All marriages banned in Oregon county (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2854554a12,00.html)

This appeared in a New Zealand newspaper. Is it for real? Or is it another example of news getting distorted by the time it gets overseas?

If it is for real then it is odd twist in the whole gay marriage debate. :confused:

I believe it's for real. I appreciate their unique response to the "law and order" folks.

That's horrible if true. People plan weddings in many cases for over a year in advance of the actual wedding date. However, most states have laws that say you can't apply for a marriage license more than 3 months in advance of the wedding. So if people are denied the opportunity to get married, does that mean they have to leave the county to get married, essentially ruin the entire continuity of the day, not to mention not getting the full enjoyment out of a day that you may have spent thousands of dollars on. Un-freaking-believable if true...

I mean if it's three months away from the wedding, there's not much you can do to change things at that point - you already placed a helfty deposit on the hall for the reception, the florist, the photographer, etc.

Experience dictates, behind that stays another irresponsible idiot, or an assortment of irresponsible idiots, who will do anything to push forward his career no matter the mess that is made along the way.

Astonishing is what people will do to gain a little publicity.

If this was a publicity stunt, they forgot to call a press conference. :rolleyes:

Least they are being fair. Instead of discriminating against homosexuals they just zap everybody. To be honest I applaud this move.

This has got to be the one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
It's the same principle as the (idiotic) saying: "I'm not prejudiced, I hate everybody."

I am not to sure what to think about this. On the one hand I think this way they are questioning heterosexuell marriages as well, but on the other it is probably a good sign that some ultimate decision has to be made.

Hey, at least it leaves everybody on even ground. More then likely, this will all be cleared up within three months or less.

I think that it is a good idea. Equal rights and all that.

Y'know, why not eliminate marriage altogether? We don't need marriage for sex - abortion and STDs are hardly obstacles to extramarital fun. We don't need marriage for childraising - children of single-parent families show only minor double-digit increases in criminality and poverty. We don't need marriage for commitment - unmarried people are often so committed to commitment that they serially commit to amours du jour. And we certainly don't need marriage to maintain the heterosexual hegemony that has been supported for only, oh, all of history save the last inexplicably enlightened decade.

We really only need marriage as the incidental vehicle to promote equality and gain economic benefits. But the equality argument doesn't sustain marriage because there'll always be some extra relationship - polygamy, bestiality, child-adult, S&M slavery - that wouldn't (yet) be covered. And the economic benefits would be a null point if we just eliminated marriage entirely and put everyone on an equal playing field, forcing corporations and governments to offer benefits to everyone in a temporarily-committed, currently-loving, historically-disconnected relationship.

Maybe this is the beginning of a real trend! Down with marriage!

I don't know about this being a publicity stunt per se, but they are certainly trying to prove a point. While I guess there is some merit in the thought behind it, I personally think they're doing it in a terribly inconsiderate way, as the point has been made above. I know that if I were getting married, and I'd planned it a year or more in advance, and spent all that money and had my family make all those plans to attend, only to be told that all weddings were off because my city council has a stiffy for proving a point of political principle...

Let's just say I'd introduce my foot to quite a few asses. :mad:

I'm sure they will change their tune when they get threatened with lawsuits to cover all the costs of ruined weddings. Nevermind the pain and suffering involved.

What pain and suffering? So your wedding may or may not get put on hold for a while. Big deal. This is just in one county, and it probably won't take more then a few weeks to decide.

I am sure that people can reschedule or relocate in the name of progress and enlightenment.

Indeed. Haven't seen a wedding yet that didn't experience problems of one sort or another.

That's the point - planning a wedding and having it go off smoothly is hard to do. You certainly don't need additional obstacles put up in your way. I got married in June 2003, and we had planned the wedding for about a year prior to that. If, on March 24, 2003, I found out that the county wouldn't issue me a marriage license, I'd have a major problem on my hands. First of all, we were getting married in a church, and most churches can only do one marriage per day. So not only would I have to find another Catholic church, I'd have to find one that hadn't already scheduled a wedding for that day, not to mention a priest who was willing to conduct the ceremony even though neither of us were members of that parrish, and neither of us would ever attend that church again. It's not as easy as just saying "go to another county to get married".

*Remembering all the obstacles overcome in putting together a long-distance wedding* - I still don't see a problem.

I still don't see a problem OK, next time I have to organise a wedding when I have no location and no license and only a month to go....I will be calling Sojourner who is clearly some sort of super-human Wedding Planner.

3 months, actually, with a narrow window to set the date, wedding set in a completely different county several hundred miles away, the families located across multiple states, not to mention the husband-to-be was overseas. Beat that. :p

Yes, that is all very admirable, but that is from a standing start with no sunk costs. The problem being raised by Aldeth and Death Rabbit is when you have already: put a deposit on the location, ordered the flowers, arranged flights and accomodation for guests, sent and received invitations, booked the transport, booked the entertainment and done your time in the local church so they'll let you marry there AND THEN having to unwind all those arrangements (at no small cost) all before then undertaking the steps that you are referring to.

Whatever pain and hassle you managed to negotiate - this would be twice as bad and be even more frustrating because it would due to curcumstances completely beyond your control.

Sounds like 'a problem' to me.

@ Harbourboy

Thank you for elaborating on my point. That's the point I was trying to make. It's not only what you have to change in order to get married elsewhere, it's all the wasted work you put into the wedding at that point that is essentially lost. Add to the fact that in many cases you have already made a significant monetary investment, and it causes problems. Especially if you already sent out invitations, since they have where the wedding takes place on them. You either have to re-send the invitations (which easily costs a few hundred dollars for the invitations and postage) or personally call everyone with the change of plans. Since I had about 120 people at my wedding, it would have been a huge amount of work.

One thing I'm not sure about - with this new policy in Oregon - I think it only applies to issuing a new marriage license. For example, if you applied and recieved a marriage license last week, and were planning on getting married this week, I think you're still good to go. The big problem would be if you were in that 2-3 months before the wedding. You didn't get the license yet because your county law says you can't apply until you are within 60 or 90 days of the wedding date, but yet you've already put down all of your deposits and sent out all of your invitations...

Yes, it only applies to new licenses. They're not canceling any current ones! I still see no problem - just head to the next county for your license, and continue with your plans. A cursory check revealed in several states, the license is valid for anywhere within the state - with the only exception being for out-of-state residents (and Oregon doesn't appear to make that distinction).

[ March 25, 2004, 19:51: Message edited by: Sojourner ]

I can't speak for most states or some states, as I've only been married once. In Maryland you are required to get the marriage license in the county where you intend to get married. This is a very strange rule, because for me and my wife, that isn't the county that either of us lived in. You would think that the authority would be the county where you planned to live, but in Maryland, it's all in where the ceremony is conducted.

Why not, (for example) just have a "commitment ceremony" following all of your existing plans, church, etc., and do the actual legal marriage in a city hall in another county?

I seriously cannot see what all the fuss is about. Weddings can be wonderful for the couple, they can be a great party for family and freinds, they can be an affirmation of your faith.

I think people are missing the forest for the trees. It shouldn't be about civic records and tax filing. Marriage is about love. Who cares what the state has to say about it?

I have a few Muslim freinds, and in the Muslim community, non-legal weddings are quite common. Since polygamy is not legal, they simply perform weddings in their own mosques as per their thousands-year old traditions. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, simply pointing out that a piece of paper from the government does not a wedding make. (FYI, polygamy, of course is not restricted to muslims. There are many Christian Sects throughout the US that practice polygamy . But that's probably another thread)

So, it seems to me that same-sex couples that wish to be married and commit for life: why not? If your local government won't allow you to do this technically: who cares? On the other hand, if people wish to be married and receive full benefits under the laws as spouses, is say again, why not?

So if your county outlaws marriage: Marry anyway, and thumb your nose at the sniveling bureaucrats. How romantic is that?

Now that is an interesting point. To many people, the religious ceremony is more important than the state/county recognizing the marriage. Just because the state won't issue a marriage license would not necessarily prohibit a priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. from performing a ceremony to marry two people. Traditionally, religious unions are acknowledged by the state, but if the church can choose not to recognize a marriage perofrmed by a JP for example, I suppose the opposite can be true as well.

Then, once this all blows over (as it eventually will) go down to the county courthouse, get your marriage license and have the ceremony performed by a JP at that time. I suppose it could work, provided the church is ammenable, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be.

Well, it is a week later - what's the status on this? Still no marriage licenses?

So, it seems to me that same-sex couples that wish to be married and commit for life: why not? Why not indeed.
In fact why ban same gender marraiges anyway, if two people want to get married I really can't see the issue if they are the same gender or not.
If they're happy, have a good life together ahead of them and all that, what is the big deal?

Before we start a rehash of the Gay Marriage thread, I link it here:

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000628

Ishmael and Amatorius - As you will see, there are some passionate people with passionate positions on the topic.

Pardon me, but This thread was opened with this:

if it is for real then it is an odd twist on the whole gay marriage debate. I don't think my post was off-topic.

thanks

I wasn't saying it was off-topic. I was just mentioning that there was another whole thread on that one topic alone in case you wanted to read it. There were some pretty good arguments raised in there.

Marriages are a thing of the past, its all about asexual reproduction now!

@dmc. I see; well, thanks, but I actually find moral/relegious debates on this issue VER boring and VERRY overargued. Secular/Legal debates I find interesting.

But I guess that's a hard distinction to make in a country where church and state are inextricably linked, in spite of constitutional murmurings to the contrary.

LOL. Well said, Erebus. You too, Grey, come to think of it.

With regard to the topic, I think it's grand that the state is geting out of marriage. Hopefully people will get married anyway and skip the legal requirements. That way we'll take another step on the happy road to making marriage a religious ceremony like it always has been.