Notice An odd thing in Oregon Law in current Statutes

[donkiez]

For some reason I think you maybe close to the mark. But I just don't understand why.

I also do not understand the roundabout way it all happened. Properly explained and section 106.305 does it reasonable well, I doubt there would have been much objection to DP law in the beginning. Much more logical and preferable to messing with the institution Marriage being the Joining of a Man and Woman committing to a union before their community and their God.

Im guessing here, but I think it was just what they could do at the time to help get people insured who were in same sex relationships. My company is doing away with DP recognition now that same sex marriages are recognized, which I expect to be the trend moving forward. Personally I dont really care who marrys who and how we define it, let them all be miserable.

 

[MarAzul]

Oregon has recognized same sex marriages since 2014. It has recognized same sex marriages from other states since 2013. The domestic partnership statute in question was enacted in 2008. Apparently, same sex couples can choose one or the other.

The statute I posted was 2015 I believe.
Which Statute are you finding this option in?

I see no Statutes covering an option.

"Oregon: Domestic partnerships are available for same-sex couples only (though all long-term unmarried couples may enter into private domestic partnership agreements to divide assets in the event of a breakup).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltwa...-avoid-the-marriage-tax-penalty/#15ad43c44d43

 

[MarAzul]

Im guessing here, but I think it was just what they could do at the time to help get people insured who were in same sex relationships. My company is doing away with DP recognition now that same sex marriages are recognized, which I expect to be the trend moving forward. Personally I dont really care who marrys who and how we define it, let them all be miserable.

Apparently it is different all over the place. See the forbes article.

 

[donkiez]

Apparently it is different all over the place. See the forbes article.

That is interesting but not surprising. There are 50 states all with different leadership and different ideas, some are bound to get it a little off. Now that same sex marriages are legal I expect this to fade away and might only stay relevant for asset division situations.

 

[MarAzul]

That is interesting but not surprising. There are 50 states all with different leadership and different ideas, some are bound to get it a little off. Now that same sex marriages are legal I expect this to fade away and might only stay relevant for asset division situations.

I see article all over the place and @Denny Crane post of Wiki saying this and that.
But the Oregon Revised Statutes, updated through 2016 show the same statutes 106.3xx

 

[Lanny]

I take it you don't have a clue.

You would take it wrong.

 

[Lanny]

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?

I believe Domestic Partner is an expression that covers both homosexual marriage as well as common law marriage in addition to more traditional marriage.

And what's the reference to breeding pair? My wife and I consider ourselves to be a traditional marriage even though we both are too old to conceive at this time as well as were unable to do so even in our younger years.

 

[MarAzul]

You would take it wrong.

Well then, want to share it?

 

[MarAzul]

I believe Domestic Partner is an expression that covers both homosexual marriage as well as common law marriage in addition to more traditional marriage.

The definition that counts is the one in the Statutes. 106.300 Intent is in 106.305

 

[dviss1]

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?

Fallacy. Federal law says we do.

As for the whole cousin thing.... Yeah.... Figure that one out...

And just so we're clear:

Equal Marriage bad.

Cousin marriage good?

 

[MarAzul]

Fallacy. Federal law says we do.

As for the whole cousin thing.... Yeah.... Figure that one out...

And just so we're clear:

Equal Marriage bad.

Cousin marriage good?

Well, I pointed you to the Oregon Revised Statutes updated through 2016. Not much more I can tell you.

 

[barfo]

Well, I pointed you to the Oregon Revised Statutes updated through 2016. Not much more I can tell you.

Well, I for one am glad you brought our attention to this very, very important issue.

But, there is more that you can do. Might I suggest that you paint the following on the sides and/or sails of the MarAzul?

I Support Gay Cousin Marriage!

If you don't fight for gay cousins rights, who will?

barfo

 

[Lanny]

I see no Statutes covering an option.

"Oregon: Domestic partnerships are available for same-sex couples only (though all long-term unmarried couples may enter into private domestic partnership agreements to divide assets in the event of a breakup).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltwa...-avoid-the-marriage-tax-penalty/#15ad43c44d43

So, what do you think? You think they made it up just to annoy you? Or do you suspect there was no logical reason behind it?

Did you know that the legislature has lots of lawyers they hire just to go over bills and make them legal and logical before they vote on them? Yes, it's a fact. I've talked to one who described the process to me.

 

[dviss1]

Well, I pointed you to the Oregon Revised Statutes updated through 2016. Not much more I can tell you.

May 19, 2014 - Oregon Becomes 18th State to Legalize Gay Marriage


"A federal judge struck down Oregon's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Monday [May 19, 2014].

'Because Oregon's marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,' U.S. District Judge Michael McShane said in his ruling..."

 

[dviss1]

Well, I for one am glad you brought our attention to this very, very important issue.

But, there is more that you can do. Might I suggest that you paint the following on the sides and/or sails of the MarAzul?

I Support Gay Cousin Marriage!

If you don't fight for gay cousins rights, who will?

barfo

 

[CupWizier]

Well, I pointed you to the Oregon Revised Statutes updated through 2016. Not much more I can tell you.

You can maybe start by answering his questions. This is a forum marzy and people discuss back and forth, you ask questions, the person answers, the other party asks questions and you should do your best to answer truthfully. It appears you like to start subjects but don't really like to discuss anything about it.

 

[MarAzul]

You think they made it up just to annoy you?

>>> No

Or do you suspect there was no logical reason behind it?

>>> No, I see no logic for the domestic couples. Lazy perhaps, since this is the same bann as is in place for the Married couples, which of course has a good reason.

 

[MarAzul]

You can maybe start by answering his questions.

I have no other answer for why the Statutes say what it does.

 

[MarAzul]

Might I suggest that you paint the following on the sides and/or sails of the MarAzul?

Considered. Not today.

 

[Lanny]

Well then, want to share it?

I already did. Please don't make me repeat stuff over and over and over again.

 

[Lanny]

>>> No



>>> No, I see no logic for the domestic couples. Lazy perhaps, since this is the same bann as is in place for the Married couples, which of course has a good reason.

The only conclusion is that you know more about the law than all those legal experts with all their post graduate training and experience dealing with the law. I'm gonna go out on a limb and not buy that.

 

[MarAzul]

Ha!

Well I see Sly likes your snark. Wonderful isn't it.

 

[MarAzul]

The only conclusion is that you know more about the law than all those legal experts with all their post graduate training and experience dealing with the law. I'm gonna go out on a limb and not buy that.

Actually all those experts you permote have done nothing. The statutes are there to read. What a fucking joke.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Ha!

Well I see Sly likes your snark. Wonderful isn't it.

I enjoy your snark too.

 

[MarAzul]

The only conclusion is that you know more about the law than all those legal experts with all their post graduate training and experience dealing with the law. I'm gonna go out on a limb and not buy that.

Lanny Lanny! I know you gained great point among your gang.
But let us just come to grips with reality. Nothing is law unless it is in the Statutes. That is just the way it is in Oregon.
Now if the Statutes is stupidly written, the judge has no logical backup, they can just ignore the damn thing.

I ask you several time and the whole board as you know what the heck is the logical reason for this restriction. No one come forth with one logical possibility.
But you my friend, seem to double down on dumb. You know it is rather stupid to suggest that I know more than whom ever. If the question of why cousins matter can't be answered by you or anyone else here, what the hell is the purpose of the law? How will the next judge elected know?