Multnomah County grants gay marriage licenses (Portland, Ore.)

The Oregonian ^ | 03/02/2004 | Laura Gunderson and David Austin

[squidly]

They already adopt children.

Most places, but not all places. The 11th Circuit upheld the Florida ban on it, and the SC refused to hear the appeal, so it's illegal in FL, GA, and AL (11th Circuit territory). That gives gay adoption foes a legal leg to stand on.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Lars Larsen is going to have a heart attack.

---

doubtful.
for a CITY whose mayor is noted for her support of the leather and whip homosexual community... noted HERE on freerepublic last year, several times...

this is par for the course.
Per capita, Portland is worse off than sanfran... percentage wise. The gays RUN the NEA and the OEA here.

This move in portland oregon, is planned, and part of the progressive introduction this election, of the rainbow coalition's strategy to make "in your face queerdom" a front burner policy in the upcoming elections...federal, state and local, nationwide. I look for over a hundred localities where the queer folk have infiltrated to make their move two or three communities a week, up and until the election.

The goal is further polarization of the American people, and severe civil unrest. They are seeking to provoke "normal" white, christian americans into action that will enhance their vicim status and guarantee them a place in the "normal" class.

And homo marriages are probably NOT illegal after all, under our state law. they want their three one hundredths of one percentage point, to buy them political clout... leading up to this election. Hillary at work?

I think in the end, it will backfire. The "normal" amongst us are NOT going to do anything rash or violent to them. But they are in the process of selfmarginalizing and exposing all their allies at different levels of government... we will know who to vote out.

The west coast however, will very likely legalize gay stuff in the long run. The die is cast. The entire west lost and the northeast USA too.
Sad.

[Andy from Beaverton]

I say let the gays and lesbians marry one another.
I’m sorry, but there is no way I can support same sex marriage. I have lots of gay friends; including a lesbian friend who got married in San Francisco last week, so don’t think I’m homophobic. I just don’t believe that you should be given rights based upon behavior. If they ever discover a ‘gay gene’ I will probably change my mind. Gay people have the right to marry, the same as everyone else, someone of the opposite sex. I refuse to let this country grant extra rights. If they allow same sex marriage, there will be no need for incest laws since people of the same sex can’t have children. Should I be able to marry my father or brother? If they allow same sex marriage, there will be no need for bigamy and polygamy laws. If the definition of a marriage is going to be rewritten, why couldn’t some marry both a man and a woman? Most states have civil union laws and some churches will allow same sex marriage, so why does the gay community want to rewrite natural laws that have been in existence for a couple millennia? Just because we live in a tolerant society doesn’t mean we have to accept things we disagree with. I don’t want the children of tomorrow thinking that a family with two moms or two dads is just a good and healthy as a family with one mother and one father. Please change your mind and don’t bend your morals and values to the political winds.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

It's amazing when somebody employed by the government obeys the law -- and that's a big deal, worthy of being called "brave".

We've come very far...and it doesn't look so good where we've arrived at.

[Robert_Paulson2]

On August 11, 2002, Vera Katz, Mayor of Portland Oregon, issued the following proclamation:

Whereas, The City Of Portland recognizes the importance of a diverse community; and

Whereas, the motto of "Safe, Sane, and Consensual" adopted by the leather and fetish communities is vital to all relationships between consenting adults; and

Whereas, information, knowledge and education are important factors in promoting, understanding, and maintaining healthy social and sexual relationships; and

Whereas, fundraising efforts benefiting worthy charities gives those causes further power to survive and flourish; and

Whereas, efforts toward a healthier, better educated, and diverse community sponsors increased happiness, health, and awareness;

Now, therefore, I, Vera Katz, Mayor of the City of Portland, Oregon, the "City of Roses," do hereby proclaim August 3-11, 2002 as:

Leather Pride Week

[KQQL]

@

[KQQL]

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 legal to me, for same sex couples to get married per OR Law.

[KQQL]

BRIEF HISTOY OF GAY MARRIAGES:
---------
1989:
Denmark was the first country to allow gay marriages in 1989.

09/00 :
Dutch legalize gay marriage as of 09/2000.

01/03:
Belgium begins to grant marriage rights/license to same sex couples as of 01/2003.

11/03:
MA Supreme Court demands gay marriages for same sex couples.
Gay marriages statue will become law as of 05/2005 in MA.

02/04:
SF County (SF CA) begins to issue gay marriage licenses.

02/04:
NM County issues gay marriage licenses for one day (02/20/04).

02/04 :
New Paltz, NY begins to perform gay marriage ceremonies as of 02/27/04.

03/04:
Multnomah County (Portland OR) to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples as of 03/03/04.
.........
So , which County/State will be next?

[KQQL]

06/03:
In Canada on 06/10/03 the Ontario Court of Appeals authorized immediate marriage for same-sex couples in the province.

07/03:
Also, in Canada on 07/08/03 the British Columbia Court of Appeals authorized immediate marriage for same-sex couples in the province.

[Mr.Atos]

Austin is my guess!

[DannyTN]

Oregon's law says marriage can be entered into by males and females. It doesn't say males and males.

[AntiGuv]

The Oregon statute - on its face - quite clearly does not state that. It states that the contract is entered into by both males and females. It does not specify the combination.

One might read whatever one wishes into the language - and the original intent is beyond dispute - but its literal construction is also beyond dispute.

It is not even disputed by Lou Sheldon and the Traditional Values Coalition of Oregon that have been trying to pass a DOMA for many years now.

[Tailback]

Seattle, WA

[BagCamAddict]

Aside from homophobia, why is everyone so against Gay marriages? Is it the actual word "Marriage" because you believe that is a religion-based word and Gays don't have a right to be involved in anything religion-based? If so, then maybe they should call a civil contract between two people of the same sex a Gay "Union" rather than a "Marriage." I honestly don't understand all the animosity about it, other than homophobia.

So many people on this forum bash Islam, "The Religion of Peace," because of Terrorism. I don't exactly consider Gay-bashing and Gay-hate a respectable Christian behavior, yet millions of so-called Christians are Gay-haters on the justification of Religion. Just a tad too hypocritical for me.

And the argument about it being "against the law" is about as ridiculous as it gets... there are plenty of laws in this country against oral sex, and how many of you have "broken" that law?

If people would be honest and say they are against Gay Marriages because they are homophobic, they would have my respect. Not my agreement, but my respect. As it is, the veiled arguments against Gay Marriage on the grounds of Religion or Law are, in my opinion, just pitiful.

[LayoutGuru2]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1089418/posts

[Mr.Atos]

If people would be honest and say they are against Gay Marriages because they are homophobic, they would have my respect. Not my agreement, but my respect. As it is, the veiled arguments against Gay Marriage on the grounds of Religion or Law are, in my opinion, just pitiful.

Despite this bit of ignorant intolerance for those who might not agree with you, I will nevertheless give you the benefit of the doubt, that you really are genuinely concerned with other opinions rendered here and respond accordingly.

For some, this is indeed a religious issue, and far be it from you to attempt to render that irrelevent by tagging those people as hateful, bigoted, or otherwise intolerant. A moral framework requires definitions, with the pre-supposition that they be accepted and maintained. For me, however, it is the secular issue that is of greater importance and far more simple to understand. The human race has exactly two aspects... the Man (Male) and the Woman (Female). The unification of the two aspects of humanity creates a balance (much the same way that the Taoists consider the universe to be symmetrical oriented by Yin and Yang). The concept of unified balance creating a whole is an ancient principle that stretches back throughout 6000 years of known human history and likely beyond and has been exorably associated with the concept of Marriage (again, the balanced unification of humanity). With the creation of the first true modern democracy, the Constitutional Republic of the United States, the recognition of natural (inalienable) rights of Man (truncated term: Mankind, to be understood as man and women) were codified. Note that they were CODIFIED as existing by nature of existence and NOT defined as men do not posess the mandate to manifest the definition of freedom for others. It must be acknowledged by men and governments as a natural state of being of the individual by virtue of his and her existence. The Bill of Rights did just that and your birth into this Republic and acceptance of citizenship is your promise that you will acknowledge and maintain these principles accordingly. Birth being the key term at this point in the discussion, we can acknowledge that birth is the event at which existence is understood by the US Constitution. This is an arguable point to be sure, but for the sake of discussion, this threshold will suffice. Birth is a natural termination of conception. And conception is the natural consequence of one action... the unification of a man and a women. Marriage, therefore, is the natural precept to the concept of inalienable rights. The accepted definition of Marriage, is the ideal condition of natural human existence. Marriage, therefore, is inalienably the unification of one man and one women with the express potential of propagating the human race in a free and natural manner.

Of course we could confuse the issue, now, with legal definitions of unification being that men and women do not need to be married (legally) to bare children. But, we must also acknowledge that that occurance is a deviation from normal standards and is NOT, therefore, an ideal condition by which to propagate a healthy nor enduring civilization... and , afterall, a codified manifestation of civilization must be fundamentally concerned with ideal standards, and flexible enough to handle variation. And as you see, sexual preference is, afterall, irrelevant to any discussion of Marriage and as such has no place in its accepted definition.

Well? Is that a reasoned enough analysis for the narrow mind?

[blackie]

Yep B ~ I remarked about it on another queer thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1089418/posts?page=12#12

Multnomah County isn't the whole state ~ Ted Tax-and-gouge-me is a pi$$ poor excuse for a man!

[HostileTerritory]

The 11th Circuit ruling has no bearing on Alabama and Georgia unless and until they pass similar laws. For the time being, homosexuals can adopt children in 47 states--all except Florida, Utah, and Mississippi. In many states, same-sex couples can jointly adopt.