Jump to content

Talk:Domestic partnership in Oregon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Differences in rights?

[edit]

Does anyone know, or can anyone list, which rights are NOT afforded to same-sex couples registering as domestic partners, versus married couples, i.e. the differences between the two unions? And can there be a link to the actual statute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalTech (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

move?

[edit]

It looks like a bill is going to be signed this week that will create a domestic partnership status in Oregon ... this article should probably be moved to Domestic partnership in Oregon, yes? --Jfruh (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new title?

[edit]

Jfruh, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It doesn't look like there's a separate article entitled "Domestic Partnerships in Oregon" anymore. Perhaps the title of this article should be changed?

As it stands now, the title of this article is incorrect and misleading. Currently, there is no such thing as an Oregon civil union. Whether you could have a VT, CT, NJ, or NH civil union recognized in OR is a whole other question, but a civil union that was entered into in OR does not exist. Civil unions, according to their current incarnation in the aforementioned four jurisdictions, are supposed to act as an analog to marriage. They require the same procedures and grant the same benefits as marriages. The legal recognition afforded to same-sex couples in Oregon (here's the link) is different in a number of ways. Most notably:

1. The legislation specifically refers to these contracts as domestic partnerships and not civil unions or marriage.

2. There is no ceremony requirement. Case law and statute are very clear on this matter; a marriage or civil union must have a ceremony to be valid.

3. The decision by the legislature to limit of the scope of recognition only within the confines of Oregon is a stark contrast to the recognition enjoyed by marriages and civil unions, which are presumed valid in a jurisdiction other than that where the marriage/civil union was entered into (obviously, a discussion of the federal and state DOMA statutes is merited on this point, but is ancillary to the issue at hand in this article).

I think for accuracy's sake, the words "civil unions" should be removed from this article title soon. As for what the article's new title should be, I think "Domestic partnerships in Oregon" is great. I certainly think a mention of the fact that the legislature purposefully named these relationships domestic partnerships (so as to avoid any potential conflicts with the current 'man/woman only' definition of marriage in the state) is warranted. Thoughts?Ronnotronald 14:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership/partnership

[edit]

Ugh ... to match Wikipedia style and the other articles on ths topic, the the title of this page ought to be "Domestic partnership in Oregon", with a small "p", not "Partnership", capital "P", as it is now. Unfortunately, the small "p" version of the page already exists as a redirect, so I have no idea how to fix it. I'm going to enquire at the help desk about it ... --Jfruh (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the article over the redirect; please check Special:Whatlinkshere/Domestic Partnerships in Oregon at your leisure to take care of any remaining redirects. -- nae'blis 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

Though this article has a fair amount of info, most of it comes from another article summarized here. Increaseing the breadth of the article will get it to a B class. Need to convert to inline citations for further improvement. Aboutmovies 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It doesn't seem fair/balanced to include only the website collecting ballot signatures to countermand this law. Not that I have any idea what to do about it...--69.19.14.24 09:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, external links should be balanced (one-to-one relationship) [1] and that should likely be done on this article. As to the site that is collecting ballot signatures, it does not appear they are doing so now, so it's kind of a moot point. 68.116.112.125 17:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So all the external links are to anti-gay marriage websites. Meanwhile several of the references are to 365gay.com, a gay news service. Does this add up to balance in the article? I'm tempted to remove the anti-gay links as not being pertinent to the article, but I'm afraid that would simply be a reflection of my bias. Thoughts? Katr67 17:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is sort of a mixed bag. 365Gay is hardly an unbiased news source, but the two remaining links are clearly in opposition to the legislation in question. I believe they are both valid as they do provide more information on the topic. However, there certainly is room for other links as necessary. I'm sure articles on both sides exist. There should be balance for both points of view per Wiki guidelines (see above). 68.116.112.125 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the out of date one, and put the Basic Rights Oregon link in it's place. BRO is basically the Pro-gay rights group fighting this attempts to repeal the recent laws. Oregons republicans are natoriously fractured, and the antigay rights groups are no exception, so their are probably several sights that could be linked to. That should leave two links: Concerned Oregons Info(One Con) and Basic Rights Oregon(one pro).Kairos 10:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works. I'm going to retitle the links so it's clear why they are in the external links section. Katr67 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this included in HB 2839 when it's unrelated (directly)?

[edit]

Section 5a. Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage. [Created through initiative petition filed March 2, 2004, and adopted by the people Nov. 2, 2004]


If anything it should be under "history" of the domestic partnership law if at all. If isn't related to a new bill that would change the original domestic partnership law. Can we please clean up this section and maybe add the part where it got final bill approval when signed by the govenor on 6/25/09

http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/HB2839/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.27.227 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in the legislation

[edit]

Oregon's domestic partnership law is no longer similar to that in Washington, considering same-sex marriage is now legal in the state of Washington. Someone with knowledge of this should amend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalTech (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Domestic partnership in Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Domestic partnership in Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Domestic partnership in Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_partnership_in_Oregon&oldid=1258455483"