Well, hey. Go Oregon State Senate!

[go_team]

SB 1000, which would create same-sex civil unions in Oregon, passed the state senate this morning. Now the question is: will its "insert 'and civil union' after all references to marriage in the state Constitution, and while you're at it, substitute 'spouse' or 'partner' for all references to 'husband' or 'wife'" form survive the House, much less pass?

Ok, going to work now.

Comments

[triath.livejournal.com]

Awesome!

This quote cracks me up, "State Sen. Charles Starr, R-Hillsboro, said the development of same-sex families ... often leaves children without fathers."

What about the families with two fathers?

[copaseticz.livejournal.com]

I think my personal fav was "Republican Sen. Jeff Kruse of Roseburg called the measure 'another step down the road to Armageddon' and questioned whether pedophiles will want equal rights. "

[triath.livejournal.com]

That's not funny. It's one of my personal pet peeves when someone associates gays with pedophiles. Grrrrr...

[copaseticz.livejournal.com]

sweeeeet.


Yeah, the ACLU was working pretty hard on that one. My friend's dad who works with them kept coming home looking really tired during that process.

[olstad.livejournal.com]

yaaaay Oregon!

this still doesn't make up for initiative 34

[goteam.livejournal.com]

Which one was 34? We still have a No on 36 in our window.

[iainuki.livejournal.com]

http://www.planetout.com/news/election/article.html?2005/07/08/2

[iainuki.livejournal.com]

Oops. I should say, "news article that doesn't require registration, on the same topic."

[goteam.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I didn't have to register to see the article I linked to, but maybe I set a cookie for that site some other time I don't remember about.

[qousqous.livejournal.com]

alas, it seems that the house leadership doesn't even plan to bring it to a vote.

and to think it passed by such a large margin in the senate.

[goteam.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was sort of alluding to said suckitude in my post. Ugh.

[goteam.livejournal.com]

Also I didn't have time to ramble on again about how I want the reciprocal beneficiaries bill to pass too, and civil unions to be open to opposite-sex couples, and then for the whole mess to make its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court (oh wait, I'm trying my best not to think too much about the Supremes minus Sandra Day O'Connor... right).

[boojum.livejournal.com]

And it would be so much less hassle to simply take the gendered words out of the legal definition of marriage. There'd still be bits to clean up around the edges: poly and long-term non-romantic households and such, but it would just work. Argh.

[bagoffarts.livejournal.com]

It would be easier to just remove the legal definition of marriage all together.

[goteam.livejournal.com]

Don't get me started. O stupid old world, that has such law-making people in it.