As much as this ad is crazy and only speaks to the far right, we have to take the WA election seriously. It's a low-turnout election, where the debate is mostly being driven by the anti-tax crowd. Pro-equality voters need to know that the election is happening, and that their vote will make a critical difference.

To lend a hand or make a contribution, go to <ahref=http: www.approve71.org="">www.approve71.org!

My sister and her partner live in Edmonds, Washington. Thanks for the video feed. I had no idea that they were endangering my daughter and her husband, two sons and my grandson.

WOW! If the anti-same sex union crowd is stooping this low, this early how bad will it get?

Disgust is what it's about! No small part of the anti-taxers strategy is to paint politics as dirty, pointless and best avoided. Gotta keep whittling away at the tree of liberty from both ends. More corporate participation, less citizen involvement.

And they seem to be winning.

I'm not aware of any anti-tax referenda on the ballot in Washington. Tim Entyman (sp?) has omething about limiting the growth in state spending to inflation plus population growth, but that is it I think.

No, I wouldn't place the No on 71 crowd at the feet of the anti-taxers. But then thats just me.

I particularly like the leaf-throwing at the end; because, you know, same-sex couple can't do that.

Although that's pretty much the whole argument put forth during the campaign for Measure 36 - which was successful.

*** That is thanks, of course, to all of you who donated your money to St. Andrews, Holy Family, Holy Redeemer, Mormon temples, the Albina Community Alliance, etc...

Never forget that supposedly "progressive" (even Blue) Oregonians at supposedly "progressive" churches contributed, directly, to the legal diminishment of their gay and lesbian neighbors, co-workers, family members and friends.

And for a patently ridiculous, supernatural load of hooey. (check out that video)

** But here's reality: Our families are worth less, legally, in this state because of this ridiculous, supernatural hooey. And the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland (and friends) will put forth that same ridiculous, supernatural hooey - using, once again, your blithely donated money - during any attempt at repeal.

So, ha ha - funny video. Too bad it's what many Oregonians still endorse, and support, with their own dollars, when a collection plate passes on Sunday mornings...

Kudos to Carla for bringing this up and reminding us blue Oregonians that there is life across the Columbia River!

All it took was the first word uttered for me to turn it off. Why do they hate?

I would love to hear one of the BO founders elaborate on the role of blogs vis a vis Jack Roberts' contention. I think he's right. Fox didn't just will itself to be the organ of disinformation. It became a player with political ad. money. I think this should be a major element in campaign finance reform.

I guess the questions are confounded. If you could eliminate soft money altogether, so local decisions were purely local, all that activity would stimulate the local economy. Problem is the media aren't local, and that's when it jumps the shark. Back to media.

Posted by: Not going to say | Oct 11, 2009 5:24:16 PM

For folks this video would actually work on, they need to be met where they are at and that’s fine. For those that support equal rights for all, this needs to be a discussion based in the same biblical language as is being used so ruthlessly in this video. While acknowledging that the Bible is open to interpretation, it could be articulated that no one should use the New Testament as a vehicle for hate, for example.

For having to have heard that, I think I should be allowed to pound my bible in their face about the love of money. When you have to mangle references out of context, aren't you showing contempt? I suggest we not dignify them with terms like "evangelical" and simply call them what they are, the "anti-christians".

this needs to be a discussion based in the same biblical language as is being used so ruthlessly in this video.

This is actually about basic civil rights for your fellow Americans, that "equality for all" promise in the U.S. Constitution (and still in Oregon's, too, by the way) - and not the supernatural suppositions of anyone's special book.

No one in this country needs to "speak biblical language," or master Elvish, or reference Hermes, Yahweh, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus.

To paraphrase the old Clinton campaign: it's the Constitution, stupid. Written by real human beings. Basic civil rights are basic civil rights. And equality for all means all.

Smart, educated, caring people need to stop funding churches and temples that use this "biblical" nonsense to deny fellow Oregonians their basic American rights.

Like all Catholic churches - again, the number one financial supporters of Measure 36, and California's Proposition 8, and Maine's Proposition 1... - and of course, the opposition to any future effort at repeal.

Forget "biblical language" - follow the money and cut it off at the source. A smaller Catholic congregation translates directly into greater equality for all Americans.

I hear your pain.

Thanks - though at this point, it's not really pain, but annoyance.

How could an argument as thoroughly ludicrous as what's presented in that advertisement be used as the basis for rewriting Oregon's constitution to selectively deny the basic American civil right of marriage to the many hard-working gay and lesbian families in our state?

*** You need look no further than St. Andrews, Holy Family, Holy Redeemer, etc. - where parishioners ponied up cash for the Archdiocese of Portland, the number one financial supporter of Measure 36. And (hey, I'll make a wild prediction here) - the number one financial supporter of the opposition to any future effort at repeal.

Now, if the Catholic Church were the number one financial backer of successful efforts to selectively abolish the voting rights of Asian women, or the marriage rights of interracial couples, I'm sure many Catholics would be horrified and move fast to disassociate themselves from such an awful organization.

So as an equally real person, I think it's way past time that these same supposedly "progressive," and "good-hearted" Catholics realize that they can no longer treat their many productive, and contributing gay and lesbian neighbors, co-workers, family members or friends with similarly baseless and unfounded contempt.

You still give money to Holy Redeemer? Then you continue to support, actively, the selective disenfranchisement of gay and lesbian Americans from access to rights that you enjoy (see Maine). And for utterly ridiculous "reasons," too (see ad).

And you are certainly not as progressive or good-hearted as you'd like to think.

Take a look at the first ad from the Approve Ref. 71 campaign (the good guys). It's wonderful! Donations will help keep it on the air... http://www.actblue.com/page/approve71ontheair

Referendum 71 asks voters to approve or reject the domestic partnership law. If we don't motivate enough of our voters in this off-year election, same-sex and straight senior domestic partners will lose 250 rights that the legislature has already provided. Oregonians can help by donating to the campaign at Approve71.org, and talking the ears off of Washingtonian friends and relatives about the vital importance of voting "approved" on Ref. 71 to preserve the domestic partnership law an protect ALL Washington families. Approve71.org

A congregation is not going to be moved by the plight of the Black community easily and rational discussion within the context of the Bible is a worthy goal working on that track

But if, as you say, your Catholic community is not "moved by the plight" of Black Oregonians, now unable to vote in this state because of a successful Archdiocese campaign to amend the state constitution and selectively deny them that basic civil right - how can you still support them and give them money?

Oh wait.

It's not Black people we're talking about here - it's gays and lesbians. I can still "work on that track" because gays and lesbians don't matter as much as Black people. I don't have to feel any discomfort or take any responsibility for contributing to efforts to disenfranchise gays and lesbians - because, thank Jesus, they're not Black.

So I can still attend my Catholic Church, busily collecting money to selectively write some Americans out of state constitutional protections in Maine, Washington, etc., and feel like a gosh darn "recoverin' Catholic," all good and warm and socially beneficial.

Because these are just gay and lesbian Americans my church is screwing here.

And if we really want to repeal Measure 36 - it is your attitude that has to change.

By continuing to give money to Catholic churches (and Mormon temples, and churches in the Albina Ministerial Alliance), you directly support efforts to cut gays and lesbians off from once guaranteed civil protections that you, personally, continue to enjoy.

As someone wrote here, a Catholic "congregation is not going to be moved by the plight of the LGBT community," despite the fact that our families are hurt by their efforts to reduce our access to basic rights.

Catholics (and Mormons, and many Protestants) don't care about us. In fact, they actively aim to harm us, by continuing to use parishioner money to reduce our legal status as Americans.

** And at some point, if you give money and support to a Catholic, Mormon or Christian church, you have to take responsibility and say enough. You have to take a stand. Or else, you're part - and a big part - of the problem here.

Thankfully, the next generation gets it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ83qWSuhsI&feature=player_embedded

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JZ83qWSuhsI&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JZ83qWSuhsI&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Will you get it too?

I am a proud Christian who voted against 36 and stands for the rights of GLBT couples. As far as organized religious bodies entering the political fray (as the Washington Catholic Churches have done), should lose tax advantaged treatment at the federal, state, county and city level. They can't have it both ways. You either are tax exempt and remain out of the secular political discussion, or you enter the secular fray and pay your taxes.

Kurt,

As far as tax-exempt status of politically active organizations, I think you may want to re-think your position. It seems that nearly all of the organizations founded for the main purpose of fighting for the right to marry are also tax-exempt. I don't think that political activism is a dis qualifier of that status, at least at this time.

Just an FYI.

not going to say, the fastest way to end discrimination against lgbt people is for the allies of lgbt people to "come out" as such, speak up and out, and not feel like their silent support is adequate. only when other straight people are given 'permission' to be pro-equality will they begin to think that way. lgbt allies need to lead their not-yet-ally cohort.

oh yes, and everyone must vote. :)

approve71.org

Rick, I understand your position but respectfully disagree. Those organizations advocating for any specific cause can and do call themselves "Non-Profit" or "Not-For-Profit". They become tax exempt in that manner. Any organized religious institution is tax exempt de-facto. Advocating politically is not their reason for being. If they wish to set up a separate entity for that purpose - fine. There is, however no reason for them to be politicizing religious belief from the pulpit, minaret orother area.

I agree with the less religion crew, actually. I was simply dreaming of how to say something that would get the thumpers to stop and think, to the extent that they are capable. You either have to ignore the "Dog wrote it, I believe it, Rush settles it" crowd, or speak their language. My only point was that they are so hypocritical that you could make the entire progressive thesis without venturing outside their sources and language.

Speaking of media and religion... Why are Mormons and Catholics given a bye by media like OPB? I could not go public and say that the glbt community are going to be the end of human civilization, literally, and get air time on "considered" news sources. Yet, that is exactly what the Pope has said, and Bishops come on all the time as respected guests.

So, why are you giving tax breaks (and every other kind) to religious organizations, that your mom and pop business would dearly love to have? Why is it taboo to suggest we stop subsidizing anyone that wants to call themselves a religion?

Religion is worthwhile in the same way prisons are. We shouldn't be making social policy based on the views of the dysfunctional, though. Also, blame the Catholic position on John Paul II. The US had a history of a very progressive Conference of Catholic bishops. They were a major irritation to Reagan. John Paul II helped his good buddy out, by gutting the American Catholic hierarchy of all real thinkers, and by defining anyone that doesn't think that the Spanish domestication of the natives was the best thing that ever happened to them, spiritually, as a process theology heretic. Without the ballast they provided, the Catholic Church is now proudly the world organ of environmental terrorism. When you're destroying the quality of life for every person on the planet, what's the discomfort of a few queers?

Some people never recover from Catholicism. As this gets worse, we will likely perish in a death struggle, fingers grasping an evangelical's throat. More likely alone, in suicide. They are a social evil. Stop subsidizing them. Just stop it!

Do you say something when someone litters, blatantly, right in front of you? Then why do you hold your tongue when a Mormon, with 5 kids in 6 years, sits down next to you? That is abuse of the environment, the woman, AND the kids. Don't talk about being green, women's rights, or education as concerns if you are willing to accept such behavior as "personal choice". It is no different than saying that partner abuse "is between them".

Yeah, hypocrisy is the problem. Unfortunately, it extends to every American, even the victims.

Carla, thanks for posting this!

I just spent a week in Maine working on the No on 1 campaign there. The Maine legislature approved marriage equality there and now it is under serious attack by what Maine terms a "people's veto". If Question 1 in Maine is approved by the voters, it will be a tragedy to not only the people in Maine, but also serve to embolden the the opposition to continue to fight to keep an entire population of Americans as second class citizens.

The same thing is happening in Washington state with Referendum 71.

Thomas points out that it is an off year election and voter turn out will be the key to preserving equality in both states.

Nate Silverman over at 538.com did an analysis of the fight in Maine. His projection gives me hope. But his projection is predicated on the numbers of voters who turn out.

I'm sure the same sort of concern about GOTV is applicable in both states. Both states are battling well funded campaigns which in large part are supported by the catholic dioceses in those states as well as so called "family value" organizations.

However, at the same time there is a study floating around which analyzes some of the successes progressives have seen in the 2008 elections cycle.

In a nutshell from what I read, the success of 2008 came in large part by the fact that progressives were able to personally contact more voters, especially in the GOTV phase of the cycle. We did this with increased and effective use of technology, but the bottom line was that progressives had an overwhelming edge in the number and frequency of face-to-face voter contacts, whether at the door or by phone conversation. We know how to do this and do it well. Media ads, mailings, other methods of voter contact paled in comparison.

Which goes back to the successful strategy of good old Grassroots organizing. The more we communicate in both the number of people we actually talk to and the frequency we talk with them, the more likely we are to GOTV and win.

Both the campaigns in Maine and Washington have the means for people to phone bank from right here in Oregon in the comfort of your home.

In Washington: http://approvereferendum71.org/volunteer-for-approve-referendum-71/

In Maine: http://action.protectmaineequality.org/t/4847/signUp.jsp?key=2605

To all my friends, gay, straight, or otherwise sign up now to make some phone calls to voters. Your voice will go a long way to protecting and furthering marriage equality across the country. Protecting equality in both states is now down to talking to voters and making sure we get out the vote!

Oregon didn't pass Measure 36 because the majority of voters are fundamentalist Christians.

No - plenty of Measure 36 supporters were self-described "moderate" Catholic, Mormon and Christian voters. Probably a few Muslims in there, too. And even Blue Oregon Democrats... It didn't pass by a little - it passed by a lot.

But ALL of them based their vote to selectively diminish the legal rights of their gay and lesbian family members, co-workers, neighbors and friends on the idea that gays and lesbians are somehow "sinful," less worthy, even less human in some ways than themselves...and thus less deserving of basic American civil protections.

And this prejudice was amplified by a political campaign - mailers warning of the evils of homosexuality, television advertisements attacking our families, radio spots claiming that we'd corrupt society, break down natural order, etcetera.

(most of you have no clue what it feels like to be targets of a dehumanizing campaign)

And - watch that video again - for all the yucks it generates, that is the basis for this prejudice. It is religious prejudice. It is based on utterly unfounded supernatural nonsense that in the 21st century no serious person should offer one whit of respect.

Because gays and lesbians are actually real people, fully human, contributing daily to the success and welfare of this state. We marry, have children, hold jobs, volunteer for the PTA, and are welcomed - welcomed - in our Oregon communities.

Yet every day I encounter nice folks who seem to like me, respect me, like my kids, welcome my family's contributions - but who still give money to the very religious organizations that financed that awful, scary, dehumanizing campaign for Measure 36, which has left my family at a distinct legal disadvantage relative to theirs.

And these religious organizations - the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland, the Mormon Church, the Albina Ministerial Alliance - CONTINUE to use their money to make sure my family and others are denied access to rights across the USA...

And the "reasons" they do so are (just watch that video) patently ridiculous.

This cannot stand. A lot more people are saying enough - I will not give any more money to religious groups that use it to demonize good people, fellow Americans, based on a lot of supernatural b.s.

And as another poster noted - just look at the Bishops and ministers using parishioner money to run these political campaigns! The Catholic Church? Moral arbiters? Please.

This religious house of cards will fall, eventually - particularly if more of you supposedly "moderate" Catholics, Mormons and Protestants (including many who probably voted for Measure 36) say enough, enough - and quit.

(and of course if you can't do it - many of your children ultimately will)

Oregon Bill,

I can't see the video for some reason, but to say that measure 36 was an attack on GLBT people isn't always correct. In fact, due to the numbers of people who passed it, I'd say that, for many, it was a vote to preserve something, not prevent something.

That a portion of the GLBT community feels that people are against them is interesting. But saying that ALL people who disagree with codifying sexual choices are anti-Gay is a stretch.

The civil protections are equal for all people in the country. Straight people aren't protected more, or less, then GLBT people. And as a country, we do codify what kinds of relationships we call "marriages". Currently, you cannot marry someone under the age of consent, a close blood relative, more than one person at a time, etc.

Should we allow anyone to marry anyone? I don't think so. But there is a lot of noise around the issue. If we correct the "medical choices/power of atty" issues and tax issues and the rest, but don't allow "marriage", is that still not enough?

I'm not sure the din is equal to the issue. But then again, I'm not GLBT.

Hey Kurt! :-)

I don't see how much of a difference there is in what you say. Perhaps a difference without a distinction.

Additionally, the "separation of church and state" is the real issue here. To tax a church based upon the donations to it is definitely the govt jumping into religion. I'd say, constitutionally, rescinding a tax-exemption for a church is not possible. And legislating for that recension is likely a "third-rail" issue.

Also, I don't think churches are aching to get into politics. But I do think they are drawn in by others who either attack them directly, or the tenets they espouse. I can't see any value in saying "we can attack everything you believe in within the political arena, but if you respond, we will punish you". Sounds like a bully to me. Seriously.

Off topic, but Chris Dudley?

"I'd say, constitutionally, rescinding a tax-exemption for a church is not possible. "

Perhaps not for the church building--but what about other buildings they own?

More importantly, I once knew someone very active in a church who wondered about "in lieu of" payments of some sort for fire and police protection, water and sewer, etc.

And I think there is a difference between the churches who had the Measure 36 petitions in their church lobbies and those churches not politically involved (althought that gets sticky when you think of the congregations which had active members campaigning against 36).

Before we get into too much generalizing and stereotyping, how many people voted for Kerry and 36? Seems I heard about that.

I happen to know someone who voted No on 36 but voted for Bush (and for Obama 2008, btw), which is why it is stupid to forget that voters are individuals.

Rick, Your comments are filled with inaccuracies. 1. Gays and lesbians can be fired in 30 or so states, for no reason other than being gay. Others are protected, based on age, race, religion, etc.
2. Gays are not always protected, even if they have all the proper power of attorneys and legal docs in place (a Florida case just came down for a hospital who denied a lesbian to see her partner). 3. It used to be that whites couldn't marry blacks. Wives were 100% at the mercy of their husbands, with no recourse to divorce or justice. Young women were fair game for older men to buy and marry if parents could be bought off or intimidated. The fact of the matter is, society changes over time, as people begin to see that an injustice exists. So yes, while maybe some voters who supported 36 don't hate gays, it does seem irrational to deny two people who love each other the right to marry, when I can't see how it would affect them in any way. 4. Churches are currently banned from engaging in politics. When a church engages in campaign activity, they put their IRS tax exemption at risk... this isn't a left wing plot, it's US law since the 1950s. 5. I've never hear a GLBT person ask for or demand any kind of special right. But as it stands: we cannot marry the person we love; seek employment in the military; we are often rejected by our family unit; assumed to be pedophiles; fired from our jobs for no reason. Oh yeah... sound like we're really concerned about "special" rights. How about just our normal human rights???

Pacnwjay,

I am close to 100% certain that Gay Marriage will be legalized and elimination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the US Military will be eliminated in my lifetime.

I am a Millennial who was born in 1984.

As for across the board validation from the family unit on up to the super jock who you just met accepting you as one of the 'boys' is not what you will get as a Gay man now or ever. Straight men will always have issues with Gay men. The main issue being that Gay men thinking that they can turn Straight men Gay, which is never likely the case unless there is alcohol or drugs involved, then that is a serious crime called rape.

As for fired from the job for no reason, I am fairly certain that Oregon, California and 30+ other states are "At-will Employment" states where you sign an employment offer that specifies, "any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Thus forth, the fired for no reason is not a Gay thing. If you are employed and not in a Union in an At-will employment state, then you can be fired for management not liking the color of your hair.

In my mind, sexuality is a very fluid thing that is not set in stone. I have known family friends who were straight as a whistle until a few too many bad relationships, then they became Gay in their late 30s and early 40s with a kid or three from previous marriages. Likewise, I have met a few girls myself who were as Gay as a daffodil until a man actually took the time to listen to them and care for their concerns.

It is both a choice and genetic. It is not this rigid choice of Straight, Bisexual or Gay. It is a fluid scale of 1-10 (1 being as Straight as Dirty Harry and 10 being as Gay as Freddie Mercury) that can change over the course of one's life due to life experiences.

I know from my own experience.

RyanLeo, 1. So happy that you have confidence that "sometime in your liftime" justice will prevail... some of us, however, have many more years under out belt and feel a bit less cavalier about human rights and justice. 2. I have no idea what you are trying to say regarding superjocks and turning straight men gay.
3. At will employment does not negate the responsibility of employers to hire and fire fairly. If Nike decided to "at will" fire all the black people on staff, they would be sued, and the former employees would win. There are federal laws to protect them. Same goes if they fired all their employees over 50 or all their jewish employees. 4. I'm glad you have notions about how sexuality works. Good for you. But I'd suggest you do some reading on the subject, or at very least, don't assume that your personal experience must be correct.

but to say that measure 36 was an attack on GLBT people isn't always correct.

That's a good one there, Rick!

Defining a basic civil right like marriage, or voting, to selectively exclude some of your fellow Americans (and for bogus religious reasons, no less) is a pretty direct attack on those of us suddenly denied access to that basic civil right.

For example, in 1967, the US Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws and amendments defining marriage as the legal union between two adults of the same race (based, of course, on something else Christians read out of their holy book of supernatural tales).

And why? Because defining what a majority of the Justices termed "a basic civil right" to purposefully exclude participation by some American citizens is unconstitutional.

Like I noted...

(most of you have no clue what it feels like to be targets of a dehumanizing campaign)

But I'll pray for you Rick (that's a joke, too)

(althought that gets sticky when you think of the congregations which had active members campaigning against 36).

And on a related issue...

If those actively campaigning against 36 continued to fill the collection plate at, say, a CATHOLIC Church - they were also supporting the campaign by the Archdiocese to pass the measure and selectively diminish the legal rights of fellow Oregonians.

*** And if these same folks honestly plan to actively campaign for the eventual repeal of 36, they'll need to stop giving money to St. Andrews, Holy Family, Holy Redeemer, etc... Because the Archdiocese will be leading any effort to attack us once again.

Ultimately, I suspect we'll need a US Supreme Court decision recognizing the unconstitutionality of amendments like 36, in order to throw it out. For all its "Blue" Oregon progressive pretensions, too many in this state still see gays and lesbians as less deserving of basic American rights than themselves.

A response to pacnwjay

Your comments are filled with inaccuracies.

I don’t think they are inaccuracies, but rather points of disagreement or statements of opinion. Try not to dismiss them as inaccurate unless you can say what is inaccurate.

1. Gays and lesbians can be fired in 30 or so states, for no reason other than being gay. Others are protected, based on age, race, religion, etc.

I’m not sure how this has anything to do with anything I said.

2. Gays are not always protected, even if they have all the proper power of attorneys and legal docs in place (a Florida case just came down for a hospital who denied a lesbian to see her partner).

I agree. And I agree that it’s wrong. And should be changed. I thought that was clear in my post.

3. It used to be that whites couldn't marry blacks. Wives were 100% at the mercy of their husbands, with no recourse to divorce or justice. Young women were fair game for older men to buy and marry if parents could be bought off or intimidated. The fact of the matter is, society changes over time, as people begin to see that an injustice exists.

Agreed. And this society seems to be changing as well. To support your position.

So yes, while maybe some voters who supported 36 don't hate gays, it does seem irrational to deny two people who love each other the right to marry, when I can't see how it would affect them in any way.

From the other side, I’ll tell you that “maybe some” don’t hate gays is kind of humorous, as the vast majority, IMO, don’t hate gays. Absolutely the vast majority. But they also aren’t willing, obviously, to give the gay community anything they want. I understand that you can’t see how it is important. But your thoughts aren’t the same as others thoughts.

And it is a societal decision as to codifying relationships. Codify all relationships, some relationships, or no relationships. And that society can decide any way they wish. As I stated above, it isn’t exactly how I would like it to be (legal decisions in health and well-being, for example, among other changes).

And to attach hate, a strong word (but increasingly weakened by overuse) to people just because they see marriage as man/woman is not always correct. I’d say, from the people I know, it’s rarely correct. But in the vernacular of those who support GLBT rights, it’s easily accepted. It doesn’t, however, make many of us willing to discuss the issue when we are dismissed as simply hating gays. It seems intellectually dishonest to dismiss those whom you disagree with as being driven by a base emotion rather than reason. Just the same as others would dismiss the GLBT community as perverse or sick. Not reality, and not a valid response to a challenge. And not a positive step forward in discussion.

4. Churches are currently banned from engaging in politics. When a church engages in campaign activity, they put their IRS tax exemption at risk... this isn't a left wing plot, it's US law since the 1950s.

Churches, as an entity, are prevented from engaging in politics. Most specifically financially. But they aren’t prevented from speaking out about political issues and extolling their members to become politically active. Again, to ask a church to accept attacks without response is bullying, IMO.

5. I've never hear a GLBT person ask for or demand any kind of special right. But as it stands: we cannot marry the person we love; seek employment in the military; we are often rejected by our family unit; assumed to be pedophiles; fired from our jobs for no reason. Oh yeah... sound like we're really concerned about "special" rights. How about just our normal human rights???

I have heard them ask for and demand special rights. Claiming they are normal human rights is a technique to normalize the claim. Understood and accepted. But it is a semantic issue, isn’t it? An emotion-filled one, but still semantic. You may hate that a gay marriage is not accepted by a portion of society, and a large one at that, but that is fact. To alienate those whom disagree with you is of questionable value in this discussion.

Oregon Bill,

Saying its an attack is just another technique. If I feel attacked and someone is attempting to change my legal rights and assurances, then I resist that attack. To do so legally, as in Measure 36, is not attacking anyone, but rather a defense of my position.

Sure, call it attack. It's not. It's a defense. I know that the other side sees any resistance as "hating gays" or an "attack". But those words are a technique to advance the agenda of those using them. At least be honest in that regard.

You may hate my position, but don't tell me that I'm attacking anyone. I'm not.

Rick, A lot of gays (myself included) see it as an attack because it has nothing to do with churches. If a church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, more power to them. Thats for the congregation to decide.

Much the same as any person. If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Because what you call a "defense" of your position (merely academic) costs gay people tangible things, like health insurance, taxes, etc. In addition to being viewed as inequal by the government.

I'll point you to this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html

I will agree that the level of discourse should absolutely rise. Calling each other names has gotten beyond stupid.

john,

That you are willing to discuss without name-calling makes great strides with me. I'm thinking that we could talk about this over a beverage and perhaps be friends. Frankly, it makes me smile.

I agree that the financial disadvantage of the non-married couple needs to end. It is a thing of the past, IMO. So perhaps we agree in many, most, or nearly all ways.

Thanks!

change my legal rights and assurances

Rick - nobody changed your legal rights and assurances.

But your vote (I gather) certainly changed mine.

A lot of gays (myself included) see it as an attack because it has nothing to do with churches.

It has everything to do with churches. The prejudice against us is religious, and the political campaign (and its financing) comes directly from churches. Who else funds an ad like the one referenced above?

If a church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, more power to them. Thats for the congregation to decide.

I agree entirely. If a religious congregation wants to claim that the Angel Moroni ordered them to stop marrying lesbian couples in their temple - go right ahead and stop marrying lesbian couples in your temple.

But a church crosses the line when it raises money from parishioners to amend the Oregon state constitution to selectively deny our families equality under the law.

The Oregon constitution, with its powerful guarantee of equal protection, is our collective temple.

And right now bogus Catholic, Mormon and Christian prejudice is roughly scrawled upon its wall.

Rick,

1. Civil protections are NOT equal for all in this country.... you claimed, in your original post that they are.
2. I'm glad we can agree on this point, though I doubt we'd agree on how to achieve equality. When a lesbian couple has completed all necessary documents to protect their relationship, but then one dies, alone in the hospital, and the courts side with the hospital, I'm at a loss. If your wife was in the hospital, you would simply say... "that's my wife!" and they'd usher you in. Do you want me to wander around 24 hours a day with a portfolio of legal docs, just in case something happens? I don't want you to think I'm being glib, but GLBT folk have spent many years dealing with the day-to-day operations of this stuff. It sucks.
3. When did society codify black/white relationships? In fact, the court struck down those laws, because they are unconstitutional. I would never try to say that being black and being gay are the same thing... but the struggle for what we consider basic civil rights is similar! When did we, as a society last vote to make sure that Catholics couldn't get married? When did we last vote on whether short people can get married? You chose to call it my "sexual choices," I choose to say, "this is the way God made me."
4. In fact, churches put their tax exemption at risk when they conduct any substantial political, "activity" according to the IRS website. During the Clinton administration, a number of churches were both investigated and their activities were challenged by the IRS. It's more than mere financial support of political campaigns... and hopefully the new administration will take this issue on.
5. Can you define what kind of "special" rights you have heard gays/lesbians ask for?

Oregon Bill:

I don't think anyone else has taken issue with your notion of charitable contributions. I've given money to OSPIRG, even though I don't agree with all of its efforts. I've given money to the ACLU, even though I disagree with some of its stands. And I give money to the Catholic church I attend, because that money goes to all kinds of really important things, not the least of which is the community at that church, which includes many gays and lesbians.

Of course, some small percentage of that donation goes to the Archdiocese, and some much, much smaller portion of that goes to anti-choice and anti-LGBT donations. HOW CAN I LIVE WITH MYSELF? Well, I recognize that I am spending and giving money in a multitude of ways where I don't control the eventual recipient, e.g. if I buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks, is it possible that the money will go to some bad person or bad cause? I suppose. So I try to buy local, and try to pay attention to a company's practices. My suspicion is that many progressive Catholics don't give to support a conservative political agenda, but give to support a very important part of their community.

jay,

Please define how civil protections are not equal.

I could respond to what I expect to hear from you, but I'll hold off and allow you to make the claim.

Rick

My suspicion is that many progressive Catholics don't give to support a conservative political agenda, but give to support a very important part of their community.

But Jonathan by giving, you provide monetary support for the * NUMBER ONE * financial backer of anti-LGBT efforts around this country.

This isn't a small percentage of your Church's expenditures - again, we're talking the number one financial supporter of Measure 36, Proposition 8, Proposition 1, etc.

And let me put it to you this way...

Let's say that your church was the number one financial backer of efforts (successful efforts) to selectively exclude Black women from voting. You are now a member of an organization that used your monetary contributions (and still does) to deny Black women a basic civil right.

(Oh - and it's because Jesus and the Holy Ghost said that a union of Black women and voting machines is somehow sinful and wrong (hey - it's in the Bible, right next to those passages endorsing slavery).)

** Would you honestly stick with this church, and continue to donate money? Would anyone in their right mind ever consider you "progressive?"

So why is it OK for you to continue donating to the number one financial backer of efforts to amend state constitutions in order to erase MY basic rights? How can you happily continue to support efforts (the biggest efforts underway) to selectively obliterate MY family's civil protections and put MY children at risk?

The fact that you "nice," "progressive" Catholics refuse to recognize your continued role in efforts to cut down your fellow citizens - and for stupid, unfounded, religious prejudicial reasons (see ad) - is infuriating, on so many levels.

Jonathan, do you fully understand and accept that I am as real as you (or a Black woman) - and my family counts just as much as yours?

Do you understand that your church is leading the charge to diminish my legal rights in the United States of America - and that by giving money, you have a direct role in this assault?

(and Jesus - what other "really important things" does your contribution support? Payments to individuals abused by priests? Efforts to reduce women's access to health care options? Attempts to dumb down science education in our public schools?)

I think you ultimately have to recognize your culpability here. Otherwise, you'll go ahead and (I guess) happily fund the opposition (in fact, what's likely to be the leading supporter of any opposition) to a repeal of Measure 36.

I know this is a process, and will take time. That's why I'm pretty sure we'll have to wait for a Supreme Court decision. I have little faith in you "progressive" Blue Oregon voters (oh we have to respect religious beliefs, even if they're nuts and used to undermine basic American values like equal protection...)

We might have to wait for your kids.
And certainly a much smaller (or very different) Catholic Church.

I've given money to OSPIRG, even though I don't agree with all of its efforts. I've given money to the ACLU, even though I disagree with some of its stands.

I seriously doubt that OSPIRG or the ACLU would ever become the number one financial backer of successful efforts to amend our state constitution to selectively deny any group of Oregon citizens access to a basic civil right.

Do you?

Oregon Bill:

1. Your response labors under the fallacy that because the Catholic church is the biggest supporter of some conservative causes (I'll take that as a given), that means a huge percentage of the Archdiosece's budget has gone to this, and that therefore, a large portion of my contribution has gone for these causes. You're wrong.

2. By your logic, some percentage of my tax dollars has paid for years of wars. Rather than accept that fact, work for change, look for the greater good, etc., I really should just move to Canada.

3. Life is complex. Spending and giving decisions are complex. Your analysis is far too myopic. Important, but too myopic.

Hi Jonathan -

1. Prove it. Your dollars support the * number one financial backer * of successful efforts to keep my real, human, Oregon family less legally equal than yours. And apparently, you don't care enough to do a thing about it.

2. The fastest way to change this unfair and untenable situation is to quit funding efforts to exclude your gay and lesbian neighbors, co-workers, and family members from rights that you enjoy. And, again, your Church is the * number one financial backer * of these efforts. It ain't rocket science.

As an American I certainly try to support candidates who back causes I care about (and that includes equality). I'm sure you'll vote for a better Bishop - oh wait, your Church doesn't offer you an opportunity like that. And it uses your money to write Black women out of the constitution. Why are you still there, Jonathan?

1. Life is complex, but this one's easy. Your Church is the (newsflash) * number one financial backer * of successful efforts to keep my family down. Your dollars support this effort. Stop sending dollars. Or don't you care?

Oregon Bill,

Are you going to attack anyone who isn't in full agreement with you? I obviously am far from it, but I think, from their comments, that others here are allies of yours. But you are pretty vitriolic in your response.

Passion is a good thing. But friends who agree with you are as well. Must they agree with everything you say?

I'm not sure who your enemies aren't.

Oregon Bill:

1. Prove it? You're the one who emphatically stated that a huge percentage of the Archdiocese budget went to this effort. In fairness, YOU prove it. Give me links proving the point that you made.

2. Uh, seriously? You can't even engage the point? So why aren't you moving out of the United States, which enacted DOMA? Huh? Or why don't you move out of the United States, which still has "don't ask, don't tell" for military service. Engage in the debate, myopic-Bill.

3. You seem eager to anonymously attack. So OK, tell me what charitable organizations you give to, and let's see if every cent is spent righteously (or should I say, in a way that I agree with).

I'm not sure who your enemies aren't.

Rick - I'm heartened to meet so many people (including an ever increasing number of young people) who understand that religious efforts to dehumanize gays and lesbians are clearly wrong.

But if you are going to keep backing efforts to undermine the safety and security of my family - it may well be a little tough to maintain a close friendship!

However, with luck any discomfort you feel will move you to take action - and do more than rationalize your financial support for the Catholic Church as harmless and completely disconnected from my family's unequal legal status in our state.

Because, as Carla noted in her original post, there will be an effort to repeal Measure 36. And the Catholic Archdiocese will draw on its parishioners to oppose the repeal, to run campaign ads attacking us, again. And the way to win is: starve the beast.

you're the one who emphatically stated that a huge percentage of the Archdiocese budget went to this effort.

Nope - I noted that the Archdiocese was the * number one financial backer * of efforts to pass Measure 36, Proposition 8, Proposition 1, etc. Not sure the budget of the Archdiocese is publicly available to anyone - not even those investigating those endless cases of child abuse...

So why aren't you moving out of the United States, which enacted DOMA?

Because I can vote, and speak out, and participate in my democracy.

So OK, tell me what charitable organizations you give to, and let's see if every cent is spent righteously

None of my money goes to any organization seeking to amend state or federal constitutions to selectively deny anyone access to their basic civil rights. Can you make the same claim?

I understand your position. Not sure I understand the motivation, but the position.

FYI, not a member nor a fan of the Catholic Church.

Thus my wondering if you aren't on the attack too much. But you make your own choices. If the only way for you to convince is to attack, then keep it up. I won't play.

Self-righteous Bill says: "None of my money goes to any organization seeking to amend state or federal constitutions to selectively deny anyone access to their basic civil rights. Can you make the same claim?"

Let's check that out OK ... what organizations?

And contrary to your last claim, you did not simply state that it was the number one backer (incidentally, where's the link proving that?), you also specifically stated that it related to the percentage of the budget of my (my?) church: "This isn't a small percentage of your Church's expenditures - again, we're talking the number one financial supporter of Measure 36, Proposition 8, Proposition 1, etc." In fact, I think it's fair to say, as I stated previously, that given that each parish gives a small percentage to the archdiocese, it most likely that it was a small percentage.

Oregon Bill just plain lies... or maybe he's just a religious bigot??

He's unwilling (or unable?) to provide links or citations to his repeated claim that the Catholic church was the number one support of M36 ... so just go look...

The breakdown I found stated, re the $2.4M spent in favor of M36: "Church-related contributors to the Defense of Marriage Coalition — outside of ChristianCopyright Licensing — gave $276,800, led by Rolling Hills Community Church at $46,200,Mount Olivet Baptist Church at $20,000, and the City Bible Church at $16,105." [Uh, Oregon Bill, none of these are Catholic churches; they're evangelical churches, like the group that sponsored the ad that Carla posted]

http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/money_20060206/money_20060127.pdf

Pacnwjay,

First, I do not need to do no phucking reading to further confirm what I have already learned from first hand experience. Second hand experience via book ain't crap compared to first hand experience via my own 2 eyes.

Second, you point out that Minorities have certain "special" protections as a legal recourse in the case they are fired in an "At-will Employment" state.

What kind of equality do you want? Do you want the protections that Minorities have? Do you want the protections that Heterosexual, White Males have?

In the former, you would have "special" rights. In the latter, you would be out and out equal with the majority of males in US society. Take your pick. I already know what it is ;)

It is a fluid scale of 1-10 (1 being as Straight as Dirty Harry and 10 being as Gay as Freddie Mercury) that can change over the course of one's life due to life experiences.

An expert. It can change minute to minute, removing the variance due to blood alcohol level. At the Hog's Breath once, Clint gave me a chew, and Freddie had a go at me bird backstage.

Jonathan, which is more important? Winning the point, or glbt rights?

Typical BO debate. Ulrich was spot on about the "Catholic Churches" and how it has changed, but, that doesn't fit yer pissin' contest with Bill, so just ignore it and go back to pissin'.

Every "progressive" debate generates this. When will issue sponsors learn that they don't have to accept absolutely any aid, regardless of effect, and say "no thanks" to these "supporters"?

Frankly, you two sound like Pavel Goberman having an argument with himself. And it's "Get Fit", not "Give us the Fits".

I understand your position. Not sure I understand the motivation, but the position.

Thanks Rick. I appreciate the understanding. Though I'm still a little surprised that you don't see how selectively depriving my family of the same basic legal protections now offered, say, Jonathan and his wife, isn't significant motivation for change..!

Ahh...we'll get there.

And a smaller Catholic Church is a good first step. (did I mention that they are the number one financial backer of efforts to deprive my family of equal protection?)

Had a great experience on the playground this morning when dropping off my kids...

My son's third grade teacher started to tell me about some fund drive at her Catholic Church, and I interrupted to say "Oh God, please - nothing Catholic this morning. You know your church is a major reason why my husband and I can't get married."

And she looked so pained, and miserable, and said "I am so sorry about that, and I feel terrible. You guys are such good parents, and I care about you both, and I think it's wrong, and I'm embarrassed here..."

I quickly thanked her, but added that it would help even more if she stopped donating to the fund drives. And she started to hedge a bit, "Well, but we do much good..."

But then her 20 year old daughter, standing with us this morning, said "he's right mom. They're not going to stop attacking gay people until we stop giving them cash."

Ahh...the younger generation. And maybe when I bring cupcakes to school the celebrate October birthdays this week, my son's teacher may have even more to say.

"Oregon" Bill (it gets clearer every post that it's more likely "California Bill") ... still waiting for your evidence that the Catholic Church financially supported M36. The lists I look through last night (posted one site) didn't show the Catholic church as being any kind of donor to pro-M36 campaign (I think they contributed to oppose Death with Dignity both times, but that's another topic outside of your myopia.

P.S. Not married, so sorry, my "protections" are the same. And just to let you in on Oregon law, we've got pretty good anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation, and so we're getting closer and closer to equal protection all the time, one legislative session at a time.

When I click to view the video, I'm told it's private. Is there another link to view it?

Think Of The Children! posted by ANTHONY HECHT on THU, OCT 15, 2009 at 4:45 PM http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/15/think-of-the-children

Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell's concern was "for the children" when he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple.

Yes, you read that right. An interracial couple. Not gay—interracial. Yes, it's still 2009.

Bardwell, of course, is not a racist. Some of his best customers are black.

... Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist. "I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

Okay look, you unbelievable moron. No child chooses their parents. ALL children are born into a "situation they didn't bring on themselves."

Like being born to parents who are insane racists, for example.

And it's nice that you've come to this blanket conclusion about millions of relationships and all, based on "witnessing some interracial marriages," but FUCK YOU.

The article then goes on to quote the ACLU of Louisiana's Katie Schwartzman as saying, "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

Umm.. Katie? The Court only said the government can't say who people can and cannot marry based on race. You may have noticed that they still have a little problem with some other people getting married. Read your employee handbook.

Then there's this:

According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce. Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.

AND TO HAVE DIFFERENT GENITALS.

Jonathan, which is more important? Winning the point, or glbt rights?

Yes, I think you may be forgetting who is suffering here.

My family (and many others) have fewer legal protections than, say, what your own parents enjoy - thanks in part to vigorous and continuing political action by the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland...

And yes, we live right here in Oregon. (I love that nativist angle, too - maybe you can support a new ballot measure to deny free speech to Californians!)

Jonathan, my boy, I hope that someday you meet a nice woman, and get married, and enjoy all the rights and benefits guaranteed you by the founding documents of our nation and our state.

But if you should fall in love with a great guy, watch out. The unmarried (and potentially bitter?) priests at Holy Family, Holy Redeemer, and St. Andrews directed some of your financial contributions into a successful and incredibly un-American political effort to selectively erase those rights for many families...

** I personally could NOT continue to fund such efforts (which continue today, and will certainly be a significant factor in any attempt to repeal Measure 36). And the number of people like me is growing every day.

If the Catholic Church is broke they shouldn't be funding political ads.