What’s a decent, law-abiding queer couple to do?
Looks like the failed referendum against Oregon’s domestic partnership law is getting the equivalent of a “quick pass” by the 9th Circuit Court.
What does that mean for gay couples like me and my partner who already have enjoyed the benefits of our domestic partnership?
We could get fucked over big time come fall.
Here’s what Basic Rights Oregon just posted on their blog
On April 29, the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for expedited review in Lemons v. Bradbury, the lawsuit filed by out-of-state groups seeking to revive last year’s failed referendum against Oregon’s domestic partnership law by forcing elections officials to change the way they treat signatures on voter petitions. The original review schedule set by the Court likely would have resulted in a decision sometime next year, but today’s order means the case could be decided as early as July.
In their motion, the plaintiffs argued that they are likely to prevail, and that the Court should decide the case in time to place their referendum before voters on the November ballot. Attorneys for the State of Oregon and Basic Rights Oregon filed memos in opposition to the motion.
Plaintiffs’ opening brief in the appeal will now be due on May 13, with defendants’ response due June 3 and plaintiffs’ reply due on June 10.
Basic Rights Oregon is committed to defending Oregon’s domestic partnership law. We believe discrimination is wrong, and we know that a majority of Oregonians agree with us. Basic Rights Oregon will continue to do whatever is necessary to preserve these fundamental protections for Oregon families.
Click here to read more about Lemons v. Bradbury
- Freedom Stings: Opponents of Gay Rights Bill Get (another) Day in Court A three-j
- Ninth Circuit Issues Opinion: Lemons Can Suck It The U.S.
- Basic Rights Oregon Wants Your Help In Washington Basic Rig
- WTF? Jan 2 Domestic Partnerships Called Off – For Now (Updated with BRO comment) A federal
- Domestic Partner Decision: Revisiting Old Wounds? Does Judg
Tags: gay
In this matter, the Ninth Circuit isn’t the least bit interested in domestic partnerships. What they are interested in is the dis-enfranchisement of Oregonians by the Secretary of State. Whatever "rights" gay couples may think they have, they do not trump actual Constitutional rights enumerated in the actual document.
John Fairplay is a hetero-tool. Save your own marriage – don’t destroy mine because your pastor says it’s wrong.
If the 9th Circuit does not overrule Bradbury, he and future secretaries of state will have the authority to throw out any signature they want and as many signatures as they want for any reason they want and keep anything off the ballot they want, and the decision to do so will not be reviewable by a court of law. That’s what this appeal is about, not domestic partnerships.
Gays who do not see what’s at stake here are putting their one pet issue ahead of the very principles that give them the freedom they "enjoy".
Hey Bill,
Speaking of principles, when are you going to pay my union the money you owe us?
What should the couple do? Learn the rules of a puralistic democracy, wherein the majority decides what they want for laws in their state.
Not where liberal politicians, activist judges, and special interests dictate the norms of society and routinely disregard the will of the voters.
That’ll do for now.
Read "pluralistic". (Damn, when is WW going to get a spellcheck feature on your comments.)
Fair is fair, and it looks like the majority, those Oregonians who made their voices clear—will not put up, once again, to the "special interests (and their supporters) who dictate the norms of society and routinely disregard the will of the voters." Thanks HMLA for the reminder. It needs to be repeated, and very often for those who just keep tuning it out and pretending that dissenting voices are a minority.