why would you care whom someone ELSE decides to marry as long as they are of age and able to consent? Seems that government is not the only entity that ought to stay out of folks' bedrooms!
To any of you who will benefit from this mew ruling, HOORAY!
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:03 AM
Fantastic! I love LIBERAL PORTLAND.. for those that don't there's always Hillbillyville Arkansas or Alabama all youse homeys can go to.. We would not mind if you left. Nothing for you here anyway.
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 08:44 AM
I am sad to think of all the people who were denied benefits and died or have become irreversably ill due to the time it has taken for people to realize we all deserve equal treatment and rights regardless of our lifestyles. I am not anti or pro anything but I believe in that the human race has along way to go in co-existing.
(email verified)
Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Dont let them fook you. They always could get hitched. Just now its recognized by the state (ie: they WANT the government to care, otherwise this never would have been an issue.) Basically the only difference from what has always been is monetary. The thing I dont understand with the insurance thing...why couldnt they just get insurance on their own? Why force employers? And thats only the first step...now they have to force insurance companies to accept it. And when is the last time an insurance company didnt get its way?
(email verified)
Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:21 PM
"Why should heterosexuals have special rights for their relationships alone?"
Interesting, I'm not aware of any "special rights" I have. Please enlighten me.
(email verified)
Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:26 PM
"In short, SOS has no way to guaranty a right that a signature will count. "
But our current SOS sure can guarantee that a signature WONT count. Especially if he doesnt like the initiative being submitted.
(email verified)
Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:29 PM
"And most of all why in heck does the government care?"
Because people expect certain privileges (not rights, mind you) from the government based on marital status...like insurance coverage and tax deductions. Thats what this is all about.
(email verified)
Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Browse archive
The Portland Tribune
News feed
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Our Portland website design and marketing company created custom websites for these top providers of Portland pest control services, Portland cleaning services and Portland florists.
Search engine marketing, website templates, portland web design and website promotion by Webfu // 503.381.5553
New down and fleece north face jackets. The largest selection of North Face Jackets available online. Free shipping on orders over $40.00
See the latest styles of ski jackets and backpacks from The North Face.
Become a Naturopathic Doctor. Developing future leaders in health care. Named by The Princeton Review as one of the best med schools in the country. Bastyr University.
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: Injunction lifted on Oregon domestic partnership law
whatever!
""
(email verified)
Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 08:56 AM