The Fristonian Age
Jason Evans
Are Karen Minnis and U.S. Senator Bill Frist reading from some new Republican handbook? Given the power that Minnis has recently brought to bear in the Oregon House, one might think so. Minnis' sweeping rejection and absolute hatred for S.B. 1000 has fully manifested itself. She has slammed the gavel down on civil unions for same-sex couples in Oregon. She exercised a "gut-and-stuff" tactic which smelled very similar to the tactic Mr. Frist threatened Senate Democrats with when he wasn't getting his way.
It's a frightenting time in local, state and national politics when one elected official has the power to impose his or her beliefs in place of due process.
Minnis claims to have preserved "three thousand years of tradition in this state and in this nation" by stopping the evil that is civil unions. Last time I checked, this nation had only been around for more than two hundred years. Marital history, in the last few thousand years, has been full of polygamy, murder, adultery, and even child sacrifice...and that's just with King David of the Hebrew Scriptures. Don't forget that Christians are admonished by the apostle Paul to remain single if they truly wish to serve God.
In the same story by OPB, Minnis says of Multnomah County commissioners: "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."
A recent survey by Riley Research Associates in June shows that, among these beloved citizens of Oregon, 49% support civil unions, 30% oppose, and 21% are undecided. By not allowing the full state legislature to review the matter of civil unions, Karen Minnis has subverted the very process that she was promoting back when things weren't going her way. She "made a decision and went forward with it without any public hearings" when she gutted the civil unions bill. She took this action because she knew it would pass in "her" house.
Where's our up-or-down vote, Karen? Will we continue to see Republican leadership impose it's singular will upon the people? Or, worse, will we the people continue to tolerate such behavior when it does happen?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:43 p.m.
Jul 22, '05
Nice one Jason. I especially liked the reference to the idea that denial of process is bad when Dem county commissioners do it but good when Karen does it.
It's seemed clear to me for the last several weeks, taht the real reason that Minnis didn't want SB1000 oout on the floor of the house is that she was afraid it wound pass.
As has been noted previously on this blog, the Anti Gay Marraige crowd were talking favorably about Civil Unions when they were pushing measure 36, and now it seems that it was never about WMDs, but rather it was all about spreading Democracy.........oops, sorry, wrong Bait and Switch example.....
2:45 p.m.
Jul 22, '05
Nice one Jason. I especially liked the reference to the idea that denial of process is bad when Dem county commissioners do it but good when Karen does it.
It's seemed clear to me for the last several weeks, that the real reason that Minnis didn't want SB1000 oout on the floor of the house is that she was afraid it would pass, or at least put a lot of her Far Right fellow travellers at risk in the next election.
As has been noted previously on this blog, the Anti Gay Marraige crowd were talking favorably about Civil Unions when they were pushing measure 36, and now it seems that it was never about WMDs, but rather it was all about spreading Democracy.........oops, sorry, wrong Bait and Switch example.....
Jul 22, '05
What I want to see is someone take the Reciprocal Benefits law and make it applicable to all relationships, including the current and future marriages, straight or gay marriages. It would place an upper limit on the extension of public gifts for engaging in sex in the state approved way, that it only be with a license of some sort. Would that be just too boring?
If SB1000 now references Reciprocal Benefits it only seems logical that the Reciprocal Benefits law would then link to the marriage statues. Equality is the goal is it not, not special benefits. Ah . . straight cohabitators could rejoice at never again having to pretend to be religious right (gay or straight religious right).
<h2>Maybe we might get back to where the gay advocates should have been in the Multnomah County case, that of removing the special privileges of straight folks who call their relationship a state sanctioned union. The proper remedy in court, from a denial of a marriage license, would have been to declare the marriage status void. If the Reciprocal Benefits law itself is linked to the marriage laws so as to affect this proper judicial remedy then we can get to that point sooner. Gut and stuff, huh? Confine straights and gays to no more than what they can get from the Reciprocal Benefits law, it sounds about as equal as one could get.</h2>