A small fight broke out in the first few minutes of today’s hearing that ended with a judge issuing a temporary injunction against domestic partnership taking effect next week in Oregon.
An unidentified man skirmished with two security guards during Judge Michael Mosman’s opening statements at the Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse. Once restrained, the man muttered under his breath: “Get thee behind me, Satan.”
That was but one example of how herves, tempers and emotions ran high in Mosman’s courtroom, as the judge presided over a 90-minute hearing in the case brought by the Alliance Defense Fund against the Oregon Secretary of State’s office.
The Alliance successfully sought a temporary injunction against the implementation startng Jan. 2 of House Bill 2007, a law providing over 500 rights and benefits through state-sanctioned domestic partnerships to same-sex couples in Oregon (see Been There, Done That” in this week’s paper).
“I think this case stands or falls on whether I view this activity [the signing of a petition or referendum] as a fundamental right,” Judge Mosman stated early in the hearing. “The right to vote has been held up as a fundamental right, but no where have I seen this applied to petitions or referendums.”
To that, the Alliance Defense Fund — which fell just short earlier this year in its effort to gather enough signatures to put a repeal of domestic partnership on the 2008 state ballot — produced a 9th Circuit case from Idaho.
In that case, a federal judge equated a voter’s rights with those who sign a referendum/ballot measure. After a brief recess, Mosman asked pointed questions as to the approval process for petition signatures, and what opportunity signers have for defending themselves when signatures are deemed invalid or false.
“The state action being challenged is the one that says a state agent can make a unilateral decision that those signatures don’t match,” Mosman said.
The judge then compared disqualified signatures in Oregon’s vote by mail – a process during which a voter deemed “unqualified” has ten days in which to challenge that status – and the process by which disqualified signatures on a referendum/ballot measure are processed. In the latter, he said there’s no such opportunity for the disqualified signatories to “defend” their signature.
Catherine Jordan, an attorney representing the Oregon Secretary of State’s office, argued that it would be “incredibly challenging” to provide that same process to all disqualified signatories because of the random sampling process inherent to approving signatures coming through the Secretary’s office each month on ballot measures.
The judge has set a hearing on Feb. 1 to consider a permanent injunction of HB 2007.
Basic Rights Oregon’s freshly appointed Executive Director, Jeana Frazzini, expressed shock at the decision. “I don’t think anyone was expecting this decision… and if I thought I was entrusting a petition gatherer on a street corner with my vote, I would never sign a petition again.”
BRO had planned a series of statewide parties to celebrate the first day of domestic partnerships under HB 2007 next Wednesday, Jan. 2.
With the partnerships postponed indefinitely under Mosman’s ruling, Frazzini says the parties will continue, but to celebrate a different law going into effect on Jan. 1: the non-discrimination law covering bias crimes and gender identity. “That’s a huge decades-long accomplishment,” Frazzini says. “And we will celebrate it on January 2nd across the state.”
Frazzini also expressed optimism in the face of the judge’s ruling: “We know it’s going to be an ongoing fight – it’s not just one battle or one decision… I feel confident in our community and in our organization that we will prevail. We’re going to move forward and we’re going to succeed.”
- Domestic Partnerships Decision — Even More To D.P. o
- WTF? Jan 2 Domestic Partnerships Called Off – For Now (Updated with BRO comment) A federal
- UPDATE: Domestic Partnerships Decision — More UPDATE: A
- Domestic Partner Decision: Revisiting Old Wounds? Does Judg
- BREAKING: Domestic Partnerships Decision — They’re Back On in Oregon Oregon is
Check out this article from The Oregonian from April 21, 2003: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usnews128.htm
There was a question then about Mosman’s commitment to equal rights during his confirmation process for district judge.
I wish our fundamentalist friends (of any religion) would put as much effort into love as they do to hate. Wouldn’t it be nice to see all this energy focused on good things like easing suffering, clothing the destitute, feeding the hungry, you know, things that Jesus actually talked about.
No money in love. Lots o’ money in hate. I’d like to see the Christians and Muslims get together and kill each other off, and leave the rest of us alone.
>No money in love. Lots o’ money in hate. I’d like to see the Christians and Muslims get together and kill each other off, and leave the rest of us alone.<
Yes let all the nut cases go at each other.
"Like to see people kill each other. "
Now THAT’S love.
I never stop laughing at how ridiculous the tolerance junkies sound when they demand that Christians embrace their agenda, and if they don’t they should be killed. Reminds me of an idiot I worked with in the early 90’s who said (so help me God) "The OCA is so intolerant, they should be run out of town." He didn’t have the brains to realize what a moron he sounded like. You have the same problem.
Scott, my advice is to not let the religious right of any faith make you become bitter and defensive. I realize they’re trying to tear your family apart with any and every legal means at their disposal, but this isn’t the way. I know you want to protect your family and that’s very admirable. All people want to protect their loved-ones.
There was a guy that lived 2,000 years ago and talked extensively about love, helping the poor, the weak and the infirm. However, he was adamantly opposed by the religious right of his day. They called themselves, "pharisees". His advice to all of us was to "turn the other cheek". Hopefully, our modern-day pharisees will eventually mellow-out, but playing into their game isn’t the way to overcome their animosity.
They way I see this, dometic partners and all Oregonians will gain from this ruling. It is apparent that the Sec of State has way too much leeway and wiggle room in which to deny petitions through statistical manipulations and moving goal posts.
I very well understand that the initiative process can be manipulated, by petitioners use of fraudulent practices, and by the Sec of State office in statistical interpretations tainted by political philosophy. Oregon has had 20 years of "activist" Secretaries of State with a D behind their names. The very same procedural process they have formulated, in the hands of a conservative Sec of State, would bring about a hue and cry from the left if continued. The judge has seen the counting of signatures and their validation for what it is, a process that can be swayed one way or another by methodology. Good for him. We should all benefit in the long run, gays and straights alike.
Wow Mike that was a pretty love oriented comment.
Yes it would be nice for you to see all the religiouos energy that is focused on good things like easing suffering, clothing the destitute, feeding the hungry, you know, things that Jesus actually talked about.
But unfortunately you are blinded by your hate and instead choose to cast aspersions and false pretemises that religions of all kinds are too busy hating to do any of the good works.
Many christian communities do have wonderful organizations to help the poor and needy. Look at the Quakers in their efforts in peace and non-violence. Look at many mainline churches that offer soup kitchens and health clinics.
Unfortunately, there are other segments of Christianity that pay essentially lip-service to helping the less fortunate. These groups focus on many hurtful initiatives like what we’re experiencing here. I’ll call them the fundamentalists.
Fundamentalism isn’t confined to Christianity. You can find fundamentalist groups in nearly every religion. They typically don’t comprise a large part of the adherents of that religion, but they make up for it many other ways through zeal, fanaticism, and megaphones.
Someone once said, "by their fruits you’ll know them". Indeed. How right he was.
It’s always interesting to see when someone reacts to hate with frustration & cynicism- then the immediate reaction is to call them intolerant. It is in the playbook of every abuser out there. Let me hit you- then when you complain, I’ll tell you that you’re complaints show how hateful YOU are. In the mean-time, if religious people want to be seen as charitable, then they can start by maybe opening their financials to the public, & show that they are giving back more to the community than the free tax ride they get. Or stop making the papers for preying on gay folks and molesting kids, and start making the papers for charity- and not just around Christmas.
Here is the contact information for those involved in blocking this civil rights legislation:
Hon. Michael W. Mosman (FYI he was Senator Gordon Smith’s pick for this seat)
Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse
1000 S.W. Third Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-2902
Judicial Assistant: Mary Jo Peters (503) 326-8330
Courtroom Deputy: Dawn Stephens (503) 326-8024
Senator Gordon Smith
Washington, DC Office
404 Russell Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202.224.3753
Fax: 202.228.3997
Portland office
phone at 503.326.3386 or by fax at 503.326.2900
Contact information for those involved in blocking this civil rights legislation
Hon. Michael W. Mosman (FYI he was Senator Gordon Smith’s pick for this seat)
Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse
1000 S.W. Third Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-2902
Judicial Assistant: Mary Jo Peters (503) 326-8330
Courtroom Deputy: Dawn Stephens (503) 326-8024
Senator Gordon Smith
Washington, DC Office
404 Russell Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202.224.3753
Fax: 202.228.3997
Portland office
phone at 503.326.3386 or by fax at 503.326.2900
I wonder which side of this issue the lefties would be on if it was, say, a petition to legalize marijuana….
Liberals love to hate others with differing opinions.
The tolerant are intolerant, and many times, just plane bigoted.
What about airplanes do we liberals supposedly not like?
Oh wait you’re just another conservative bad speller. Quayle ‘08!!!
Of course my joke about conservative ignorance just makes me so much more intolerant than conservatives supporting laws against my marriage, job security, and right to have sex, right? According to you and the mainstream media pundits, I’m sure the answer will be yes.
I think we can swing that comment another way anon, rather than painting liberals a certain way here (I won’t use the word Conservative in the statement below, but you could substitute it there if you like):
Fundamentalists love to hate others with differing opinions.
They being INtolerant are ignorant, and many times, just plane bigoted.
It’s not about "left" or "right"; it’s about RIGHTS. I am a homeowner and full time worker and I pay taxes same as other Oregonians. I would like to know which tax I don’t have to pay since, as a gay citizen, I do not have the same rights as straight citizens.
And BTW, I also am Christian.
I think an obvious example of why signatures on a petition are not the same as a vote is the fact that these petitions were circulated within churches.
thank you for reporting this so thoroughly. i heard something about this on the newscast on friday and was so confused.
oh, those poor religious fanatics, First you didn’t get enough signatures, and now, instead of showing some dignity in you failure, your crying like a 3 year old brat until you get your recount. Poor thing. Always the victim.
I wonder what side the righties would be on if it was, say, a petition to ban legal relationship status for evangelical couples.
I agree with RichWebster. Demanding "tolerance" from others while calling other people hateful, vicious names is pretty moronic.
Calling somebody a name when they are hurting your family is moronic? What were you expecting, flowers?
This is terrifying, that these laws can be tossed about by activist judges. Let’s not even think about what could happen next./
NEPDXGAL,
Another fun tactic is to toss out the word ‘hate’ to describe the comments and/or thoughts of people who don’t agree with you. Foolish and immature…but fun.
BTW, the charitable giving by those on the right (you know, those religious types) has always vastly exceeded the charitable contributions from your open-minded, compassionate, caring, concerned-for-their-fellow-man leftist types.
Interesting that someone so obviously well informed wouldn’t know that.
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Keeping our kids off our insurance or keeping as financial, & medical strangers is LOVE, I suppose. And I suppose you can show any kind of link that proves your statements about charitable giving? No? Say, it wouldn’t be because you do not have the authority to know or share the financials of churches or liberal fund-raising groups? So really you must just be guessing?
Of course.
Too easy.
Nice try though.
How can I or anyone else keep ‘your’ kids off ‘your’ insurance?
As to the charitable giving: look it up. Here’s one.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html
One Google search. Many articles. Aagin, you are wrong. Kinda gettin’ to be a habit, huh?
Watch the charitable activities that take place. Notice how many are run by a church. Notice how many are not.
Again, feelings do not equate to rational thought.
You again demonstrate the concept beautifully.
Thanks for playing the game. We have some lovely parting gifts.
There are many examples of people that do not have insurance now because of Mosman’s decision. I’m sorry that you haven’t taken the time to learn about these people. However, just because you say its not happening doesn’t make that true. Anybody can pop over to the BRO website and see plenty of evidence otherwise. And your slim article does nothing to disprove my point about the funds that religious groups save in a tax-free ride versus what they give back to the commons. You can think you are right as much as you want, but without church financials in hand, you can not prove anything.
I’m sorry you have all these misunderstandings and such a bitter, sour outlook on your neighbors here in Oregon.
But your words do help to show that there is really a need for the glbt community to be protected.
And I’m grateful that Oregonians can hear this bitterness- not just from you, but from many others. And Oregonians have responded in appropriate ways.
I think that’s one of the many reasons why our new anti-discrimination law finally passed after many years of hard work. Compared to Oregon’s population, even if every signature on those petitions were valid, that only amounts to a slim minority. And it wasn’t for the lack of trying. The opponents of these laws were very aggressive in their attempt to gather enough signatures. And even when they did their worst, they couldn’t get enough Oregonians to say: No our gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered neighbors should not be protected from bitter homophobes in employment, housing, and public accommodation. I guess in many ways- that could be considered an overwhelming public acknowledgement of the existence of homophobia itself.
Kinda cool!
=)
Is BRO a non-profit? I bet they are.
Can I see their financials to check on their contribution to the commons vs their ‘tax-free ride? That would be MY opinion of their contribution, not yours. See how this works? Fairness for all, right?
So you didn’t think much of the article, huh? Why am I not surprised you discount a well-researched and documented article? Especially one that shreds your nonsensical posts about charitable giving. Also telling that you didn’t bother to look for anything else.
Why is it that these dialogues always seem to end up with some crap like: "I’m sorry you have all these misunderstandings and such a bitter, sour outlook on your neighbors here in Oregon."?
Sorry to inject reality into your world but the fact that someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are hateful or bitter or sour. It just means they disagree with you.
To be honest, I could make a case that that is one of the biggest reasons to oppose the g/b/l/t/c/f/ns agenda.
You seem to be some of the most unhappy, hateful, self-centered, wimpy whiners around and I would hate to have that sort of unhealthy mental outlook encouraged.
Sorry about using the word hate. Did it make your head explode?