Gay Rights Watch

You know, there comes a time in ones blogging 'career' where you don't need to hold back any longer, no need to be on up and up all the time - right? Emotion gets involved with certain issues...



Yesterday, in a legislative move that caught many off guard, Speaker of the House Karen Minnis gutted and stuffed Oregon's SB1000 effectively taking out every word out of the original bill and using the language from HB 3876, The Reciprocal Benefits Bill. In less than 30 minutes our bill, SB1000, had gone from granting families close to 500 legal rights and protections, to oh - about five or so. Oh but wait - I'm not close to being done.

Think about this. The base that Karen is appealing to by pulling this, are those same people who complained about the 'closed door meetings' that occurred in Multnomah County previous to the marriage licenses being issued to gay and lesbian couples. Though, Speaker Minnis did this exact sort of thing. With only 30 minutes advance notice, the State and Federal Affairs Committee held a work session on Senate Bill 1000. By a vote of 3 to 2 on party lines, the Committee amended all the existing text out and replaced it with a limited set of provisions on reciprocal beneficiaries. It just so happened that the House had adjourned for the day and it was also during lunch break so that the House Democrats, bill sponsors, the Gov. and even members of her own caucus could not speak out against it. By the same vote, the Committee moved the bill to the House Budget Committee. In addition she closed it to public opinion. This was a closed door, 'no testimony wanted' sort of thing. She told the three Republicans on the State and Federal Affairs Committee to vote for it in it's gutted form. They did and it was VERY quickly moved to the Budget Committee where it cannot be touched. Therefore killed in a sense. There still are ways of getting things accomplished this session though. No need to let go of any hope. This fight is not even close to being over - it's just getting uglier.

Interestingly enough, these actions don't square with Speaker Minnis' statements in the voters pamphlet submitted in favor of Measure 36.

"Process subverted. They didn't hold any public hearings. They didn't give any advanced warning. Their actions were arrogant and wrong. The Multnomah County Commission purposefully subverted the public process." - Speaker of the House Karen Minnis (Voter's Pamphlet, P 82)

"House Speaker Karen Minnis was the first state official to respond. She blasted the Multnomah County commission: 'I think they circumvented due process. They made a decision and went forward with it without any public hearings, without any review by the state legislature who sets state policy and without consulting the citizens of Oregon. Minnis said she expected the Oregon legislature to address the issue in its next session."OPB 3/3/04

Insiders figure that the maneuver was done to make it harder to bring Senate Bill 1000 to a vote on the House floor. By replacing its text, the Speaker Minnis blocked potential motions on the floor to withdraw the civil unions bill from committee for a floor vote, one of the few tools of the minority for forcing consideration of proposals those in control want to kill. Many opposed the maneuver, stating that the issues of civil unions and nondiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians are matters of civil rights that deserve a full and open debate on the House floor. Imagine that... an up or down vote. This is the key right there. Speaker Minnis knew for a fact that this bill would pass "her chamber".

Thoughts? I know most of you whom are interested in the civil rights movement are outraged. For those of you who do not care so much about the issue - do you care about democracy? If so, you too will agree that Karen Minnis is a bitch.

Proudly written by Bryan Harding

David Sarasohn of the Oregonian sums up the situation with Karen Minnis perfectly.

The day after hundreds of people gathered to ask the Oregon House to vote on a same-sex civil-unions bill -- and the day after legislative counsel explained why civil unions did not violate the gay marriage ban in Measure 36 -- House Speaker Karen Minnis took the Senate-passed bill and threw it deeper into the closet.

After all, you have to be careful about giving people special rights.

Like voting.

It was widely suspected that if the Oregon House ever really got to vote on civil unions, the bill might actually pass the House. Next thing you know, legislators might demand other equal-protection rights -- like knowing what's going on.

Thursday, Senate Bill 1000-A, passed by the Senate 19-10, surfaced in the House State and Federal Affairs Committee, where without testimony it was replaced with a different bill and sent to the House Budget Committee, where no minority reports are permitted. The House actually voting on a proposal for civil unions is as about as likely as the Legislature having a working budget process.

"It's consistent with what the speaker's been saying all along," explained her spokesman, Charles Deister, that the House would vote only on a limited reciprocal benefits bill, not on civil unions. Asked if the House would ever vote on anything at all, he explained, "Undecided."

Wednesday, Minnis, R-Wood Village, told Brad Cain of the Associated Press that Measure 36, a constitutional amendment passed by Oregon voters last year, banned anything like the Senate's civil unions bill. "This issue has been discussed, it's been voted on," the speaker said. Civil unions would be "marriage by another name."

But also on Wednesday, David Heynderickx, acting legislative counsel, offered the opinion, "We believe Senate Bill 1000-A is constitutional as written," that nothing in Measure 36 prevents it and that "differences between a civil union and a marriage show that Senate Bill 1000-A does not create a 'same-sex marriage' under the guise of another name."

Lawyers. What do they know?

This week, the Legislature received another constitutional opinion. In a broad mailing, the Oregon Family Council declared Senate Bill 1000-A "The Most Dangerous Bill Ever" and accused supporters of "waging an all-out assault on marriage," that "Civil Unions is Gay-Marriage in Disguise" and that with the bill, "gays, bisexuals and even 'drag queens' would have special rights and privileges heterosexual people don't have."

Fortunately, it had an answer: "We know you're grateful for the work we are doing, so don't please don't forget to send your gift of $100, $50, $25 to help with this crucial battle to preserve marriage and family values for our children's future."

They might have to raise the money quickly. The trend of polling in Oregon shows rising support for civil unions and protection of gay families, demonstrated by the heavy support in the Senate.

"This is the civil rights struggle of our generation," says Sen. Ben Westlund, R-Bend, who supported the civil unions bill in the Senate after supporting Measure 36 last November.

Westlund, in fact, thinks Gov. Ted Kulongoski should announce that the Legislature won't be going home until there's a vote on civil unions, and that he will be vetoing things until it happens.

Kulongoski, a strong backer of the bill, doesn't think that would work. "I never give up," he said this week, "but I know that (Minnis) feels strongly about this."

Besides, the only bills that Kulongoski could veto to keep the Legislature from going home would be budgets -- and so far, the Legislature hasn't managed to produce many of those.

The one consolation of the civil unions bill being shoved into a legislative closet is that in this session, it has a lot of company.

Somehow, at some point, Oregonians will get to see an actual decision made on civil unions, a debate about what it actually might mean. But in this limping Legislature, the issue isn't about drag queens or an assault on marriage or about Measure 36.

This isn't about a vote that Oregon had last fall.

It's about a vote that the Oregon House is afraid to have this summer.

David Sarasohn, associate editor of The Oregonian, can be reached at 503-221-8523 or davidsarasohn@news.oregonian.com.

Democratic Leader Jeff Merkley stated the following:

I have received several calls to my office regarding concerns that SB 1000 violates Measure 36 and Oregon's constitution. Therefore, I asked Oregon Legislative Counsel to provide me with an opinion regarding the constitutionality of SB 1000.

I received a letter, dated July 20th, 2005 from David Heynderickx, Legislative Counsel responding to my request. I have posted the letter here for anyone interested to read, print out, copy and distribute:

Download LC-SB1000Letter.pdf

The letter clearly states that Oregon Legislative Counsel believes SB-1000-A is constitutional as written.

A couple of key excerpts from the letter:

"Senate Bill 1000-A does not create a "marriage" by another name..."

"...Senate Bill 1000-A does not create a "same-sex marriage" under the guise of another name."

"In conclusing, we believe Senate Bill 1000-A is constitutional as written."

Posted by Bryan Harding

About an hour ago, Karen Minnis pulled a fast one on the Oregon Legislature. Even her own caucus.

SB1000 was posted (by Speaker Karen Minnis) for a hearing by the State and Federal Affairs Committee about 30 minutes prior to the lunch break. The House was in session this morning but had adjourned until Monday. SB1000 was amended (gutted to be reflective of the Reciprocal Benefits Bill HB 3476) by Speaker Karen Minnis, then voted out of the State and Federal Affairs Committee on party lines. 2 Dems no. 3 R's yes. It then moved on to the Budget Committee where it is at this moment.

Speaker Minnis pulled this switch move with incredible sly and without due process or respect for the transparency of the Legislature by doing this. It is not against House rules for her to post notice 30 minutes prior, or to schedule it during a lunch hour for maximum hush. Although it does avoid due process in all ways.

House Dems plan to have a press conference very shortly to say just this. Karen has stepped out of bounds.

More to come. Stay Tuned.

Post by Bryan Harding

[UPDATE - CLICK HERE]

Huge news from Salem today...

In a surprise move SB1000 has been set for a hearing and work session. At this point this is all the information I can post. This is neither good or bad news at this point. I will make sure to update as soon as possible.

Call Karen Minnis and tell her to let the bill be voted out of committee and GET AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR! Her phone number is: 503.986.1200

CALL HER NOW! LEAVE A MESSAGE. THIS IS A DEMOCRACY. WE DESERVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE BY THE ENTIRE HOUSE.

Posted by Bryan Harding

Here is coverage from the rally last night on the steps on the Capitol. Pics are here - video to come. The turn out for the rally was exceptional. At last count there were over 800 people. Volunteers walked around with buckets collecting money for a full page ad to go in the Gresham Outlook - calling out Karen Minnis on her treating her seat as more of a monarchy - rather than a democracy by not letting SB1000 come to and up or down vote. We doubled the amount of money needed to run one ad and possibly more.

The speakers were amazing as always - the message was clear - and the House heard us. Here are some pictures...






Posted by Bryan Harding

Leaving now for the SB 1000 rally in Salem. I will be back late tonight with a full report and lots of pictures.

Thanks all!

Posted by Bryan Harding

Remember - Today at 6pm there is a large rally for SB1000 on the steps of The Oregon State Capitol. Speakers will include the Gov., the sponsors of SB1000 as well as PFLAG. It will be incredible.



Posted by Bryan Harding

GLBT civil rights groups are voicing concern over the nomination of John G. Roberts to the US Supreme Court.

President Bush Tuesday night went on national television to announce he was nominating Roberts to the Court.

The vacancy on the Supreme Court stems from the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The appointment of a conservative tips the balance on the court to the right. That Roberts is just 50 means he is likely to remain on the bench for 20 or more years.

Roberts currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He was appointed to that position in 2003 by President Bush.

Roberts attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School and was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist.

A conservative and longtime Republican, Roberts served as Deputy Solicitor General. In 1990, he argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs. His brief top the court contained a note that the Bush administration's belief that Roe v. Wade should be overruled.

"With the Roberts nomination, the right to privacy and the future of a fair-minded Court are in grave danger," Joe Solmonese, President, Human Rights Campaign told 365Gay.com.

"Judge Roberts has disputed the right to privacy laid out in Roe v. Wade, and urged that the case be overruled. Reversing Roe could undermine fundamental rights to privacy and liberty that are the legal underpinning for the freedom of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.

"Judge Roberts has advocated for prayer in public schools and for weakening the wall between church and state," Solmonese noted. "He should make clear whether or not he would distort religion for misuse as a proxy for discrimination. Americans deserve a justice who will uphold the separation of church and state.

"The unique powers of the Supreme Court, including the power to revisit previous Supreme Court decisions, mean that Judge Roberts’ record should be subject to rigorous inspection," said Solmonese.

Lambda Legal, which is fighting lawsuits in several states on behalf of same-sex couples seeking to marry also expressed concerns.

"We don't have a position yet on John Roberts yet, but there are troubling things in his record that we need to take a careful look at," Michael Adams, director of education for Lambda Legal told 365Gay.com

Adams noted that Roberts' position on Roe v. Wade was particularly troubling since it was one of the precedents the court took into consideration in overturning the Texas sodomy law in 2003.

The American Civil Liberties Union also said it was concerned about the nomination calling for a through examination of Roberts' personal positions on abortion and gay rights.

"The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in advancing freedom," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director.

"Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."

"The stakes could not be higher," Romero added.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called for a thorough investigation of Roberts background.

"In exercising its constitutional 'advise and consent' function, the Senate must take the time necessary to thoroughly review and evaluate Roberts' commitment to individual rights and equal justice under the law, including his record and thinking about civil rights, the right to privacy and the reach of Congressional power under the Constitution," said NGLTF Executive Director Matt Foreman.

"We especially call upon our allies in the Senate to determine whether Judge Roberts subscribes to the holdings of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas , among other cases, and will affirm that the civil rights and privacy rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans are protected by the Constitution.

"And only if Judge Roberts meets these critical standards of qualification, judicial philosophy, fairness, independence and a dedication to protecting the rights of all under the Constitution, should the Senate vote to confirm his nomination to the court," Foreman said.

Although there is little on the record to indicate how he would vote on LGBT issues, Roberts received bipartisan support as a nominee to the federal bench.

Roberts' nomination is the president's first chance to place a justice on the high court and he may not have as easy a time in confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court.

"All questions are legitimate," New York Democrat and Judiciary Committee member Charles E. Schumer said earlier this month. "What is your view on Roe vs. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage?"

Other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee agree that all issues, including same-sex marriage, should be put to a nominee for the high court. They include Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Joseph Biden of Delaware.

And, Democrats are not discounting using a filibuster to sink a nominee they think too extreme. Democrats have been bracing for a showdown over the Supreme Court for more than a year.

In May they agreed to allow three Bush judicial nominees to appeals courts to go to a vote in return for Republicans abandoning legislation that would have prevented the use of a filibuster.

The president said he wants the nomination confirmed before the Supreme Court begins its fall session in October.

Among the issues the court will consider when the justices return to work October 3 is a legal challenge to the Solomon Law which allows the government to withhold federal funds from universities that bar military recruiters. Some universities have refused to allow recruiters on campuses because of 'don't ask, don't tell, the military's ban on openly gay people serving in the armed forces.

via 365gay.com

Posted by Bryan Harding

Just to keep you all up to date - we are moving to a new URL today. We will no longer be @ 'blogspot.com'. Please make sure to update links, rss feeds etc. Thanks everyone.

http://www.gayrightswatch.com

Posted by Bryan Harding

Here are a few things that you can do to help pass SB1000...

First off we've got a rally tomorrow. It's after work for most, at 6pm on the steps on the Capitol. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongowski will be delivering a speech and there may also be another well known speaker that has not been announced as of yet.



Call your House Representative NOW!


Call Karen Minnis - tell her to give SB1000 the decency of an up or down vote! Tell her that you support the bill! Call her now (503) 986-1200



Post by Bryan Harding