Yes, it was a beautiful day for justice in Salem. I was proud to see our supporters there, finally speaking our truth.

Here's another link for you:

http://generalpicture.typepad.com/leavesofgrass/2005/05/our_civil_union.html

The Daniel link was more about the budget actually. The question on everyone's mind is whether the Democrat Senators are willing to stay the course and live within their means, which is the agreed upon revenue amount of $12.393 billion, and work out a budget with cooperation from the House, or will the Senate Democrats break their agreement and gush forward on their own with unbridled spending and the usual biennial-demand for higher taxes.

I applaud Sen. Frank Morse for his courage to make the comments he did at the SB 1000 hearing. He represents the Republican party I grew up in, rather than the current crowd.

And the GOP I recall from my youth would not have a "budget number agreement", pass a reconnection to federal tax bill which creates extra tax breaks, break up the Ways and Means process because they weren't getting their way, and then claim it is all the fault of the opposition party.

Back then there were more mature adults in the GOP.

If this was strictly about Civil Unions, it would probably receive majority support. But, instead it is about discrimination, because of the wording in HB1000.

HB1000's first paragraph, "Prohibits discrimination against persons in specified areas of law based on sexual orientation. Defines 'sexual orientation.' Authorizes enforcement of prohibition through civil action for actual and punitive damages. Authorizes attorney fees in civil proceedings for unlawful discrimination. Requires state agencies to eliminate discrimination against persons based on sexual orientation."

This is not about civil unions and this paragraph is written too broadly. How does the Democratic party justify this knowing that it impinges on another groups rights? This paragraph, the way it is written, will clash with a fundamentalist Christian's First and Ninth amendment rights. A funadamentalist Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin, because of Romans 1:26-27, could be prosecuted under this house bill because of its broad interpetation.

Because of HB1000 being about discrimination, hiding under the skirts of civil unions, makes me wonder who is hiding the truth and who isn't.

First of all, it is about SB 1000, not HB. 2nd, the Register Guard has an interesting article on the debate between religious conservatives and Ecumenical Ministeries of Oregon. I don't think it discriminates against anyone to say that Ecumenical Ministries has a right to debate this issue. I DO object to the term "people of faith" being used as if Measure 36 supporters are more religious than Ecumenical Ministries.

Furthermore, the 27th verse mentioned above --in the King James translation--mentions "natural use of the woman", which is language which bothers some people. The verses 29-31 list some behaviors which many people find objectionable, but which are seldom discussed during political campaigns. Be careful not to do any of those things. Romans 2:1 is a version of "judge not, that ye be not judged" which is always good advice.

First Ammendment is about free exercise of religion. Does fundamentalism really mean not associating with gays? Would you not associate with the Cheney family because of their gay daughter? Would you refuse to speak with or hire or rent to former state rep. Chuck Carpenter, a Republican who is gay?

9th Ammendment is about rights reserved to the people. I have the right not to associate with people whose views I deem too close to OCA views, and anyone who is a fundamentalist has the right to refuse to associate with gays. But anyone also, under our system of government, has the right to express an opinion about Sen. Frank Morse's statement at the SB 1000 hearing. I admire Sen. Morse.

In response to the comment posted by K. Sudbeck... SB 1000 does nothing to hide the fact that it is a double bill. Supporters of SB 1000 do absolutely nothing to 'hide' the fact that there is an anti-discrimination aspect of the bill. We previously had two bills that were rolled into one. Discrimination is a serious issue. A person can still be fired in MANY cities and towns across Oregon - SIMPLY FOR BEING GAY. That should not be legal. We as a fair and just state should not allow this kind of treatment. Imagine being fired for being a Christian... would you sit back and let that happen - or would you take action against that sort of treatment?

Let me also address when you stated "makes me wonder who is hiding the truth and who isn't."

Did you take a look at the link above? Read that and then tell me just who is "hiding the truth".

One more thing - take a look at this and tell me who is 'hiding something'. All of these anti-gay groups are trying to push through the reciprical benefits bill. They are acting as if they care about our (gay) rights. It is a complete joke - in fact it's utterly offensive.

Apologise, it is SB 1000. I stand corrected. Shouldn't it be titled the Civil Union and Anti-Discrimination Bill?

Now, an example of what will be an issue.

A church(ecuminical or fundamentalist) which believes that being gay is a sin and has an opening for a janitor. Would they be violating the wording of SB 1000 if they refused to hire a gay janitor to clean their church? Wouldn't that violate their religious beliefs and wouldn't they be violating the wording of SB 1000. Thus, wouldn't SB 1000 in effect be violating their First Admendment in which, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Because the wording of the bill would put them in violation of this bill, if made into law, because they would not be able to freely exercise their religious beliefs?

Now, the Ninth Admendment issue, I think Ward Churchill has explained how this works better than I.

As far as the Biblical reference I cited, well if you go to the Greek(The Greek-Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible) as it is written and translates: Romans 1:27, "also the males having forsaken the natural use of the females, burned in the lust of them toward one another, males among males, the shamefulness". But, I am not a Biblical scholar, so interpetation will be passed to an expert.

Now, should a church hire a gay janitor? Yes, they should as denoted by LT, "judge not, that ye be not judged". I would think an action like that denoted above would be a purpose of the church.

But, is this about being a saint? No, this is about politics and power.