Oregon to Vote on Same-Sex Marriage N...

Oregon to Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Next Year

There are 22 comments on the EDGE story from Dec 10, 2013, titled Oregon to Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Next Year. In it, EDGE reports that:

Officials from the LGBT rights group, Oregon United for Marriage, announced on Tuesday that they have gained enough signatures to place a marriage equality initiative on the November 2014 ballot, which will give Oregon voters the chance to repeal a ban on gay marriage, the Daily Kos reports.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Dec 10, 2013
I don't agree with Rights being subject to plebiscite.

It violates our Constitutionally-guaranteed "Republican form of government".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2 Dec 10, 2013
I wonder if they'll still go forward with the vote if the 9th circuit rules in our favor before then?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#3 Dec 10, 2013
snyper wrote:
I don't agree with Rights being subject to plebiscite.
It violates our Constitutionally-guaranteed "Republican form of government".
I agree. But the only way we are going to prevent that, and have equal marriage rights apply in all 50 states (or all 57 states as The Obamaniac loves to say), and other U.S. jurisdictions, is to get SCOTUS to rule that equal marriage rights is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

You MIGHT spur a case if a state passed a law denying marriage to a certain group of people "because they don't recognize the existence of God" , such as Buddhists or Hindus. Then SCOTUS might act.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Dec 10, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. But the only way we are going to prevent that, and have equal marriage rights apply in all 50 states (or all 57 states as The Obamaniac loves to say), and other U.S. jurisdictions, is to get SCOTUS to rule that equal marriage rights is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
And I don't see that happening anytime soon.
You MIGHT spur a case if a state passed a law denying marriage to a certain group of people "because they don't recognize the existence of God" , such as Buddhists or Hindus. Then SCOTUS might act.
You seem to be making progress by recognizing voting on our marriage rights may be a necessary evil if we are to advance equality much further in the near future.

We are quickly running out of states without constitutional bans, which will require either federal court action or a popular vote at the ballot box.

So we either sit at 17 or 18 states max while waiting years for the right case to get to the right SCOTUS, or we suck it up and prepare for referendum votes in '14 & '16.

It's up to us how we proceed from here.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#5 Dec 10, 2013
snyper wrote:
I don't agree with Rights being subject to plebiscite.
It violates our Constitutionally-guaranteed "Republican form of government".
Not only that but SCOTUS ruled on voting on civil rights back in 1943.

I really would like to see lawsuits brought that cite this case:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

SCOTUS Majority opinion:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#6 Dec 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be making progress by recognizing voting on our marriage rights may be a necessary evil if we are to advance equality much further in the near future.
We are quickly running out of states without constitutional bans, which will require either federal court action or a popular vote at the ballot box.
So we either sit at 17 or 18 states max while waiting years for the right case to get to the right SCOTUS, or we suck it up and prepare for referendum votes in '14 & '16.
It's up to us how we proceed from here.
I really would like to see lawsuits brought that cite this case:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

Your thoughts?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7 Dec 10, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Not only that but SCOTUS ruled on voting on civil rights back in 1943.
I really would like to see lawsuits brought that cite this case:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943
SCOTUS Majority opinion:
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
I agree. I've been familiar with that case for many years. Now just get SCOTUS to say that that case applies to our quest for equal marriage rights. The U.S. Constitution only means what SCOTUS says it means.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#8 Dec 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be making progress by recognizing voting on our marriage rights may be a necessary evil if we are to advance equality much further in the near future.
We are quickly running out of states without constitutional bans, which will require either federal court action or a popular vote at the ballot box.
So we either sit at 17 or 18 states max while waiting years for the right case to get to the right SCOTUS, or we suck it up and prepare for referendum votes in '14 & '16.
It's up to us how we proceed from here.
We really need some more States on our side of the ledger to firmly preclude a State-initiated Constitutional Convention against us ... which the GOP has already placed in it's National Platform.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9 Dec 11, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
We really need some more States on our side of the ledger to firmly preclude a State-initiated Constitutional Convention against us ... which the GOP has already placed in it's National Platform.
For years we heard the religious right trumpet "States Rights".

Now the Republicans have abandoned that. If they REALLY DID stand for States Rights then why are they now trying to take away those rights with Constitutional Amendments?

Follow the money.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Dec 11, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>For years we heard the religious right trumpet "States Rights".
Now the Republicans have abandoned that. If they REALLY DID stand for States Rights then why are they now trying to take away those rights with Constitutional Amendments?
Follow the money.
Their children will be inheriting it soon enough, I think, but it's going to be close.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#11 Dec 11, 2013
I don't like the idea of voting on the rights of a minority. However, in this case, even if we were to lose the vote, and I don't know how dicey that may be in Oregon, we are no worse off than we were before the vote. And we still hold in reserve our ability to go to court. The more avenues we have to equality, the better we are able to be victorious.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Dec 11, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. I've been familiar with that case for many years. Now just get SCOTUS to say that that case applies to our quest for equal marriage rights. The U.S. Constitution only means what SCOTUS says it means.
Wow, you got another one right.

Have you suffered an aneurism lately?

You're actually starting to sound like a logical person!

Here's a test to see how your recovery is going:

I say Obama, you say......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Dec 11, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
We really need some more States on our side of the ledger to firmly preclude a State-initiated Constitutional Convention against us ... which the GOP has already placed in it's National Platform.
We're already past that point. With 16 states firmly in our column, the anti-gays can't come up with the 38 states they'd need to ratify a constitutional amendment. They don't even have the 34 states necessary to call a constitutional convention.

Even if we assume ALL states with a Republican controlled AND split legislature were to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment, that would only give them 32 states. And that would include the EXTREMELY unlikely states of New York & New Hampshire.

Stop worrying about a constitutional amendment; we're beyond that now and even the anti-gays know it. The ONLY reason the GOPasaurs keep it in their platform is to appease the religious right. They will give it lip service knowing it will NEVER pass at this point. 2006 was their last realistic chance, and it failed by 57 votes in the House and never even made it to a vote in the Senate.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Dec 11, 2013
RalphB wrote:
I don't like the idea of voting on the rights of a minority. However, in this case, even if we were to lose the vote, and I don't know how dicey that may be in Oregon, we are no worse off than we were before the vote. And we still hold in reserve our ability to go to court. The more avenues we have to equality, the better we are able to be victorious.
Ironically, a win in Oregon could actually end up DELAYING equality nationwide.

The SCOTUS obviously isn't ready at this moment to declare a national right to marry for same-sex couples. They seem content to allow this to play out in the states for a while longer. So if we successfully overturn a constitutional ban by popular referendum, that may actually lead the SCOTUS to wait even longer.

Justice Kennedy- in spite of his recent support in overturning DOMA- has said numerous times that the SCOTUS shouldn't be deciding most of these issues; that it should be left to the states or done by Congress.

A win in Oregon could delay nationwide equality even more so than the victories in Washington, Maine, & Maryland.

That said, I still think a win in Oregon would be worth any potential delay in achieving nationwide equality.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#15 Dec 11, 2013
RalphB wrote:
I don't like the idea of voting on the rights of a minority. However, in this case, even if we were to lose the vote, and I don't know how dicey that may be in Oregon, we are no worse off than we were before the vote. And we still hold in reserve our ability to go to court. The more avenues we have to equality, the better we are able to be victorious.
Good point. But I think we'll get a win there.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#16 Dec 11, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Good point. But I think we'll get a win there.
If you are correct, and I hope you are, it will become another stepping-stone for activists and their supporters. Each win inspires.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17 Dec 11, 2013
RalphB wrote:
I don't like the idea of voting on the rights of a minority. However, in this case, even if we were to lose the vote, and I don't know how dicey that may be in Oregon, we are no worse off than we were before the vote. And we still hold in reserve our ability to go to court. The more avenues we have to equality, the better we are able to be victorious.
I understand, but I also don't like anything that weakens the Constitution, our primary protection.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Dec 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironically, a win in Oregon could actually end up DELAYING equality nationwide.
The SCOTUS obviously isn't ready at this moment to declare a national right to marry for same-sex couples. They seem content to allow this to play out in the states for a while longer. So if we successfully overturn a constitutional ban by popular referendum, that may actually lead the SCOTUS to wait even longer.
Justice Kennedy- in spite of his recent support in overturning DOMA- has said numerous times that the SCOTUS shouldn't be deciding most of these issues; that it should be left to the states or done by Congress.
A win in Oregon could delay nationwide equality even more so than the victories in Washington, Maine, & Maryland.
That said, I still think a win in Oregon would be worth any potential delay in achieving nationwide equality.
Justice Kennedy couldn't be more wrong.

The Courts are there PRECISELY (if not solely) to be THE avenue of an individual or minority to "seek redress of grievances" in the face of a hostile majority or the overwhelming force of Government.

I'd give a very great deal for the chance to say it to his face.

(I THINK that I'm just barely mature enough to restrain myself from Moe-slapping the lot of them. Just barely.)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Dec 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice Kennedy couldn't be more wrong.
The Courts are there PRECISELY (if not solely) to be THE avenue of an individual or minority to "seek redress of grievances" in the face of a hostile majority or the overwhelming force of Government.
I'd give a very great deal for the chance to say it to his face.
(I THINK that I'm just barely mature enough to restrain myself from Moe-slapping the lot of them. Just barely.)
It doesn't really matter if we all think Justice Kennedy is wrong or not. He has the power, not us.

My only point was considering his recent statements, a win in Oregon could actually DELAY us in getting a national ruling from the SCOTUS.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#20 Dec 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't really matter if we all think Justice Kennedy is wrong or not. He has the power, not us.
My only point was considering his recent statements, a win in Oregon could actually DELAY us in getting a national ruling from the SCOTUS.
I am sure your thoughts on this have some validity. Of course, what we say here has little influence in Oregon. Especially since you live in Michigan and I live in Missouri. I suppose if the locals in Oregon are committed to this strategy, all we can do is hope for the best.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 min Ronald 9,951
Are Americans Fed Up With LGBT? 9 min Rainbow Kid 6
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 14 min Prisoner of my Mo... 2,406
News Former Missouri college wrestler sentenced for ... 19 min Prisoner of my Mo... 7
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 1 hr Ex Senator Santpo... 41
News Lawyer: Let same-sex marriage start in Mississippi (Dec '14) 2 hr Bob 6
News Gay couple denied baby through surrogate challe... 2 hr Ame Nunley 32
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Freedomofexpression 56,087
News Senate hopeful Roy Moore: gay sex is the 'same ... 3 hr EdmondWA 24
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 5 hr Harris 65
More from around the web