http://www.365gay.com/news/appeals-court-nixes-threat-to-oregon-gay-rights-law/ The daily news source for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:48:18 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://www.365gay.com/news/appeals-court-nixes-threat-to-oregon-gay-rights-law/comment-page-1/#comment-9987 Mombian » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Update Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:40:32 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=2646#comment-9987 [...] Federal Appeals Court in Oregon turned down a proposed ballot measure that could have ended the state’s domestic partner law. [...] [...] Federal Appeals Court in Oregon turned down a proposed ballot measure that could have ended the state’s domestic partner law. [...]

]]> http://www.365gay.com/news/appeals-court-nixes-threat-to-oregon-gay-rights-law/comment-page-1/#comment-9884 Steven Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:57:39 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=2646#comment-9884 Check the facts on the Oregon Domestic Partnership story. The court wasn't hearing the law's constitutionality in Oregon, if it were challenged against Measure 36 (the Oregon ammendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman) it would have been brought to a state court. This case was heard in Federal court. The challenge was to the constitutionality of Oregon's process of verifying signatures. The opponents were claiming that if a signature was denied, that the person should be notified and allowed to fix the signature and information along with it. The opponents figured that with the way that statistical sampling is used in Oregon to verify signatures, if some were forced to be reconsidered, they would have had enough to get the issue to a referendum. This has never been done in the past, and the court realized if it were to happen now, it would have changed the rules for this one group. Check the facts on the Oregon Domestic Partnership story. The court wasn’t hearing the law’s constitutionality in Oregon, if it were challenged against Measure 36 (the Oregon ammendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman) it would have been brought to a state court. This case was heard in Federal court. The challenge was to the constitutionality of Oregon’s process of verifying signatures. The opponents were claiming that if a signature was denied, that the person should be notified and allowed to fix the signature and information along with it. The opponents figured that with the way that statistical sampling is used in Oregon to verify signatures, if some were forced to be reconsidered, they would have had enough to get the issue to a referendum. This has never been done in the past, and the court realized if it were to happen now, it would have changed the rules for this one group.

]]>