Gay Rights Watch

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.)