And Yet ONE MORE State Inches Forward....

Dec 2006
26,600
12,738
New Haven, CT
Oregon Passes Partner Bill



Posted: May 2, 2007 - 3:00 pm ET



(Salem, Oregon) Legislation that would allow same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples unable to marry to form legally recognized partnerships was approved by the Oregon Senate on Wednesday.



The Senate voted 21 - 9 in favor of the bill.



The measure passed the House last month (story) and Gov. Ted Kulongoski has stated that he is will sign it.



The Family Fairness Act will grant rights, responsibilities and protections afforded to other Oregon couples and their families currently only available via a marriage contract in Oregon.



The state has a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage and the partnership legislation was carefully worded to avoid legal challenges that it was trying to circumvent the terms of the amendment.



It will grant bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child, allow a person to choose a final resting place for a deceased partner, transfer property and assets from a deceased partner to his or her surviving partner if the deceased had no valid will, obtain joint insurance, enter joint rental agreements and get an equitable division of property in a partnership dissolution or annulment.



"Finally the legislature has the political will and courage to pass this legislation," said Sen. Ben Westlund (D), one of four sponsors of the bill.



"I am so proud to be standing in this chamber... to be afforded the right of the dignity of their humanness. It is that simple, that important and that profound. To be afforded the right to their humanness".



During committee hearings senators from same-sex couples who currently are denied any status in the state.



Kelly Burke of Portland testified that "To not be able to legally take care of the person you have spent the last 19 years of your life with is a painful burden to carry. I need your support, leadership and courage to create legal recognition for my family and other families like ours."



Nancy Frantz-Geddes told the committee that she had been denied access to her son while he was being treated in an area emergency room because " Only one mom [was] allowed."



"I never again want to be denied the right to be with my children, especially in a time of need. Our children have two dedicated parents and making them choose is simply unacceptable," she said.



The legislation is the second major LGBT rights bill passed this session.



Last month the legislature passed legislation amending the state's non-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation.



The Oregon Equality Act will prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodation, education and public services statewide.
 
Feb 2007
33,168
18
Los Angeles
tristanrobin said:
Oregon Passes Partner Bill



Posted: May 2, 2007 - 3:00 pm ET



(Salem, Oregon) Legislation that would allow same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples unable to marry to form legally recognized partnerships was approved by the Oregon Senate on Wednesday.


Most people have no problem with these legal conveniences.



If the homosexual lobby had stuck to civil unions instead of trying to redefine marriage, they could have achieved their objectives years ago.



FYI:

Or. Const. Art. XV, sec. 5a (approved by the electorate on November 2, 2004):

It is the policy of Oregon, and its subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.
 
Nov 2005
10,096
5,450
California
garysher said:
Most people have no problem with these legal conveniences.

If the homosexual lobby had stuck to civil unions instead of trying to redefine marriage, they could have achieved their objectives years ago.


Even here in California, we have a law against gay marriage.

And when they enacted that law against gay marriage, the proponents explicitly claimed that it would never be used against civil unions.



But a short time later, when the legislature expanded their civil union rights and privileges to fully match those of marriage, the anti-gay proponents attempted to use the previous legislation against gay marriage to try and prevent equal rights for civil unions.

In other words, the anti-gay side lied.



And quite frankly, the whole *should have tried for civil unions instead* rant is disingenuous at its heart. It's like telling blacks that they could have had equal drinking fountains and the like if they had just built them themselves.

Separate but *equal* is inherently flawed, and has been rejected on every example I can think of.

Yet some try to proclaim that is the way we should go for gay unions...
 
Feb 2007
33,168
18
Los Angeles
foundit66 said:
Even here in California, we have a law against gay marriage.

And when they enacted that law against gay marriage, the proponents explicitly claimed that it would never be used against civil unions.



But a short time later, when the legislature expanded their civil union rights and privileges to fully match those of marriage, the anti-gay proponents attempted to use the previous legislation against gay marriage to try and prevent equal rights for civil unions.

In other words, the anti-gay side lied.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Do you have anything to back your jaundiced claims or are you still fixated on accusing everybody of lying?










And quite frankly, the whole *should have tried for civil unions instead* rant is disingenuous at its heart. It's like telling blacks that they could have had equal drinking fountains and the like if they had just built them themselves.



>>>>>>>>>>





LOL It's become a standing joke how you still try to make this intellectually dishonest comparison between US apartheid policies and the homosexual campaign for the redefinition of marriage!



Nobody falls for it any more. You need to dream up something new.













Separate but *equal* is inherently flawed, and has been rejected on every example I can think of.

Yet some try to proclaim that is the way we should go for gay unions...


Your assertion, that a same sex couple is no different from a mixed sex couple, is inherently flawed.



No wonder American voters reject your "argument" every chance they get

 
Nov 2005
10,096
5,450
California
garysher said:
Do you have anything to back your jaundiced claims or are you still fixated on accusing everybody of lying?
I always back up my conclusions that somebody is lying Gar.

Unlike you who runs from the issue...



And this one is a no-brainer.

If John says that he wants a document signed, and then says he will not use it for the purpose of X, but then later does use it for the purpose of X, it is quite obvious HE LIED.



Do you have anything else you would like to offer?

Or are you just trying to toss out flimsy responses whenever it's blatantly obvious that LYING is going on. Basically, you being a liar covering for fellow liars...





garysher said:
LOL It's become a standing joke how you still try to make this intellectually dishonest comparison between US apartheid policies and the homosexual campaign for the redefinition of marriage!

Nobody falls for it any more. You need to dream up something new.
Are you really this stupid in real life?

No wonder you spend so much time chasing after people on the internet.



YOU are the ONLY ONE who is speaking up on this.

MULTIPLE other people have already stated that they agree there is an analogy.

And you claim "nobody falls for it"?

Pshaw!



This is another example of garysher just blindly CLAIMING that the analogy between the discrimination of gays and blacks is flawed, but providing NO SUBSTANTIATION of his claim.





garysher said:
Your assertion, that a same sex couple is no different from a mixed sex couple, is inherently flawed.
And this would be ANOTHER LIE of Garysher's.

I'm thinking he either has short-term memory loss, or he just doesn't give a crap how he looks to others.



I have REPEATEDLY said that same sex couples are different from mixed sex couples. I have acknowledged that.

Why do you lie and pretend that I say they are not different?



Is it because you're mentally deficient?
 
Feb 2007
33,168
18
Los Angeles
foundit66 said:
I always back up my conclusions that somebody is lying Gar.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



So go ahead and back up your "conclusions" instead of treading water











And this one is a no-brainer.

If John says that he wants a document signed, and then says he will not use it for the purpose of X, but then later does use it for the purpose of X, it is quite obvious HE LIED.

>>>>>>>>>>



Forget your nursery rhymes - back up your claim against the CA Legislature























YOU are the ONLY ONE who is speaking up on this.

MULTIPLE other people have already stated that they agree there is an analogy.

And you claim "nobody falls for it"?

Pshaw!



>>>>>>>>>>



I am the only one with the patience to dismantle your feeble efforts and mind-numbingly verbose rambles









This is another example of garysher just blindly CLAIMING that the analogy between the discrimination of gays and blacks is flawed, but providing NO SUBSTANTIATION of his claim.







And this would be ANOTHER LIE of Garysher's.

I'm thinking he either has short-term memory loss, or he just doesn't give a crap how he looks to others.



I have REPEATEDLY said that same sex couples are different from mixed sex couples. I have acknowledged that.

Why do you lie and pretend that I say they are not different?
Because you keep saying that they should be treated the same even though they are different



No wonder your homosexual mob can't win
 
Nov 2005
10,096
5,450
California
garysher said:
So go ahead and back up your "conclusions" instead of treading water

Forget your nursery rhymes - back up your claim against the CA Legislature
That "nursery rhyme" was the answer to your challenge.

It explained how they are "lying".

They CLAIMED they would not do something, and then later they turned around and did EXACTLY THE THING they claimed they would not do.



And I'm not talking about the "CA legislature". It was the anti-gay groups who lied.





garysher said:
I am the only one with the patience to dismantle your feeble efforts and mind-numbingly verbose rambles
Gar?

Can you name ANY other person who likes you here?

ANYBODY at all?





garysher said:
Because you keep saying that they should be treated the same even though they are different
WoW! Gar actually did it there!!

He ADMITTED that I say that they ARE DIFFERENT.



(Please limit your applause, because in five minutes that idiot will be back to claiming that I am saying they are the same...)



Thanks for admitting you were wrong Garysher.

I'm sure that had to hurt a lot to acknowledge how truly foolish you were for stating a patently false summation of my position.

It also must be embarrassing if you realize how long it actually took you to FINALLY get it right.

All those past mistakes.

I'd understand if you would want to slink off right now and hang your head...
 
Feb 2007
33,168
18
Los Angeles
foundit66 said:
That "nursery rhyme" was the answer to your challenge.

It explained how they are "lying".

They CLAIMED they would not do something, and then later they turned around and did EXACTLY THE THING they claimed they would not do.

>>>>>>>>>>>>



That is merely your jaundiced opinion, and we know how bitter and twisted you have become







Gar?

Can you name ANY other person who likes you here?

ANYBODY at all?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



I neither know nor care.



Why is this important? Do you post on here to try and make friends?? Are you this desperate??








Thanks for admitting you were wrong Garysher.

I'm sure that had to hurt a lot to acknowledge how truly foolish you were for stating a patently false summation of my position.

It also must be embarrassing if you realize how long it actually took you to FINALLY get it right.

All those past mistakes.

I'd understand if you would want to slink off right now and hang your head...


Why would I do that?



I'm proud to be on the winning side in the war to defend traditional marriage from the homosexual insurgents
 

tyreay

Former Staff
Nov 2005
2,248
1
Rhode Island shore line
garysher said:
Why would I do that?



I'm proud to be on the winning side in the war to defend traditional marriage from the homosexual insurgents
Not to jump in on the band wagon or anything, but homosexuality would be illegal if you were on the winning side.