Seems fair to me actually. I don’t know what it will accomplish, since one doesn’t have to be married in the county to live in a county. Easy enough to get a Vegas wedding (or a county over), and go back home and reap the benifits of marriage anyhow. The county cannot revoke marriage liscences, right?
My first thought was that this would galvanize a certain number of straight couples (who had to go through the extra hassle of going to the next county, probably lose a day of work, etc.) into blaming those “uppity queers” for the whole thing (characterization of gays as “uppity queers” is my attempt to put words in the mouths of these couples on behalf of some imagined homophobic policymaker).
I don’t know what difference galvanizing several (hundreds?) of couples in one county in Oregon is going to make, though. Or why any (probably imaginary) conspirator would think that even a small percentage of couples would blame gay couples rather than the administrator who made this bone headed decision.
Well, first, the county didn’t “ban” marriages. Marriages can still be performed in the county, marriages will still be recognized in the county. The only thing different from before is that licenses won’t be issued. Any mixed-sex couple may go to the next county over and get themselves a license, then return to Benton County for solemnization. Same-sex couples can’t drive to the next county or the next state and be issued licenses. You’ll excuse me if I can’t get too worked up over some minor inconvenience that some mixed-sex couples might have to get through before being able to cash in on their state-sponsored goodies until such time as the legaility of SSM in Oregon is determined.
What Otto said. Benton County (like Multnomah County recently) understands itself to be in a lose-lose position if any licenses are issued, in that there is an apparent discrepancy between state law and the state constitution. Thus, they interpret the situation to mean that if they issue any licenses they are vulnerable to a lawsuit.
Wow, pretty logical if you ask me in a very activist way. I’ve thought that stripping Americans of their right to be married in the legal sense would be a good idea. Let them be “unioned” by the law or their church if they see fit and leave “marriages” up to the church thus creating the wonderful seperation of a secular contract from a religious one.
Also, I don’t like the use of the word “ban” in the article…shouldn’t it be “moratorium”?
Wouldn’t this possibly strengthen the movement for same sex marriages? Perhaps it will mean more people in support of SSM. I mean, all the “traditional” couples who are being denied licenses have obviously found The One (there may be a few who say, “Thank god, finally! An out! I never wanted to marry him/her in the first place,” but I imagine that to be a small number), what difference does it make in their minds if Bob and Ray want to get married?
…I guess that’s the at the heart of the issue, huh? I’ll just sit back down and wait until I’m called upon.