Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judge may rule on Ore. gay marriage ban before fall vote
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage might be overturned before voters receive their ballots this fall.
A federal judge in Eugene on Wednesday decided to consolidate two lawsuits alleging Oregon's ban violates the U.S. Constitution. Judge Michael McShane, an Obama appointee, set oral arguments for April 23.
From the same article:
Quote:
As the court case moves forward, the campaign to win marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples announced this week it has collected more than 127,000 petition signatures. Organizers only need to collect 116,284 valid signatures by July 3 to make the November ballot.
So, even if the judge doesn't overturn the ban, at the very least, it will be put to the voters in November. I would be very surprised if Oregon voters would vote against marriage equality.
Everywhere will be next. It's truly just a (short) matter of time. I wish the SCOTUS would just issue a sweeping ruling and we could all be done with it. The far-right has clearly lost on this issue (surprise, surprise). The majority of Americans believe in SSM and the number increases yearly. Heck, the support among Millennials is above 80% according to some polls.
I just don't understand why the GOP continues to pound their opposition to this issue. Just keep quiet about it because you're not helping your party's chances at national elections. Oh well, better for those of us on the other side I suppose.
Part of the reason is probably because that spineless coward Scalia knows that SSM is a reality (his own statements have essentially admitted it), but he doesn't want to rule in favor of it because he's a filthy bigot.
IMO, one isn't a bigot to object to a traditional marriage for gays. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman since time began. However, I have no problem with a civil union for gays. Let the flames begin....
IMO, one isn't a bigot to object to a traditional marriage for gays. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman since time began. However, I have no problem with a civil union for gays. Let the flames begin....
Shocker another liberal tyrant in a robe thinks he/she has the right to dictate what the people should accept in their own state...the sooner this country falls apart the better...then we can get along with a good cleansing.
So, if the judge doesn't overturn the ban, and the issue is put before the Oregon voters in November, and it passes (which it likely will), what then?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
