No, 2004 certainly was not Oregon's finest hour.

When is somebody going to send out a petition to put a repeal measure on the ballot? I want a chance to vote on this again. See if this state can get it right next time.

The books aren't closed on Iowa yet. This was the unaccountable judiciary speaking - NOT the people.

tj, did I miss the memo about the Indiana/Iowa merger? It's to fight Illini fascism, right? Wait, Hoosiers are worst fascists. Hawkeyes and huskers are like neither.

Point taken Steve. If we want to take the judgements of the Fed. 9th Circuit Court to mean "people on the West coast", those west coasters would have done some pretty rigteous things!

It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.

Yay Iowa! This is a very happy day for all who support marriage equality. I don't think it makes Oregon look bad. In fact I think that every state that wins a battle in the fight for equality further boosts our chances of having it in our state. Oregon started fighting for these things a really long time ago and things came to a fairly big head in a fairly bad year for progressives as a whole. It's tough trying to be all trailblazing and stuff sometimes and I think that while it really really hurt; our "failure" at the time helped secure the victories that we are seeing today all over the country. Remember this isn't a sprint, it's a marathon and state by state we will see this through to the end/beginning.

Gay marriage is a legal no-brainer based on equal protection. If 2 people want to marry someone and one can't because of gender, it is a violation of the Constitution. Think of it as a job interview - you can't discriminate based on sex. And don't tell me marriage isn't real work.

Equal protection, ok, but why did you say 2 people? Oregon has several threesomes living together and Utah has several manysomes. Equal protection isn't limited to say 2 people, but provided to all people.

Seems to me like the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Keep marriage to religious institutions where it came from. Govts got into the marriage business to ensure the proper distribution of property to heirs. To that end, before DNA testing, one was only sure who the person's mother was. A simple contract between parties should suffice all non-religious issues pertaining to marriage and provide a separation of Church and State.

Really? The old polygamy argument?

I don't think a society saying marriage is between two people discriminates. All had an equal opportunity to become married to the person so once someone has landed the job so to speak, the application process is closed.

 As for the religious argument - that's a private matter. For example, if your religion said that marriage can only be between men, I would feel left out and discriminated against, because I love being married to my wife.

Society saying a marriage is between solely to a man and a women or any two people is discrimination to polygamist secular or religious. What's the difference between man/woman or any two people? One discriminates "more"? The US Constitution doesn't state shades of discrimination.

Again, why only limit it to two? Because of "history" and "tradition"? Those are the same arguments the religious groups use.

I don't think feeling left out of "marriage" should be an argument for not separating Church and State issues. The reason for the government for getting into the marriage business in the first place isn't relevant anymore.

”I don't think a society saying marriage is between two people discriminates.”

Very impressive, the old “it’s not discrimination if I say it’s not” argument. Amusing to watch so called progressives twist themselves into a pretzel justifying their own bigoted discrimination.

Sorry pal, saying marriage should be limited to two people is just as discriminatory as saying it should be limited to one man and one woman. You can put all the lipstick you want on your bigotry, it is still bigotry.

Marriage equality for all!

Changing the law would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and then a public vote. That means it can't be overturned until 2012, at the earliest.

A definite advantage of Iowa over Oregon.

Catholics and Mormons can't write their bogus religious prejudice into the state constitution as quickly and easily as they did here...

Buckman, You wrote:
"Sorry pal, saying marriage should be limited to two people is just as discriminatory as saying it should be limited to one man and one woman."

 I see why you didn't explain that because it doesn't follow - it doesn't make sense. 
 The second person in the marriage is not limited to anyone based on gender. The 3rd person in a marriage is ruled out for everyone equally.

  Where's the discrimination? Don't just declare it. Bring the logic.

  Just because you have a right to vote once, doesn't mean it's discrimination that you can't vote twice. States have the right to set limits as long as they're applied equally.

Torridjoe: After three years of sin without the deluge coming to Gary and Bloomington, I think opponents will have a tough time selling their bigotry. B So far, so good. Torridjoe: The difference between gay marriage and polygamy (or polyandry) is that there are compelling state interests at play in the latter. B Now his own "bigotry" rises, using the same arguments as the religious right. I thought this guy was a progressive, yet he shows the same arguments as the religious right.

I see how you could argue that there's something arbitrary about limiting marriage to two people. But that's not an equal protection problem whereas limiting marriage based on gender is. In other words, I could see society saying you could each have 4 votes for President, just as long as we all had 4 votes for President. But I can't see a system under equal protection that says, "Straight people can have 1 vote for President but Gays are not allowed to vote."
And that's what we have now with marriage.

THE GAY MAFIA IS NOW STAKING OUT TERRITORY IN AMERICA’S HEARTLAND. THE IOWA SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY OVERTURNED A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE. ONCE AGAIN, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HAS ONCE AGAIN BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE STENCH FROM THE BENCH. WHAT IS STRANGE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR OUTRAGE IS THE LOCATION. IN THE PAST, THE PINK HAND HAS ALWAYS STRUCK WHERE IT WAS STRONGEST, IN PLACES LIKE CALIFORNIA, LIKE MASSACHUSETTS, AND NEW YORK. NOW THE GAY MAFIA IS MUSCLING IN TO THE MIDWEST.

IT LOOKS LIKE THIS MAY BE PART OF A LARGER STRATEGY. WHILE THE VOTERS OF IOWA WOULD NEVER VOTE IN GAY MARRIAGE, THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE IN A STATE LIKE IOWA IS MORE VULNERABLE TO THE ATTACK OF A VIRUS LIKE THE PINK HAND. THE COURTS AND OTHER POLITICAL STRUCTURES IN AMERICA’S HEARTLAND MAY NOT BE AS SOPHISTICATED AS THOSE IN THE BIG CITIES OR AT LEAST ARE NOT AS USED TO ATTACKS FROM THIS SORT OF ENEMY. THEY HAVE NOT YET DEVELOPED AN IMMUNITY TO THE DISEASE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE BULLS HAVE MOVED INTO THE AREAS WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE MOST EASILY COWED.

NOW THE GAY MAFIA CLAIMED BEFORE THE IOWA SUPREME COURT THAT THE BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE VIOLATED THE 14TH AMENDMENT’S GUARANTEE OF “EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.” BUT GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT EQUAL. IT IS DIFFERENT. IT IS UNNATURAL. AND REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY BLACK-ROBED MORONS SAY DIFFERENTLY, IT WILL NEVER BE NATURAL. AND THE PEOPLE OF IOWA AND THE MIDWEST, WILL NEVER LET IT BE SHOVED DOWN THEIR THROATS WITHOUT A FIGHT.

OK, hotshot--how does one evolve into giving 100% of something to more than one person?

You must have been absent from school the day they taught division in math class. You can divide 10 by 2, or 3, or any number.

The “compelling state interest” canard truly is a dodge for people who claim to be for marriage equality while wanting to exclude polyandrous marriages. Just one more form of bigotry.

Oh?

Meg was being a bit obvious in several areas. 1) Under educated by use of all capitals (shouting) 2) Didn't read a single sentence of the legal brief (or it's much shorter summary) - extremely well put together piece describing the REQUIRED logic the justices had to use 3) Unanimous decision of 7 disparate people, in the midwest, on a controversial subject. Along with #2, it looks like they are actually effective justices rather than a kangaroo court. 4) Gay mafia? Does she not realize how silly that actually sounds? If only . . . 5) If the uh, pink hand, was as strong she states, why isn't marriage legal up and down the coasts already. Yep, first place I'm looking is Iowa... Gay rights are stronger on the coasts simply because the mainstream person actually knows several gay people (neighbors, baby sitters, cops, grocery store clerks). 6) Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people. If you want to go the "tradition" route, be careful... as you (evangelical christian, likely) are used to it, the tradition is barely a couple hundred years old. Want to go back to dowries? Contracting marriages when your kids are 3 years old? Marrying someone you've never met?

Acutally Meg it's the Mauve Hand. We in the gay mafia prefer softer colors. It helps us move in and out of the shadows. Now if you will excuse me I have to go try on new hand gun holsters as the one I have now makes my ass look big.

Dearest Meg: I used to live in America's heartland. I got sick of the horrific, ceaseless wheezing of this heart's congestive failures viz the mercy, compassion and humanity functionalities.

Since I was the equivalent of a dangerous blood clot in that malfunctioning organ, I was certainly at times subject to aggressive efforts at sequester, dissolution, removal. As a kindness, I eventually left.

Meg: there is no mafia as you fantasy. Similarly, the outlandishly rich are not as evil and organized as the poor among us believe; the upper middle class not so callous on purpose; the Jews do not have a noisy fiscal cartel; even white men can't work together well enough in the end to get the job done if they truly wanted to keep everyone else down.

Meg, there is no gay mafia.

And: Brodhead? I liked that. Heh.

Steve, I think you mean the NON-accountable judiciary? Or "A judiciary not held accountable by and to the people to speak for the people"?

Just checking...

The second person in the marriage is not limited to anyone based on gender. The 3rd person in a marriage is ruled out for everyone equally.

Exactly. Anyone who wants to promote polygamy is welcome to go change the marriage laws or find another basis for striking 1/1 marriage down, but the equal protection clause simply does not apply.

Those above who are intent on the polygamy argument should go ahead and start the ground work that gays/lesbians have been doing for decades. It's a slow, arduous process to advance civil rights. No one here is stopping you from working toward your goals.

But don't rain on our parade!

From a historical standpoint, there's always some aspect of any era that seems primitive when you look back from even 50 years out.

Just look at 1959 for example and I'm sure you'll find some shocking things that will have you scratching your head and wondering, "Why didn't they just correct this? How could they let this injustice slide?"

  If we get another 50 years in America, people will look back at this great gay marriage debate and marvel that we ever were so wound up about it.
  By then the idea that the gay couple who live down the block now have a marriage license from the state instead of just being the gay couple who live down the block - will not seem like a big deal to society.

 But it is a big deal now. This is one part of our era where future generations will shake their heads and mumble, "How primitive they were then - way back in 2009."

Actually, when you consider the power of making such a stand geopolitically, think of how much more-powerful it is that it has happened in Iowa, given the conservative and fundagelical neighboring states. If this happens in Oregon, can't be too soon for me and mine. However, we are treated with a shrug and a knowing wink. Iowa is a culture-coup worth guarding and supporting.

And: may I ask why you people are even discussing poly in this thread? Might as well invite the conservative schmucks to start up about bestiality and kiddie recruitment.... it would be really nice if we managed to really keep the discussion tight and germane on this one. Do not even recreationally wander over into the non sequitur red herrings of those who oppose on bizarre terms... just a wan wish!

Heh. Thank you Carla. I'm trying to keep it under control this time around.

For all of you who don't think there isn't a gay mafia - read this link -

http://blog.nj.com/njv_george_berkin/2009/04/post.html

Here's the reason my family still receives fewer basic civil protections than other families in Oregon, in California, etc...

From the AP (Vermont House gives preliminary OK to gay marriage, 4/2/09):

Opponents of the measure spoke of their respect for its advocates. One, Rep. Albert "Sonny" Audette, expressed sadness at having concluded he was required by his church to vote no.

"I am a devout Catholic," Audette said. "My religion at this point would not want me to vote for this. I wish that I could and I hope for the best and I congratulate the people who are trying to get this through."

** So many of YOU could significantly speed up the process of extending equality by withdrawing financial support from the Catholic Church (and the Mormon church, and many Protestant churches). The number one financial contributor to Measure 36 was the (bankrupt, in so many ways) Catholic Archdiocese of Portland...

And this on the web today: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE53312Q20090404?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Our military, the military that formally views gays and lesbians as less than heteros, are supposed to be protecting these folks. Wonder how that's gonna work out?

Hi Kevin - somehow I could not figure out what you meant. I get it you were saying poly is not connected (in our minds, perhaps, and surely by logic!) to bestiality and kiddie using. BUT, am not sure about the rest of the comment. My comment actually dovetails nicely with yours in that the confluence of evils that pools up under the concept of "homosexual" in the bigoted mind.. well, it is NOT ruled by anything logic.

Could not parse the comment on power.

This is another side effect of the State subsidizing "family". There is no good answer, because it is not what they should be doing. Your real problem is with the majority that still need their religion crutch and want it sanctioned by the state. As long as it is, religious belief is normal. It is not. It is a stupid, self-perpetuated pathology that society can no longer afford.

Just say no to the whole thing. No subsidizing breeding, no defining what a family is, none of it. The State has no legitimate interest in policing any of this. Like it doesn't affect much. Were did all those hired "killers for Christ" come from? Get real. The State still panders to religion, because believers are the only ones dumb enough to join the military in numbers!

You know what? Tomorrow's a great day for a picket! Capable of doing something without your keyboard? Then, get out there and ruin some Easters like they ruin every day of your life.

Oh, and happy "Dead Spook Days". Fast, mourning and penance begins tomorrow. Biggest rising fraud since Viagra. Same bottom line. "Look how powerful our dick is; it can get back up again".

Maybe meditate on how incredibly phallic the resurrection story is. Two women, more eager than the men, enter the dark, moist cavity to find "he is risen"!

Darn, just when I thought I was finished with this... The religious angle calls for finesse. Any blunt putdowns will only make the situation worse. You have to realize giving religious people the sense that they are defending God and being persecuted for it, is a win for them. It empowers them.

  Now, ultimately it won't matter, and shouldn't matter. Nobody should be allowed to stamp their religious beliefs onto people who don't want them. I'm just saying, if you are trying to change minds, use some skill.

There are plenty of things in the Bible that no Christian today follows. When asked they say that these things were meant for those times - not now. This is where the phrase "cherry-picking the Bible" usually comes in, and it's true.

  What has to happen for certain religions to get past their attitudes about gays, is an acknowledgment of the things the religious people no longer believe. How come these things do not apply anymore if the whole thing is supposed to be from God? Explore the concept that some of this was from another time, thousands of years ago.

 Then it's just a slow process of placing the parts about gays on that long - and sometimes disturbing - list of things in the Bible that no Christian follows anymore.

  That is the process society is in now, and it will go smoother if it's not turned into a huge argument.

Kevin, I see. However, I suppose it is driven by what you consider to be "logic". In this case, I see poly as a freestanding discussion, as that construct has nothing in common with one person/other person marriage.

If you are discussing "deviate" (not my view of homosexuality, nor of poly, for that matter) patterns of -ogamy, I suppose you should go ahead and add the strand of poly to the talk here. However, I just do not see the structure and reality of poly as having anything to do with this marital construct, nor related, much, viz culture and law.

At any rate, thanks for the clarification.

Dear Pope - tomorrow is not Easter. Sorry to ruin your fun.

OY.

Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover not only for much of its symbolism but also for its position in the calendar. It is also linked to Spring Break, a secular school holiday (customarily a week long) celebrated at various times across North America, and characterized by road trips and bacchanalia.

Yah! Pope, I'm set for Easter to ruin my day! Bacchus being my favorite minor diety, Dionysius being my aspiration, of course. I am sure you meant your scribbling as an anti-Christian sentiment instead of an anti-Semitic screed? (oops... I've slipped into baiting on a blog again. Time to go clean house)

Why does the right have no qualms about denying a subset of the populace their right to be treated as equal while at the same time pitching a fit anytime someone wants to deny them the right to own a howitzer. Yeah, I know, big game calls for big guns.

That is the process society is in now, and it will go smoother if it's not turned into a huge argument.

So, just to confirm here...

Some parts of your Bible (slavery is good, offer your daughters for rape if your city is besieged, etcetera) are just "things in the Bible that no Christian today follows..."

But my family is supposed to wait until some other parts of this book ("the parts about gays") get placed "on that long - and sometimes disturbing - list of things" that you no longer follow or believe..?

Give me an f'ing break - what the heck distinguishes an accurate (?) part of your Book of Mormon from a "thing" that you no longer follow?

Excuse me for being blunt - but religious people are (once again) retarding progress on equality, and don't have a leg to stand on. State and federal constitutions spell out our rights, and guarantee equal access - not some Holocaust-denying, child-abusing Portland Catholic's "cherry picked" holy book...

It's time to take on these silly churches full force - they have no evidence for their prejudice. It's prejudice. And this prejudice undermined Oregon's state constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Religious voters did it in California, too, amending the constitution to selectively deny some citizens rights. They'll try it again in Iowa.

Catholics and Mormons are the problem here. Even the "progressives," as long as they keep financing these efforts. Time to be clear, and blunt.

Oregon Bill, Nobody's asking you to wait, but it's possible to be counterproductive. You say, "It's time to take on these silly churches full force." Full force? What does that mean?

 I say take this to the courts. It's a legal no-brainer under the Constitution.

Just look to the animal kingdom, that's what's normal and moral. And that's what government and states throughout the ages have supported. Why am I a bigot if I deny in manking what I see in the natural zooligical order around me?

"This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like "homophobic.'" (Dallin H. Oaks, former justice of the Utah Supreme Court)

I remember the day I had to have "the talk" with my nine year old son. The talk about gays and straights.... I had to sit him down and make him understand that we are all humans. We are all good and bad.

And heteros can be JUST as kind and loving as gays, just as deep or truthful within themselves.

He learned, unfortunately, that heteros are judging, closed minded and narrow from observing his father's family when we were still in Oklahoma. He learned that they cheated, hurt others with impunity, and were violent with small animals. He also learned they did not read, were vicious to those who were academic.

His experiences with our HIV/AIDS test site/outreach community was that of commitment, gentleness, humor and kindness. And nobody abused small animals, hit their spouses or cheated. His experience with the working artist community mirrored this. I had no idea he had this observational divide till years later. I thought I had simply pulled us out of the mire and duly supplied him with the life that is about MY values.

Hah. He had it wired in his head that the heteros were the pathological ones. By observation.

I think I've managed to fix that. But to this day I get a chuckle from remembering that most surprising talk we had to have.

Marshall Collins said, "Actually Meg it's the Mauve Hand. We in the gay mafia prefer softer colors. It helps us move in and out of the shadows. Now if you will excuse me I have to go try on new hand gun holsters as the one I have now makes my ass look big."

Very funny.

"The pink hand" is also funny, even if it was unintentional.

Kevin - In the WILD - animals of the same sex do not pair off in long term or life long couplings. It doesn't happen. The animal community doesn't sanction this kind of union because it would threaten species survival.

The question is whether the State should sanction marriage between two people of the same sex. There's nothing in the natural order that suggests this is a good idea.

Marriage is the socially preferred institution for sexual activity and childrearing - in every known HUMAN society. It is in fact - a naturally occuring PRE-political institution.

Same-sex marriage advocate to change the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality. Remake marriage as a bundle of legally defined benefits bestowed by the state.

It's wrong to mess with the basic building blocks of civiliation like this and majority rule votes (Prop 8) and others to come support this notion.

Any blunt putdowns will only make the situation worse... That is the process society is in now, and it will go smoother if it's not turned into a huge argument.

Apologies in advance, but as the target of "religious people... defending God," I'm gonna be blunt...

So Bill McDonald notes that there are "plenty of things in the Bible that no Christian today follows" (for example, and I'm only guessing here, that might include the Bible's enthusiastic endorsement of slavery, its suggestion that offering your daughters for rape when your city is besieged is a great idea, etc...)

Then he suggests that my family ought to WAIT for the "slow process of placing the parts about gays on that long - and sometimes disturbing - list..?"

** No offense here, but - what the heck separates the accurate parts of Bill's Book of Mormon (or New Testament, or Battlefield Earth) from the batcrap crazy parts?

And why should anyone WAIT for those "progressive" Catholics at St. Andrews and Holy Names to realize how much appalling damage their financial contributions do in the name of their church's batcrap crazy (a.k.a., evidence free) - and prejudiced - religious musings..? I think we need to point this out right now.

To be blunt: religious people (particularly Catholics, Mormons and many Christians, including African American parishioners right here in Portland) are the direct reason my family gets fewer legal protections than yours.

And why? Because they voted to write their ridiculous, loony religious prejudices into our state constitution. Or, while they feel just awful about Measure 36, they still write checks to their gay-bashing Archdiocese, which was the primary financial supporter of Measure 36...

Think about it...

Catholics, Mormons and other Christians actually worked to AMEND Oregon's state constitution to SELECTIVELY ERASE the guarantee of equal protection (the guarantee of EQUAL PROTECTION!) from my family, and many other gay and lesbian families in our state. They did it in California. And I'm sure Catholics and Mormons and black churches are gearing up for attacks on Iowa, and Vermont, and...

How un-American is that? I'm not waiting. It is way past time to be blunt.

After you look at it from all angles including salmon, religion, and compost, I'd return to the legal aspects - as one commenter put it, "marriage as a mere legality." What the court in Iowa decided - and what the Utah judge quoted in one comment was trying to avoid - is that marriage has to work under the Constitution. The equal protection argument is a no-brainer. The freedom to define marriage in a religious way is still there, but it's in the church, not in the state. If you want to follow a religious definition, join that particular church and go for it. But in society we can't discriminate based on gender and that's what banning gay marriage does. An individual can marry one gender but is not allowed to marry another? That's discrimination. I'd feel the same way if society outlawed me from marrying my wife and said I could only marry a man.

Oregon Bill, Nobody's asking you to wait, but it's possible to be counterproductive. You say, "It's time to take on these silly churches full force." Full force? What does that mean?

*** OK, I just figured out that you need to hit the "More Comments" tab to see the most recent posts (apologies for posting pretty much the same thing twice!)

Bill, what I mean is regularly pointing out to your Catholic friends, for example, how their continued support for St. Andrews or Holy Family has reduced my family's basic legal rights in Oregon. They are personally responsible. Where did the Archdiocese get their money? How did they pay for the ads, print the brochures, etc..?

I mean pointing out the evident humanity, and equality, of gay and lesbian families, and contrasting this with the baseless and wacky prejudice of the church, now written directly into our state's constitution...

I mean encouraging people to leave these bastions of ignorance (not to mention misogyny, child abuse, scientific illiteracy, etc.), or to at least withhold contributions from the Archdiocese, and make their strong opposition to creepy clerical efforts to diminish my family's basic legal rights very well known.

Full force! And I think it's working, certainly with the younger generation... They see our kids, they witness our help in our communities, in the PTA - they know us as neighbors, friends, teachers, colleagues. We are here, we are here...

<h2>And who still successfully opposes legal equality? Utter creeps - often unmarried, sexually repressed, morally and ethically bankrupt religious nutballs. A.k.a. Catholics, and also Mormons, and many other Christians, who cling to utterly batcrap crazy ideas. Again, it's time to be blunt.</h2>