April 11, 2004
'Constitutional Definition Of Marriage' Receives Certified Ballot Title
Backers Have Just Under Three Months To Collect Required Signatures
When we last checked in with the proposed initiative to amend the Oregon Constitution to define marriage was being between one man and one woman, seven comments had been filed regarding its draft ballot title.
This past Friday, April 9, the Office of the Secretary of State announced that it had received a certified ballot title from the Attorney General on April 8, the deadline for such a certified title. That title, as well as the Attorney General's explanatory letter has been posted online (pdf) in full.
In doing so, the Attorney General made the determination that "the proposed initiative petition was in compliance with the procedural requirements establushed in the Oregon Constitution for initiative petitions" -- the criteria under which ballot titles can be challenged.
We'll leave it to the readers to examine the entirety of the certified ballot title and the Attorney General's letter. In essence, the Attorney General rejected the objections of those who had filed comments on the draft ballot title, with the sole and relatively minor exception that a single sentence in the Summary has been moved up in that section.
Upon issuance of the certified ballot title, an appeal process of ten business days began. According to the Office of the Secretary of State: "Any eletor dissatisfied with the ballot title certified by the Attorney General, who also submitted in a timely manner written comments which addressed the specific legal standards a ballot title must meet, may petition the Supreme Court for a different title."
Any such appeals must be submitted by the end of business on April 22, 2004.
Meanwhile, backers of the initiative have until July 2, 2004, to obtain the 100,840 signatures necessary to place the proposal on the ballot for the November general election.
Comments (7)
M on 11 Apr 2004
For those who don't like PDF documents, here's the certified language:
AMENDS CONSTITUTION: ONLY MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IS VALID OR LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS MARRIAGE
RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote adds to Oregon constitution declaradion of policy that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or legally recognized as marriage.
RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains existing constitution without a provision declaring that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or legally recognized as marriage.
SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Oregon statutes currently provide that marriage is a civil contract entered into in person between individuals of the opposite sex, that is, between males and females at least 17 years of age who solemnize the marriage by declaring "they take each other to be husband and wife." The existing Oregon Constitution contains no provision governing marriage. Currently, the State of Oregon recognizes out-of-state marriages that are valid in the state where performed, unless the marriage violates a strong public policy of Oregon. Measure adds to Oregon Constitution a declaration that the policy of the State of Oregon and its political subdivisions is that only a marriage between one man an one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."
Keith on 11 Apr 2004
Let 2004 be called, 'The Year of Hate."
torridjoe on 11 Apr 2004
Is 100,000 a lot or a little to try to obtain in 10 weeks? Is there a precedent for measures with high religious overtones to see better chances of getting on the ballot? If it fails, what are the chances remaining that something would make it through the process before the Court ruling?
Initiative politics is a new animal to me. So far I'm not sure I trust us.
Kzele on 12 Apr 2004
First, let me state that the real issue is not the marriage amendment. This is being used as a "guise" for another agenda. Lets be honest here. This issue is being used to destroy the traditions and value of marriage. In defense of marriage between a man and a woman, this for me, is NOT based on hate. I repeat, it is not based on hate in any shape or form. It is based only on perserving the sanctity of marriage.
There are other avenues for those that feel they are not able to visit a relative at a hospital, or be included in an employers health plan. Take that up with the hospital, change their policies, etc. I just ask that you really think about this issue. Changing the marriage definition is not the answer. It has been asserted that by not agreeing with this issue, that we are hateful, or not tolerant. For those that say that, please remember, that could also be said about you, for trampling on what we believe and has been a long-standing traditional and religious way of life. I thank you.
The One True b!X on 12 Apr 2004
Opponents of same-sex marriage are one of two things. Either they are intolerant or they are ignorant. The inability to distinguish between religious marriage and civil marriage continues to bother me greatly, because it demonstrates either an ignorance of the distinction, or a willful disregard of that distinction, which itself then suggests a desire to force civil law to abide by their religion. And that's impermissible in a secular society of civil laws.
And if none of that describes the reason for opposition, the only thing left is intolerance.
As for this:
For those that say that, please remember, that could also be said about you, for trampling on what we believe and has been a long-standing traditional and religious way of life. I thank you.
I reserve my right to have no tolerance either for ignorance or intolerance.
Dan on 14 Apr 2004
Can all these people talking about the sanctity of marriage be serious? Have they heard of The Church of Elvis? Drive through weddings? Britney's marriage anulled after 36 hours? 50% divorce rate?
The sacred tradition rhetoric surrounding marriage only comes up after same-sex couples are given equal rights. When couples of the opposite sex marry no one cares about sacred traditions. They are free to give the union as much or as little reverence as they see fit.
I am also a little confused about what it means for marriage to have less "sanctity". Will my marriage suddenly be less holy if same-sex couples are alowed to marry? Will we be more likely to divorce? Will people be confused about what I mean when I tell them I'm married?
What people really mean when they make this rediculous and false "sanctity" argument is that they don't think our government should recognize same-sex couples as having a valid, socially acceptable lifestyle. That may not be exactly hateful, but it sure is stupid.
kb on 14 Apr 2004
The marriage act is not just about two same sex couples marrying. Thats for the people who do not think on a larger scope. It may not affect your marriage directly but it will if you have children. Schools already are teaching homosexuality. Would you like your children wanting to experment with something they read at school so it much be okay. Saying yes to same-sex marriage also is saying that their is no difference in a husband and wife in a family that their is no difference in their roles as parents. A child needs both a man and a female and statistics have proved that. This is also just a start off whats to come. I also have a question? Why would a same-sex couple want to get marriad. Marriage started off and is a religous saremony that the govement thought they could make money on, and have. The main reason to get married is
so a man and a women will become one flesh spiritually and physically, and share their love forever. If they marry for religous purpose their marriage would not be reconized by most every religon. If all they seek is goverment approval so they can get benifits that a lawyer could get. If they think they are being discrinated against why don't they just get the goverment to not reconize marriage for everybody. I am married if that happens I will do better on my taxes.