I’ve lost track of who authors “The BOOT” column, but it matters not. The column titled “Civil Union Victory” on Page 7 of the Feb. 7 issue states that Judge Mosman’s ruling related to “an initiative to repeal Oregon’s civil union law for the ballot.” There are two things wrong with that: 1) It was a petition for a referendum to kill HB2007 before it became law, and 2) you cannot repeal an act (HB2007) before it becomes law!!
It was to become law on Jan. 1, but Mosman’s temporary restraining order prevented that. Now that HB2007 has officially become law (Feb. 1) when the TRO was lifted, the next move by the opposition, if they don’t “go away,” will be the initiative to repeal the law. However, an initiative requires more signatures than a referendum. They will now need 82,769, to be exact. This will be in our favor.
I personally think the opposition will not appeal. It was a non-issue and it’s doubtful they will do the petition. It’s a lot of work, and “the people” may not support it. But I’m not always right.
Cheers for civil unions.
Bob Bates
This article appears in Feb 14-20, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I don’t quite get the point of a ‘civil union’ or old fashioned marriage either, for that matter. Why bother? What possible benefit? The tax advantages go to singles living together by an overwhelming margin in both cases. My ‘wife’ and I would take an $850.00 a month ‘hit’ were we to wed or form a civil union. Mutual ownership of property with right of survivor-ship is a simple matter. There is no (or little) peer pressure for civil unions or marriage. No one seems to give a damn whether one is married or in a civil union or single or communal or keeps near-sighted bees that have osteoarthritis.
Seems like a very large amount of sturm and drang, fuss and bother, over less than nothing.