Sad day for haters in Oregon

Magical Realist

Valued Senior Member
"A federal judge overturned Oregon's ban on gay marriage Monday, and jubilant couples began exchanging vows within the hour.

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, in a historic decision issued at noon, declared the ban unconstitutional and ordered it lifted immediately.

"It's a win," Jeana Frazzini, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, announced to a standing-room-only crowd gathered at Oregon United for Marriage offices in Northeast Portland. The room erupted in cheers and tears of joy. Ben West and Paul Rummell, plaintiffs in the case, shared a kiss.

At the Multnomah County building in Southeast Portland, couples had already lined up for licenses, some holding pink roses handed out by a county employee. Many refreshed their cellphones to spot the news, then exclaimed in joy as it arrived. Someone shouted "Equality!" and passing motorists honked in support.

Plaintiffs Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson became the first couple to marry in Multnomah County, exchanging vows in the county building's lobby before leaving under a shower of rose petals.

Oregon is the 18th state to legalize gay marriage, doing so 10 years and one day after the first state, Massachusetts. Legal proceedings are pending in all the rest.

McShane's decision struck down a constitutional amendment, passed by Oregon voters in 2004, defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

It also marked another in a stunningly rapid string of victories for proponents of same-sex marriage. Oregon is the seventh state where a federal judge has struck down a gay marriage ban since the U.S. Supreme Court last year dismantled key parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

After the Oregon gay marriage ban was struck down at noon today, wedding ceremonies began at the Melody Ballroom in SE Portland.

McShane, who is openly gay, used strikingly personal language in his opinion, recalling a game from his own childhood called "smear the queer" and lamenting a culture that encouraged "cruelty, violence, and self-loathing."

The judge, 53, acknowledged fears that opening the door to gay marriage could lead to "a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries."

But he concluded: "To those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other ... and rise."

Oregon's case started late last year when four Portland gay and lesbian couples filed federal lawsuits seeking to overturn Oregon's ban. Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum declined to defend the ban, calling it indefensible in light of the Supreme Court decision.

That left Oregon -- unlike states such as Idaho, Utah, Michigan, Virginia, Oklahoma and Texas -- with no one to appeal the federal judge's decision.

McShane last week rebuffed an attempt by the National Organization for Marriage to intervene in the case. Monday morning, NOM failed to persuade the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to block McShane's ruling.

In his opinion Monday, McShane said gay and lesbian families and their children were harmed by Oregon's ban in many ways, including adoption rights, tax laws and spousal benefits granted by employers.

McShane said that preserving the traditional definition of marriage was not a strong enough argument for the law to stand. Otherwise, he wrote, tradition could be used as a "rubber stamp condoning discrimination against longstanding, traditionally oppressed minority classes everywhere.

McShane, one of nine gay judges on the federal bench, said during a hearing last week that he could rule without bias and that he had no personal or political interest in the issue of same-sex marriage.

Reaction to the ruling was swift, with public officials and Oregon businesses such as Nike expressing support.

"Today's historic ruling means that all Oregonians will have the legal right to marry the person they love," House Speaker Tina Kotek said in a statement. "After a 10-year engagement, my partner Aimee (Wilson) and I are thrilled to join the many other Oregon couples getting married this year."

Opponents, though, called the ruling unfair. "Hundreds of thousands of Oregonians have been ignored in this entire process," said Teresa Harke, spokeswoman for the Oregon Family Council."--http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/05/oregon_gay_marriage_weddings_q.html
 
Good!

...yet, I fear that some of our moderatory staff might be uncomfortable with the indirect refutation of theistic morality that must inevitably spring from such a result. They ought to write Oregon and explain that it isn't all that and a bag of chips.
 
And now Pennsylvania follows suit:

"A federal judge declared Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Tuesday, saying it's time to toss such laws "into the ash heap of history."

The ruling by Judge John E. Jones III, who was named to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, makes Pennsylvania the last Northeast state to allow same-sex marriages. Gov. Tom Corbett could appeal the decision to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling came just one day after a federal judge made Oregon the 18th state where gays and lesbians can marry. Adding Pennsylvania to the list would mean nearly 44% of Americans live in states where same-sex marriage is legal.

The decision continued a non-stop juggernaut for same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court cleared the way for gays and lesbians in California to marry and struck down key parts of a related federal law last June.

In the past five months, federal judges in 10 states and a state judge in Arkansas have struck down bans on gay marriage. Appeals are under way in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Idaho. Eventually, one or more of those cases is expected to reach the Supreme Court -- perhaps as soon as next year.

Twenty-one Pennsylvanians sued the state last July for the right to marry there or to have out-of-state marriages recognized. A 1996 state law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

"Plaintiffs suffer a multitude of daily harms, for instance in the area of child-rearing, healthcare, taxation and end-of--life planning," Jones said in his 39-page written opinion.

He called the couples who brought the case "courageous" and said his ruling brings the court in line with "12 federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage."

The state's Democratic attorney general, Kathleen Kane, had declined to defend the law in court. She applauded Jones' ruling on Tuesday."
 
Panel: Baker must make cakes for gay weddings

DENVER (AP) — Colorado's Civil Rights Commission on Friday ordered a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, finding his religious objections to the practice did not trump the state's anti-discrimination statutes.


The unanimous ruling from the seven-member commission upheld an administrative law judge's finding in December that Jack Phillips violated civil rights law when he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012. The couple sued.

"I can believe anything I want, but if I'm going to do business here, I'd ought to not discriminate against people," Commissioner Raju Jaram said.

Phillips, a devout Christian who owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, said the decision violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. "I will stand by my convictions until somebody shuts me down," he told reporters after the ruling.

He added his bakery has been so overwhelmed by supporters eager to buy cookies and brownies that he does not currently make wedding cakes.

The couple who sued Phillips, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, were pleased that the commission roundly rejected Phillips' arguments. "We're just thrilled by that," Mullins said.

Gay marriage remains illegal in Colorado. Mullins and Craig were married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake for a reception to celebrate their union back home in Westminster, another Denver suburb.

State law prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.

The panel issued its ruling verbally. It ordered Phillips to stop discriminating against gay people and to report quarterly for two years on staff anti-discrimination training and any customers he refuses to serve.

Phillips' attorney said she was considering appealing the ruling to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
 
No idea how one could refuse to make cakes on basis of pre-existing religious sentiment on any grounds. Cakes are cakes.
 
No idea how one could refuse to make cakes on basis of pre-existing religious sentiment on any grounds. Cakes are cakes.

I wonder if they refuse to do business with Jews, Muslims, Hindi or atheists. Or christian couples "living in sin". They probably refuse to make a birthday cake for any child born out of marriage.
 
Jeez
insanity reigns supreme
If I refuse to sculpt for fat people, one eyed people, one legged people, people with purple hair, Jews, Arabs, Germans, Swedes or people who bathe in perfume, can I be sued?
I have the right to exercise my skills and talents for whomever I damned well please.

If I refuse to take money from someone then i have chosen my own punishment(poverty)---------the court ordering anyone to be in servitude to anyone else is sheer insanity and morally repugnant.
 
Jeez
insanity reigns supreme
If I refuse to sculpt for fat people, one eyed people, one legged people, people with purple hair, Jews, Arabs, Germans, Swedes or people who bathe in perfume, can I be sued?
I have the right to exercise my skills and talents for whomever I damned well please.

If I refuse to take money from someone then i have chosen my own punishment(poverty)---------the court ordering anyone to be in servitude to anyone else is sheer insanity and morally repugnant.

So you're open for business to the general public, but you pick and choose which people you'll do business with? So you think every public business owner has a right to pick and choose with whom they do business? So you'd certainly understand if you went to the grocery store, loaded up your cart and proceeded to checkout, only for a manager to run over to you and tell you that he doesn't like the way you look, so you have to go. No groceries for you!


...and you'd say "Thanks for being a great American" and walk out with a smile?
 
So you're open for business to the general public, but you pick and choose which people you'll do business with? So you think every public business owner has a right to pick and choose with whom they do business? So you'd certainly understand if you went to the grocery store, loaded up your cart and proceeded to checkout, only for a manager to run over to you and tell you that he doesn't like the way you look, so you have to go. No groceries for you!


...and you'd say "Thanks for being a great American" and walk out with a smile?

Maybe, there is a middle ground somewhere?
Personally, I find discrimination repugnant also.
Hell, throw money at me, and I'd sculpt for a one eyed one horned flying purple people eater.
I still want the right to chose. I've built for right wing nutjobs, and commie cops, prostitutes and priests.

Freedom is a peculiar thing. I ain't quite sure exactly what it is, but hold it precious none-the-less.
(old joke)
The last time we saw old Lukey, he was a runnin down the road a rippin off'n his clothes and shouting "I'm free, I'm free".
 
I have the right to exercise my skills and talents for whomever I damned well please.

Common misconception among bigots. The truth is, no, you don't have that right.

If I refuse to take money from someone then i have chosen my own punishment(poverty)---------the court ordering anyone to be in servitude to anyone else is sheer insanity and morally repugnant.

Your ignorancd of the law aside, can you make a case for why this should be so?
 
Common misconception among bigots. The truth is, no, you don't have that right.

Your ignorancd of the law aside, can you make a case for why this should be so?

Ok
I'm anti discrimination and pro freedom. I do have the right to refuse to work for anyone I don't like, I do it whenever I feel like it.
But, i am also a dilettante in the original meaning of the word. I do that which delights me. Period. I have refused to modify sculptures to clients tastes when those tastes conflicted with mine for no greater reason than simple artistic freedom. Maybe that's why i ain't rich.
Choosing to refuse service based on sex, race, native language, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.... anything that could lump people together in a peer group is also repugnant to me, and also seems childish and stupid. And if my favorite baker acted like that, I'd shop elsewhere. Extreme religious attitudes are a bane on society.
Heck, I'd bake the guys a cake, and sculpt a couple of naked grooms to stand on top of it-----of course, if they wanted the grooms clothed, that would be a deal breaker.

Personally:
When anti-discrimination blurs the line into anti freedom, i just don't like the feel of it.

I wonder if the baker will ever resume baking wedding cakes.
 
Ok
I'm anti discrimination and pro freedom

I don't know what you mean by that, though given what follows I can safely say you don't know the meaning of either word.

I do have the right to refuse to work for anyone I don't like, I do it whenever I feel like it.

Not if you define "work for" as providing service to. Restating your error isn't going to magically make it correct.

But, i am also a dilettante in the original meaning of the word. I do that which delights me. Period. I have refused to modify sculptures to clients tastes when those tastes conflicted with mine for no greater reason than simple artistic freedom. Maybe that's why i ain't rich.

That's got nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Choosing to refuse service based on sex, race, native language, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.... anything that could lump people together in a peer group is also repugnant to me, and also seems childish and stupid. And if my favorite baker acted like that, I'd shop elsewhere. Extreme religious attitudes are a bane on society.
Heck, I'd bake the guys a cake, and sculpt a couple of naked grooms to stand on top of it-----of course, if they wanted the grooms clothed, that would be a deal breaker.

Now imagine if you were gay, and you refused service. Rather than being a second-hand offense you have the luxury of being at least somewhat removed from, it is a direct rejection of you personally, for simply being who you are. You can understand why this is not something that should be left to the free market (which, as history tells us, does not actually solve anything)

Personally:
When anti-discrimination blurs the line into anti freedom, i just don't like the feel of it.

That's an incredibly unsophisticated and ill-considered statement. For example: Do you therefore believe that transit companies should be able to give preferred seating to whites?

I wonder if the baker will ever resume baking wedding cakes.

I wonder why that's your primary concern.
 
I don't know what you mean by that, though given what follows I can safely say you don't know the meaning of either word.



Not if you define "work for" as providing service to. Restating your error isn't going to magically make it correct.



That's got nothing to do with what we're talking about.



Now imagine if you were gay, and you refused service. Rather than being a second-hand offense you have the luxury of being at least somewhat removed from, it is a direct rejection of you personally, for simply being who you are. You can understand why this is not something that should be left to the free market (which, as history tells us, does not actually solve anything)



That's an incredibly unsophisticated and ill-considered statement. For example: Do you therefore believe that transit companies should be able to give preferred seating to whites?



I wonder why that's your primary concern.

I have been discriminated against.
more'n once.

You may want to attack me based on some gross delusion you have regarding my personhood. And that's ok too.

If the baker avoids doing something which he was most likely good at, then he has seen fit to provide his own punishment.
 
How well do you think this baker will like it when he is unjustly discriminated against? I bet he will be quick to complain & sue & do whatever he thinks might help him get his way. I wish he could wake tomorrow in a world where most people are homosexual. Too bad there is no Twilight Zone for him. Most bigots are the loudest whiners & the most indignantly offended when the tables are turned on them.
 
sculptor;3195791I have been discriminated against. more'n once.[/quote said:
I sincerely doubt that, considering your loose interpretation of the word.

You may want to attack me based on some gross delusion you have regarding my personhood. And that's ok too.

You have awfully thin skin for someone who thinks others have the right to refuse service based on skin color or sexual orientation. You wouldn't last very long on the other side of that fence, I suspect.

And don't think I failed to notice you avoiding the question I asked you. Let's try again: Should transit companies be allowed to grant preferential seating to white customers?

If the baker avoids doing something which he was most likely good at, then he has seen fit to provide his own punishment.

Please give this more thought. This "punishment" you're suggesting also inflicts damage on someone other than the baker: the person being discriminated against. Why is this acceptable to you? Seriously, take some time and think about it. Don't come back at me with this half-assed crap you've managed so far. You're only doing a disservice to yourself when you post this kind of junk.
 
Uncertainty for gay couples married in Wisconsin



MILWAUKEE (AP) — A federal judge's order for Wisconsin officials to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses didn't address the legal status of the more than 550 gay marriages conducted in the last week, and subsequent statements by state officials have not removed the uncertainty.


U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb on June 6 ordered county clerks to stop enforcing the state's gay marriage ban but she put that ruling on hold Friday while an appeal from Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is pending.

"It hurts, you know," Lisa Akey said after the ruling Friday, a day after she married her partner of 16 years in Marathon County. "It'll hurt more if I find out that what I did yesterday was basically pointless, but it definitely does hurt."

State income taxes, pensions and health insurance are among many issues affected by a person's legal marriage status.
The Wisconsin Vital Records Office started processing same-sex marriage licenses Wednesday, after receiving guidance from Van Hollen's office that it could move ahead.

But Van Hollen said Thursday that same-sex couples with marriage licenses aren't legally married because Crabb had not told county clerks how to interpret her ruling striking down the ban. His spokeswoman, Dana Brueck, reiterated that position in an email Saturday, saying Wisconsin's marriage law — including the same-sex marriage ban Crabb originally ruled against — was in force pending Van Hollen's appeal. Brueck acknowledged, however, that the validity of the marriages remained uncertain.

Sixty of Wisconsin's 72 county clerks had issuing licenses. As of midday Thursday, 555 same-sex couples had gotten married in the state, based on an Associated Press survey. Couples who were in the middle of the five-day waiting period to get a license, which most counties waived, also are caught in a legal limbo.

John Knight, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law, said they see the marriages as valid.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond School of Law who tracks gay marriage cases nationwide, said the legality of those new Wisconsin marriages isn't clear and that could cause problems.

"The most basic one is joint filing of taxes," he said. "... I think the harder questions are like adoptions, the really hard issues. That's why these stays are so gut-wrenching for people."

He noted similar situations developed in Utah and Michigan.

In Utah, more than 1,000 couples married over 17 days in late December and early January after a judge struck down the state's 2004 ban. The marriages stopped when the U.S. Supreme Court stayed that ruling, pending an appeal now before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Four of those couples have asked a federal appeals court to allow Utah to recognizing their marriages.

"Certainly the Wisconsin couples could undertake that task if they wanted to," Tobias said. But he suggested there was little point. He expects the issue to go to the Supreme Court this fall, pushing a resolution well into 2015.

"They usually save their hardest cases for the end, and this may be one of those," Tobias said.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the federal government will honor the gay marriages in Utah. A call to the Department of Justice Saturday wasn't immediately returned.

_____

Associated Press writers Jeff Baenen, Doug Glass and Scott Bauer contributed to this report.
 
To me it is disturbing to see that laws that were voted upon by all those living in Oregon that made same sex marriage ILLEGAL were overturned by one person who seems not to want to go by the will of the people but only choose what he/she wants instead. When the majority is overturned by the minority there will be repercussions.
 
To me it is disturbing to see that laws that were voted upon by all those living in Oregon that made same sex marriage ILLEGAL were overturned by one person who seems not to want to go by the will of the people but only choose what he/she wants instead. When the majority is overturned by the minority there will be repercussions.
When the majority are assholes, FUCK 'EM!

If it were up to you, we'd still have segregation!
 
An Obvious Question

Cosmictraveler said:

To me it is disturbing to see that laws that were voted upon by all those living in Oregon that made same sex marriage ILLEGAL were overturned by one person who seems not to want to go by the will of the people but only choose what he/she wants instead. When the majority is overturned by the minority there will be repercussions.

I have a better one: Why do we even have a Constitution, then?
 
To me it is disturbing to see that laws that were voted upon by all those living in Oregon that made same sex marriage ILLEGAL were overturned by one person who seems not to want to go by the will of the people but only choose what he/she wants instead. When the majority is overturned by the minority there will be repercussions.

Interracial marriage was legalized the same way--through the courts. That's what happens when the majority votes to take away the civil rights of minorities. That's WHY we have a justice system. Because the will of the majority doesn't always express the right thing to do.
 
Back
Top