Notice An odd thing in Oregon Law in current Statutes

[MarAzul]

What possible reason is there for prohibiting cousins to becoming domestic partners?

ORS 106.315


A domestic partnership is prohibited and void when:

(a)Either party to the domestic partnership had a partner or spouse living at the time of the domestic partnership unless the partner or spouse was the other party to the domestic partnership.

(b)The parties to the domestic partnership are first cousins or any nearer of kin to each other, whether of the whole or half blood, whether by blood or adoption, computing by the rules of the civil law. However, when the parties are first cousins by adoption only, the domestic partnership is not prohibited or void.


https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.315

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It's dumb laws like this that really hurts the popularity of banjo music in Oregon.

 

[Lanny]

It's dumb laws like this that really hurts the popularity of banjo music in Oregon.

Ha ha ha ha, LOL LOL, LOL, ha ha ha ha, LOL, LOL, LOL

 

[MarAzul]

It's dumb laws like this that really hurts the popularity of banjo music in Oregon.

Wow! Lanny likes it! Perhaps you two can explain what it has to do with banjos.

ORS. 106.305
Explains what a domestic partnership is and why we have it.
But why the cousin restriction?

ORS. 106.305
"The establishment of a domestic partnership system will provide legal recognition to same-sex relationships, thereby ensuring more equal treatment of gays and lesbians and their families under Oregon law.

The Legislative Assembly recognizes that the Oregon Constitution limits marriage to the union of one man and one woman. The Legislative Assembly does not seek to alter this definition of marriage in any way through the Oregon Family Fairness Act and recognizes that the Legislative Assembly cannot bestow the status of marriage on partners in a domestic partnership. The Legislative Assembly recognizes that numerous distinctions will exist between these two legally recognized relationships. The Legislative Assembly recognizes that the legal recognition of domestic partnerships under the laws of this state may not be effective beyond the borders of this state and cannot impact restrictions contained in federal law."



Actually the above is in error. The Oregon Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

[MarAzul]

Ha ha ha ha, LOL LOL, LOL, ha ha ha ha, LOL, LOL, LOL

Perhaps you can answer the query?

 

[Lanny]

Perhaps you can answer the query?

It should be obvious else I guess you'd have to consider it some sort of inside joke.

 

[MarAzul]

It should be obvious else I guess you'd have to consider it some sort of inside joke.

Oh come on Lanny. What is obvious? What is it you see?

 

[Lanny]

Oh come on Lanny. What is obvious? What is it you see?

You take some guesses and I'll respond when you're right. Meantime, I'm gonna go to bed 'cause I don't expect an answer anytime soon.

 

[MarAzul]

I never did understand how the legislature managed to change the definition of Marriage in the Oregon Constitution.
So I thought I would look it up.
It appears they did not. We actually do not have same sex Marriage, they added Domestic Partners instead.
But why limit the Domestic Partners as if they were the same as a newly joined breeding pair?

What is this?

 

[MarAzul]

I'll respond when you're right.

I take it you don't have a clue.

 

[Chris Craig]

Its ok @MarAzul you can marry your second cousin if you want

 

[MarAzul]

Its ok @MarAzul you can marry your second cousin if you want

Not talking about marry.
The restriction is applied to Domestic Partners.

 

[barfo]

Its ok @MarAzul you can marry your second cousin if you want

But his first cousin has more of her teeth.

barfo

 

[Chris Craig]

@MarAzul I find it interesting that you don't believe in same sex marriage but believe in the right for family members to marry each other. I appreciate your opinions and beliefs and I could answer all your questions quite easily, but I will refrain. Terrible bait tactics...

 

[Chris Craig]

Not talking about marry.
The restriction is applied to Domestic Partners.

For the same reasons they cant marry

 

[Chris Craig]

Not talking about marry.
The restriction is applied to Domestic Partners.

Ok fine then you can enter into a domestic partnership with your second cousin

 

[MarAzul]

I find interesting that you don't believe in same sex marriage

>>> It has nothing to do with my believe

You were asking first why cousins shouldnt be able to marry one another.

No not talking about marry.

The legislature has clarified the status here, Domestic partners status was created.
ORS. 106.305
"The establishment of a domestic partnership system will provide legal recognition to same-sex relationships, thereby ensuring more equal treatment of gays and lesbians and their families under Oregon law.

The Legislative Assembly recognizes that the Oregon Constitution limits marriage to the union of one man and one woman. The Legislative Assembly does not seek to alter this definition of marriage in any way through the Oregon Family Fairness Act and recognizes that the Legislative Assembly cannot bestow the status of marriage on partners in a domestic partnership. The Legislative Assembly recognizes that numerous distinctions will exist between these two legally recognized relationships. The Legislative Assembly recognizes that the legal recognition of domestic partnerships under the laws of this state may not be effective beyond the borders of this state and cannot impact restrictions contained in federal law."


Now the question is why limit Domestic partners in who they marry? Why? What have cousins to do with it?

 

[MarAzul]

Why all this obtuse responses? If you don't know then why answer with bullshit?

 

[H.C.]

@MarAzul you promised months ago you'd start posting things worth reading.
This whole thread isn't worth the time.

 

[stampedehero]

Mar.....It's one of these.

 

[MarAzul]

Mar.....It's one of these.View attachment 19190

Actually to be blunt, we just witnessed a parade of *edited*s that have not a clue what the hell their legislature is doing.
So they post snark.

 

[MARIS61]

It appears that in their haste to hoodwink both sides of the same sex debate, the swamp totally fucked up by doing a rush cut and paste job from the traditional marriage laws and left the cousin ban in.

Just one more reason to never vote for any incumbent ever again.

 

[stampedehero]

Actually to be blunt, we just witnessed a parade of *edited*s that have not a clue what the hell their legislature is doing.
So they post snark.

..............and you and I feel this is what the legislature usually can accomplish. The moron parade membership only needs to seek their government or representative's website.

 

[julius]

I knew those (insert group here) were ruining (insert thing here) and here is my (chose from: Proof, theory, anecdotal evidence here)!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Not taking a side here (as I rarely do), because I have no interest in marrying any cousins or any other family members.

The prohibition against cousins marrying, as I understand it, is based on the likelihood of birth defects resulting from inbreeding. Ie, cousins may not marry because they should not procreate. I presume Marazul's OP is asking how that is any different than the argument against same-sex marriage, that same-sex couples need not marry because they cannot procreate.

Or to restate, the question as I understand it would be: if procreation is not actually at issue with marriage/domestic partnerships--since the state cannot actually govern whether or not family members copulate--why should the state have any prohibitions against the legal joining of any two consenting people of legal age?

I presume the answer would be a bit more logical than, "Because it's just disgusting and wrong".

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Yeah, if civil unions are allowed and people can't have children what difference does it make if they are cousins?

Or twins? I'd run as far from my identical twin as possible if I were looking for a mate but some people might love themselves more than anything.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not taking a side here (as I rarely do), because I have no interest in marrying any cousins or any other family members.

The prohibition against cousins marrying, as I understand it, is based on the likelihood of birth defects resulting from inbreeding. Ie, cousins may not marry because they should not procreate. I presume Marazul's OP is asking how that is any different than the argument against same-sex marriage, that same-sex couples need not marry because they cannot procreate.

Or to restate, the question as I understand it would be: if procreation is not actually at issue with marriage/domestic partnerships--since the state cannot actually govern whether or not family members copulate--why should the state have any prohibitions against the legal joining of any two consenting people of legal age?

I presume the answer would be a bit more logical than, "Because it's just disgusting and wrong".

How does a same-sex couple "procreate" in a way that makes birth defects likely?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

How does a same-sex couple "procreate" in a way that makes birth defects likely?

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. I'm not sure how that question at all addresses the query I posed.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. I'm not sure how that question at all addresses the query I posed.

It's the basis of MarAzul's question.

He's just asking why is there such a prohibition for domestic partnerships.

I don't have an answer. It has nothing to do with banjos.

 

[Chris Craig]

Actually to be blunt, we just witnessed a parade of *edited*s that have not a clue what the hell their legislature is doing.
So they post snark.

So your going to throw out insults now. What kind of crap is that.