Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Morning News | The Stranger News Hour. Tonigh... »

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Unelected Federal Judge Promotes Radical Gay Agenda, Attacks Traditional Family Values

posted by on December 29 at 9:14 AM

In Oregon one of those damn unelected judges thwarted the will of the people and their elected representatives by granting marriage-like “domestic partnership” rights to same-sex couples—oh, wait. The judge blocked domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples.

A federal judge on Friday placed on hold a state domestic-partnership law that was set to take effect in Oregon on Tuesday, pending a February hearing.

The law would have given some spousal rights to gay couples.

Opponents asked U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman to intercede after the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office ruled in October that they had failed to collect enough valid signatures on a referendum to block the law.

Never mind.

RSS icon Comments


Those terrible activist judges..!!

They should let the legislatures decide (NY), let the people choose(most recently FL joins the dozens of other states)...actually, leave it to the courts(CA)...

Oh, let's just agree that it's up to the states to figure out on their own and that will make me look like a respectable Democrat (and an ignorant coward at the same time).

I just haven't crossed that bridge yet, goldern it.

It makes sense to gather the support of the ex-gay evangelicals first in the surge to achieve equality for same sex families.

Posted by patrick | December 29, 2007 10:06 AM

Actually, Patrick, none of the states have a vote for federal judges. They are all appointed by the President and then confirmed (or not) by the Congress.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | December 29, 2007 11:57 AM

We've got a situation here were one group fails (getting the needed signatures) and an Activist judge says they can behave as if they have succeeded. But the losers only get away with this because the target is Gay Americans. NO OTHER GROUP faces this sort of institutional discrimination with sanction by the law.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | December 29, 2007 12:15 PM

Choice quote from the anti-gay crusaders:

"It's a fundamental right to participate in democracy," Nimocks said.

Posted by Shawn Fassett | December 29, 2007 2:57 PM

The federal U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman, who was appointed by the Republican Bush administration, is now acting as a judicial activist to stop implementation of our state domestic partnership law that was recently passed by the Oregon Legislature and signed into law by the Governor.

The openly Mormon Judge Mosman was also responsible for the 1986 Supreme Court's faulty decision upholding laws against certain consensual sex acts (i.e. sodomy defined as either oral or anal sex) done by adults in private. Justice Lewis Powell's deciding vote was based on Mosman's faulty legal advice. After retiring, Powell publicly regretted his decision.

Fortunately, Mosman's ruling doesn't affect a companion state law that will take effect on January 1, 2008 that bars discrimination against gays in work, housing and public places. However, the opponents of domestic partnerships also want to legalize discrimination with a ballot initiative.

Republicans are such hypocrites to denounce activist judges and then refuse to impeach activist judges like Mosman.

Posted by Thomas Kraemer | December 29, 2007 3:39 PM

I am aware of that 5280. In fact, my very own precious senator, Dianne Frankenstein helped approve Bush's appointment of a multi-bigot to the bench against the wishes of everyone except the republicans.

My comment refers to the mealy mouthed positions of politicians that refuse to speak about the harm enforced on same sex families while they scramble for ways to enable state and federal discrimination and secure their election like they are passing a hot potato.

The first two paragraphs reflect the circuitous foolishness that is perpetuated by the politicians represented in the following paragraphs (Clinton, Edwards, then Obama).

The worst part of all is that many people, gay and straight, refuse to push these candidates on their lack of candor and courage and consequently the situation perpetuates like the demise of Kitty Genovese.

I'm sure someone else will do the right thing...eventually.

Posted by patrick | December 29, 2007 5:54 PM

As a lawyer, without having read the decision, it does seem unusual for the judge to rule that backers of an initiative have a right to an injunction blocking the implementation of a law, if there's a question as to whether they've gathered enough signatures to support an initiative challenging the law.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Ninth Circuit dissolve this injunction if it can be immediately appealed.

Posted by Jay | December 29, 2007 5:55 PM

yell and scream it!

Posted by allan | December 30, 2007 11:20 PM

What @7 said. Plus, where does a federal judge get off holding that there is some fundamental right to the state's referendum process? I thought this was hokey when it was filed. Is federalism dead?

Posted by kk | December 31, 2007 12:16 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).