<h1>"This legal pause is but a gasp, uttered by those fearful of the LGBT community as they realize that the march of history is toward an uncomfortable equality."</h1>

Not really. It is a question of law. Is a signature on a petition similar to a vote on a ballot? Can a person validate his/her signature on a petition, even if the county clerk says (incorrectly) it is not a valid signature? With a written vote, you can do this. Can you do this on a petition?

This question of law was not uttered by 'those fearful of the LGBT community', but rather by those who want a honorable and respectable process by which signatures on a petition are treated with the same level of respect as a write-in vote, regardless of political ideology.

"Whatever the decision of the court,..."

Either the court allows or does not allow the petitioners a vote on this issue. If it does allow a vote, then the people of the state of Oregon will also have their say.

Mary is lying. Thes plaintiffs are not motivated by any desire to honor signators. They're motivated by dislike of homosexuals.

There have been several recent petitions -- e.g. The Oregon Political Campaign Fianance Reform Act in 2006 -- that didn't have enough valid signatures. The people who filed this suit didn't care about those signators rights. They only care about this one because, for weird reasons I can't comprehend, they want homosexuals to stay second class citizens.

It is disingenuous for them to pretend otherwise. I suspect they know that bigotry is considered distasteful by most people, so they're trying to find some other plausible justification. I don't buy it.

what Bert said

Check out my call for a WIDESPREAD LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN....we need everyone's help....today:

http://spiritofsaintlewis.blogspot.com/2008/01/letter-writing-campaigncivil-unions.html

Bert Lowry is lying when he says:

"Thes plaintiffs are not motivated by any desire to honor signators. They're motivated by dislike of homosexuals. There have been several recent petitions -- e.g. The Oregon Political Campaign Fianance Reform Act in 2006 -- that didn't have enough valid signatures."

Obviously, Bert Lowry does not know the motivations of the plaintiffs. He knows only his own bigotry.

Nobody who signed for that petition (The Oregon Political Campaign Fianance Reform Act in 2006) went to their county to contest that their signature was improperly rejected.

But in this case many people went to their county clerks to protest that their signature was rejected improperly.

To claim bigotry when Judge Mossman is clearly not bigoted, (and has been deemed to be free from homophobia by BRO, no less, see wweek.com), is a poor excuse for your lack of sound reasoning. And your lack of debating skills. Perhaps you will now claim all who believe like Judge Mossman are Nazis?

What Jamie and Bert said

They only care about this one because, for weird reasons I can't comprehend, they want homosexuals to stay second class citizens.

Weird religious reasons - i.e., based on what someone's supernatural, imaginary god or goddess told them. Americans gain equal legal rights and responsibilities based on a human Constitution, which promises equal protection. For all.

Of course, many of the most vociferous are self-hating, repressed gays and lesbians (priests? Larry Craig?), or those hiding some other sad "testimony." And it's always so convenient to have an invisible friend to back your un-American prejudice!

But the times they are a'changing. Poor Mary.

As Yoda said, "Fear is the path of the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."

Ignorance is a huge wellspring of bigotry and fear. And religion is a huge source of ignorance. The only "arguments" proposed to explain why my family (two dads, two kids, multiple exchange students) is any less worthy of full equality are based on religious ignorance (my imaginary god says you bad).

And my family is real, human, and American - and my constitution guarantees equal protection for all. You can believe in nice gods and goddesses, or nasty ones. But my rights don't depend on your supernatural doggerel. They depend on the recognition, by Americans, that everyone is due equal rights.

But I think it's important to clearly identify the source of this ignorance, fear, anger, and hatred - the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and many African-American Protestant churches. And remind people that however much their Flying Spaghetti Monster rails against, say, brunettes - brunettes are still due equality.

In fairness to the UCC and Unitarians/Universialists, and probably others, laying this reaction at the feet of deists is misguided.

But my rights are not based in someone's supernatural musings, however nice these may be. My rights are based in the Constitution, and reality - I'm real, my husband and I are celebrating almost twenty years, we have great kids, contribute mightily to our school and community. We're due the same civil protections as everyone else.

So the UCC and Unitarians thankfully don't share the same active prejudice as many Catholics, Mormons, and African-American Protestants. But my rights don't depend on their imaginary goddesses or spirits either (no matter how nice they are!).

Yoda ain't the source of my rights, either (though clearly he's a saint!)

"And my family is real, human, and American - and my constitution guarantees equal protection for all."

True statement.

"My rights are based in the Constitution, and reality - I'm real, my husband and I are celebrating almost twenty years, we have great kids, contribute mightily to our school and community. We're due the same civil protections as everyone else."

Also true.

But the Mosman case is not about you and your husband's twenty year 'marriage'.

It is about several county clerks who rejected signatures for not matching, even after the persons who signed the petitions presented affidavits swearing that the signatures were indeed theirs.

Can county clerks determine that your signature (which kinda does look like your voter card, but also kinda doesn't look exactly like your voter card signature) is really not your signature? ...even if you sign an affidavit stating that it actually is your very own signature?

Since this will affect your rights (and your husband's rights) on future petitions, maybe you should be interested in your civil rights in this area, especially since the Secretary of State's office will not always be held by a partisan hack like Bill Bradbury, but someday might even be held by a partisan hack like ex Speaker Minnis?

Or are you only focused on one part of your Constitutional rights, but not any other parts?

If signatures on petitions are equivalent to votes, then why don't petitions include options for "I want this to be on the ballot" and "I do not want this to be on the ballot?"

Oregon Bill writes, "...Religion is a huge source of ignorance..."

This strikes me as a polite way of saying, "people who are frightened by my sexual orientation are stupid hicks blinded by their religious beliefs".

Perhaps the least effective way to persuade those who believe that homosexuality is a behavioral aberration (aka "sin") is to call them stupid.

Similarly, efforts to demand tolerance are unlikely to achieve widespread success until it reflects a majority of public opinion. Specific rights enumerated in the domestic partnership law will (eventually) be secured.

But it is a mistake to conflate tolerance with a fully functioning domestic partnership law. Tolerance will only be achieved over time, as the straight community realizes they have nothing to fear. Calling them stupid, or insulting their religion, only serves to exacerbate those fears.

Peaceful coexistence demands less fiery rhetoric and more thoughtful interaction.

Mary – several questions. One, did you sign the petition to overturn domestic partnerships and anti discrimination laws for gays and lesbians? And, if it did come to a vote, would you vote to overturn these laws? If so, please justify these votes based upon the idea that domestic partnerships are secular and legal, not religious, recognition of these couples.

No one is asking you to become a lesbian, or even like homosexuals, or have anything to do with them. You may even denounce their lives as immoral and refuse them entry into your church. But, I suspect sadly for you, America and Oregon are not a theocracy (yet), and your church and your God are not the final arbiters of law and fairness in our republic: our constitution is.

And beyond all that, you do realize, like those who supported anti miscegenation laws two generations ago, you’re on the losing side of history. All dogmatic conservatives are. In fifty years no civilized individual is going to think twice about this, just like we don’t now when we encounter a mixed race marriage – at least I hope you don’t.

Of course, a lot of citizens will suffer between then and now because of people like the poor, misguided souls who tried to overturn these laws.

Sad -- terribly sad. I pity you.

Dan:

But that petition had more than enough signatures and was certified to the November 2006 ballot.

Yes, it looks like when I randomly chose an initiative that was rejected, I was consfused between "not certified" and "rejected." Thanks for pointing that out.

Even so, you must have very little imagination to have no idea what I'm talking about. Frankly, I suspect you're just playing dumb. But I'll try to make my point more clearly:

1.) The people who filed the suit in question have no history of advocating on behalf of voters/signators.

2.) They DO have a history of working against gay rights. The initiative in question is about limiting gay rights.

3.) Therefore, I don't believe them when they say their only motivation in the case is to ensure the rights of signators.

It seems awefully silly that anyone would believe them.

This question of law was not uttered by 'those fearful of the LGBT community', but rather by those who want a honorable and respectable process by which signatures on a petition are treated with the same level of respect as a write-in vote, regardless of political ideology.

Um, then why have these same people stated that they will mount an ballot initiative for Novemebr 2008 to repeal domestic partnerships if the Judge rules against them?

Measure 36 proponents who defined marriage as being one man and one woman (creating a special right for heterosexual committed couples) all said that same sex couples should go to the legislature to get civil unions/domestic partnerships.

Hard to argue all they want is an honorable and respectable process when they are in fact neither behaving honorable nor respectable.

What they really want is their theology to be the only law of the land. You got to ask yourself as an American, where else in the world are people wanting theocratic governments?

"My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816

Oregon Bills assertion that "Religion is a huge source of ignorance...." most certainly implies that those who reject homosexuality are ignorant.

While you may disagree with their religious beliefs, they certainly aren't "ignorant" simply because they have a moral/religious opinion that homosexuality is a sin, or that homosexual acts represent deviant behavior.

Ignorant is synonymous with uneducated, which implies that homophobic opinions will be overcome with sufficient education. I simply don't believe that is true.

To suggest they are "ignorant" implies that they will remain ignorant unless and until they share your "tolerant" views. Intolerance doesn't equal ignorance: education is unlikely to persuade them if they believe that homosexuality is proscribed by God.

There are many educated and worldly people who maintain deeply intolerant opinions of homosexuality. They are not ignorant; they believe (quite literally) that God created men and women to love each other. Any other coupling is, for them, an abomination.

Ignorance in this context quite easily translates into "stupid hicks." Given their willingness to hate the sin, but love the sinner", I think that kind of inflammatory language is harmful to the cause.

I think the reason I care so much about this one is that I AM married, and I often feel very guilty about taking advantage of an unearned privilege. There, I said it. (Not that this fixes anything, but I want to acknowledge this.)

So I want to fight like heck to even the playing field as quickly as possible.

About the ignorance comment -- I don't agree that homophobia is just about ignorance OR religious intolerance, though both may influence some of the haters out there. What about the intense dose of gender training we immerse ourselves in day in and day out, teaching boys not to be a wimp and never ever to be gay? Just look at the Oregon Healthy Teens Survey to see how often kids in school report harassment because of gender or sexual orientation and identity. What about our country's militaristic culture, which often equates might with right (so if I beat up a gay person I must be right)? There are many, many reasons why matters of the heart (and genitals) enter the public arena.

What seems foremost among homophobes that I've met, however, is utter lack of empathy and compassion for their fellow humans. Who could watch Boys Don't Cry, The Matthew Sheppard Story, or (such a tear jerker, I cried and cried) Brokeback Mountain, without feeling love and compassion for all those star-crossed lovers out there in the world who feel a love they can't safely express?

An earlier post said "It's just mean" and I still can't really think of a better word for it.

I hope this is just a pause, and that we don't have to deal with yet another hate-fueled ballot measure in '08. It really brings out the whackos. And, more importantly, makes all my gay friends feel really unsafe (and actually increases violence against them).

I understand why you're saying what you are saying, but I'm quite sure that demonizing and dehumanizing anyone will just create more fear, which is exactly what we should be moving away from with all of our might.

Hi Kristin (& Co.) -

I was out of internet range for awhile, so this is probably too late to add, but...

I can attack someone's argument for being utterly baseless; i.e., Zeus, while a character in great stories, does not physically exist. And I can say all sorts of things about the horrific things the followers of Zeus do. In fact, when Zeus followers, say, abuse children, dumb down science education, restrict health care for women, or prevent you from marrying, we should all attack their arguments!

But what I cannot do - what I would never think of doing - what, as an honest American, I'm not raised in any way, shape, or form to do - is deny basic civil protections to the followers of Zeus.

I think Zeus followers are (clearly) deluded, and their arguments are evidence-free, sorry and pathetic - but they can certainly marry. They can assemble, vote, speak, etc. They are fellow citizens, due the same rights and responsibilities as I am.

Coddling the religious by "respecting" their utterly baseless mythologies to the point where they are afforded the status of legitimate arguments for denying their fellow Americans basic civil rights is ridiculous.

You might do a bit of research into Natural Law before you conflate Zeus and Christianity (hint: it ain't Darwin). Much of English Common Law (and the U.S. Constitution) was founded on the belief in a divine creator, from which all rights are derived. It's true with Islam too (now there's a tolerant bunch!).

Don't confuse freedom of religion with freedom from religion. Worse, you're playing into the "Godless Homo" stereotype when you call some/all religions "utterly baseless mythologies".

You also undermine the winning of hearts and minds game with such drivel.

Worse, you're playing into the "Godless Homo" stereotype. You also undermine the winning of hearts and minds game with such drivel.

I am a "Godless Homo" - and proud of it, too!

"Respecting" myth-based prejudice from Christianity, paganism, Islam and other evidence-free, "faith-based" belief systems hasn't gotten us very far...

And it's time we clearly recognized the utterly baseless supernatural opposition to full inclusion for gay and lesbian families in the American promise of equality.

I.e., you can certainly believe the Flying Easter Bunny hates short people - though I think you're utterly nuts for your belief (you have absolutely no evidence that a Flying Easter Bunny even exists!). But Flying Easter Bunny believers can vote, speak, marry, assemble - those terrific, secular, American ideals are guaranteed for all.

However, your imaginary Easter Bunny is no basis for removal of short people rights.

I know this is hard for the Flying Easter Bunny believers - you just can't get past the shock of hearing someone not respect your imaginary, furry little friend. But more and more Americans think you're a little nuts - and more and more will say it. When your bunny is the basis for denial of basic civil rights, more should.

I guess "myth" and "religion" are synonymous in the absence of faith. Good luck with that.

I guess "myth" and "religion" are synonymous in the absence of faith. Good luck with that.

To believe a religious argument requires faith - i.e., belief without evidence - because there is not a shred of evidence to support religious, supernatural claims.

Don't get me wrong here. I love a good story! My kids know all the myths, from Hermes to Jesus. But my family is under attack - and the effort to reduce my legal worth and value comes from Catholics, Mormons, evangelical Christians, and their utterly baseless, evidence-free beliefs. And I'm not ignoring the obvious.

Kristin Flickinger Is so right on the money with this on WE AS a QUEER state need to know our community . I have for one said it over and over do you know who lives in your building ? besides the other queers Now is the time for us to let them know who and what we are all about ... oh and btw I am Jeffrey Foust I am from Medford Or. yes the other end of the state where it is MOST IMPORTANT that they know who we are and what we stand for just as i am sure i stand with then on several thing .... GO on MISS K Speak the truth I for one and gonna drink your kool-aid anytime .... love ya

We'll never really know why Judge Mossman ruled as he did, just as we'll never truly know why the petitioners requested the temporary stay. We all can speculate, based on our own life experience or ideals, but in truth, only they know what was in their hearts and in their minds. I am tired of people equating religion with bigotry and homosexuals with heathens. I am a 45 year old lesbian, and a CHRISTIAN!!!! I was baptized, I pray to God, and I consider myself "born again" in the sense that I believe Christ is my Saviour. Can anyone answer me why discussions such as this one, that started as a request to show others our best qualities, seems always to bring out our worst? Where are all those "Christian values" like love, honor, patience, tolerance, mercy, peace? You've taken one passage from the Old Testament and made it a mantra. Has any of you noticed the other restrictions in Leviticus, like not eating shellfish, pork, or rabbit, the laws regarding Yom Kippur, and that a man must marry the widow of his dead brother? There are 16 abominations listed in Leviticus, yet people seem to be stuck on this one. Last I heard, Christ's teachings, which are the basis of Christianity, are taught in the New Testament. Get over yourself.