Oregon county chooses not to discriminate, stops issuing marriage licenses to all

[thefncrow]

http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/...ts=32320041850

Nice move on their part. Instead of defying the law, and instead of discriminating by enforcing the law, Benton county in Oregon has stopped issuing marriage licenses to anyone.

Bet that wrecked some plans, huh?

Now, if every county in the nation would adopt this policy. Permanently. Just end government recognition of religious bonds, and reassign the legal and tax benefits to their proper conditions instead of using marriage as a catch-all.

[kit'n]

[KiloWatts]

bahahahaha that's fuggin' brilliant!

[Ryan]

[MysteryMeat]

I'm split on this one. I think it's a brilliant and out-of-the-box move that certainly proves a point. Certainly gives me my morning LOLys.

On the other hand, this is now an actual manifestation of the issue of gay marriage -directly affecting- straight marriage (whereas one of the arguments over the past weeks has been 'how does this really jeapordize / affect straight marriages).

While I'm not at the moment against the move, I do wonder about its reprocussions.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
I'm split on this one. I think it's a brilliant and out-of-the-box move that certainly proves a point. Certainly gives me my morning LOLys.

On the other hand, this is now an actual manifestation of the issue of gay marriage -directly affecting- straight marriage (whereas one of the arguments over the past weeks has been 'how does this really jeapordize / affect straight marriages).

While I'm not at the moment against the move, I do wonder about its reprocussions.

Agreed. I'm also interested to see where the county comes up with the revenue lost by doing marriage licenses, as well as if there are any lawsuits brought about by straight couples.

Originally posted by thefncrow
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/...ts=32320041850

Nice move on their part. Instead of defying the law, and instead of discriminating by enforcing the law, Benton county in Oregon has stopped issuing marriage licenses to anyone.

Bet that wrecked some plans, huh?

Now, if every county in the nation would adopt this policy. Permanently. Just end government recognition of religious bonds, and reassign the legal and tax benefits to their proper conditions instead of using marriage as a catch-all.

As I noted elsewhere. Marriage is recognized as a fundamental right - it falls under the privacy protection.

Because it is protected so strongly the decision made by Benton County official are almost beyond doubt a violation of consitutional protections.

It may be helpful however, in pushing up a test case to determine how the equal potection clause may effect the proposition of same sex marriage.

As for wrecked plans, not sure how long a license is valid, but the businesses that rely on marriage for their livelihood are gona be awfully pissed if they are put out of work.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Dionysos
Agreed. I'm also interested to see where the county comes up with the revenue lost by doing marriage licenses, as well as if there are any lawsuits brought about by straight couples.

Unless there is a law stating that the county government is obligated to issue marriage licenses, what basis would anyone have for a lawsuit? It is not a God-given right to obtain a marriage license, as the anti-gay conservatives have clearly pointed out, so why should anyone expect that?

Bravo, bravo, bravo. I am reminded of why I love Oregon so damn much.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
As I noted elsewhere. Marriage is recognized as a fundamental right - it falls under the privacy protection.

Where in the Constitution is it protected?

Originally posted by Ryan
Unless there is a law stating that the county government is obligated to issue marriage licenses, what basis would anyone have for a lawsuit? It is not a God-given right to obtain a marriage license, as the anti-gay conservatives have clearly pointed out, so why should anyone expect that?

Bravo, bravo, bravo. I am reminded of why I love Oregon so damn much.

Marriage is a fundmental right. No specific statute is necessary to authorize or to deny.

To use a different fundamental right in illustration... the fourth amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. No law (statute) is necesssary to object to a search being unconstitutional. Neither is a specific law necessary to bring action againt benton Country for its constitutional violation.

And, what was pointed out about expectations? Please clarify?

Originally posted by Ryan
Where in the Constitution is it protected?

I noted above and in another threads how the constitution protects the institution of marriage as an element of the privacy protections.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Marriage is a fundmental right. No specific statute is necessary to authorize or to deny.

If it's a fundamental right and it's not defined, then noone can be denied that right. You guys don't have a logical leg to stand on. Every time you come up with an argument, you shoot down another. I wish you all would just admit your real intentions and go with it.

Originally posted by Ryan
If it's a fundamental right and it's not defined, then noone can be denied that right. You guys don't have a logical leg to stand on. Every time you come up with an argument, you shoot down another. I wish you all would just admit your real intentions and go with it.

But that is the source of the conflict - the definition of marriage.

That marriage is a fundamental right is not something anyone questions.

I have never denied my opposition to expanding the definition of marriage and have in fact posted ad nauseum on that point.


...and it is defined.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
But that is the source of the conflict - the definition of marriage.

That marriage is a fundamental right is not something anyone questions.

I have never denied my opposition to expanding the definition of marriage and have in fact posted ad nauseum on that point.


...and it is defined.

Alright, I'm not going to argue this one anymore. Let me just end by saying you're wrong and I'm right.

Just a joke...

Originally posted by Ryan
Alright, I'm not going to argue this one anymore. Let me just end by saying you're wrong and I'm right.

Just a joke...

Ryan, the case law is quite clear on the protection the constitution gives marriage.

The debate is over how marriage has been defined and whether or not that definition is a violation of the equal protection clause.

Also in the debate is the full faith and credit clause. Eg, must state B recognize a marriage of a same sex couple even though state B specifically prohibits them (the couple obviously married out of state).