Oregon Court Rules For Lesbian Parents

Posted: July 16, 2007 - 3:00 pm ET

(Portland, Ore.) A Multnomah County Circuit Court judge found that two Oregon state laws violate the state's constitution by discriminating against families headed by same-gender couples.

"This decision is a tremendous win for children, for families, and for our shared Oregon value of basic fairness," said John Hummel, Executive Director of Basic Rights Oregon. "It validates the need for Oregon's new Domestic Partnership law to be implemented - not unnecessarily delayed or overturned by a referendum vote."

Judge Eric Bloch's decision in Parman v. Oregon holds that two Oregon laws granting parental rights to married couples unconstitutionally discriminate against families headed by same-gender couples. Plaintiffs in the case include K.D. Parman, 32, her partner of nine years Jeana Frazzini, 34, and their two sons, Emmett, 4, and Griffin, 1.

Based on the landmark 1998 Tanner v. OHSU decision, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as it relates to state benefits, services, privileges and immunities, the judge found that assigning benefits based on marriage, while not permitting same-sex couples access to these benefits, constitutes illegal discrimination against certain families.

"We're thrilled by Judge Bloch's decision. Our family is really no different from any other family. We simply want to be treated fairly under the law, for our kids to have the same opportunities as any other child to succeed and thrive, and to do everything in our power to keep them safe. And that includes legal recognition for our family as a family," said Parman.

Bloch found the Oregon Family Fairness Act – also called the Domestic Partnership law - to be one permissible solution to the problem, provided it goes into effect as scheduled on January 1, 2008. However, the law is being challenged by conservatives.

A signature-collection effort currently underway by the Constitution Party, designed to delay and ultimately overturn Oregon's new Domestic Partnership law, could put the law on the ballot for a public referendum, delaying implementation until after the November 2008 election.

"From our family to all other Oregon families - we ask you NOT to sign the petitions that are designed to overturn Oregon's new Domestic Partnership law," urged Frazzini in a statement to fellow Oregon residents. "Please don't shut our family out from the ability to care for those we love."

The conservatives are challenging it?
Despite the claims of some that we could have had legalized civil unions by now?
There's a shocker!


But on another note, I don't get how states with laws prohibiting discrimination against gays can legally not have either gay marriage or civil unions. It is obvious discrimination to allow marriage to be only for the straights.

I'm sure there are some that might try to pretend that marriage for the straights is "equal", but that's like saying that you have "freedom of religion" with a law that only allows the worship of Judaism.
After all, wouldn't everybody still be "free" to worship Judaism then???
Both the Christian and the Jew are "free" to both worship Judaism???

garysher's analogy is ridiculous - nothing new there.

"marriage" has no rules - words don't have rules

You are really this blind, aren't you.
I talked about EITHER gay marriage OR civil unions.
To grant a right for HETEROSEXUAL unions, and never to HOMOSEXUAL unions is obvious bias.


Your reply is nonsensical.
There is no "head" of marriage.
Unless you're going to admit to the exclusivity of HETEROSEXUALITY to the current form of marriage.

And moreover, why should a Roman Catholic HAVE TO JOIN the Jewish faith in order to have a religion in the first place.
BOTH catholicism AND judaism should be recognized as legitimate religions.
Just like gay marriage and straight marriage should also be recognized as legitimate.

As you usually do with analogies, you reply by IGNORING the point of the analogy, and replying with some nonsense that doesn't actually apply to the situation.
WHY should I have to marry like a heterosexual in order to get equal rights?
If we were telling a catholic that he had to worship like a jew in order to get freedom of religion, we would all acknowledge that is NOT freedom of religion.

Already addressed.
A man has a right to marry a woman.
A woman does not have a right to marry a woman.

These are the rights as distinguished by GENDER, ergo gender discrimination.


And by restricting that for men to JUST marrying a girl and never men, that's gender discrimination.


Yes. You keep saying that, and most of the time you don't give a reason.
And in the rare case you actually try to give a reason, it's often inane and stupid.
Like the last time, your response showed no reason why my analogy was invalid. You just gave some other analogy that made no sense because marriage has no "head".


That's funny.
I'm trying to say that in another thread, and you're insisting that it doesn't exist because polygamy is not legal.


By your analogy, you're saying that we have to "join heterosexuality" to actually get the right.
Which is MY ENTIRE POINT.
We can't get marital rights AS homosexuals.
We have to ACT LIKE HETEROSEXUALS in order to get the right.

If a catholic had to worship like a jew in order to have religious freedom, it would NOT be religious freedom.

He doesn't have to

There are already churche that allow crosses

Everybody has the same equal right - they can worship as they wish and their houses of worship will be recognized by the government

No so with gays' marriages