Gay marriage comes to Oregon : How public officials can defy the will of the voters

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: waylman
If a law is in place, it must be correct!

Viper GTS - you're a sheep

And you're either completely ignorant, illiterate (somewhat doubtful since you replied, though maybe you're just a little low on reading comprehension), or a troll.

This is not a debate on gay marriage.

Viper GTS

 

[slackerinabox]

Why are so many people so complacent? I mean, "follow the laws even if they're dumb????" We'd still own slaves if that's what everyone thought...

 

[Doodoo]

I don't see what the big deal is...let them marry whoever they want...its none of my business...im not living with them or anything...hell people can marry goats for all i care.

 

[Bryophyte]

What's the matter? Always a bridesmaid, never the bride? j/k

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: blakeatwork

I agree... sorta...

We had a non-denominational wedding (she's Presbyterian, I'm Roman Catholic), but we had it at her church, due to the age of the building, and our theme.. (medieval.. ). Really, all it was was someone appointed by the Province to perform the marriage ceremony, and attest that there was no undue influence. The paperwork still had to be approved by the provincial court.

I think "marriage" as it used to be termed, is a fair bit different then marriage as it's termed now. I don't see any difference between two gay people (male or female) being allowed to have their relationship officially recognized by the governing authority.

I mean, geeze, next thing you know, women will want the vote, and blacks will want to be free... Down with Free Rights, Up with Oppression...

Sort of the same thing for us, she is a Congregationalist and I am like you Roman Catholic, we had the ceremony at her church because 1. my church was ugly and 2. neither of us could get married at my church as she is not Catholic and I have never been confirmed and didn't want to bother...but it had to do more with 1. and the fact her parents were paying

but honestly I think the term marriage shouldn't be in our laws, some will cite that other civilizations long before ours had "marriage" laws..but that has nothing to do with us, and the here and now.....people always clammor for a division of church and state...what better way than this? just make the legal term union for everyone and let religions have marriage....

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: blakeatwork

I agree... sorta...

We had a non-denominational wedding (she's Presbyterian, I'm Roman Catholic), but we had it at her church, due to the age of the building, and our theme.. (medieval.. ). Really, all it was was someone appointed by the Province to perform the marriage ceremony, and attest that there was no undue influence. The paperwork still had to be approved by the provincial court.

I think "marriage" as it used to be termed, is a fair bit different then marriage as it's termed now. I don't see any difference between two gay people (male or female) being allowed to have their relationship officially recognized by the governing authority.

I mean, geeze, next thing you know, women will want the vote, and blacks will want to be free... Down with Free Rights, Up with Oppression...

Sort of the same thing for us, she is a Congregationalist and I am like you Roman Catholic, we had the ceremony at her church because 1. my church was ugly and 2. neither of us could get married at my church as she is not Catholic and I have never been confirmed and didn't want to bother...but it had to do more with 1. and the fact her parents were paying

but honestly I think the term marriage shouldn't be in our laws, some will cite that other civilizations long before ours had "marriage" laws..but that has nothing to do with us, and the here and now.....people always clammor for a division of church and state...what better way than this? just make the legal term union for everyone and let religions have marriage....

 

[XZeroII]

Gay marriage comes to Oregon : How public officials can defy the will of the voters

Do you know how our system of gov't works? You vote someone into office who makes all your decisions for you. If you don't like the laws they are passing, then you don't vote for them in the next election. THAT is how things are supposed to work. The theory is that if the people feel strongly about an issue, they will elect someone into office that will do something about it. We do NOT live in a democracy.

 

[waylman]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: waylman
If a law is in place, it must be correct!

Viper GTS - you're a sheep

And you're either completely ignorant, illiterate (somewhat doubtful since you replied, though maybe you're just a little low on reading comprehension), or a troll.

This is not a debate on gay marriage.

Viper GTS

ummm, when did I mention gay marriage? It seems to me that your argument is that if something is a law, then that law should be followed no matter what. If that is indeed your stance, it's pretty clear who the ignorant one is.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: waylman

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: waylman
If a law is in place, it must be correct!

Viper GTS - you're a sheep

And you're either completely ignorant, illiterate (somewhat doubtful since you replied, though maybe you're just a little low on reading comprehension), or a troll.

This is not a debate on gay marriage.

Viper GTS

ummm, when did I mention gay marriage? It seems to me that your argument is that if something is a law, then that law should be followed no matter what. If that is indeed your stance, it's pretty clear who the ignorant one is.

What other law could you possibly be referring to?

My argument is that public officials (while in their official capacity) have a duty to follow the law.

What you (or they) do & with whom is totally up to you (as I have already stated, including my penchant for oral sex).

Viper GTS

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: waylman

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: waylman
If a law is in place, it must be correct!

Viper GTS - you're a sheep

And you're either completely ignorant, illiterate (somewhat doubtful since you replied, though maybe you're just a little low on reading comprehension), or a troll.

This is not a debate on gay marriage.

Viper GTS

ummm, when did I mention gay marriage? It seems to me that your argument is that if something is a law, then that law should be followed no matter what. If that is indeed your stance, it's pretty clear who the ignorant one is.

The ignorant one isn't Viper; his point was clear. If a person disagrees with a law, the better option is to exhaust one's legitimate remedies (pass a referendum, lobby the legislative body, whatever) before one openly defies the law. This is especially true if that person is an elected official who took an oath to honor and uphold the law.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: SampSon

You're damned right, although I don't think that is necesarily a polar opposite to the quote you were refuting. Both of you agree that the people are turning themselves over to the government.

True. Though, viper is implying that the legality takes precedence over the morality of the issue. Which I don't agree with.
I could be wrong though.

what do you mean "now"? it has always been that way.

No way, govt. is WAY more removed from the public now than ever.
Local politicians used to actaully LIVE in the area they represent, not just own a residence and pay taxes. State legislatures spent more time in the state they were elected than in washington dc.

At one time the public opinion and concerns were actaully addressed by elected officials. Hell, you could probably even meet one with little trouble. Now, they are held up on pillars as if some roman emperor.

Yeah, and at one time the nation was smaller, and people actually showed up at the polls. Now, however, if I remember the census figures correctly, there's approximately 500,000 people in each Congressional district, and that's an awful lot of people to meet n' greet.
The vote isn't just a right; it's a responsibility and an obligation. Citizens need to become educated and informed; until then, I don't want to hear the cattle bitching about being ignored and misled. Gov't officials are exactly as responsive as you make them.

 

[Brutuskend]

How public officials can defy the will of the voters

Hummm I remember voting for a right to die bill several years ago that PASSED!

Yet for some ODD reason, it has never taken effect.

You wanna talk about WILL OF THE VOTERS....

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

How public officials can defy the will of the voters

Hummm I remember voting for a right to die bill several years ago that PASSED!

Yet for some ODD reason, it has never taken effect.

You wanna talk about WILL OF THE VOTERS....

Completely different situation, that was (and I believe still is) tied up in federal proceedings.

States don't have the right to make laws that conflict with federal laws.

There is nothing federally regarding gay marriage, so it's up to the states to determine what they want.

Viper GTS

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

How public officials can defy the will of the voters

Hummm I remember voting for a right to die bill several years ago that PASSED!

Yet for some ODD reason, it has never taken effect.

You wanna talk about WILL OF THE VOTERS....

Completely different situation, that was (and I believe still is) tied up in federal proceedings.

States don't have the right to make laws that conflict with federal laws.

There is nothing federally regarding gay marriage, so it's up to the states to determine what they want.

Viper GTS

Your references indicate that the officials determined that they would be breaking the law as it is written if they denied the legal union.
This is the same situation that was triggerred in Mass.

The law regarding equal rights was being broken.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

How public officials can defy the will of the voters

Hummm I remember voting for a right to die bill several years ago that PASSED!

Yet for some ODD reason, it has never taken effect.

You wanna talk about WILL OF THE VOTERS....

Completely different situation, that was (and I believe still is) tied up in federal proceedings.

States don't have the right to make laws that conflict with federal laws.

There is nothing federally regarding gay marriage, so it's up to the states to determine what they want.

Viper GTS

Your references indicate that the officials determined that they would be breaking the law as it is written if they denied the legal union.
This is the same situation that was triggerred in Mass.

The law regarding equal rights was being broken.

106.010 Marriage as civil contract; age of parties. Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and [Bfemales[/b] at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS 106.150. [Amended by 1965 c.422 §1; 1975 c.583 §1]

Seems pretty clear to me, as it stands now the state of Oregon defines marriage as male & female.

Viper GTS

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
I want to Marry 5 women.....what can I do to get the laws changed????
Also Im thinking about marrying this bag of potato chips sitting beside me.....the laws need to be changed for citizens like me. This is Racist!!!!

/bs

Prove that the bag of potato chips wants to marry you and I will join your cause.

 

[SagaLore]

Multnomah County's surprise announcement comes about a week after President Bush said that he would back a national constitutional amendment banning gay unions. The county's plans already face opposition within its own commission.

That is NOT what Bush is trying to do. Stupid liberal media...

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: DOSfan


How long must they fight before you think it would be okay? Especially since you will not discuse the morality of the issue....

That's horrible reasoning. They are a very small minority, and it's not equal rights they are going - it's a change in rights. Every gay guy and lesbian has the equal right of marrying someone of the opposite sex.

 

[Cat]

Too lazy to read the rest of the thread. The Civil Rights' Movement immediately came to mind when thinking about laws that were ok to break. I just can't believe people are so against gay marriage.

 

[Vic]

Meh. I'm neutral on this gay marriage issue, but I don't like it when outsiders like to post their ignorant opinions of other peoples' local politics. I actually live in Multnomah county, so I'll tell it like it is. The reality is that the Multnomah county commissioners are HATED. They have bungled everything. Our schools, police, and courts have all seen their budgets slashed. Our local income taxes are now the highest in the nation. With certainty, Diane Linn and Serena Cruz were not going to get re-elected this fall. Their solution? Cater to the gay vote on an otherwise trivial issue...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Your references indicate that the officials determined that they would be breaking the law as it is written if they denied the legal union.
This is the same situation that was triggerred in Mass.

The law regarding equal rights was being broken.

106.010 Marriage as civil contract; age of parties. Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS 106.150. [Amended by 1965 c.422 §1; 1975 c.583 §1]

Seems pretty clear to me, as it stands now the state of Oregon defines marriage as male & female.

Viper GTS

Wording is such that this status is specifying the legal age (age of parties). that a person can be married regarding the age by sex.
Some states allow/had a different age limit for male vs. female.


This was to protect against the high shool drop-outs or college jocks from shacking up with some junior high floozy.

 

[pulse8]

Where would the civil rights movement had gone if everyone just went along with it until the laws suddenly changed?

 

[Rilescat]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: DOSfan

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
If they want it they should go about getting the laws changed.

I'm not going to touch the issue of morality, but legality is pretty clear.

I'd rather not be grouped with SF & NY.

:Q

Viper GTS

From the little I know about it, homosexuals have been fighting to get the laws changed. For over a decade if my information and memory are correct.

How long must they fight before you think it would be okay? Especially since you will not discuse the morality of the issue....

Laws are not about personal opinion.

Take the Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) for instance. The same argument could have been made for that: How long must gun advocates fight before high capacity magazines are legal? As it turns out, our wait may now be over - But if it turns out it's not, we'll continue to fight.

I don't agree with it, but I don't break the law either.

Viper GTS

Does the magical entity of the govt NOT include the politicians personal opinions?

Of course it does. However, the politicians should be going through the system THEY REPRESENT in order to change these things. Not willy-nilly deciding whatever they think should be a mandate on their region. Doesn't matter if your talking about gay marriage, gun control, or speeding. The law should be obeyed by the people that make it.

 

[Cat]

See repeated references to Civil Rights.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

How public officials can defy the will of the voters

Hummm I remember voting for a right to die bill several years ago that PASSED!

Yet for some ODD reason, it has never taken effect.

You wanna talk about WILL OF THE VOTERS....

Completely different situation, that was (and I believe still is) tied up in federal proceedings.

States don't have the right to make laws that conflict with federal laws.

There is nothing federally regarding gay marriage, so it's up to the states to determine what they want.

Viper GTS

Your references indicate that the officials determined that they would be breaking the law as it is written if they denied the legal union.
This is the same situation that was triggerred in Mass.

The law regarding equal rights was being broken.

106.010 Marriage as civil contract; age of parties. Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and [Bfemales[/b] at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS 106.150. [Amended by 1965 c.422 §1; 1975 c.583 §1]

Seems pretty clear to me, as it stands now the state of Oregon defines marriage as male & female.

Viper GTS

regardless of how clear you may think it is to you, you're not in a position to make those decisions. there are different ways to read that sentence... for example, if i said "playing on a see-saw is an activity performed by males and females", would that necessarily mean that one end of the see-saw has to have a male and the other has to have a female?

there is an unresolved ambiguity in the law, and the county is simply choosing to interpret it one way over another in the meantime.