The guy who does NOT back full marriage equality? No more donations to BRO

How is it possible for BRO to endorse any one of the two Dem frontrunners? Sounds like some one is looking for a job... Don't the DSCC Blue Dogs play party politics with Oregon voters. Stick with Novick...

torridjoe - when an authorized merkley spokesperson comes here and says unequivocally that he's for gay marriage, why isn't that good enough for you?

More to the point, isn't BRO's endorsement a strong entry in this discussion? BRO is for gay marriage; they endorsed Merkley. End of story.

Basic Rights Oregon is no longer part of the "equality community" - because you say so, TJ?

This is getting ridiculus. TJ, you've lost all credibility.

Could somebody, anybody, from the Merkely camp cite a quote from Speaker Merkley's own lips that reflects his presumed commitment to equal marriage rights?

I get seriously tired of hearing that Domestic Unions are "as good as" or "equal to." Or that civil unions that aren't legally binding ceremonies performed by a person authorized to do so by the state is "just like marriage only simpler."

It's ironic that BRO went all out for the utterly incompetent Diane Linn solely because she was so upfront about gay marriage but they're backing Merkley who is- tj is right again- a half-a-loafer.

I don't question BRO's sincerity, but at a time when their energies should be directed at mounting serious election challenges to the originators (Girod, George, and Esquivel) of the new initiatives against domestic partnerships, they're involving themselves unnecessarily in a divisive primary campaign.

I'm going to have to seriously re-evaluate our household's level of commitment to funding BRO. I might just have some better ideas of where to spend that money.

I like the guy who states, unequivocally, that my family is due the same legal rights and responsibilities as his. And I think an organization fighting for equality should endorse the candidate fighting for equality.

From Steve Novick's website:

Freedom to Marry

I realize that I disagree with many Oregon voters on this issue, and that taking this position just might cost me the election. But I cannot accept the state telling a loving, committed same-sex couple, “you have no right to get married.” The Declaration of Independence says that we all have the right to “the pursuit of happiness.” I believe that to be true to that principle, we need marriage equality.

** And OK, I can't even find a statement relating to this issue on the Merkely site! It's not under the "Issues" tab (and it's certainly not on the main page)

Oregon "Liar" Bill: No more donations to BRO Like you donated in the first place.

Steve -

Actually, we did

Jack Sullivan: "BRO is for gay marriage; they endorsed Merkley. End of story."

Hardly. There was no polling of membership on this endorsement. The headline should read BRO's Board Endorses Merkley, and I'd really like to know how the vote on that board went down.

As yesterday's poll shows, this is like buying a ticket on the Titanic.

As usual, the only "loaf" here is the one TJ pinched into this thread.

I wasn't too suprised by this one. BRO has had a relationship with Jeff that goes back. They worked together to get Domestic Partnerships and Non-Dis. laws passed in 2005 and then got them passed in 2007. BRO has seen Merkley work and knows what he is capable of. Can the same be said for Novick? (Not rhetorical, it's an actual question.) My guess is that the board was impressed with both of their interviews and questionaires but in the end they went with the guy that they felt from first hand experience would be the man to represent the LGBT community it DC.

Torridjoe, calm down. Look, I am coming late to this senatorial party, I get it. Your a HUGE Steve Novick supporter.

In my opinion, your posts are shrill. Everytime something happens positive for Merkley or negative for Novick you dismiss or attack with venom that after awhile begins to look silly.

On to the subject at hand. All this support will only mean something for Jeff if he gets his volunteer base motivated. Right now, that ball is decidedly in Steve's favor.

I think Merkley's supporters cannot dismiss that if the election were held today Novick would win.

This race comes down to opposing styles. Will the firebrand Novick beat the deliberate and steady Merkley? This could be one of the best races ever to come out of Oregon.

Right on Kevin,

I am coming to the conclusion more and more that Novick supporters seem to want so badly to be taken seriously that they just punch and punch at everything and everyone who doesn't believe that Novick walks on water. They have become very good at qualifying all of his statements with a "Well, what Steve meant was..."

I am staying out of this race I won't be voting for either Merkley or for Novick but will vote for whoever wins in the primary.

Word to the Novick supporters, you will need the Merkley supporters if your guy's lead holds and the likewise is true if it doesn't.

Didn't BRO endorse Smith the last time? Because he was nice to Matthew Shepard's mother?

I think it was just the Human Rights Campaign. HRC endorsed Smith over the progressive Bill Bradbury. I didn't get that one, either! Lots of behind the scenes politicking involved (e.g., HRC founder Terry Bean is apparently a good friend of Senator Smith's...)

But if you back equality for your gay and lesbian neighbors, family, co-workers and friends, it can't hurt to choose the candidate who endorses equal marriage rights - regardless of whom the professional advocacy organizations endorse.

"But if you back equality for your gay and lesbian neighbors, family, co-workers and friends, it can't hurt to choose the candidate who endorses equal marriage rights - regardless of whom the professional advocacy organizations endorse."

Arguments over organizational endorsements go back a long ways--how could OEA have endorsed the 2 legislators who ended up as sponsors of legislation to end teacher tenure, for instance.

About 12 years ago there was an environmental group which endorsed a political newcomer over a couple of candidates with long environmental records---and someone from the group made a snide remark along the lines of "it is not the green in their records that counts but the green in their wallet"--the candidate they endorsed was wealthy.

If you disagree with the endorsement, that's fine. But I happen to agree with Paul G. "If you have opinions on the topic, obviously you're free to post them. But it's a bit presumptuous to assume that we know any or all of the reasons why BRO made their endorsement. "

I called the Merkely campaign ((503) 274-4439) and was told that they DO support equal marriage rights. It's not mentioned on their website because (says a staffer) "no one cares what's on websites" and "there are many issues out there to address..."

And HRC apparently won't endorse either Democrat in the Senate race. They can't endorse Gordon (again), because he voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment - but they won't endorse his opponent, no matter who he is, because..? Some well-connected gay and lesbian politicos prefer...Gordon?

BRO should have offered a dual endorsement - but HRC? Ick.

I am certain that none of the posters here are able to speak with certitude about whether gay marriage is the one and only issue upon which gay rights organizations should base their endorsements.

Paul,

Thanks for your insightful comments. I find this thread -- and previous threads like it -- frustrating, because I feel like I've read the same comment over and over again 100 times. (Yes, I'm talking about you, Oregon Bill.) Thanks for trying to elevate the discourse into something more substantive than a shouting match, Paul.

To add to your point: even if there was consensus in the GLBT community on the substantive question of marriage versus civil unions -- which there isn't -- you would still find a wide diversity of opinions on the strategic question of whether pro-GLBT political organizations should be pushing marriage-or-nothing as the number one issue on the agenda. Many members of the GLBT community (myself included) think that getting a federal employment non-discrimination law passed, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, and trying to establish some relationship recognition (in the form of civil unions or domestic partnerships) are much more urgent short-term priorities, even if we'd like to see full marriage rights in the long-term.

Having said that, I have no idea whether Jeff Merkeley or Steve Novick would be more effective at advancing this short-term agenda. But I'd bet that the answer to that question was on the BRO Board's mind when it made its endorsement decision.

even if we'd like to see full marriage rights in the long-term

We would. And it's a pretty core issue - * is my family equal to yours? * If yes, then there is no question that a basic civil right like marriage is required for equality - you can marry your spouse, so why can't I legally marry mine?

A candidate's answer to that question says a lot.

Thanks Kevin!

I do feel strongly - we're married, raising two boys, we're active in their school (it's auction season), we work hard, pay taxes, get involved - in fact, like you, we're full (and welcome) human participants in the life of our community.

So why are we denied the basic legal protections that Jeff Merkely and Steve Novick enjoy, and why is this "faith-based" prejudice against my family pandered to by so many Republicans and Democrats?

I respond well to candidates who acknowledge, directly, that we're equal, and seem distressed by the failure of this country to live up to its ideals. And I thought that an advocacy organization devoted to achieving those ideals would endorse candidates who state the clear desire to achieve them, too.

I think in another 20 years, folks will look back on this time and say, "What? They didn't allow gays and lesbians to marry? Why not?"

It's like hearing about the bans of interracial marriage that were on the books not that long ago.

I wish Merkley would cleanly articulate his pov on equal marriage rights on his website. I think he's holding back from that for fear of appearing too liberal when taking on Gordon Smith. There are many democrats who are in the civil unions camp precisely for this reason. Considering that the state of Oregon passed that damn amendment quite recently, I can understand his strategy. I don't condone it, but I can understand it.

bdunn:

Which statement would that be? Seriously. The only thing I can find that Speaker Merkley confirmed with WW was that he was for the repeal of DOMA.

Stephanie seems to have had the same problem earlier in this thread:

"I asked the nice people at Willamette Week and they said the question they asked related to Federal recognition of same sex marriages, so Merkley's stance in favor of repeal of DOMA was enough to check the box "yes" in response to their question. That's good news for the married same sex couples in Massachusetts and the civilly-united couples in other states (nd, yes, for the domestic partners in Oregon)."

I repeat from my earlier post with added emphases: Will somebody, anybody, from the Merkely camp cite a quote from Speaker Merkley's own lips that reflects his presumed commitment to equal marriage rights?

So it is more important to have the rhetoric in favor of gay marriage than to oppose Southwick's nomination? Is that what you are saying?

I think people are just asking for a clear message about marriage equality. I don't buy that there just isn't room on his website, or that marriage equality isn't an important enough issue to merit inclusion.

I think people are just asking for a clear message about marriage equality.

Would be nice. And happily we have one - from Steve Novick..!

Again, from the Novick website (and easy to find under "Issues")...

Freedom to Marry I realize that I disagree with many Oregon voters on this issue, and that taking this position just might cost me the election. But I cannot accept the state telling a loving, committed same-sex couple, “you have no right to get married.” The Declaration of Independence says that we all have the right to “the pursuit of happiness.” I believe that to be true to that principle, we need marriage equality.

Not "hidden," no political contortions over second class domestic partnerships - just a clear, ringing, public endorsement of civil rights for all. Sounds like leadership (and sounds like someone who deserves support from the state's leading gay/lesbian rights organization - doesn't it?)

From my observation, people who don't necessarily agree with a candidate's positions will often vote for that person if he or she stands up for what he or she believes in. I see that ethic with Novick: he invariably stands by his principles. It seems, however, as though Merkely is either scared or unwilling to take a hard line on any issues, which just won't play against Smith.

Whichever of these guys goes up against Smith can expect to be labeled a tax-and-spend liberal (both have NRSC sites up calling them tax-happy), be shoved left, and be outspent. In that case, I think many more independent (and even moderate Republican) voters would take Novick over Smith because he clearly articulates what his position is on any given issue, whereas Merkely gives rehearsed talking points and rides the fence on a number of topics. Either one is going to be a serious lefty compared with Smith, so I don't understand why Jeff doesn't advocate more clearly for marriage equality and other things he claims to be behind.

The absence of the issue from his website is really troubling. But then again, they probably had more endorsements to throw up there.

NAV, there are those of us who know people who voted both ways on Measure 36 (incl. a relative who voted for Bush and against 36 based on the church she belonged to).

Now, I know there are people who think the key to political success is "This is what I believe, I hope you will join me, but if you don't like what I say you can vote for someone else".

But actually there are people who find it refreshing to say something like "Yes, I know marriage is a sacrament for some people, and they they have that right---just as all citizens deserve to have the benefits of living in a free society, including inheritance and hospital visitation rights".

I believe Gordon would have a hard time arguing against that attitude. Would it please those who say "nothing is more important than full marriage rights for all people because civil unions are not enough"? No. But do Democrats only want the votes in the US Senate race of those who were either too young to vote on Measure 36 or who voted no? I don't think so.

This isn't about Novick vs. Merkley. This is about M. 36 and whether any Democratic nominee ever wants to earn the votes of people who voted yes on 36.

Thanks, Kevin. I would also like to know how many of the people making full legal marriage for all a top issue in a US Senate campaign really want the votes of people who may be tired of Gordon Smith (or want a stronger Dem. majority) but who voted for (or sympathized with the supporters of) Measure 36 are going to vote for the Democratic nominee on this issue alone.

And besides, which other prominent Democrats are saying there is no more important issue than marriage equality for all? I seem to recall Bill Bradley in the 2000 primary saying "civil unions are great, but marriage is a sacrament". Is the move here to say religion doesn't matter, all people should support full marriage equality? If so, is it by people who attend church regularly, or people who say religion should have no role in politics?

Have they raised the issue with Ron Wyden, Earl B., David Wu, Peter DeFazio? Do they think Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn should stand strong in support of gay marriage because no other issue is more important? Are these folks going to the Platform Convention and bring up this issue with Chelsea Clinton and whoever the Obama surrogate is?

Or, is this just more venom at the Merkley campaign as we have seen before when someone endorsed Jeff rather than Steve?

If BRO had announced no endorsement in this race, would we still be having this debate?

What what what?

This is a wedge issue? Marriage equality is a wedge issue? And those of us who find it important are just trying to tear progressives apart?

So Oregon Bill, with his longtime partner and 2 kids, who isn't allowed to get married, he's so selfish as to want marriage, and to hope that his representative shares the same view AND IS WILLING TO VOICE IT.

He's just using it as a wedge issue to make those progressives who don't support equal marriage rights uncomfortable. Well, damn him for wanting the same rights that I have.

My partner (in our state-sanctioned boy-girl relationship) have chosen not to marry until same-gender couples can marry. We went down and got ourselves one of those dandy Portland domestic partnerships.

On the way back from the courthouse, all I could think about was how I was dividing the only community that valued equality.

But, now that I think about it, I wonder, which community is that? Are we talking about progressives? Democrats? Humanity?

Your opinion would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Thank you, Leo, for that thoughtful comment.

I wonder if the Novick trolls on this board will finally shut up now that Merkley's given them an answer on gay marriage "from his lips".

<h2>Watch the video.</h2>