All these posts, and it’s only the lower court ruling, which could be overturned.<\/p>\n
Typically, The One True b!X<\/a> has the best coverage (here <\/a>and here<\/a>). B!X is calling this a victory for marriage equality opponants.<\/p>\n He’s got a point; separate is not equal.<\/p>\n But then again… Just a year or two ago, a court ruling requiring Civil Unions (flawed as they are) in Oregon would have been seen by everyone as a stunning victory for gay rights.<\/p>\n Also, Oregon is not Massachusetts… it’s very easy to amend the Oregon Constitution with a ballot measure. I’m pretty certain that Oregon voters would amend the Constitution to prevent gay marriage. However, it’s not as clear to me that a majority will be willing to amend the Constitution just to prevent Civil Unions.<\/p>\n I oppose Civil Unions in the long run, because I think they’re a degrading concession to anti-gay sentiment. Separate is not equal, nor is it fair. Nonetheless, in the short term, it’s possible that Civil Unions will be a better strategic route to eventual equality; it’s certainly better than a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (Which might happen anyway, but is more likely to happen if an Oregon Court rules that our constitution requires marriage equality).<\/p>\n UPDATE<\/b>: Issac Laquedem <\/a>and Worldwide Pablo <\/a>also have comments on this case..<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" All these posts, and it’s only the lower court ruling, which could be overturned. Typically, The One True b!X has the best coverage (here and here). B!X is calling this a victory for marriage equality opponants. He’s got a point; … Continue reading