TV Schedule

Ore. Voters had 3 shots to "rule" on DPs!


  3. found0804
  4. related topics
Oregonian voters have not been disenfranchised. OR. already HAD 3 shots to rule on domestic partnership.
Certain Oregonians have tried three different times to prevent the domestic partnership law from going into effect, and each time they have failed.
* First, they tried to block passage of the domestic partnership law in the state Legislature last spring. After dozens of hours of testimony from everyday Oregonians as well as clergy, business and community leaders, the bill passed with bipartisan support.
* Next, anti-gay activists attempted to gather enough signatures to put the law on the ballot for repeal by voters. They had to gather only 55,179 valid signatures — the lowest number for any signature gathering effort — but Oregonians weren’t interested. The referendum effort failed.
* Finally, hoping to force a do-over, the Arizona-based lawyers (ADF) filed a case in federal court. The federal judge who heard the case, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled against the ADF and tossed out their lawsuit.
From the post at:
found0804

2 responses // Ore. Voters had 3 shots to "rule" on DPs!

  • These are basic protections that opposite-sex couples take for granted. But for some reason, out-of-state groups such as the ADF want to take these rights away from caring, committed same-sex couples
    found0804
  • My Brother of Portland Oregon should have been able to marry his partner. I wish my late brother could have had the chance to marry his boyfriend even thou the guy turned out to be scum. I liked Raymond but after my brother died he became a diff person and messed over my family. I was ashamed I tried to help him but that is what Charles would have wanted. My brother should have had the right to marry this piece of scum if that is what he wanted. That should have been his right. Being he died in a terrible accident there was no hospital rights to worry about and we included ray in every turn for the scattering of the ashes and all that one would have the rights to if they would have married.

    All I am saying is give all people the right to marry not join or whatever it is they want to stick them with instead. Marriage is not for race or a type of relegion BUT a legal document that shows 2 people have committed their lives together and are in love.

    I asked a guy at a fair who was sitting a booth against gay marriage. I said why did you marry your wife. He said to have children. I said oh so you didnt love her you just needed eggs to fertilize, He said he loved her first then wanted her to bear his kids. I asked if you had a brother who was sterile and couldnt make a woman pregnant should he have the right to marry?

    He got angry and said of course he should have the right. I asked why if you are saying marriage is to only have children. I think that what is for one is for all. If 2 gay Guys cant marry because they can not produce offspring alone then wouldnt it be right to get a marriage license one must goto the docotor and have written proof that the 2 can both produce children together?

    Think on it please do, I want you all to see how dumb it is to put lables on something as wonderful as 2 people in love wanting to marry. what if it said one must have 2 arms and 2 legs or that one must be able to see and hear ot marry? where does it end? will we become Hitler and only allow the perfect to marry in the future? interesting if one thinks about it
    kaff1963

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.