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.
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.
..............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.
I knew those (insert group here) were ruining (insert thing here) and here is my (chose from: Proof, theory, anecdotal evidence here)!
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".
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.
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.
I believe domestic partnership is used to game the insurance system based on same sex couples that couldn't get married. They can't say only same sex people are allowed to get a domestic partnership but they can put conditions on it that don't appear to be bias. So this has less to do with actual marriage and more to do with politics and insurance.
>>> Well apparently under the Oregon, they cannot Marry as that is in all major religions and the Oregon Constitution the union of a man and a woman. But they can have a Domestic Partnership. So the question is, what is the reason for any restrictions like cousins? >>>Just proper guidance I suppose. Many people will follow the law. I just decided to skip the Banjo player part.
Male and female couples can enter into a domestic partnership, it just isn't same sex couples that can. That's why DPs can't be cousins.
Well every answer was simply other obtuse or snark. Doesn't that deserve to be acknowledge as such? If that is not true, then morons did indeed respond.
all 4 of you witnessed this? one guy said he wants to see a parade....that's one plan from the oval office
I see no mention of this in statutes Dog. "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." https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.305
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.
Had to double-check, but Marzy's actually right on this one. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/106.310 "Domestic partnership" means a civil contract described in ORS 106.300 (Short title) to 106.340 (Certain privileges, immunities, rights, benefits and responsibilities granted or imposed) entered into in person between two individuals of the same sex who are at least 18 years of age, who are otherwise capable and at least one of whom is a resident of Oregon."
