12/30/2007
Oregon Judge Halts Domestic Partners Law from Taking Effect
Less than a week before the Christmas holiday I posted about an out-of-state group that had filed a motion to halt Oregon's new domestic partners law from going into effect on January 1st. They succeeded, at least for now, filing a suit against the State of Oregon and Secretary of State Bill Bradbury.
After falling 116 valid signatures short of the needed amount to place the measure on the 2008 ballot for a statewide vote, gay rights foes asked U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman to intercede on their behalf, saying that the verification process for the signatures is flawed and that citizens who had signed the petitions had been disenfranchised.
Mosman halted the domestic partner law, which would have given same-sex couples in the state all the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples (aside from the "marriage" label), pending a February 1st hearing that would challenge the verification process.
Jeana Frazzini, of Basic Rights Oregon, told the AP: "It's unfair our families once again are bearing the brunt of this ongoing struggle."
Added BRO in a press release: "Our attorney believes that the judge demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of Oregon’s initiative and referendum law. Basic Rights Oregon is appalled by this outrageous ruling, and we will continue to aggressively find opportunities to participate in the case as it moves forward, doing everything in our power to get caring and committed Oregon couples and their families the legal rights and protections they need."
Oregon Domestic Partnership Law Halted [ap]
Judge blocks law allowing civil unions [the oregonian]
Previously
Relocated Anti-Gay Activist Out to Halt Oregon's Gay Rights Laws [tr]
Posted 8:22 PM EST by Andy in Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, News, Oregon | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Wow. This is especially interesting in light of the district judge's own past with the gay rights movement. Judge Mosman was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in 1986, the term that Bowers v. Hardwick was decided. Bowers held that it was constitutional for states to criminalize homosexual sex. While Bowers was overruled by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, Bowers certainly set the gay rights movement back by a couple decades. Bowers was a 5-4 decision, and Justice Powell was the swing vote. Powell initially voted to hold the anti-gay law unconstitutional, but was conflicted about this decision. (He famously claimed that he had never met a gay person in his life.) He picked two of his clerks to come up with the best arguments on each side. The clerk taking the pro-gay side was himself a closeted gay man who did not have enough courage to disclose his homosexuality to Justice Powell and thus put a human face on how anti-sodomy laws demean the existence of lesbians and gay men. Many believe that if this clerk disclosed his orientation, Powell would have stuck with his initial vote to strike down the anti-gay law. But the closeted clerk remained closeted, and in the end Powell was persuaded by the arguments of his Mormon, Republican law clerk arguing the anti-gay side. That clerk was--you guessed it--Mike Mosman.
Posted by: John M. | Dec 30, 2007 10:05:10 PM
Interesting indeed
John M.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Dec 30, 2007 10:12:32 PM
We have met the enemy and he is us!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Dec 31, 2007 10:00:32 AM
Just when I was proud to say I was from Oregon this happens. Well, maybe later.
Posted by: Wheezy | Dec 31, 2007 10:39:17 AM
Oregon is one of the most progressive states in the union. May common sense and civil rights prevail in 2008.
Posted by: Jesse Archer | Dec 31, 2007 11:09:02 AM
I find all this so infuriating: it was not too long ago when right-wingers were calling Massachusetts judges "activist" for intervening where they thought legislators -- and legislators alone -- should be making decisions. Two sides, one mouth.
Posted by: Michael | Dec 31, 2007 11:50:17 AM
That Oregon Judge that halted the stopped gay unions is just to dumb to understand that this is almost 2008 & we as Gay Americans should have the same rights as hetrosexuals. I do realize there is a big difference between the two, but my God give us a chance to voices be heard. I do hope that the Judge will change his mind, but it doesn't look like he will.
Posted by: Kepe | Dec 31, 2007 1:19:36 PM
In keeping with the theme of self loathing and harmful gay men to the advancement of our rights I'm posting this link:
http://www.gaynewswatch.com/Page.cfm?PageID=22&SID=4249
Posted by: xristoz | Dec 31, 2007 1:28:04 PM
Michael,
My thoughts exactly. Judges are only "activist" when they're not doing what the conservatives want them to. And gays wanting to marry undercuts the sanctity of traditional marriage, but Pamela Anderson and other celebrities marrying and divorcing as often as they change their shoes doesn't.
Posted by: Larry | Dec 31, 2007 2:44:04 PM
I'M SO GLAD JAMIE LYNN SPEAR'S RIGHTS ARE BEING PROTECTED...LOL
Posted by: alan brickman | Dec 31, 2007 10:48:55 PM
@ Alan Brickman,
and god help us all if the sanctity of J-Lo's marriage weren't protected?
Posted by: Wheezy | Jan 1, 2008 11:00:00 AM