Why embark on a fools' errand if you know how it will end?
Because Hutterite, it means something to stand up for worthwhile principles,
even when the odds are becoming stacked against you. Only a coward would not
defend their own voter mandated laws and back down against perceived political
correctness. A sad day for decency and for the state of Oregon.
Democrats say the redefining of marriage can't survive a constitutional
challenge. Republicans say it will and it must. Which means the issue is
completely political and will never get the healthy Constitutional review it
must get to avoid turning into the abortion issue.Of course until
the issue was picked up by the Democratic party they had no problem taking it to
There is a difference between being able to define marriage, in terms of rights,
responsibilities, and individual eligibility, and being able to restrict
otherwise eligible individuals from marrying each other, based merely on
prejudice. It not only doesn't matter if that prejudice derives from
interpretation of religious teachings, but that adds another reason to reject
prejudicial laws, in that they impermissibly violate the Establishment clause of
the First Amendment.And lest anyone think that this is a case of
religious versus secular "Liberal" thought, it's not. Quaker
religious thought and heritage, from the earliest days of the Protestant
Reformation, has centered around Equality of all men and women, respect for all
individuals, and the personal integrity to live an honest and forthright life.
As such, we disagree with those denominations which choose to cherry-pick
discriminatory passages from Leviticus, ignoring the rest, in order to
marginalize that minority of our brothers and sisters whose hearts only find
love amongst their own. Genesis 1:27 says that we are all in God's image,
male and female. That's too important a passage to ignore. Many of our
Meetings witness and bless SSM.
"Oregon's attorney general will not defend the state's ban on gay
marriage, arguing it cannot withstand a federal constitutional
challenge."There you have it. Enough said. Legalize SSM
nationally so the country can focus on other pressing issues.
Nevertheless, these suits need to go on until the ultimate ruling is made by the
Supreme Court. This SSM stuff needs to have a Roe/Wade type result so that
every state knows where they stand. Otherwise, it will still be a state by
state issue and a lot of wasted time one way or the other. Come on Supreme
Court, take up the case of SSM and settle it once and for all. Then we can all
move on and get on to more important matters that really threaten this country.
It's unfortunate the Utahns don't understand the constitution and
equality as well as our friends in Oregon, California, Virgina, etc......
""Because we cannot identify a valid reason for the state to prevent the
couples who have filed these lawsuits from marrying in Oregon, we find ourselves
unable to stand before (the federal judge) to defend the state's
prohibition against marriages between two men or two women," "--- That really says it all.@Tators;You mean
worthwhile principles and values like equality and justice? "Voter
approved" bigotry and discrimination ARE STILL bigotry and discrimination.
@ Ranch:No, that's not what I meant at all. Some people are
good at skewing the words and meanings of other people.I clearly referred
to the value and importance of what traditional marriage and families have
always had and meant as the backbone of civilized society for centuries.
Comparing SSM to traditional marriage is making an absolute mockery and sham of
it. Enjoy all the civil unions you want, but leave traditional marriage
alone. It's rather sad that pursuing liberal perceived
“political correctness” has blinded some people to the importance of
other more meaningful and pressing issues facing us today.Pursuing this
particular issue is already extracting a societal cost in terms of compromising
our important and established religious freedoms. But since you've
made it abundantly clear on multiple occasions that you think religion is bogus,
then this issue probably means nothing to you. But it truly does to many of
us.@ A Quaker:Since you profess a belief in the Bible,
why not also read and understand the importance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13...
and also Romans 1:26-27. They're very clear in their meaning.
"She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just
those she personally agrees with," said Brian Brown, NOM president."What the president of NOM fails to grasp, willfully or otherwise, is
that the Oregon AG *will* continue to enforce this law. That is *different* from
refusing to defend it in a court of law. When it comes up for ligation in
Oregon, the state AG won't defend it because it has no basis of merit.
These exclusionary bans can no longer be successfully defended in any court of
law."Ms. Rosenblum is dead-wrong in her conclusion that the
amendment cannot be supported by rational legal arguments."The
following fact should tell the NOM president otherwise: since the Windsor
decision last summer, every single time this marriage equality issue has come
before a federal court, SSM bans have been struck down as discrimination for no
valid reason. Every. Single. Time.
So much for the validity of citizens voting on key issues concerning their
state. Imagine if the AG decided not to prosecute hate crimes for the same
reason or any other laws voted in by its citizens? Time to persecute these AG
for not upholding the laws if their states.