What people don't seem to get is that this also protects heterosexuals. I've heard of people who were discriminated against because someone thought they were gay.

Protection from discrimination is a good thing.

I wonder how many cases there would have been if people across the state were protected. I'm sure it will be a lot more than 285, especially in those areas of the state that are more conservative. I came from one such town in Texas, so I know what kind of discrimination goes on. Several of my good friends were "out" gays, lesbians, or bi-sexuals. None could get a job in our town -- they all had to go outside the town for a job. Most waited until after graduation to come out of the closet, typically just before moving out of town.

Let's not use the N word, shall we?

Anyone wishing to read the full text of Oregon SB2 (protection from discrimination) or Oregon HB2007 (civil union protection for same-sex partners) can download the full text here in PDF format:

http://www.stonewalloregon.org

SB2 is all well and good, but without ending discrimination in marriage law this is nibbling around the edge.

Posted by: c.dracula | Mar 13, 2007 11:38:47 AM

Wow, you beat the shit out of that strawman didn't you.

Where is there a marriage equaity bill?

Where is there any legislation that will ensure equality at the Federal lelvel for same-gender couples?

SB2 is, as I said, all well and good but is not taking on the larger issues of legally codified discrimination under marriage law.

Posted by: Ted | Mar 13, 2007 11:48:26 AM

Nice try bigot.

Long story short, the GLBT Equality movement has made enormous progress over the 56 years since The Mattachine Society was founded by Harry Hay. Yes, from a narrow perspective it is frustrating to accept incremental change (civil union vs. marriage), when "separate is inherently unequal" is supposedly the accepted law of our land. Yet, anyone who looks closely at this issue knows it is anything but clear cut, whether from the right, left, gay, or straight perspectives.

Conservative religious peoples' feelings regarding marriage - as a religious institution - are worthy of respect, no matter that I disagree with them. If I want respect for my beliefs, I must respect others' beliefs in turn, so long as neither of us treads on the other. It's the current "treading" of my rights which is being repaired, to a large degree, by HB2007. That is why I hope conservatives of conscience and integrity will support it.

If anything - having worked in the divorce and custody field - I wish conservative religious people would spend as much time taking their own marriages seriously, as denying me the right to my own legally recognized relationship (cf., Matthew 7:3-5). But, what actually matters is not the terminology used to describe my legally recognized relationship, but its actual equality. Time, the legislative process, and the courts will get us there. I'm confident of that. HB2007 is a solid step forward in the right direction, and better a solid step, than an unsuccessful leap, if one takes the long view.

The truly progressive position would be to provide civil unions for all committed and consenting adult relationship partners who choose them. Since marriage is a religious institution, let it be exactly that. Remove the special rights associated with it from the law, and create an equal field of civil unions for all.

Ted, if you and your fellow necrophiliacs wish to form a political movement, go for it. But, please do your own work, because your issue has no more in common with GLBT folk than straight folk.

I hope our straight allies can take a moment to sympathize here. Each time anything GLBT related has shown up on BlueOregon in recent weeks, our threads get littered with terms like "faggot" and "necrophilia". And despite this, we still want equal rights, and will continue to work to get them. It would take one helluva lot more than little boys uncertain about their own sexuality to stop us now.

Leo--

I definitely sympathize. I'm just trying my hardest not to feed the trolls around here. ; )

Don't sweat, Leo. By the time sine die rolls around, these trolls will be reduced to whining and hapless calls for voter referenda that are doomed to fail. You're winning, democracy and rights are winning--relax and let the idiots howl.

Lestadelc--Oregon cannot give same sex partners marriage equality; it's just not possible. Only the feds can do that. What Oregon CAN do is make available all STATE rights afforded to opposite sex couples, to same sex unions. I support full marriage rights too, but even if we do what Mass. has done, that won't get anyone the right to file jointly on a tax return or claim military benefits, etc. So I have to agree with those who request that we focus on the great things that ARE happening now, and use them as levers to force more and better change down the road.

Jenni, thanks for the support, and the troll-reminder.

And, rather like the donations Dems receive for each trollish comment, attacking GLBT folks does nothing but (1) make us work that much harder for equality, and (2) garner us that much more support amongst reasonable folks.

So, I suppose I should actually be thanking the trolls for their help.

Anyone wishing to make a donation supporting the GLBT equal rights movement, in response to homophobic trolling, should visit here:

Donate to Basic Rights Oregon

Anyone wishing to join the DPO GLBT Caucus and help us work towards GLBT equality, should visit here (note, personal contact information which could be verified against Oregon voting records is required):

Join the DPO GLBT Caucus

Posted by: Ted | Mar 13, 2007 2:34:30 PM

Sell your schtick that ending discrimination based on sexual orientation = protection of necrophilia somewhere else... bigot.

Posted by: Leo Schuman | Mar 13, 2007 1:28:26 PM

Civil unions carry no weight on the Federal level though, where over 1049 rights, benefits, protections and obligations are conferred at the Federal level through legal recognition of civil marriage. Which is why ending discrimination in marriage law and overturning DOMA is what is required. Again, while state level versions of ENDA are good, and I applaud their movement through the Leg. it is still ignoring the 800 elephant in the living room.

800 lbs. elephant? ugh...

doing a piss poor mash-up of the 800 lbs. gorilla and the elephant in the living room metphors there.

Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 13, 2007 2:01:09 PM

Agreed to some extent. But without acknowledging that CUs are at best separate and unequal until DOMA can be overturned, it is in my estimation forestalling actual equality. It is analogous to saying that we should be advocating for segregation laws because it is better than slavery.

I don't know about this one. I've been one of the major voices for incrementalism, (and I still am) but I'm wondering if the public isn't moving faster than the legislature on this one.

Look at the sea change in the Armed Forces over the past few years. Guys like Pace, the old Paleo-Fundies that run the top end of the officer corps, are rapidly losing ground in internal polling to younger officers and enlisted people regarding the increasingly important role of gays and women in the modern military.

Seems like a lot more Christians than we imagine are taking Leo Schuman's, and Red Letter Jesus' advice to heart:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.........

<hr/>

I ain't saying that those urging caution are wrong here, just that we keep our eyes peeled for movement on the other side of this one.

<hr/>

c. dracula, props on the Ann Rice reference. I woulda done it myself a long time ago, but I post under my own name and have been "in the closet" regarding consumption of turgid vampire prose, in particular, and all things Goth in general.

Which is why ending discrimination in marriage law and overturning DOMA is what is required. Again, while state level versions of ENDA are good, and I applaud their movement through the Leg. it is still ignoring the 800 elephant in the living room.

Of course, the Federal level is where this must eventually go (and Clinton's DOMA-signing betrayal will not be forgotten).

Yet, when I look at the century which passed between Federal adoption of the 14th Amendment (1868), and the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Federal Civil Rights Act of 1968, after which some degree of real change on racial discrimination began inching its way through American society (a process still far from finished), I'm not at all convinced that starting from the top, at the Federal level, is the most effective way to achieve lasting political change.

Steroids? Or, steady workouts at the gym. Which creates real health?

There's a lot to be said for steady, sustainable change over time.

lestadelc, I totally disagree. What it's akin to is advocating for banning slavery in OR, even if it still exists in other states. Furthermore, I think full marriage equality in Oregon will come FASTER with civil unions than without. My reasoning is that once Sb 500 passes, within a few years people will rightly wonder what all the fuss was about. Dogs and cats will not be living together, the earth will not open up with raw sewage (any more than normal), and Britney Spears and Michael Jackson will still be doing more to harm marriage than John and Jack, the Gay Couple Down the Block.

Think of civil unions as a trial run for the conflicted. Without that intermediate step, it may take a lot longer to convince many people that gay marriage is not a threat.

That's my theory, anyway.

Seems like a lot more Christians than we imagine are taking Leo Schuman's, and Red Letter Jesus' advice to heart:

One of big myths promoted by the Republican Party is that there are "fundamental" differences between people who identify as Christian, and people who identify as GLBT, or other less-than-mainstream segments of society.

We are all human, and we are all American, gay or straight, Christian or Wiccan or Buddhist or Agnostic. When asked respectfully, with the opportunity to consider and make an independent choice, virtually all but the most extreme wingnuts on any side of this supposed divide believe in fundamental fairness, equality, and mutual respect - or at least tolerance - for all involved, despite our disagreements, differing lifestyles, and different beliefs.

Humans care for humans. It's the demonization and dehumanization, in either direction, which builds the myth of a great divide.

Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 13, 2007 4:40:54 PM

CUs have been in place in Vermont for seven years now, and I don't see any movement to overturn DOMA yet.

Why is everyone so mean to Ted? I thought he brought up a good point. Discrimination is wrong.

Ted claims to see moral equivalency between having sex with a dead body, and a loving relationship between consenting adults.

Most people don't.

Anti-discrimination laws protect people in situations where clear evidence demonstrates protection is needed. A dead body is not a person.

Phil, I hope you recognize how much respect, and restraint, I am attempting to show in this dialogue by offering you this response, every aspect of which should be obvious.

CUs have been in place in Vermont for seven years now, and I don't see any movement to overturn DOMA yet.

It takes more than one or two, or even three or four, state-level changes to create a political environment in which sustainable national change can occur, in the face of the legally-ignorant, but politically effective, ongoing backlash against supposed "legislation from the bench".

Everybody see that as soon as the troll-donations started happening, the troll went away? Keep it up.

Awww, but Kari, I'm baiting the trolls to drive up donations!!

lestadelc--Vermont has a DOMA? I'm talking about in-state. Obviously if you live in Mississippi, what Vermont is doing will have little effect on you.

I stand chastened, Kari. So much for good intentions.

May I repeat:

Anyone wishing to make a donation supporting the GLBT equal rights movement, in response to homophobic trolling, should visit here:

Donate to Basic Rights Oregon

Anyone wishing to join the DPO GLBT Caucus and help us work towards GLBT equality, should visit here (note, personal contact information which could be verified against Oregon voting records is required):

Join the DPO GLBT Caucus

I'm almost expecting Rick Santorum to show up and post something about hot man-on-dog sex.

To the supporters of gay marriage I pose a question: once you are successful will you support with equal zeal the efforts of other marginalized groups to gain the right to marry?

Buckman Res, if and when the GLBT movement achieves true equality for our relationships, we'll see. We're far less monolithic in our thinking than those who deny our equality and humanity. I expect there will be a diversity of opinions.

But, since we're not there (it'll take years, no doubt), anything I might say would be, as you put it, sophistry, or as I would put it, spittin' in the wind. So you're welcome to keep your piece o' bait.

All the slippery-slope arguments raised by the trolls are just so much smokescreen for the real issue.

Marriage is a commitment in which one consenting adult person chooses one other consenting adult person to join in a loving partnership which is supported by the law. It is not about polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia, or any of the other distractions the bigots throw around. Allowing same sex marriage does not require a redefinition of marriage the way any of those other variations would. In fact, it appears that PROHIBITING same-sex marriage is the initiative that really required a redefinition of marriage! (See: DOMA) -- because the opponents were so spooked by the concept that their centuries-old definition of marriage might embrace same sex couples, that they scurried to run and change it!

Polygamy is inconsistent with the array of rights afforded to spouses. If you have two wives, who gets power of attorney? Which is the spouse that gets your assets in a probate will? Who gets your Social Security check? You can't superordinate more than one person to receive these benefits, logically.

I personally have no problem with family members marrying each other up to and including first cousins--but any closer inside the family and you run up against the same problems as before: if you marry your sister, and in your will you split your assets equally between your siblings and your spouse, does she get two shares?

I can come up with compelling state arguments against bigamy, incest, marrying dogs, marrying children, marrying lampposts--but for the life of me I cannot come up with a single substantive reason why two nonrelated adults can't marry, even if they're of the same sex.

Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 13, 2007 6:09:27 PM

lestadelc--Vermont has a DOMA? I'm talking about in-state.

ANd I am pointing out that without overturning of DOMA (Federal) even in Vermont or MA, you have separate but unequal. ANd you put forward the assertion/theory that if we have CUs for a while, it will ease people into seeing the world doesn't end, and thus pave the way for DOMA being overturned on the Federal level.

I pointed out that Vermont has had CUs for 7 years now, and MA has had same-gender marriage for 3 now, yet we see no movement at overturning DOMA on the Federal level.

Posted by: Buckman Res | Mar 13, 2007 9:04:30 PM

Ending gender discrimination is what this is about Buckman. Not rallying to change marriage law in order to allow multi-partner marriages. If there is a valid argument as to how restricting marriage to couples is discrimination, then make it. Current marriage law discriminates on the basis of the gender of the couple seeking a marriage license, pure and simple.

Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 14, 2007 9:51:02 AM

Not to mention that family members already have legal recognition of the familial status and the attendant "rights" there in (i.e. next of kin, etc.)

If someone wants to argue that brothers and sisters should have the same legal rights as spouses with each other, that is a separate (and totally stupid I might add) issue and argument. When people bring up the "family members marrying each other" canard, it is for no reason at all but to try and derail the issue, which is gender discrimination in current marriage law.

lestadelc-- "ANd I am pointing out that without overturning of DOMA (Federal) even in Vermont or MA, you have separate but unequal. ANd you put forward the assertion/theory that if we have CUs for a while, it will ease people into seeing the world doesn't end, and thus pave the way for DOMA being overturned on the Federal level."

No, that's not what I said. I said (or implied from the discussion about M36) it will pave the way for same-sex marriage in Oregon. I made no claims about federal DOMA.

I pointed out that Vermont has had CUs for 7 years now, and MA has had same-gender marriage for 3 now, yet we see no movement at overturning DOMA on the Federal level.

And that's surprising? Given the presidencies we've had over the past 7 years (Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, and Bush, who bows low to the evangelical extremists), coupled with Republican control of both House and Senate until a few months ago, any expectation that DOMA could, would, or should be moving towards change by now is highly optimistic, to say the least. This is particularly so, given the only state-level, fully established legislative groundwork to date is in Vermont and Massachusetts, two relatively small, historically liberal Eastern states.