They're mad and that is A-OK with me, I'm just not sure if I actually believe why they are mad.

Trying to filter through the lies and rhetoric of Oregon's extreme Christian right can be a bit difficult sometimes. As much as one would like to believe that they don't fill their newsletters with lies and deception in a blatant attempt to mislead their followers can be anything but easy.

This morning I got an email from "Restore America", this is one of the three main groups heading up the attempt to overturn Oregon's brand new Domestic Partnership law and the new statewide Anti-Discrimination law. They seem to be all up in arms about Oregon evangelical church leaders who are refusing to participate in helping them to gather signatures for these anti-family, anti-equality drives.

Here is an excerpt from their newsletter:

For two months now it has become increasingly clear that many, if not most, of the leading Evangelical Churches in Oregon have given up the battle to protect and preserve traditional marriage.

Only three years ago these same churches, at the urging of Dr. James Dobson, mounted a furious and successful effort that Amended the Oregon Constitution to read that marriage was "between a man and a woman only."

With their retreat, which has been glaring, and contradictory to earlier statements, comes the obvious conclusion that the new form of marriage called 'domestic partnerships' created by the legislature, and in violation of the Constitution, is 'okay' with them.

They go on to cite an email from one of their supporters in which they tell the story of their church leaders not wanting to participate.

I'm trying to draw some conclusions here. In no particular order here they are.

They are making shit up to get their based revved up about going out and doubling their efforts when gathering signatures, but sadly once you read the email you are left deflated and without much hope for this attempt.

They are serious about church leaders not wanting to be involved in this. As we saw during the legislative session, there was a bold letter from over 170 churches in Oregon who stood in solidarity with both the statewide Anti-Discrimination legislation and the Domestic Partnership bill. No objections from them, just full support and their stamp of approval.

In addition, they belong to a very small minority of Oregonians who see this as an equivalent to marriage. I sincerely believe that it is no secret that Domestic Partnerships seriously lack weight in comparison to marriage and in being a Christian, being able to protect your family in times of crisis is a strong Christian value. Family is a fundamental Christian value and Oregon's church leaders see this need.

Over 75 percent of Oregonians believe that a person should NOT be fired from their job SIMPLY because they are gay or lesbian. Included in that over 75% are evangelical church leaders.

So what now?

After reading their email I walked away with a sense of, well not really a sense of much. I know that with such a low threshold of signatures needed (55,179) that both of these could easily be out on the ballot, so is this simply an attempt to liven up their base or is this a move of desperation?

My assumption is that it is somewhere in the middle of both of those. In no way, shape or form should we ever underestimate the power of our opposition and never should we give up our vigilance, but is there hope? Is it possible that we won't see Domestic Partnerships or Anti-Discrimination referendums on the 2008 ballot?

In any case, as I said, we need to never lose that vigilance. This comes from Basic Rights Oregon late last week:

SPOTTING PETITION FRAUD
Folks, you are the eyes and the ears across Oregon and we need your help in spotting petition fraud by our opposition.

If you spot a referendum petition gatherer you should:

1.) Check to see if they're carrying Referendum Petitions #303 and #304.
2.) CALL US immediately and tell us where, what time/date, and whether the petitioner was carrying the full text of the bills or not. (It is against the law for them to not be carrying both bills on their person.)

If you see someone attempting to gather signatures for these anti-equality petitions, call Thomas at 503.222.6151 or email him at Thomas@basicrights.org.

That's all for now. There are 45 days left until these anti-equality, anti-family and frankly anti-Oregon groups have until they are required to turn in signatures. That is a month-and-a-half, plenty of time for them to collect more than enough sigs.

Labels: 2008 elections, ballot measure, basic rights oregon, evangelical, house bill 2007, oregon, senate bill 2

In a very surprising editorial this morning, the uber conservative David Reinhard writes a rather supportive piece on Oregon's Domestic Partnership bill that passed last week-to be signed by the Governor this week. His statements are below and some of our thoughts below that.

David Reinhard's Editorial:

Oregon's war over gay marriage ended this week, not with a bang but a whimper. The Senate passed not a bill establishing homosexual marriage or civil unions but one establishing domestic partnerships -- a legal contract giving gay and lesbian couples some of the benefits of marriage.

[...}

The domestic partnership bill the Senate passed last week and Gov. Ted Kulongoski will sign into law soon is the whimper -- and, really, "a big whup" for traditionalists. At least, it should be.

But social conservatives should look closely at what actually passed. It isn't marriage. That will remain between a man and woman in Oregon. The Democratic Legislature and Kulongoski only handed up a super-contract between two adults of the same gender.

Their domestic partnership act isn't marriage by another name, and even the bill's supporters know it. One Eugene gay man said, "It is kind of separate but not equal," and Sen. Vicki Walker, D-Eugene, had this to say last Wednesday on the Senate floor: "It's shameful that in the name of equality, we must set up a system of inequality."

[...]

It's hard to see this as much of a triumph for gay-rights forces -- or much of a threat to traditional marriage. Social conservatives should be honest with themselves, and be fair to gays and lesbians.

One, gay and lesbian couples do have justifiable, practical concerns. The domestic partnership bill may not have been the best way to address them, but it's good that these real concerns will be attended to. Having the law recognize that homosexual couples exist and face practical problems hardly gives homosexuality some societal stamp of approval or places same-sex arrangements on par with traditional marriage.

Two, far greater threats to marriage exist than the kind of domestic partnership arrangement we're talking about here. And homosexuality or gay rights -- or even same-sex marriage -- have little to do with these threats.

Truth to the tell, heterosexuals and heterosexuality are the real menace to marriage. Out-of-wedlock births and family nonformation, too-easy marriage and too-easy divorce, a me-centric approach to marriage on the part of adults and a silly, sex-obsessed popular culture -- no, heteros have been doing a bang-up job of undermining marriage all on their own.

If social conservatives want to do something to bolster marriage, their time would be better spent working on these matters than fretting over Oregon's new domestic partnerships law.

While for the most part I completely agree with him for once, I can't help but wonder what the intent is. There is no doubt that I think he believes what he is saying, though it comes on the heels of "The Oregon Family Council" saying that they have "no plans" to do a referendum on the Domestic Partnership bill (House Bill 2007).

Am I just being paranoid in thinking that this all just plays a part in a bigger strategy of attempting to calm the Oregon Family Council's base? I mean they did get their folks in a frenzy around this legislation and now they have decided to not go for a referendum which is contrary to what they said they would probably end up doing if House Bill 2007 passed.

And not to beat a dead horse, but them doing a referendum, or even testifying against the bill is contrary to their prior public statements--like the following statements from the Oregon Family Council and the so-called "Defense of Marriage Coalition":

"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

or

"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

Thoughts?

Labels: ballot measure, domestic partnership, HB 2007, house bill 2007, legislature, oregon, referendum

Wow. A very strange way of going about social change.

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed last month by Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state supreme court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the measure, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

According to the group's Web site, organizers hope that the supreme court will strike down the initiatives as unconstitutional, weakening the basis for the same-sex marriage ban.

"And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric," it says.

Labels: ballot measure, constitutional amendment, washington