Oregon County bans marriages...

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I thought this was kinda funny...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3564893.stm

 

Oregon county bans all marriages

 

Confused by the twists and turns of the US gay marriage issue, Oregon's Benton County has decided to err on the side of caution and ban all weddings.

 

Until the state decides who can and cannot wed, officials in the county have said no-one can marry - even heterosexual couples.

 

They hit upon the plan to ensure that none of the county's 79,000 residents are subject to unfair treatment.

 

Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion.

 

Lawsuit threat

 

The last Benton County marriage licences were issued on Tuesday and, from now on, any locals wanting to get hitched will have to go elsewhere.

 

"It may seem odd, but we need to treat everyone in our county equally," county commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters.

 

The county had initially decided to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples from Monday, but they reversed that decision in the face of a flurry of lawsuits across the US relating to the issue.

 

It is unlikely any wedding planners will be going bankrupt over the decision however, as the country only issues about 20 marriage licenses a week, and it is just a short drive over the county line for couples eager to tie the knot.

 

Last bastion of support

 

The decision has found favour with pro-gay marriage activists who argue that at least it sends a clear message that everyone is entitled to equal rights:

 

"It is certainly a different way for county commissioners to respect their constitutional obligation to apply the law equally to everyone," said Rebekah Kassell, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon.

 

"We appreciate that they are willing to say they are not going to participate in discrimination."

 

But anti-gay marriage campaigners are not impressed:

 

"We are happy Benton County is not going to violate the law by issuing illegal marriage licenses, but we are perplexed as to why they would not issue legal licenses," said Tim Nashif, spokesman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition.

 

"Oregon not only has the only county in the nation issuing illegal (same-sex) marriage licenses, we probably have the only county in the nation refusing to issue marriage licenses at all."

 

Oregon's most populous county, Multnomah County, is the only jurisdiction in the US that is still issuing licenses for same-sex marriages, handing out 2,550 licenses since 3 March.

 

Local governments from California to New York have stopped issuing gay marriage licenses after being hit with a spate of law suits and protests.

 

The issue has prompted President George W Bush to call for a constitutional amendment defining marriage in traditional terms.

 

"Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal," Mr Bush has said. "And the job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal."

[Guest Anglesault]

Stupid.

 

When I take over the world, this Linda Modrell woman gets exiled to the moon.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Stupid.

Why?

[Guest SP-1]

An interesting approach.

 

Stupid.

 

But interesting.

[Vern Gagne 0]

"Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion."

 

Sorry but gay marriage has not divided the country. Nearly 2/3 of the population oppose gay marriage.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

That's awesome. I hope it goes nationwide.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Confused by the twists and turns of the US gay marriage issue, Oregon's Benton County has decided to err on the side of caution and ban all weddings.

 

Confused?

 

Adam + Eve = marriage

Adam + Steve = not marriage

 

Real tough there.

 

I'm confused by the U.S. tax system.

 

I think I just won't pay any taxes now.

 

Forget marriage licenses, Oregon's Benton County needs some breeding licenses...

[2GOLD 0]

Can we quit treating marriage like it's some huge thing where it must be defended at all costs? It's over, marriage is like a snickers bar at this point.

 

If the gay population wants to get married, good and fine and have fun with it.

 

I mean, why the hell does anyone CARE? Are people afraid the gay population will screw up marriage worse than the straight population has already screwed it up?

 

What is this crap about wanting to tell people they can't get married and never giving them a reason why they can't other than something involving the Bible or God? Give them a reason why not.

 

Marriage should have just been about love, if you love someone no matter what race or sex then you should be allowed to get married.

[Ripper 0]

How is this stupid again? They made it equal. Isn't that what this country is suppose to be about.

[Ripper 0]

"Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion."

 

Sorry but gay marriage has not divided the country. Nearly 2/3 of the population oppose gay marriage.

You...you do realize that is a division right?

[Guest Cerebus]

"Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion."

 

Sorry but gay marriage has not divided the country. Nearly 2/3 of the population oppose gay marriage.

You...you do realize that is a division right?

I think the phrase "deeply divided" implies 50-50 split (or something close to it). Or it could be seen that it arouses large passions. It's a buzz phrase with no REAL meaning thats all.

[Guest thebigjig]

I find it kind of funny that most want to ban gay marriage to "defend the sanctity of marriage" because if you think about it... why couldnt the same rule apply to adultery? Why not make that illegal? In my opinion, when you cheat on your spouse, you're definitely NOT preserving this sacred institution... and taking that into consideration, the divorce rate is higher now in this country than its ever been... and I read somewhere that the main reason is because of adultery

[Guest MikeSC]

"Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion."

 

Sorry but gay marriage has not divided the country. Nearly 2/3 of the population oppose gay marriage.

You...you do realize that is a division right?

OK, in that case, what issue has EVER not caused division?

 

Should we just ALWAYS do what the minority wants? Should the will of the majority ALWAYS be ignored?

 

Sorry, but I personally think blacks SHOULD be allowed to vote and go to public school down here --- but using your logic on this issue, it wouldn't have happened.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

"Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion."

 

Sorry but gay marriage has not divided the country. Nearly 2/3 of the population oppose gay marriage.

You...you do realize that is a division right?

OK, in that case, what issue has EVER not caused division?

 

Should we just ALWAYS do what the minority wants? Should the will of the majority ALWAYS be ignored?

 

Sorry, but I personally think blacks SHOULD be allowed to vote and go to public school down here --- but using your logic on this issue, it wouldn't have happened.

-=Mike

You go with who is right not what the public wants.

 

Still yet to see how homosexuals asking for equality is "wrong". I could give a shit what the majority thinks.

[Guest MikeSC]

"Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion."

 

Sorry but gay marriage has not divided the country. Nearly 2/3 of the population oppose gay marriage.

You...you do realize that is a division right?

OK, in that case, what issue has EVER not caused division?

 

Should we just ALWAYS do what the minority wants? Should the will of the majority ALWAYS be ignored?

 

Sorry, but I personally think blacks SHOULD be allowed to vote and go to public school down here --- but using your logic on this issue, it wouldn't have happened.

-=Mike

You go with who is right not what the public wants.

 

Still yet to see how homosexuals asking for equality is "wrong". I could give a shit what the majority thinks.

And who determines what is "right"?

 

I find affirmative action to be in absolute opposition to the 14th Amendment. I will assume that you do not.

 

Which of us is "right"?

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

You go with who is right not what the public wants.

 

Still yet to see how homosexuals asking for equality is "wrong". I could give a shit what the majority thinks.

 

Maybe we should just do away with democracy all together.

[Guest Brian]

We're we ever adhering to it?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Should we just ALWAYS do what the minority wants? Should the will of the majority ALWAYS be ignored?

 

Sorry, but I personally think blacks SHOULD be allowed to vote and go to public school down here --- but using your logic on this issue, it wouldn't have happened.

-=Mike

But... At one point, your opinion on that issue was considered minority.

[Skywarp! 0]

Imagine the people that were planning to get married Saturday and sunk thousands and thousands of dollars and months of meticulous planning into the day.

 

It's almost comical unless you're living through that nightmare.

[Ripper 0]

"Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion."

 

Sorry but gay marriage has not divided the country. Nearly 2/3 of the population oppose gay marriage.

You...you do realize that is a division right?

OK, in that case, what issue has EVER not caused division?

 

Should we just ALWAYS do what the minority wants? Should the will of the majority ALWAYS be ignored?

 

Sorry, but I personally think blacks SHOULD be allowed to vote and go to public school down here --- but using your logic on this issue, it wouldn't have happened.

-=Mike

You go with who is right not what the public wants.

 

Still yet to see how homosexuals asking for equality is "wrong". I could give a shit what the majority thinks.

And who determines what is "right"?

 

I find affirmative action to be in absolute opposition to the 14th Amendment. I will assume that you do not.

 

Which of us is "right"?

-=Mike

But we can actually have a argument for both sides. WHAT argument has ANYONE presented beside religious and personal beliefs as to why this right should be excluded to a group of people? Give me a good one, and I will agree that it is at least a arguable debate, but so far all I have seen is "But marrige is for a man and woman because GAWD said so." That has absolutley no bearing on how the laws of this country is suppose to be made...according to the constitution.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

WHAT argument has ANYONE presented beside religious and personal beliefs as to why this right should be excluded to a group of people?

The stupid "slippery slope" arguement that once same-sex couples will be married, somehow some sort of seal will be unleashed that will allow the ACLU to come riding through and opening legislation for people to get married to their pigs, dogs, and oak trees.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Should we just ALWAYS do what the minority wants? Should the will of the majority ALWAYS be ignored?

 

Sorry, but I personally think blacks SHOULD be allowed to vote and go to public school down here --- but using your logic on this issue, it wouldn't have happened.

                  -=Mike

But... At one point, your opinion on that issue was considered minority.

You get things changed by changing public opinion, not by ignoring it. Sometimes this is done by breaking laws admittedly, but you do so knowing that you will be punished for it. That way you look like you believe in a cause so much that you are willing to sacrifice yourself for it. You have to accept responsibility for the action you took. If it is a good cause that people believe in, generally public opinion changes, such as the case of segragation. It should also be noted that how you do something is just as important as the cause is. A woman who refuses to sit in her own section on a bus is a lot more favourable to public opinion than a gang of thugs blowing up the bus.

 

People right now are against gay marriage. You have to do something to change that before it becomes legal. This works for the other side as well. Many people here have complained about the proposed ammendment to the constitution, yet it will get voted down because even though people don't agree with gay marriage, they aren't about to support putting it in the constitution. Public opinion is everything. Politicians can go against it for a cause they believe in or with the belief that opinion will change, but if it doesn't then he or she isn't going to be in office much longer. It is a gamble, and public opinion definitely determines the outcome.

 

There are only two reasons people do anything; because they want to, or because a bayonet is shoved up their backside. Since neither Canada or the United States is in the latter situation, public opinion determines what gets done.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

WHAT argument has ANYONE presented beside religious and personal beliefs as to why this right should be excluded to a group of people?

The stupid "slippery slope" arguement that once same-sex couples will be married, somehow some sort of seal will be unleashed that will allow the ACLU to come riding through and opening legislation for people to get married to their pigs, dogs, and oak trees.

That won't become a major issue. Polygamy and incest are the ones that will, and that's because it is the exact same argument made against them as it is against gay marriage. I would like to think an incest ban would hold up because of medical issues, but I really doubt it. There is nothing wrong with polygamy at all besides morals. Same with gay marriage.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

WHAT argument has ANYONE presented beside religious and personal beliefs as to why this right should be excluded to a group of people?

The stupid "slippery slope" arguement that once same-sex couples will be married, somehow some sort of seal will be unleashed that will allow the ACLU to come riding through and opening legislation for people to get married to their pigs, dogs, and oak trees.

That won't become a major issue, because those things aren't consenting adults. Polygamy and incest are the ones that will, and that's because it is the exact same argument made against them as it is against gay marriage. I would like to think an incest ban would hold up because of medical issues, but I really doubt it. There is nothing wrong with polygamy at all besides morals. Same with gay marriage.

 

But if you think people are against gay marriage, those things would have even a further road to travel down to get public opinion to shift.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

The smart solution?

 

Gov recognizes all civil unions. It does not recognize marriage

Churches and other religious institutitions can then choose whether to perform the ceremony or not given their ideas. This way, churches that dont view gay marriage as legitimate dont have to recognize them.

 

Sadly, simple and easy aint the goverment.

 

Fun fact: Gay couples stay together longer, have happier households, and have higher incomes than straight couples. This makes perfect sense, because sacrifice and stigma (Iannaconne, 1998) affect returns.

 

Why can't we just attach a warning label (like churches do with suicide now) and say "We can't tell you if you're gay you're still get into heaven. We don't think so, and you've been warned. But even so, we still love you?

 

That's what they do with suicide today...Used to not be that way

[Guest Cerebus]

I thought this country was "consent of the governed" not "consent of the liberal elite"

[Stephen Joseph 0]

what is that in reference too?

cause i've voted democrat once (zell miller, great governor)

 

this basically as i see it has to do with freedom

 

something neither party really seems to give a damn about these days

[Guest Cerebus]

Not to anyone specifically. It seems most liberals I hear praising this get uncomfortable and dodgy when I bring up the fact that 2/3 of the country is NOT for homosexual mairrage. The best I usually get is stuff about segregation which is a red herring. It seems that, in this case at least, liberals want to avoid the fact that most people disagree with them, thinking its just a "phase" of opinion like segregation. God forbid that most of the people in the country don't agree with them...(once again not directed to anyone here in particular, just what I'm getting from op-ed pieces and general chit-chat I pick up)

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The smart solution?

 

Gov recognizes all civil unions. It does not recognize marriage

Churches and other religious institutitions can then choose whether to perform the ceremony or not given their ideas. This way, churches that dont view gay marriage as legitimate dont have to recognize them.

 

That is exactly what I want. You can even call civil unions marriages (in slang, if it is too hard to get it done officially) if you want to, just make sure that the point is made that religious marriages and legal marriages are not the same thing. In Canada, at least, they aren't, but people still get that impression. Here the debate is an even bigger issue because it is about 50/50 in opinion last time I checked.

 

Again, I would like to add that I have nothing against gay marriage and I am a white anglophone heterosexual Christian male. What I don't like is these attempts by certain judges just to make up their own laws. That's the government's job. If Congress voted it through, I would be fine with it.

[Guest Goodear]

This is one of those things that bothers me about my fellow Republicans. I thought the whole point of the whole thing was to have less govenment and to keep their hands out of each others lives. How that translates into 'except for those homosexuals' I'm not entirely sure... but hey.

 

The only reaonsable state reason to legislate marriage that I can see is due to the tax breaks that people get through the institution. Sure, people can say thats because the state has a reason to encourage the propagations of the species ... but with the rapidly expanding nature of what a family is (simply by the basis of the divorce rate) I would think that a radical redesign of the governmental concept would be required regardless. With that redesign, I don't see a reason why anyone would care that Jimmy and Sid are living together with rings on their fingers as opposed to them doing it without. Marriage is majoritively for the people actually getting married last time I checked.

 

Anyway, the majority is wrong a lot. Screw 'em. Thats why we have a representative democrasy and not one where we govern by phone in polls.