Then and now. What do you think Oregon? Who do you believe? When Oregon's "Defense of Marriage Coalition" was seeking a Yes vote from Oregon Voters on Measure 36, the DOMC was clear that the vote was not about civil unions, and even suggested it would be open to civil union legislation to provide same-sex couples with the benefits of marriage. Here is what they said then:

"Same-sex couples should seek marriage-like rights through another avenue, such as civil unions."
- Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign Bend Bulletin 8/20/2004

[Now Tim Nashif and his organization are now fighting very hard against civil unions - what's the story?]

"If same-sex couples need legal protection, they should consult their legislative representatives. If they need legislation to do that, no one is going to stand in their way."
-Defense of Marriage Coalition Executive Director Mike White, Lincoln City News Guard 11/10/2004

[That is exactly what we are trying to do via the legislature with SB1000. So why are they "standing in our way"?]


"Gay and lesbian couples are free to pursue marriage-like rights via a different avenue, such as civil unions that have been approved in Vermont."
- Defense of Marriage Coalition Spokesperson Georgene Rice, Deschutes County Bulletin 9/30/2004

[Again, that is exactly what we are trying to do via the legislature with SB1000. Why did they lie to the Oregonians?]


"The notion that civil unions by definition would be unequal is without merit because civil unions become what you make them."
- Defense of Marriage Coalition Spokesperson Georgene Rice, Oregon Public Broadcasting 10/2004


"The coalition set out to defend marriage, and now we have an amendment that does that."
- Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign AP 11/22/2004


"Oregon's measure was written specifically not to address civil unions."
- Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign Bend Bulletin. 11/6/2004

But, now that measure 36 has passed, the same groups are saying something very different. These people are FULL of lies and deceit. This is what they are saying now:


"We would be against any measure that takes all the benefits of marriage and then calls it something else. We don't think Oregonians had that in mind when they passed Measure 36."
- Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign Bend Bulletin 4/15 2005


"This is gay marriage in disguise. Kulongoski and his fellow Democrats trying to force their radical agenda on Oregonians."
- Representative Jeff Kropf Register Guard 4/14/2005


"SB 1000 takes everything that marriage is and calls it civil unions."
- Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign The Statesman Journal 4/17/2005


"The provisions of SB 1000 are a direct affront to the vote of the people on Measure 36."
- Rep. Dennis Richardson The Statesman Journal 4/17/2005


"First, marriage was never intended as a means to access rights. I believe that degrades the institution. The rights and benefits associated with marriage are a byproduct, designed to recognize and encourage the contribution and strength traditional families make to society."
- Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign Oregonian 4/17/2005


"If civil union status is granted, there will be no turning back. The liberals and homosexual-lesbian coalition will have won and the people’s vote in favor of traditional marriage will have been effectively nullified."
- Representative Dennis Richardson In an e-mail to other House Republicans


"Please understand there is no greater threat to marriage right now than civil unions."
- Oregon Family Council Communications Director Nick Graham In a letter to supporters 4/26/05


Am I the only one who sees the contradictory statements here? Oregon voters were misled during the Measure 36 campaign... and these right wing fucks who proclaim to be "oh so holy" are nothing but liars. So that's that - facts are facts. Do Oregonians truly believe these people?

The DOMC has hired a lobbyist in Salem to fight SB 1000 - the bill that would grant civil unions to same-sex couples. It would also bring a statewide ban on discrimination in the workplace (meaning that you cannot be fired simply for being gay - no different than if you were black for example), Oregonians can be denied service in a bank or restaurant because they're gay, rejected for housing because they're gay and turned down for a job interview -- or even fired -- because they're gay. Is this fair? NO. I don't care how conservative you are - this is NOT right, but it IS real.

Think about this people. Go back and read these disgusting quotes from above. Senate Bill 1000 needs to be passed.

Falwell, the chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., joined Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and Focus on the Family chairman James Dobson in a "Mayday for Marriage" rally on the National Mall last October that opposed same-sex marriage.

Ron Godwin, president of Jerry Falwell Ministries, called Foreman's words a "false representation" of the biblical convictions held by Falwell and other leaders.

"This is another example of hate speech about so-called hate speech," he said. "Dr. Falwell and Dr. Dobson and these other men of faith who express clear convictions about their faith are doing this and have been doing this, probably since before this young man was born, with no intent whatsoever to personally offend any particular individual."

Perkins and Dobson could not be reached immediately for comment.

On Tuesday, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs released its annual report on violence against lesbians, gay men, bisexual people and transgender individuals. It found that reported violence against these groups of people increased by 4 percent, from 1,720 incidents in 2003 to 1,792 in 2004. It found that the number of murders increased 11 percent from 2003 to 2004, from 18 to 20.

The report is based on data compiled in 11 cities, states and regions across the country and drawn from victim service organizations that work with gays and lesbians.

Kulongoski spoke at the annual fund-raiser lunch for Basic Rights Oregon, a non-profit group that works for gay rights issues. Many among the 500 people at the lunch represent Oregon businesses, including Nike, Powell's Books, eROI, Portland General Electric. and Standard Insurance

Kulongoski told them all committed couples need to be respected equally, and called on lawmakers who say they support such equality to start working on legislation.

"Now is the time for the Legislature to stop clapping and start acting," he said.

Kulongoski wants lawmakers to pass a Senate Bill he introduced that would grant the rights of marriage to gay and lesbian couples through civil unions and would make discrimination based on sexual preference illegal.

He said it would be "morally unacceptable" not to pass the bill, and said the legislation is needed because sexual descrimination still exists in Oregon.

While those at the event praised Kulongoski, Tim Nashif of the Defense of Marriage Coalition criticized Kulongoski's Senate bill as an attempt to "basically gut marriage."

Nashif's group supports "reciprocal benefits," which would grant selected rights to all sorts of family groups, including two brothers living together or two friends. A bill will be introduced soon to provide for reciprocal benefits. (TO LEARN HOW RECIPROCAL BENEFITS UNDERMINE TRUE EQUALITY CLICK HERE)

Nashif said the group is opposed to Kulongoski's bill because it grants all the rights of marriage to gay couples and also give gays "minority status."

Kulongoski, however, said the recent Supreme Court ruling that cancelled 3,000 marriage licenses issued to gay and lesbian couples by Multnomah County "clearly left the door open for the Legislature to create civil unions."

"This is an opportunity they must not miss," he said.

Kulongoski's remarks were met with applause and a standing ovation.

"It feels good to be in a state where the governor has taken that kind of leadership," said Kregg Arntson, a spokesman for Portland General Electric who attended the event.

The governor was praised by Basic Rights Oregon for his long-running support of gay rights.

"Nowhere else has a governor stepped up to take leadership in a way that this governor has," said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon.

Posting from: The Basic Rights Oregon Blog.

The Fungus Factor: Something Stinks in Oregon

It’s been a hard week for all of us at BRO staff and supporters alike. It would have been wonderful to have the time to celebrate the leadership that Governor Kulongoski is showing by endorsing Senate Bill 1000, and to thank the bipartisan sponsors of the bill. But that was not to be. Instead, we were faced with a court decision that declared that the marriages of over 3,000 same sex couples were now declared null and void. It was heartbreaking and many people called and emailed us, crushed at the news.

That would have been hard enough, but the decision seems to have encouraged the expression of some of the most vile and nasty feelings about GLBT people. Without shame, people have been unleashing their hate and fear, openly declaring that we are dangerous predators, obsessively promiscuous, and biologically defective. These are not only outrageous lies, but the expression of them is hateful and cruel. As if we weren’t in enough pain, we now have to figure out how to keep going and hold our heads up when we are being attacked, dehumanized, and lied about everywhere we turn.

There seems to be no end to the outright lies and blaming GLBT people for the attack on us from the Defense of Marriage Coalition and Oregon Family Council. Never mind that Measure 36 was filed before the Multnomah County marriages the DOMC says they were forced by the county commissioners to introduce a ballot measure. Never mind that SB 1000 has nothing to do with educational curriculum the Oregon Family Council says we’ll be teaching gay sex in elementary schools. Never mind that all through the campaign, the DOMC said they only cared about marriage now they have hired a lobbyist to oppose civil unions and any non-discrimination bill.

Why is this hatred surfacing now? Why, after so many years, does it seem like the nastiness of the 1992 No on 9 campaign is back? Lots of reasons, probably. Measure 36 passed, and that has enabled the DOMC to claim they have a mandate, as though the measure was not about marriage, but about gay people generally. A new group of right wing extremists has emerged, and the power is going to their heads. But there’s another reason, too, which I think of as the Fungus Factor.

The Fungus Factor goes like this: prejudice is like a fungus. It grows in dark, cold places, which means it is often hidden from view. In air and direct light, it dies. The work that all of us have been engaging in is that light and airwe are bringing up issues, we are telling the truth about our lives. Prejudice can’t survive the blinding light of truth.

But let’s not forget that before the fungus dies, it smells really bad. In fact, it stinks. And I think that what is happening right now is the smell of something pretty long-festering and disgusting hitting the air. Many of us probably thought it was not so bad here in Oregon, that time and several ballot measure campaigns had killed it off. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

It would be tempting to shut the door on it and run away fast. But we can’t do that, as painful and unpleasant as this experience is. There are a lot of people who would like to believe, as Tim Nashif of the DOMC keeps saying, that there is no discrimination against GLBT people in Oregon. Others would like to believe that the dehumanization and hatred of people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity is over. Well, you have only to read the letters to the editor in your daily paper to see the terrible truth of how people really feel.

In order to kill off this prejudice, we’re going to have to face it. It’s going to have to smell really bad here in Oregon maybe even worse than it does right now. Either that or we just go back to where we were 18 months ago: silent, complacent, not wanting to rock the boat, even if it meant that we and our families continued to face discrimination without recourse every single day. At BRO, we’re not going back, and we hope that you don’t want to either. It is really hard right now, and it will continue to be. The good news is that it is getting harder for middle-of-the-road people to deny that prejudice exists when it is being spilled all over the media on a daily basis. Believe me, no one is going to be able to ignore this smell, so let’s just keep on getting out there and shining your light on it wherever it lives.

-Roey Thorpe

“America was founded on the concept of separation of church and state, with the guarantee that religious freedom will be respected and the state will treat all people equally in the eyes of the law,” stated Assemblymember Mark Leno. “AB 19 puts that fundamental right into practice."

“Today is a tremendous day for committed couples and their children who only wish to protect and provide for their families,” said Executive Director Geoffrey Kors of Equality California. “California cannot continue to discriminate against love and commitment. Two loving people who simply want to live their lives together deserve equal treatment under the law."

“California cannot have an honest discussion about civil rights without talking about gay and lesbian rights,” said Alice Huffman, President of the California State Convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “Both movements have a place in history as the NAACP stands tall with the gay and lesbian community.”

“As a woman of faith and as a spiritual leader, I am committed to strive for justice and to affirm the dignity and equality of every human being as a child of God," said Reverend Bea Chun, pastor of Christ the Good Shepard Lutheran Church in San Jose. "I have come to believe that the question of civil marriage equality is very much a justice issue."

“Our family should be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as any other family,” said Baltimore Gonzalez, EQCA’s Volunteer Chapter Leader in Fresno. “We should not be second class citizens in our own homes.”

AB 19 follows last year's historic vote when the committee became the first in the country to pass a marriage equality bill without a court order. There are now 200 organizations from across all communities in support of marriage equality.

ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY VOTE:

6 AYES: Jones, Evans, Laird, Levine, Lieber and Montañez

3 NOES: Harman, Haynes and Leslie

Gay and lesbian activists are tearful in Washington state, joyful in Connecticut and angry in Texas after a series of legislative votes that reflect America's tumultuous, seesaw debate over whether to broaden or narrow their rights.

Connecticut, in a historic step last week, became the first state to approve marriage-like civil unions for same-sex couples without the prodding of a court order. However, on the same day the Texas House voted to bar gays from being foster parents; the next day the Washington Senate, by one vote, defeated a major gay civil-rights bill.

In Alabama, meanwhile, lawmakers considered a bill aimed at keeping books tolerant of homosexuality out of public schools. A despondent lesbian activist, Patricia Todd, told a House committee: "I feel you all hate us."

Gay-rights leaders and their opponents tried to depict the contrasting events in a positive light.

"As in any civil rights movement, it's often three steps forward and two steps back," said Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay-rights group. "Sometimes, we have all of that movement in the context of one week.''

He was particularly encouraged by the developments in Connecticut, where Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed a civil union bill that reached her desk with bipartisan support.

The only other states to go as far - Vermont with civil unions and Massachusetts with full recognition of same-sex marriage - acted under court orders, enabling opponents of gay rights to blame "activist judges'' for circumventing the people's will. In Connecticut, Solmonese said, "it was an organic product of the legislative process.''

However, Brian Brown of the conservative Family Institute of Connecticut contended that the civil union bill would not have won approval in a popular referendum. He predicted lawmakers of both parties who supported it could face tough challenges in the 2006 election.

"Not a single legislator ran on this issue in 2004," he said. "You can't say this is the democratic process at work until you see the results of the next election."

Brown's group is helping organize a rally Sunday at the state Capitol opposing civil unions. He estimated that 10,000 people might attend.

"You're going to see a new political force in this state that's unlike anything you've seen before," he said.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the Connecticut bill showed how quickly the debate over same-sex marriage had evolved.

"Five years ago the concept of civil unions caused a virtual civil war in Vermont," he said, while in Connecticut it was an easy-to-accept option for many politicians not ready to endorse gay marriage.

In contrast to Connecticut, some activists were in tears at Washington's Capitol in Olympia on Thursday as senators - by a 25-24 vote - rejected a House-passed bill banning discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment and insurance. In three decades of trying, it was the closest the bill's supporters had come to victory.

"We have exposed bigotry and prejudice," said Rep. Ed Murray, an openly gay Democrat from Seattle. "We didn't win today, but we will win.''

Also dismaying to activists was approval by the Texas House of Representatives of a proposal to bar gays and lesbians from being foster parents. No other state has such a law in force.

"I don't think it is right for young children to be exposed to this type of behavior when they are young and innocent," said the measure's sponsor, Rep. Robert Talton.

The measure's fate in the Texas Senate is uncertain. National gay-rights groups are mobilizing to seek its defeat, warning that it could cause many hundreds of foster children to be removed from their homes.

"As a parent, I cannot even imagine the horror of a knock at the door and the state ripping our children away from me and my spouse," said Jennifer Crisler of the Family Pride Coalition, a national group advocating on behalf of gay families.

No vote was taken last week on the Alabama bill that prompted Patricia Todd's remark about hate. The measure, which may be voted on this week, would prohibit schools from spending public funds on books or other materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.

"This is not about hate," said the sponsor, Rep. Gerald Allen. "This is about our culture being under attack."

Todd disagreed, telling the House Education Committee: "We are your brothers and sisters, your aunts and uncles. We go to church with you. And the message I get from you is: 'We hate you.'"

Overseas developments also elicited mixed emotions. In predominantly Roman Catholic Spain, the lower house of Parliament approved the Socialist government's gay marriage bill. It would make Spain the third European country to legalize same-sex marriages, along with Belgium and the Netherlands.

That vote came two days after the election of the new pope, Benedict XVI, who as a cardinal was the Vatican's leading enforcer of doctrine frowning on homosexual relationships and same-sex unions.

Many of the critics accused the company of bowing to pressure from a prominent evangelical church in Redmond, Wash., where Microsoft is based.

The bill, or similar versions of it, had been voted down in Washington over three decades; it failed by one vote Thursday in the state Senate. Gay rights advocates denounced Microsoft, which supported the bill in previous years, for abandoning their cause. Web logs and chat rooms Thursday were buzzing with accusations that the company had caved to the Christian right and that it had betrayed its many gay employees.

"Apparently Microsoft's new motto is, 'It's your potential, our passion - - as long as you're not gay or lesbian,' '' said Dan Kully, a board member of Equal Rights Washington, a gay rights group that lobbied on behalf of the failed bill, referring to Microsoft's latest advertising slogan.

Microsoft officials denied any connection between their decision not to endorse the bill, which was supported by many other high-tech companies and multinational corporations, and the church's opposition, although they acknowledged meeting twice with the church minister, Ken Hutcherson.

Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church, who has organized several rallies against gay marriage in Washington state and Washington, D.C., said he had threatened in those meetings to organize a national boycott of Microsoft products. A state legislator, Rep. Ed Murray, a gay Democrat and the main sponsor of the bill, said that late last month he had had conversations with high-level Microsoft employees who mentioned the boycott threat and said they could not back the bill this year.

After Hutcherson said he would organize the boycott, "they backed off," Hutcherson said in a telephone interview Thursday. "I told them I was going to give them something to be afraid of Christians about."

The bill would have extended protections against discrimination in employment, housing and other fields to gay men and lesbians.

Microsoft officials said that the meetings with the minister had not persuaded them to back away from supporting the bill and that they had already decided to take a neutral position on it.

They simply examined their legislative priorities and decided that because they already offer extensive benefits to gay employees and that King County, where Microsoft is located, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, with a law as stringent as what the state bill proposed, they were focusing on other legislative matters.

"Our government affairs team made a decision before this legislative session that we would focus our energy on a limited number of issues that are directly related to our business," said Mark Murray, a company spokesman. "That decision was not influenced by external factors. It was driven by our desire to focus on a smaller number of issues in this short legislative session.''

He added that company officials had met twice with Hutcherson but that it was "long after our decision to focus on a tighter legislative agenda."

"We're disappointed that people are misinterpreting those meetings," he said.

But Ed Murray, the state representative, said that in a conversation last month with Bradford Smith, Microsoft's senior vice president and general counsel, Smith had made it clear to him that the company was under pressure from the church and the pastor and that he was also concerned about the reaction to company support of the bill among its Christian employees, the lawmaker said.

Smith would not comment for this article.

Switch to Apple!

Regina Tobin of Southwest Portland writes...

Following the passage of Measure 36 and the Oregon Supreme Court's decision last week revoking my marriage, I have been reassuring my friends and family that I am OK and that, sadly, I expected these outcomes.

But I am not OK. And I do expect equal and fair treatment. I expect my daughter to have access to the same legal protections and rights that are afforded to married heterosexual families in Oregon.

It is time for House Speaker Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village, Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland, and Gov. Ted Kulongoski, along with all of our legislators, to make passage of Senate Bill 1000 a priority ("Bill frames civil unions debate," April 14). This bill would allow civil unions for gay couples and prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue that is a "legitimate question of fairness," to paraphrase a spokesman for Minnis ("Court annuls gay marriages," April 15).

Some families have less value - Brad Townsend-Bruns

I was touched to learn that some opponents of same-sex marriage said they teach their children not to tease children of same-sex couples in school ("Court decision affirms couple's religious convictions," April 15).

Now how do same-sex couples explain to their children that in Oregon, some families have less value than others? How do you explain that some families won't have health benefits and other protections because the majority has said that some Oregonians do not have the right to be married?

It's too bad that many Christians in the Defense of Marriage Coalition have forgotten the Golden Rule.

'Hard-wired in the brain' - Brenda Peterson

Much was made clear to me about the fight against same-sex marriage and unions in Tim Nashif's Sunday Commentary article, "An illegal act has been remedied; let's consider 'reciprocal benefits' ."

The article stated that Senate Bill 1000 "would grant protected-class status to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people... SB 1000 enshrines in law that these characteristics are equal to a person's skin color, national origin or genetically determined gender."

No one chooses their national origin, skin color or gender any more than they choose to be gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Until all human beings come to understand and accept that sexual orientation is hard-wired in the brain during gestation and is not a choice made by the individual or determined by her environment, discrimination against sexual orientation will continue and legislation designed to eliminate that discrimination will be attacked.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the most common appellation for the laws that proscribe same-sex marriage, yet there is no empirical evidence that these laws even affect heterosexual unions. They do nothing to address the real financial and emotional strains on marriage, leading Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., to call the federal DOMA a "legislative placebo" when it passed in 1996.

In an April 12 guest column, Jeff Kemp asserts: " ... Same-sex marriage will further reduce the meaning of marriage. Scandinavia's experiment resulted in a big drop in heterosexual marriage and more out-of-wedlock births." A closer look at the situation in Scandinavia, however, reveals that same-sex marriage did not precede any decline in heterosexual marriage. Even Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution, who has relied on Scandinavia to justify his opposition to same-sex marriage, concedes this point.

The House Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee has found Kurtz's research "entirely without intellectual merit." For instance, Kurtz cites England as an example of cultural decline despite its lack of same-sex marriage. Otherwise, his work lacks any comparison of European countries with and without same-sex marriage to see if they have experienced declines similar to Scandinavia's and outright admits that diverse factors contribute to such decline.

Kemp expresses concern about the impact same-sex marriage has on children. This overlooks the as many as 1 million children being raised by same-sex parents. During last year's congressional debates on a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., wisely said: " ... This amendment is aimed at ... preventing any state from bringing some stability to the lives of those children by allowing (the) lesbian or gay couples ... who are raising those children to be able to get married."

Children's Rights, National Center for Youth Law and various adoption agencies have filed a friend of the court brief advocating same-sex marriage in the case before the Washington Supreme Court. The American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and many other groups concur with their findings.

When Kemp writes that this debate should not focus on "adult validation and acceptance," he dismisses how devastating prejudice is to every group that faces it. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., says of DOMA: "Society communicates particular values and attitudes to its members ... primarily through laws ... this body is pushing legislation that will reinforce intolerance and hostility toward gay people." Worst of all, codifying this animus harms and betrays vulnerable young people who are coming to terms with their sexual identities.

The American Psychological Association has stated that science has held for some time that homosexuality is not only natural but an innate characteristic. Thus, any claim that same-sex marriage will affect heterosexual relationships is specious.

Civil unions became legal in Vermont around five years ago, and 11 months ago same-sex marriage finally came to Massachusetts. The divorce rate in Massachusetts remains among the lowest in the nation, and neither state has experienced the negative effects predicted by Kemp and Kurtz. Openly gay Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., notes that social change is always met with fear and apocalyptic warnings, and it is high time we learn the lesson that these fears are unwarranted.

Full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals is a step toward a society of acceptance. Civil rights hero John Lewis, now serving in Congress, said it best in his speech against DOMA: "We are now moving toward the 21st century. Let us come together and create one nation, one people, one family, one house, the American house, the American family, the American nation."

Source: Seattle PI
By ANDREW KOHLER

"I'm very disappointed in this decision," wrote Elizabeth Baker, 44, an attorney from Salem. "The freedom to associate with those you choose, including going into a legal partnership, is basic to our country.

"We seem to be caught up in a game of semantics over the word 'marriage.' If two people are willing to enter into a partnership with defined rights and responsibilities (such as inheritance, joint property, right to visit in a hospital as next-of-kin, to make medical decisions if the other partner is unable to do so, and file a joint tax return) why should the gender of the two people involved be of any concern to the government?"

Alisa Mattiazzi, an undergraduate at Lane Community College in Eugene, also was disappointed by the ruling.

"Oregon can continue (to) discriminate and ... make its voice heard for all to hear. Unfortunately, Oregon is not much different than the U.S. as a whole, and no one really cares," she wrote.

"The majority of Americans are not only homophobic, they are afraid that their heterosexual lives are somehow fragile enough to be damaged by other people's personal lives." (amen)

Homosexuality Debate

One wrote that "sex-marriage" is against God's laws and sets a bad example to young people about morality. Another advocated psychological help for gays, adding that they did not deserve "special rights." (no - not special rights, equal rights)

Such comments drew sharp opposing comments.

"I truly believe government does not belong in the bedroom," wrote Susan Stoehr, 42, a security officer from Salem. "There is nothing wrong with homosexuals. They are people just looking to fulfill a human need. They should not be treated as third class."

Chris Kester, 54, a program associate in Salem, agreed.

"I think in a few years we will look like laughingstocks. At some point in our future we will recognize that gays/lesbians are no different than the rest of us and we'll be amazed that we ever denied them the same rights as everyone else." (Could not have said it better myself - it's like how inter-racial marriage is these days. Who gives a shit? People love who they love. Look at the craziness at the time inter-racial marriage was illegal)

Civil unions?

"I think at the very least, the Legislature should allow civil unions for same-sex couples and outlaw discrimination of any kind," wrote Carmen Chavez, 36, an office specialist from Salem. "Civil rights and the pursuit of happiness shouldn't be limited to a select few."

"Practically, I support Ted Kulongoski's civil union/non-discrimination bill as maybe the best option for lesbians and gays right now," wrote Charles Wynnsk, 48, a teaching assistant from Salem. "I believe lesbians and gays should have the right to marry on the exact same terms as heterosexual are allowed to marry." (Agree with this. Any step forward to full equality is a good step forward.)

Carmen L. Crause, 61, of Salem disagreed.

"I don't believe in civil unions for same-sex couples. I do believe that there should be no discrimination. However, I see no reason for 'special' rights," Crause wrote. (Again EQUAL rights - not special rights. If she thinks that gays and lesbians are looking for a 'special right', meaning a right that others don't have she is very ignorant. She is the one with the 'special right' at this point. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in this?)

"I don't feel that they are 'entitled' to anything special for living the way they want. I really don't see how married people get 'special' treatment and I've been married for over 40 years." (I could list hundreds here in Oregon and well over 1100 at the federal level)

Don Jarvis, 45, an electrician/programmer from Dallas, offered a nuanced view.

"Marriage has always been a joining of a man and a woman. If the state wants to give benefits to 'civil unions' then they should be able to. But please do not call it a marriage." (Why are these people so afraid of the word marriage? Heterosexuals have screwed up marriage for hundreds of years. 1 out of 2 marriages these days end in divorce - you all should bring the focus back to the sanctity of marriage in your own lives.)

Hello Friends, Samantha here. As you may of heard, yesterdays Oregon Supreme Court Action has determined that I am no longer married. After a long emotional journey yesterday Kristin brought up the fact that we paid $60 for our marriage lisence and that she wanted it back. Well I have just learned that the county is issuing $60 checks to all 3,022 couples that were married last year. That's $181,320.

Personally that $60 is no longer in my cash flow so my immediate response was... give it to Basic Rights Oregon. With that $60 they can do a heck of a lot more through lawyers and lobbyists than I could do. In fact, I'd probably go spend the $60 drowning my sorrows in martinis, and that's not very productive in the fight for equality.

So I ask you to join me. If you were married, donate your $60 lisencing refund to Basic Rights Oregon. If you know someone who was married please forward this to them and encourage them to do the same. If we can get all 3,022 couples to do the same we would be making huge strides together.

Thanks,
Sam

The shirts were worn by about 20 Jerome High School students on March 23, according to organizer Zach Hust, a sophomore.

The day before, the principal had demanded that a fellow student, Miles Barerra, remove his shirt with a similar message.

Hust said he didn’t think any of the students who wore the shirts are gay, and they are not part of an organized student group.

“It’s just something we felt strongly about,” said Hust. “The shirts are no different than ones that say ‘Jesus is My Homeboy’ or ‘George W. Bush for President.’ ”

Hust said the students made the shirts from white undershirts with felt-tip pens. His had a large purple heart and said “I Support Gay Marriage” on the front, and two male figures holding hands above the word “Love” on the back.

Principal Steve Best called all the students to the office and told them they had to take the shirts off or leave school for the day. One girl went home, and the others changed their shirts at school.

“We had two days left until spring break,” said Hust. “We didn’t want the shirts to become a distraction, and if we went home, we wouldn’t be learning anything.”

The next day, the shirts appeared again, joined by another 25 students wearing shirts saying “I Support Free Speech” and “I Support the First Amendment.”

The First Amendment messages were not challenged by Best.

Though none of the students were disciplined for wearing the gay marriage shirts, Best told them they were violating the school’s dress code by wearing them.

Hust said Best was concerned that those wearing the shirts would be victimized by gaybashers.

“They should punish the gaybashers, not us,” said Hust.

Best refused to comment for this report, referring questions to Dublin City Schools spokesperson Doug Baker.

“It’s a day-by-day, shirt-by-shirt judgement call the principal makes as to whether a T‑shirt message is disruptive to the educational process or is not,” said Baker. “It’s pretty simple, really.”

“We are a learning organization,” said Baker, “If anything disrupts that, it won’t be permitted. That’s the guideline for T‑shirts or anything else.”

The school’s dress code forbids clothing which advertises or promotes activities against school regulations, is obscene or suggestive of obscenities or violence, or is drug related.

The district’s policy prohibits clothes that “materially interfere with school work, create disorder, or disrupt the educational program.”

That judgment is left to the principal.

Baker said gay pride and First Amendment shirts have been worn by students in the past “without incident.”

Baker said Barerra’s shirt “was reported as ‘disruptive’ on that particular day” which was the reason he was asked to take it off. He did not elaborate as to what that meant.

Hust contacted the ACLU of Ohio, which sent a letter to the system’s superintendent, Linda Fenner.

“The ACLU of Ohio is deeply troubled by the previous actions by school officials resulting in students removing T‑shirts because of the viewpoints expressed,” wrote ACLU legal director Jeff Gamso. “It is our opinion that even the administration’s demands to remove the shirts constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on those students’ free speech rights.”

Gamso cited the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines School District, which states that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to free speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

The Des Moines students were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.

Gamso wrote that the T‑shirts were “exactly the type of silent, unobtrusive political expression at issue in Tinker.”

Baker denied that Gamso’s letter had anything to do with the school’s change of interpretation of its dress code policy.

“The ACLU letter had nothing to do with how with how we handled this situation. I can say that for certain,” said Baker.

However, the school has changed its position.

“If the shirt in question were to be worn again, Principal Best indicated it would be permitted as long as it did not interrupt the educational process,” said Baker.

The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County a year ago.

The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.

The court noted that last November, Oregonians approved a constitutional amendment that limits marriages to a man and a woman. The court also said that long before that vote, state law had set the same limitations on marriages since Oregon became a state.

"Today, marriage in Oregon - an institution once limited to opposite-sex couples only by statute - now is so limited by the state Constitution as well," the court ruling said.

The court left the door open for state legislators to craft an alternative to gay marriages, such as civil unions.

"We conclude that Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state's legislative power," the court said.

A day earlier, Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he will push for a law allowing gay couples in Oregon to form civil unions that would give them many of the rights available to married couples.

Members of the Legislature have been awaiting the ruling to give them guidance on how to proceed on the issue of same-sex couples.

Vermont is the first and still the only state to offer civil unions to gays, passing a law in 2000. Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since May.

Multnomah County began issuing marriages to gay couples last April, arguing that not doing so violated the state Constitution. A judge ordered the practice to cease about six weeks later, but not before nearly 3,000 same-sex couples had wed.

Marte Sheehan, who married Linda Duchek last March, said she was disappointed with the ruling but had hopes the Legislature would pass a bill allowing civil unions.

"I believe that ultimately the Legislature will do the right thing," she said.

We Win Civil Unions & Same-Sex Marriages of 2004 Are Deemed Valid and Legal

The Ruling:

§ We win a declaration from the court that the State has a constitutional obligation to extend all of the benefits and protections of marriage to same-sex couples through a civil union system.

§ The court upholds those marriages performed last year as valid because they were lawfully entered into and Measure 36 can not retroactively invalidate those marriages.

What it Would Mean:

§ This decision is the win/win that we hope for and would represent an enormous victory for fairness and equality for same-sex couples and their families in the State of Oregon and a giant step forward in the struggle for full equality.

§ Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would satisfy the court’s ruling and extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

We Win Civil Unions & Same-Sex Marriages of 2004 Are Nullified

The Ruling:

§ We win a declaration from the court that the State has a constitutional obligation to extend all of the benefits and protections of marriage to same-sex couples through a civil union system.

§ The court invalidates those marriages performed last year because it determines that they were not lawfully entered into or the court could rule that the marriages were valid prior to the passage of Measure 36, but can no longer be recognized by the State of Oregon because of the passage of Measure 36.

What it Would Mean:

§ This ruling would represent an enormous victory for fairness and equality for same-sex couples and their families in the State of Oregon and a giant step forward in the struggle for full equality.

§ It is clear, however, that this decision would also be an enormously difficult moment for same-sex couples who would see their marriages painfully revoked and a very sad time for all of us who know someone who would be personally affected in this way.

§ Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would satisfy the court’s ruling and extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

We Do Not Win Civil Unions & Same-Sex Marriages of 2004 Are Nullified

The Ruling:

§ The court determines that there is no constitutional obligation to provide equal benefits and protections to same-sex relationships through a civil union or any other mechanism.

§ The court invalidates those marriages performed last year because it determines that they were unlawfully entered into or the court could rule that the marriages were valid prior to the passage of Measure 36, but can no longer be recognized by the State of Oregon because of the passage of Measure 36.

What it would mean:

§ This ruling would be a major setback for fairness and equality for same-sex couples and their families in the State of Oregon and a step backward in the struggle for full equality.

§ But, this decision would be the close of just one chapter in a long movement. It is not the end of the story or the end of our struggle. Growing public understanding and the momentum of history are on our side.

§ We wouldn’t give up. And, although our task certainly would become more difficult under this ruling, we would continue to call on the Oregon Legislature to act immediately to pass civil union legislation this session.

§ Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

The Li/Kennedy Case is Sent Back to the Trial Court & Same-Sex Marriages of 2004 Are Deemed Valid & Legal

The Ruling:

§ The court could determine that various parts of the case were not adequately considered by lower courts before being presented to the Supreme Court (for instance, new issues that arose as a result of the passage of Measure 36). Under such a scenario, the case would be sent back to the trial court that made the original ruling in the case for development of those issues.

§ The court upholds those marriages performed last year as valid because they were lawfully entered into and Measure 36 can not retroactively invalidate those marriages.

What it would mean:

§ This decision would represent an enormous victory for all same-sex couples married in Oregon in 2004 and for those elected officials who had the courage to honor their duty to uphold the constitution for all Oregonians equally.

§ While we would be disappointed in a ruling that would allow murky legal issues to persist for some time, this ruling would be significant in that the court would not have ruled against us on the fundamental merits of our case.

§ The experiences of the last year have made us more prepared than ever to successfully argue this case if we are required to do so again. We feel confident that, if not now, Oregon courts will eventually put an end to the exclusion of committed same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities other Oregon couples count on.

§ If this litigation were to continue, it would allow us an ongoing opportunity to have a statewide conversation about how Oregon same-sex couples and their families are harmed by their exclusion from equal protections and responsibilities for their relationships.

§ In addition, this case would proceed along a path parallel to the legal challenge to Measure 36, filed in Marion County Court in January.

§ We wouldn’t give up. Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

§ We would continue to call on the Oregon Legislature to act immediately to pass civil union legislation this session and work step by step for full equality in the end.

The Li/Kennedy Case is Sent Back to the Trial Court & Same-Sex Marriages of 2004 Are Nullified

The Ruling:

§ The court could determine that various parts of the case were not adequately considered by lower courts before being presented to the Supreme Court (for instance, new issues as a result of the passage of Measure 36). Under such a scenario, the case would be sent back to the trial court that made the original ruling in the case for development of those issues.

§ The court invalidates those marriages performed last year because it determines that they were entered into unlawfully or the court could rule that the marriages were valid prior to the passage of Measure 36, but can no longer be recognized by the State of Oregon because of the passage of Measure 36.

What it would mean:

§ While we would be disappointed in a ruling that would allow murky legal issues to persist for some time, this ruling would be significant in that the court would not have ruled against us on the fundamental merits of our case.

§ The experiences of the last year have made us more prepared than ever to successfully argue this case if we are required to do so again. We feel confident that, if not now, Oregon courts will eventually put an end to the exclusion of committed same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities other Oregon couples count on.

§ If this litigation continues, it will allow us an ongoing opportunity to have a statewide conversation about how Oregon same-sex couples and their families are harmed by their exclusion from equal protections and responsibilities for their relationships.

§ In addition, this case will proceed along a path parallel to the legal challenge to Measure 36, filed in Marion County Court in January.

§ The positive aspects of this decision, however, would be overshadowed by the enormously difficult moment for same-sex couples who would see their marriages painfully revoked and the sadness all of us would feel for our friends and family who would be personally affected in this way.

§ We won’t give up. We wouldn’t give up. Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

§ We will continue to call on the Oregon Legislature to act immediately to pass civil union legislation this session and work step by step for full equality in the end.

The Li/Kennedy Case is Sent Back to the Trial Court With No Ruling on Any Issues in the Case

The Ruling:

§ The court could determine that various parts of the case were not adequately considered by lower courts before being presented to the Supreme Court (for instance, new issues as a result of the passage of Measure 36). Under such a scenario, the case would be sent back to the trial court that made the original ruling in the case for development of those issues.

§ In this scenario, there would be no final legal clarity on any issues raised in the Li/Kennedy case until the case again reached the Oregon Supreme Court.

What it Would Mean:

§ While we would be disappointed in a ruling that would allow murky legal issues to persist for some time, this ruling would be significant in that the court would not have ruled against us on ANY of the merits of our case.

§ The experiences of the last year have made us more prepared than ever to successfully argue this case if we are required to do so again. We feel confident that, if not now, Oregon courts will eventually put an end to the exclusion of committed same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities other Oregon couples count on.

§ If this litigation continues, it will allow us an ongoing opportunity to have a statewide conversation about how Oregon same-sex couples and their families are harmed by their exclusion from equal protections and responsibilities for their relationships.

§ In addition, this case will proceed along a path parallel to the legal challenge to Measure 36, filed in Marion County Court in January.

§ We won’t wait for the courts to decide this issue. We wouldn’t give up. Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

§ We will continue to call on the Oregon Legislature to act immediately to pass civil union legislation this session and work step by step for full equality in the end.

Remember:

The outcomes discussed above are by no means an exhaustive list of the range of possible decisions. It is possible that the court could reach a decision not discussed here or one that is more nuanced and complex than what we have described. No matter what the ruling, the decision will be handed down with little warning. Even Basic Rights Oregon, the ACLU, the plaintiff couples and attorneys in the case will get no more than 24 hours notice. We will make every attempt to let you know via our email update and our website when we know that a decision is imminent. On the day that the decision is released, your best source of up-to-date information will be the Basic Rights Oregon website. Check back often for news and updates.

The Massachusetts legislature is considering the repeal of a 1913 law that bars issuing wedding licenses to people whose marriages would be illegal in other states. But, it also will look at three other bills to block all same-sex marriages in the state.

Shortly after Massachusetts's highest court ruled in 2003 that the state could not bar gays and lesbians from marrying (story) Gov. Mitt Romney declared that the 1913 law prevented town clerks from issuing licenses to couples who do not reside in Massachusetts. (story)

The law had been created when Massachusetts legalized interracial marriage and faced an outcry from other states which still banned the unions. Even then, the law was seldom enforced. After the US Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that preventing interracial marriage was illegal and struck down bans in those states which still prevented them the Massachusetts law collected dust.

"We have a chance to eliminate a law whose origins are in discrimination, a law that has no place on the books in Massachusetts," said openly gay State Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge).

The old law is also being challenged in court. Lawyers for out of state same-sex couples seeking to wed in Massachusetts argued their case in the Supreme Judicial Court last month. (story)

The bill before the legislature has broad support but its passage is not guaranteed. If does make it through the House and Senate it would likely face a veto from Romney.

"We like it when couples who are straight come to Massachusetts. Why should we be afraid of gay and lesbian couples coming to Massachusetts?" Josh Friedes of the Freedom to Marry Coalition said.

The Judiciary Committee is also considering three bills put forward by State Rep. Emile J. Goguen (D-Fitchburg) one of the state's most ardent opponents of same-sex marriages.

One is a new proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage without providing a civil union option. A proposed amendment which allowed for civil unions was approved last year and must get secondary approval this year before it could be put to voters.

The second bill would declare all gay marriages already performed in Massachusetts to be without statutory basis. The third would remove Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, along with justices John Greaney, Roderick Ireland and Judith Cowin, who authored the majority opinion legalizing same sex marriage.

"In the infamous Goodridge decision, these four judges established rights not found in our constitution and then set a 180-day deadline for the Legislature to amend the constitution," Goguen told the committee. "The judges knew very well that the process for amending the constitution requires considerably more time than the 180 days."

Goguen added that "no Legislature can or should be required by a court pursuing some extra-legal agenda to play beat the clock when it comes to our legislative duties."

365gay.com

Will we, GLBTQ Americans, ever see full and equal civil marriage rights? It depends on whom you listen to, of course, but I so strongly believe we will that I consider it inevitable, a foregone conclusion. But I don't put a timeline on it and the path to achieving full marriage equality is anything but clear and hazard-free.

I think our biggest obstacle, not unlike in Canada, is organized religion. We are all too familiar with the prophesies of the late pope, John Paul II and his minions, so I won't repeat them here. The vitriol being spewed is certainly not limited to Catholicism, or even Christianity. We find our people being defined as America's 'new minority', as if we are just now coming into existence, and we are the easy scapegoats for everything that is wrong in our culture, especially as it relates to 'traditional families' and their 'values'. We share this position with our sisters and brothers around the globe.

In the United States we make the specious claim of separation of church and state. It is obvious to all and applauded by too many that public officials base some of their public policy decisions on their religious beliefs. Public policy is supposed to be for the benefit of all, and it should not be based on religious doctrine or dogma. Challenges to civil liberties and human rights from religious organizations are as old as organized religion itself, but since the inauguration of George W. Bush, the caving in to religious belief, especially conservative Christian doctrine, has been stunning. Tax dollars now favor faith-based organizations, clearly a violation of our American tradition of the First Amendment separation clause. The Bush policy of building an economy built on war, destruction and death seems an extreme contradiction to what the Bible purportedly teaches.

I will assume that religious-based arguments about civil marriage are all too familiar to most readers of this article, so I will leave those sophistical debates for another day. Outside the realm of sacred vs. secular marriage what I find profoundly disturbing is the effect that 'gay marriage' - I much prefer the term 'marriage equality' - is having on our form of government. Our whole system of government seems to be under attack, with marriage equality positioned as the springboard of right wing hegemony.

In 2004 eleven of the thirteen states that amended their constitutions to limit the right to marry between one man and one women (rarely, if ever, between one woman and one man, and in no case until death do them part) did so on the same day that George W. Bush finally got elected to the presidency. This spectacular show of bigotry reinvigorated the opponents of marriage equality. Legislatures in other states, particularly in the South, have since jumped on the bandwagon and used their own state's legal system to install a system of class privilege for citizens who fit their definition of which citizens are allowed to have which rights. In early April 2005 Kansas became the 18th state to change their constitution to deny rather than extend a particular right to a particular class of people. There is little doubt that other states will soon follow.

Here in the state of Washington we await a decision by our State Supreme Court on the issue of marriage equality. We in the GLBTQ community are very hopeful, because of our progressive state constitution, that we will get a favorable decision. If that happens Washington will be the first state in the Union where same-sex couples can come from anywhere on the planet to get married. Unlike Massachusetts, we have no archaic laws prohibiting people from out of state from coming here to get married.

Assuming we get a favorable Supreme Court decision the bigger questions will be, when? and, what happens after that? Our state constitution is much more difficult to amend than those of other states. The first requirement is that two-thirds of both houses of our legislature have to approve a constitutional amendment to be sent to the people for a majority vote. That dual two thirds vote is our greatest hope. Most of us in the GLBTQ activist community feel that as long as we have a Democratic majority in at least one house of the legislature, we are safe. However, that is now coming into question as we experience a Democratic majority in both houses that after 28 years of pushing a gay civil rights bill, is still unable to get it to the governor's desk.

If we win marriage equality by court order, the pressure on the Democrats to send an amendment to the ballot will be close to if not unprecedented. As for the Republicans, with some exceptions, they are basically against anything that advances the equality of GLBTQ people.

It has been a long row to hoe, and the end isn't in sight. Even if Washington becomes the second state to give us full marriage equality, there is the ongoing threat of a federal constitutional amendment. That would set us back for a generation or more. Only once has the US Constitution been amended to limit people's rights. That was Prohibition, and it took over a decade to repeal that.

The other threat is civil unions. Although this status gives same-sex couples many of the rights and benefits of marriage - rights and benefits that are sorely needed - it still represents second-class citizenship. The bigger danger is that civil unions could become acceptable, even expected, by a majority of both the straight and gay population, instead of the fall back position of the right. I hope wherever they are imposed that they are just an incremental step toward full and equal marriage, but I have my misgivings.

At this writing Canada is on the verge of an historic vote for nationwide marriage equality. We in the states are watching that very closely. Of course we want a favorable outcome. Of course we are a nervous as you are about it. Our concern is somewhat self-serving. If Canada can do it and the sky doesn't fall (it won't), then that weakens the argument that extending marriage rights in the States is the death knell of marriage.

We have come a long way and have a long way to go. Canada has been an inspiration to all of us in the United States. I have no plans of giving up the battle until we reach our goal. There are plenty of minefields to cross, but my faith doesn't waiver. I am totally convinced that we are going to make it. There will be bumps in the road, detours and setbacks, but we are going to make it. And when we do we can move on to correct other injustices in the world.

Written by Bill Dubay