Boo to Oregon, I say.
But, Yay to Portland!
Dear Sam Adams,
My anus is waiting.
oh great; my love/hate relationship with Oregon will have to continue its never ending conflict.
Supreme Court, here we come. Just in time for November. But the sitting court would vote probably 7-2 against gay marriage, the fuckers.
THIS is why you care who's appointing your judges, people.
I think it just illustrates the contrast between Portland and the rest of Oregon. Portland is a little liberal mecca within a big red logging state.
I picture Mr Poe's anus anxiously and impatiently tapping its little foot in desperate anticipation.
@7 -- Quite right...it has a tube foot, like a razor clam.
This is different then say, California, since Oregon actually amended their constitution years ago to prevent the marriages and CAs Prop 22 was just a civil code change. I don't see how the makeup of the court would affect an outcome as the amendment is quite clear in its purpose. It's up to the voters.
IANAL, but the ruling appears to be on two very narrow procedural points. It's not really honest to say that the court "has ruled against same-sex marriage."
As deeply fucked up as it is that Oregon passed a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, our ire belongs with Oregon's homophobic electorate. The court in this case had its hands tied.
Note: IANAL means "I Am Not A Lawyer," not "I sometimes have to deal with santorum."
@ Mr. Poe's Anus - He's not mayor untill January '09.
1. it's the court of appeals not the supreme court.
2. judges in oregon are elected not appointed.
I know, calm down. I'll wait.
Mr Poe's anus = so loose it can take a 747 and still have room for all the passengers to get off.
PC @13 makes good points. The score so far, then:
* Dan's headline is wrong on the facts. ("State Supreme Court")
* Dan's post is wrong on the substance. ("...ruled against same-sex marriage...")
* Fnarf @5 is wrong on the substance. ("THIS is why you care who's appointing your judges, people.")
Granted, Both Fnarf and Dan are right far more often than not. Maybe today is just sloppy interpretation day?
It's true. I have to drag my anus with me wherever I go.
@Poe, et al...
Class act as always, fellas.
You know, if we legalize it in WA, then we can shame OR into growing up and living in the 21st Century ...
No, what I meant was, if this is to go any further, and it will, it's going to end up in the US Supreme Court, since there's no way we can have different states with radically different marriage law, since they are obligated to acknowledge each other's law, and there's no way to reconcile CA's and OR's. So: that sends you to the US Supremes, who are going to shit all over gay marriage for everybody.
US Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected, last time I checked.
The only other way around it is to do ANOTHER consitutional amendment in OR, and that's just going to be incredibly difficult.
In short, fuck you Oregon.
This is good news for gays. It shows that there is no need for a U.S. constitutional ammendmant to stop states from being forced to accept gay marrage and making their DOMA laws obsolete. Oregon still has the ability to ammend thier constitution.
Fnarf @20, your point is well taken, and I stand corrected @16.
Fnarf @20 is wrong again. For the U.S. Supremes to consider that question, DOMA would first have to be repealed or overturned.
And if DOMA is repealed or overturned, we will already have won.
Mr. Poe, you should get that looked at. I know a good anusologist. And let's start calling marriage something else. How about
Well, DOMA is never getting repealed or overturned, so: you're fucked.
And so are we (straight people). The assault on civil liberties isn't about protecting already existing discrimination; it's about extending it to all areas of society (not just marriage). The threat comes from the left as often as it does the right (see Labour's war on citizenry in Britain). We're all fucked. Where do I get my tattoo?
@20, 25 - this is why we need Hils on the US Supreme Court.
What would Hillary do for the Supreme Court that couldn't also be done by someone with judicial qualifications?
@25 - Since DOMA blatantly contradicts the full faith and credit clause, and since out-of-state gay marriages contracted in California will give people standing to sue for a redress of grievances, I think there's every chance that DOMA will be overturned.
Of course, it might be repealed first, since the Democratic presidential candidates have pledged to get right on that. Sometime in their second term, no doubt...
And since you ask, I don't recommend getting tattooed anywhere that won't be covered by shorts and a t-shirt.
Are you guys going to watch the finale of Ugly Betty tonight? My husband is at work and I'm curling up with some soy ice cream and my cocker spaniel.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).