November 10, 2009
Oregon same-sex petition starts under mixed national results
By Traci Scot, Oregon Faith Reporter
It was mixed results for two highly-touted gay-rights measures in states on opposite ends of the country.
In Washington, voters approved Referendum 71, also referred to as the “everything but marriage” law, which expands rights for domestic partners. It was the first time any state’s voters have approved an equality measure for homosexuals. Gay equality laws in other states, ranging from civil rights to marriage, have either been implemented by the courts or through the legislative process. The law takes effect December 3.
Meanwhile, Maine voters rejected a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry. Maine would have been the sixth state in the country to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry but instead becomes the 31st state to oppose such unions.
Both campaigns in Maine spent millions and their messages resonated with voters on both sides. Opponents stressed that, under the law, public schools would begin teaching children about same-sex unions. Supporters disputed that claim and had hoped that Maine’s moderate and independent-minded voters would have been the first to endorse the same-sex measure.
Same sex marriage is still not allowed under Washington law, but according to The Olympian newspaper, gay rights activists argued that same-sex couples, although they do not currently have the right to marry, should have the right to legal protection and other rights in the interim.
In Oregon, the state’s largest gay rights group, Basic Rights Oregon, has initiated a campaign to convince Oregon voters to reverse their 2004 vote and instead support same-sex marriage. Gay couples in Oregon say that marriage would provide them a level of social status and viable benefits that Oregon’s domestic partnership law does not provide.
The goal is “to allow same-sex couples to legally marry in this state,” Jeana Frazzini, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, told The Oregonian, “There is no substitute for the respect and dignity that comes with marriage.”
However, Oregon Family Council, a church-backed group that successfully ran the Measure 36 campaign in 2004, plans to oppose the measure. “To redefine marriage is a radical perspective,” said Tim Nashif, political director for the group, in an interview with The Oregonian.
Oregon, Washington, California, New Jersey and the District of Columbia, have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide same-sex couples similar rights to marriage.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, and will start in New Hampshire in January.
Print This Post
Email This Post
Discuss this article
November 10, 2009
In your first paragraph is the problem with your argument. “…and their children…”. “They” do not have children. One of them might have children, but together they can’t. It is biologically impossible. So that tells the whole story - it is not within nature for two people of the same sex to “marry” and procreate. Why should the majority bow to a radically militant minority who want to change the historical and scientific meaning of marriage?
The argument that they don’t have the same “rights” as others is just not good enough. They have the same rights as everyone else. I can put a “domestic” partner on my insurance if I want to. I can have a bank account with whom ever I want. I can visit anyone in the hospital. These arguments they make just don’t hold water.
November 10, 2009
married-you’re absurd. So adoptive parents aren’t really parents? Straight people who don’t have kids shouldn’t be married?
You do know that marriage was created for hereditary purposes right? of course not, because you are blinded by your religious beliefs. You are an utter bigoted fool!
Your argument that “Marriage is meant for procreation” is just not good enough
November 10, 2009
Gay rights groups shouldn’t have to choose — it’s not the government’s choice how people live their lives.
November 13, 2009
@married - I suggest you acquaint yourself with the research in this area as @ABC is quite correct.
According to the Williams Institute Census Snapshot for Oregon (based on 2000 Census data), about 19% of Same-sex couples were raising children under 18 years of age in 2000.
In a recently released national analysis titled “SAME-SEX SPOUSES AND UNMARRIED PARTNERS IN THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2008″ the Williams institute reveals that 31% of same-sex couples who identify themselves as spouses are raising children while 17% of same-sex couples who identify themselves as unmarried partners are also raising children. Same-sex couples continue to have children and care for them regardless of the unequal and insufficient protections that their families are afforded by so many of the states in which they live.
Any line of debate that alleges same-sex couples can’t or don’t already have children is either ignorant of the research or a lie. Further, anyone who uses that ignorance or untruth as a basis for denying same-sex couples marriage while the 57% of childless opposite-sex couples are not similarly denied access to marriage is at least inconsistent and at most profoundly hypocritical.
@married’s contention that same-sex couples and their families have the same rights as other families is a fiction that is disproven as soon as they cross a state line. Whatever rights and protections they *might* have had in their home state disappear as they pass into a new one, a plight that is highlighted by a lesbian couple answering the question “Are We Married?” as they record their travels from state to state at http://www.arewemarried.com.
One only has to consider the plight of the Washington family who travelled to Florida with their children for a cruise. One of the same-sex couple fell gravely ill and, despite proof of their relationship and a power of attorney, her spouse and children were denied access to her for hours and she died without having a chance for any of them to say goodbye.
Anything less than equal treatment for same-sex couples and their families is an affront to the United States Constitution and an injury to our shared human dignity.
Allowing other people to marry the person they love takes nothing whatsoever away from your marriage. Same sex couples - and their children - will continue to exist, whether you grant them equal rights or not.
It’s your decision: 1) equal rights for all families, or 2) denial of rights to some families. Even if you succeed in breaking up same-sex couples by making life hard and stressful for them, they still aren’t going to go marry someone of the other sex just because you think they should.
They aren’t so desperate that they want to marry just for marriage’s sake. They seek stability and security for their partners and children, just as you do.
That’s all.