Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Just out. (Portland, OR) 1983-2013 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 21, 2003)
22 Jmmt mut * november 21.2003 LOCALLY news OWNED A OPERATED j I JVem Jiacatien ' FRESH LOCAL jI | ORGANIC 2 0 1 9 SE B e lm o n t WITH RETAIL SPACE PRODUCE PO rganics to You 1 (503)236-6496 j HOMI: in 1 J kv ■ I j IV Ol o m . A M t I.O O O s w w w .o r g a n i c s to y o u .o r g It’s a you parade. H erzog-M eier Chris Mercer/George Kettner 5 0 3 -6 4 4 -9 1 2 1 Drivers wanted Serving the Portland Metro area fo r all your Escrow and Title needs • Residential • Commercial • 1031 Tax Deferred Exchanges • Reverse Exchanges • Business Opportunities Continued from Page 1 • Lower Leg • Upper Leg • Back • Shoulders • All Large Body Parts s79.95 R eactions ot O regon, Inc. 503 - 350-5099 fx: 503.226.7399 New Hair Removal now sweeping through malls across North America. Imagine a laser so affordable, painless and permanent enough that it would eliminate shaving, plucking, waxing, razor bumps and electrolysis forever. It's h e re ! • Bikini Line • Underarms • Lip «Chin • All Small Areas *39? U M d and andorsad by wortd-ranownad Or. Patrick B rita ri (Invantor of tha Foto Facial) ■Palnlau •Only FDA-approved laser to treat aM hair colors •Safest laser for treattng all skin colors •Unbeatable results C elebrating M a ss . Rather than throw out the marriage law as unconstitutional, the court remanded the case to the trial court and delayed its implementa tion for 180 days “to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.” Justice John M. Greaney concurred with the majority hut would have gone further. Using “equal protection" analysis, he would order immediate issuance of marriage licenses to the plaintiff couples. Delaying the remedy “on the grounds that the couples are of the same gender constitutes a categorical restriction of a funda mental right." The three dissenters, in a decision penned hy Justice Robert J. Corday, argued, “The court has transmuted the ‘right’ to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage.” They drew upon U.S. Supreme Court deci sions that tied the “fundamental" right to marry “primarily on the underlying interest of every individual in procreation, which, historically, could only legally occur within the construct of marriage because sexual intercourse outside of marriage was a criminal a ct.... No matter how personal or intimate a decision to marry some one of the same sex might be, the right to make it is not guaranteed by the right of personal autonomy." Cordays dissent acknowledged that plain tiffs had made a powerful case for the exten sion of the benefits and burdens of civil mar riage to same-sex couples, but he argued, "that decision must be made by the Legislature, not the court." Justice Martha B. Sosman, in a separate dis sent that was joined by the two other judges, argued that the Legislature should not tinker with the traditional definition of marriage until it is sure that it will not adversely affect this critical institution within society. She advocated a circular Catch-22 approach that would defer gay marriage until society reached a consensus that the idea in the abstraction was a gixxJ one. Put my experience to work for you! P a c ific N o r t h w e s t T it l e R e c en t FDA ap proval m akes a ll o th e r lasers obsolete Gina Smith and Heidi Norton (left) and Richard Linnell and Gary Chalmers are two of the plaintiff couples who successfully sued Massachusetts for the right to marry / NUVO IMHWIONAI K Z ids er ski/i colters Clackamas Town Center 800 . 750.4416 www nuvointernational.com his is a momentous legal and cultural I milestone. T he law caught up with the reality that gay people and families are part of the fabric of our communities," said Mary L. Bonauto. She is an attorney with Gay & Les bian Advocates and Defenders, the Boston- based group that represented the gay and les- hian couples. “This is a proud moment for our family,” lead plaintiff Hillary GixxJndge said. “We no longer have to explain to our 8-year-old daughter why we can’t marry, or that we love each other even though we are not married. And more impor tantly, we’ll be able to provide Annie with the full protections under marriage” that we cannot provide now. “We hope that our fellow Americans will treat these new marriages just like they want their own to lx* treated, offering respect and sup port to these couples,” said David Buckel, direc tor of Lambda Legal’s Marriage Project. The organization is appealing a lower court decision on marriage in New Jersey. Lambda executive director Kevin Cathcart said the U .S. Supreme C ourt’s Lawrence vs. Texas ruling, which banned state sodomy statutes, “pushed open a door that had been locked tor gay people for decades. Today’s decision is in that same spirit. We will build on our victory and deliver its promise to gay people in all areas of life, including relation ship recognition, parenting, schools and employment." Yet even amid the celebrating came warn ings of cant ion. “We are also preparing our fam ilies for an onslaught ot attacks by right-wing activists,” said Dave Noble, executive director ot National Stonewall Deimxrats. “T he ruling is the beginning, not the end, ot our struggle for all marriages to he treated equally.” T h e Family Research Council is leading the right-wing charge. “This is a wake-up call for both the American public and our elected officials,” said president Tony Perkins, pre dicting the apocalypse. “If we do not amend the Massachusetts State Constitution so that it explicitly protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and if we do not amend the U .S. Constitution with a Federal Marriage Amendment that will protect mar riage on the federal level, we will lose mar riage in this nation. We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction." Most leading Democratic political leaders have embraced a traditional definition of mar riage as between a man and a woman yet have opposed changing the Constitution. Their Republican counterparts have been wary of embracing an amendment, pending the Massa chusetts decision. T he court’s involvement of the Legislature in the process of creating gay marriage might offer a sufficient fig leaf to deter the Bush administration from jumping on the amend ment bandwagon. Only time, and polling data, j will reii. jn B ob R oehr ls a /fee-lance reporter based m Was/ungton, D .C .
