Spring Break
Domestic Partnership bill, a right to choose
Issue date: 1/29/08 Section: Forum
On Friday, Oregon Federal District Court Judge Michael Mosman will hold a hearing about Oregon's Domestic Partnership law.
The currently-suspended law would provide domestic partners with similar legal protection as married couples.
Nine other states - California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington - have laws affording varying protection.
The legal complaint, brought forth by the Alliance Defense Fund's Senior Counsel Austin Nimocks, a Mississippi lawyer, challenges the signature-verifying methods of Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury.
Two arguments are central to this hearing, and there are no clear-cut answers - yet.
One argument: Should the State of Oregon expend as much effort verifying petition signatures as it currently does for ballot signatures?
The other: Should a federal court be able to alter a state's referendum process?
Answering the first question requires weighing the cost of verification with the benefit of fraud reduction.
The second question is a matter of states' rights.
Despite the legal claim of voter disenfranchisement, social positions clearly guide this debate. Such arguments include choice, morality and health.
Throughout courses in OSU's Bacc Core, it is repeatedly argued that Nimock's social argument is misguided.
In the words of philosopher Val Plumwood, Nimock (as opined in his September 2007 Townhall.com column) is using the "Five Logics of Othering" to dismiss the wants and needs of the LGBT community.
First, Nimock uses "radical exclusion" to portray homosexuality as a complex and confusing lifestyle obsessed over cruising (anonymous, public sex).
Second, not only are homosexuals excluded from normal society, but he stereotypes them with terms like "the homosexual agenda."
Furthermore, Nimock denies and "backgrounds" the lasting, committed LGBT relationships with his data points on cruising. Need we mention how successful heterosexual marriages are known to be?
Fourth, all critiques of the homosexual community asserts heterosexuality as the norm - the comparative basis - asserting its righteousness.
Finally, Nimock "instrumentalizes" homosexuals, insisting they live a sex-crazed and dangerous lifestyle filled with uncertainties.
On Friday, we hope that, in the words of Senator Ron Wyden, Judge Mosman will "show his commitment to equal rights for all Americans."
Editorials serve as a means for Barometer editors to offer commentary and opinions on issues both global and local, grand in scale or diminutive. The views expressed here are a reflection of the editorial board's majority.
The currently-suspended law would provide domestic partners with similar legal protection as married couples.
Nine other states - California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington - have laws affording varying protection.
The legal complaint, brought forth by the Alliance Defense Fund's Senior Counsel Austin Nimocks, a Mississippi lawyer, challenges the signature-verifying methods of Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury.
Two arguments are central to this hearing, and there are no clear-cut answers - yet.
One argument: Should the State of Oregon expend as much effort verifying petition signatures as it currently does for ballot signatures?
The other: Should a federal court be able to alter a state's referendum process?
Answering the first question requires weighing the cost of verification with the benefit of fraud reduction.
The second question is a matter of states' rights.
Despite the legal claim of voter disenfranchisement, social positions clearly guide this debate. Such arguments include choice, morality and health.
Throughout courses in OSU's Bacc Core, it is repeatedly argued that Nimock's social argument is misguided.
In the words of philosopher Val Plumwood, Nimock (as opined in his September 2007 Townhall.com column) is using the "Five Logics of Othering" to dismiss the wants and needs of the LGBT community.
First, Nimock uses "radical exclusion" to portray homosexuality as a complex and confusing lifestyle obsessed over cruising (anonymous, public sex).
Second, not only are homosexuals excluded from normal society, but he stereotypes them with terms like "the homosexual agenda."
Furthermore, Nimock denies and "backgrounds" the lasting, committed LGBT relationships with his data points on cruising. Need we mention how successful heterosexual marriages are known to be?
Fourth, all critiques of the homosexual community asserts heterosexuality as the norm - the comparative basis - asserting its righteousness.
Finally, Nimock "instrumentalizes" homosexuals, insisting they live a sex-crazed and dangerous lifestyle filled with uncertainties.
On Friday, we hope that, in the words of Senator Ron Wyden, Judge Mosman will "show his commitment to equal rights for all Americans."
Editorials serve as a means for Barometer editors to offer commentary and opinions on issues both global and local, grand in scale or diminutive. The views expressed here are a reflection of the editorial board's majority.
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Comments by registered users are approved by default.