Defending the Truth

SUMMARY: Opponents of Oregon's new same-sex domestic partnership law fail to turn in enough valid signatures to block the measure that takes effect Jan. 1.

Opponents of Oregon's new same-sex domestic partnership law failed to turn in enough valid signatures to block the measure, clearing the way for it to take effect next year, state elections officials said Monday.

Oregon will join eight other states that have approved spousal rights in some form for gay couples -- Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Washington and Hawaii. Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex couples to marry.

The Oregon measure covers benefits related to inheritance rights, child-rearing and custody, joint state tax filings, joint health, auto and homeowners insurance policies, visitation rights at hospitals and others. It does not affect federal benefits for married couples, including Social Security and joint filing of federal tax returns.

Former state Sen. Marylin Shannon, a spokeswoman for the opponents' petition drive, and other social conservatives believe the domestic partners bill violates the intent of voters who in 2004 adopted a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

"This just flies right in the face of that ban," the former Republican lawmaker said.

Gay rights backers said most Oregonians make a distinction between gay marriage and domestic partnerships, and they support providing protection under state law for same-sex couples who are in committed relationships that currently are not recognized by the state.

"They know that committed couples should have the legal means to take care of each other, especially in a crisis," said John Hummel, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon.

Opponents had conceded in recent days that they probably hadn't gotten enough signatures. But they vowed to take another avenue to try to derail the law along with another law that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.

State elections officials reported Monday that the effort fell short 116 valid signatures of the 55,179 needed to suspend the law and place it on the November 2008 ballot for a popular vote.

"We're not discouraged," Shannon said. "We definitely will file initiatives to repeal both of these laws."

Still, Monday's announcement was a major victory for supporters of the two new laws that had been stymied for more than 30 years in the Legislature before being approved by the House and Senate in May of this year.

In 2004, about 3,000 same-sex couples were granted marriage licenses in Multnomah County before the Oregon Supreme Court nullified the licenses as unconstitutional the following year.

Gay rights activists said that many of those couples plan to file for domestic partnership status as soon as the new law takes effect Jan. 1. (Brad Cain, AP)
Campaign to block Oregon partners law fails - Yahoo! News

Former state Sen. Marylin Shannon, a spokeswoman for the opponents' petition drive, and other social conservatives believe the domestic partners bill violates the intent of voters who in 2004 adopted a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

WorldNetDaily had a similar article.
To me, these kinds of statements show either:
a) obtuse attempts at deceit, or
b) failure to recognize reality.

There is a difference inbetween legislation against gay marriage and legislation against domestic partnership.
The Oregon's DOMA limits itself to just defining marriage as being "man/woman". It makes no allegations towards "domestic partnership" or other classifications like other state DOMAs.

I wouldn't be surprised if this Senator tried to get the Oregon DOMA bill to include more inclusive language that could be used to block both gay marriage and domestic partnerships.

When California had its DOMA vote, the anti-gay groups were insisting that it wouldn't be used against civil unions, but then that is EXACTLY WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO IN COURT.

Bigots aren't known for their honesty.

Again, if anybody thinks garysher's argument has any validity, let me know and I will be happy to explain the distinction I have already supplied to garysher on repeated occasions.

Otherwise, garysher is just playing with himself insisting he is victorious when the truth is that nobody cares wrestle the pig.
Cause when you wrestle a pig, you just wind up needlessly dirty, and the pig enjoys it...


Or, sometimes even their intelligence.
The previous voter initiative against gay marriage had enough support.
Yet they tried a lame ploy to pretend that it was the same thing, and the vast majority saw through the deceit.

I think they were stupid for trying...