Just curious why they get special rights for finding love in another man's hairy ass!

The people of Oregon do not have the right to deny equal treatment under the law to any minority. Period. Kudos to your Governor. I think if the bigots of Oregon want so badly to deny gay people equal treatment under the law, they must first repeal all the equality clauses that it contains. What the bigots of Oregon voted for was in direct contradiction to those clauses.

I can't beleive that this is even up for dicussion. The people of Oregon overwhelmingly voted that they did not want this in our state and then our IDIOT governor decides that he knows whats best for the people of this state. If you want this so bad MOVE TO A STATE THAT HAS IT!!!!

Voting on human rights.......pathetic!

RE - Contribution to society

Answer one: Depends on whether you consider stable family units a contribution. In cultures where there is an extended family, where aunts and uncles and cousins have closer contact, then one does contribute to the raising of nieces and nephews - and, if you are like the recently married Ashley MacIsaac, you don't rule out adoption. Family is very important to MacIsaac and marriage tends to make one more mainstream.

Answer Two: Depends on whether you consider being part of society more of a contribution than being outside of society. You have probably all saw that video about the Gay Rights movement in Iraq - and how everyone is afraid to have a committed relationship because that is how you get found out. Seems like a time warp to the "good ol' days" doesn't it? ;)

Answer Three: If one is in a committed relationship, one doesn't have to waste time going to the bar chasing down tail - one can actually spend more time earning a living and helping the economy by building that new deck on the back porch and buying that over priced bbq.

RE - I can't call it a marriage, though.

Behind not being able to call the official commitment to each other in front of friends and family "marriage" lies the belief that gays and lesbians do not love as strongly as hetrosexuals or that gays and lesbians are not capable of committing to each other as strongly and completely as hetrosexual couples - or, at least, that is what the MPs in favour of equal marriage were arguing at the time.

On one side there is the argument that half a loaf is better than none ("domestic partnership" are better than no rights at all).

On the other side is the belief that there is a difference between the way gay and straight love.

If people like me (straight people) are allowed to marry, then why can't you?

You remember Mississippi Cold Case the Ridgen documentary which resulted in the conviction of James Ford Seale? Seems that James Ford Seale wrote a letter to the editor which appeared in the Franklin Advocate days before he committed the double murder. One thing he mentioned was not wanting Blacks and Whites to use the same swimming pool.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/08/cold-case.html

I don't know about you, but there are some pretty good looking Black guys out there I would not mind seeing in a bathing suit - and Seale was arguing about denying me that privilege! Honestly, do you have a problem with Will Smith in swimming trunks!

Seriously, one of the other arguments that came up was that the same arguments that the right was using today against gay marriage they were using against marriages between Blacks and Whites a few decades back. Did Obama's parents settle for a "domestic partnership"?

dlnelson7 says: Marriage is a legal arrangement with rights and responsibilities between two people, nothing more nothing less.

"The Common-Law Partners' Property and Related Amendments Act" gives one all that without marriage (or "domestic partnership"). It gives you both rights and obligations if you have been together for over three years. If you split up, you have the same rights as if you were married (or in a "domestic partnership").

Before this new law, there were some rights granted to persons in a common-law relationship - as a result of the landmark (Lothar) Pettkus versus (Rosa) Becker case:

To receive a share of property upon separation, or a partner's death, the surviving partner needed to prove to the court that he or she contributed to acquiring, improving or maintaining the property and, therefore, should have been compensated.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/family/commonlaw/index.html

The Pettkus versus Becker case built on the Murdoch Case which, though it involved a married couple and ultimately failed, resulted in an uproar which caused a change in law to take in account the wife's contribution on the farm even if it is in the husband's name.

The judge ruled that Irene Murdoch had no claim on her soon to be ex-husbands farm because:

"The trial judge had ruled that Mrs. Murdoch was not entitled to a share of "her husband's property" because "what the appellant had done, while living with respondent, was the work done by any ranch wife." Under existing legislation, Mrs. Murdoch's work, which included "haying, raking, swatching, moving, driving trucks and tractors and teams, quietening horses, taking cattle back and forth to the reserve, dehorning, vaccinating, branding," and managing the ranch for five months of the year while her husband travelled, did not entitle her to a share of the property which was held in his name alone."

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/cpra_arnup_en.pdf

The point is that there must be similar initial laws on the books in Oregon since they also have married and common-law couples who farm. Extending the rights and obligations to common-law couples follows from that. Doing so benefits the state because if one person is left high and dry, it leaves that person dependent on the State.

It also improves your base because more and more straight couples are not getting married. And if you can get "living in sin" rights, then there isn't the panic of having to settle for something less than marriage. You can if you still want, but your death benefits or pension etc won't depend on it.

Not sure if it will work, but it is worth a try. And if they falsely think that giving you this will pacify you without pissing off the religious right, they may just give it to you.

Legislatures want this issue to go away.

Would Rosa Parks give up her seat!

More on: "No special rights between man and man or woman and woman when they provide nothing to the continuation of society."

What special rights? The right not to be classified as a stranger if you have to visit your partner in the hospital? The right to have a portion of shared resources secured legally in case your partner becomes incapacitated, dies, or walks out? That sounds pretty ordinary to me.

Contribute to the continuation of society? Are heterosexual spouses required to prove their marriage "contributes to the continuation of society"? Sounds to me like special requirements for some people, not special rights. I thought the idea was, society benefits from people building stable lives together, period.

"Aquietman" is right, the argument is specious, but one hears this rhetoric about "special rights" so often, apparently the fallacy needs to be spelled out.

"No special rights between man and man or woman and woman when they provide nothing to the continuation of society."

Stupid remark...

My grandmother in her late 60s just remarried. Both are beyond the years of reproduction. I guess they shouldn't have been allowed to get married.

Dumb, Dumb argument.

Research has shown that people who are joined together in a committed relationship are happier and live longer. Marriage, more than anything else, cements the relationship. Companionship alone is reason enough to get married. And that right must be available to all.

Regardless of that fact, gay couples all over have children - everyone knows that, so the argument (if you could call it that), is entirely moot.

To me the more interesting question is not whether governments or Churches allow this or that kind of marriage but rather exactly who decided they would be in charge of such validation in the first place?

Maybe hundreds or thousands of years ago the mass of peoples demanded tht either "the church" o9r "the government" be in charge but I suspect it was a poweer grab more than anything else.
Just think, what could be cooler than having an exclusive monopoly on the granting of sexual franchise to others!

Today, I really don't think the majority of people really care what government or church thinks about their living arrangements but would prefer to be left alone.

That then leaves the changed legal status of those people living together to be ratified somehow. That somehow should be prenuptial agreements that spell out as specifically or as vaguely as the participants p;ease the dimensions of their relationship. Otherwiise everyone else should leave such people alone.

Domestic Parntership as a legal entity is OK with me. When two people share their lives, there should be some mechanism for them to share insurance, social security, pensions, property, etc, even after death.

I can't call it a marriage, though.

Once again, this administration's respect for states rights, or anything else, is "policy relevant".

Good news. Now lets just hope they can sort out the mess. 116 signatures sounds like Florida in the 2000 presidential election. Like the Republican Conservatives of that race, the Democratic Liberals don't care how they win, just that they win. No special rights between man and man or woman and woman when they provide nothing to the continuation of society.

Marriage is a legal arrangement with rights and responsibilities between two people, nothing more nothing less. At one time it was done to join land, farms, or kingdoms. Now it is political football in the US.

Rebel Farmer - common-law marriage is a term used to denote two unmarried people who are living together in an intimate relationship. This may be the Canadian term for it - what do Americans call intimate unmarried persons who share an address? In Manitoba, if they share the same address for three years, they have all the legal rights and obligations of a married couple but are still not married.

Manitoba, like the rest of Canada, also has gay marriage.

The first gay marriage involving Canadian military personal was organized by an Anglican Minister but the marriage ceremony was actually performed but a United Church Minister.

The first gay marriage involving a Canadian MP was supposed to take place outside by the ocean but, because it was raining, took place in the nearby United Church.

MP=Congressperson

This is the future groom right after the former goaltender:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XznIYUTZTW4

Rebel Farmer That's why Oregon decided to get around this dilemma with "domestic partnerships" that could confer some of the same rights granted to married couples.

I see what you are up against (though I do not understand the intensity of the opposition to it) - but I remember when Elton John entered into a "civil partnership" with Canadian David Furnish what Michael Leshner said about it. Leshner accused them of "getting on the back of the bus" and said that they should have gotten a "real" marriage in Canada rather than settle for this (can't remember the term he used) in the UK.

Michael Stark and Michael Leshner were the first couple to marry the day marriage became legal for gays in Ontario (the first province it became legal in Canada). Stark (a Catholic) and Leshner (Jewish) opted for a civil ceremony. Nancy Wilson talked with The Michaels hours before their marriage and Heather Hiscox shows part of the Stark and Leshner's marriage vows as well as the couple who were married in a church but whose marriage was not recognized legally:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/06/10/ont_samesex030610.html

There are pros and cons to insisting on the word "marriage". But the fight for more legal rights and obligations for unmarried couples (both straight and gay) does serve as a stop gap while leaving the options of either "marriage" or "domestic partnerships" both on the table.

aquietman says: We are a constitutional republic, and our constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. Period. All of the these state initiatives and movements to deny gay people equal marriage rights will ultimately fail

I think that is what lawyer Michael Leshner (and the rest of his legal team) argued.

One gets the impression in Canada (probably from watching Law & Order) that Judges are elected based on how they tend to rule and not for how well they interpret the law.

PS. If you are feeling down trying putting the following words into a youtube search:

brokeback bush harper

Vaudree: The problem in the US is that marriage is considered to be Christian based act that takes place in a church. Even though a "marrage license" is issued by a government agency, the government that allows the issuance of same is ruled by the religous right. That means that common law marriage, because of the term "marriage", is not accessable to homosexuals or lesbians. Which means that they cannot enjoy the rights of marriage. That's why Oregon decided to get around this dilemma with "domestic partnerships" that could confer some of the same rights granted to married couples. I know it's weird, but that's the way it works here in the US.

Greasman said:

"How dare these stinking citizens think they have a "right" to vote on a law that their intellectually superior betters have passed."

They have never had the right when it comes to civil rights. We are not a democracy where every thing is decided by 'the people.' We are a constitutional republic, and our constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. Period. All of the these state initiatives and movements to deny gay people equal marriage rights will ultimately fail (well, unless Bush's judicial appointees fail to do their job correctly which is probable)....

'The People' have never had the right to vote away the rights of a portion of the population. They don't have it now...

If the representatives of Oregon passed legislation guaranteeing equality, and you oppose that.... then they really are your superiors intellectually.

This "Domestic Partnership" sounds like an inferior form of marriage which is distinct from from living common-law.

Probably best to hold out for the real thing, and, in the interm, focus on the rights of couples who are living common-law (what your grandparents used to call "living in sin").

Manitoba had this before it had same-sex marriage and still has it:

The Common-Law Partners' Property and Related Amendments Act

If you are living in an intimate relationship with a person you are not married to - often referred to as a common-law relationship or a common-law marriage - these changes could affect you. The changes apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. ...

When the new act came into force on June 30, 2004, all laws in Manitoba governing property rights of married couples were made applicable to common-law partners. This means, for example, that:

* If a common-law couple splits up, each partner will be entitled to half the value of the property acquired by the couple during the time they lived together, including pensions: see The Family Property Act (formerly called The Marital Property Act) and The Pension Benefits Act.
* If one member of a common-law couple dies without a will, the surviving partner will receive all, or most, of the deceased partner's property: see The Intestate Succession Act.
* If one member of a common-law couple dies, leaving a will that ignores or neglects the surviving partner, the law will override the will to ensure that the surviving partner receives his or her fair share of the couple's family property: see The Family Property Act.

As of June 30, 2004, the new laws apply to common-law couples who either:

* register their relationship at the Vital Statistics Agency, or
* if not registered, have lived together for a certain period of time (in most cases, three years, although in some acts it may be one year if the couple has a child together, or less; once a couple has lived together for three years, all the major property laws apply to them).

http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/family/commonlaw/index.html

This is not a substitution for marriage, but it something that outlines the legal rights and obligations for couples who either do not wish to or cannot marry.

BTW - I was having an argument with my brother and mother about American Soldiers stationed in Afghanistan near a Canadian Military base. I think that if two American Soldiers wish to get married on the Canadian side of the base that they can. My brother and mother said that since the base is on Afghan soil and Afghan (rather than Canadian) marriage laws apply, that two American soldiers of the same gender could not get married in Afghanistan under Canadian law.

Amen to Rebel Farmer. As an Oregonian, I am disappointed by this ruling, but we will prevail. The tide has turned and equal rights for all citizens will be the order of the day. Someday, our children will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Hey, Jan, I'm still here! And Lon Mabon is pretty much out of the picture. The OCA is dead. This is just a stalling tactic. Oregonians will defeat them every time. And Smith is on the ropes. I'm not sure what the Repug picture is at the State level, but I can guess that they are going to get thrown out too. I know I am going to do everything in my power to get my Repug State Senator beaten to a pulp in the next election. I love my State House Rep. I'll make sure she gets to stay.

To all the rest of you folks, please don't believe that this ruling represents the people of Oregon. It doesn't. We really are pretty good people.

How dare these stinking citizens think they have a "right" to vote on a law that their intellectually superior betters have passed.

{quote}: "In court Friday, Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes the measure, said the state's review process was flawed, disenfranchising citizens who had signed petitions."

When citizens of Ohio, Florida and other states are ACTUALLY disenfranchised from voting for the office of President, it gets no media attention.

When a few of bush's anti-everything-that's-good-for-the-public croney's are ALLEGEDELY disenfranchised, it makes the AP wire.

Surprise, surprise.

I thought we drove a stake through the heart of the Oregon Citizens Alliance and Lon Mabon. And look who made the ruling: a Bush appointee who, at the time of his nomination, was criticized for being anti-gay, but detractors caved when he got up in public and said nice things about gays.

Sheesh. Glad I got out of there.