The gyration our state went through last year on gay marriage -- now we have it, now we don't, now we've banned it -- has doubtless left some Oregonians a bit unsteady on their feet. Many will respond productively, though, by feeling their way to the political center.

But where, exactly, is that center? We suspect most Oregonians don't need a global positioning device to find it, since it's a familiar and quintessentially Oregon place. It's not hard to recognize because it's marked by good sense, compromise and fairness.

Sen. Ben Westlund, R-Tumalo, and Sen. Frank Morse, R-Albany, believe they're standing right on it. They are co-sponsoring legislation to create civil unions, which would offer parallel protections to gay and lesbian couples.

A civil union is not identical to marriage. It's lesser in name and in stature, and that's why some gay people don't like the idea. That's also why it's called a compromise. Vermont pioneered this compromise, and Connecticut has since adopted it, too, granting gay and lesbian couples hundreds of legal rights automatically enjoyed by married couples. In substance, a civil union comes close to marriage.

But some who campaigned against same-sex marriage abhor this compromise. Apparently, it wasn't enough to eliminate the possibility of gays marrying. They now hope to crush the possibility of civil unions as well. And to do so, they're attacking Westlund, Morse and other Oregon moderates.

The alternative those on the attack are pushing would offer a handful of legal protections to two people who live together, whether friends or aging relatives, who would be known as "reciprocal beneficiaries." This in no way parallels marriage. Nor does it need to be legally dissolved, as marriage and civil unions do.

"Reciprocal beneficiaries" isn't even a half knot. There's no real tie.

If Oregon went in this direction, our state would be treating gay and lesbian couples as if they weren't really couples, as if they were, as Westlund describes it, "Aunt Tilly moving in with Aunt Milly." That's not who they are, though. And treating them that way would be demeaning, but then again that's the whole point -- to keep gay and lesbian Oregonians in the shadows and deny they're raising families here.

Creating civil unions, on the other hand, would admit that: Yes, gay and lesbians live among us. There are 9,000 such couples in Oregon, according to the last Census.

Yes, they fall in love. They buy houses, raise children, pay taxes, mow their grass, sit on the porch, live and die just like the rest of us. Families headed by gay or lesbian parents need the same legal protections other families need.

It's clear that opponents of same-sex marriage are tugging on the political center, and it's not surprising that they would tug -- and test their political clout -- in light of their political victory last fall. But they don't get to say where the center rests, any more than they get to pick out a new spot in the sky for the North Star. They can point, but Oregonians get to decide for themselves where the center is.

Apparently, even Oregonians who supported Measure 36 last fall, banning same-sex marriage, still want to treat gay and lesbian couples fairly. A recent poll by Washington, D.C.-based Lake Snell Perry Mermin/Decision Research, for the gay-rights lobbying group Basic Rights Oregon, found that 57 percent of Oregonians who voted for Measure 36 last fall -- because they're against gay marriage -- support civil unions.

"This is the middle," Westlund says. "For me, this is simply and profoundly the right thing to do."

As Morse says, it amounts to treating all Oregonians -- our gay colleagues, neighbors and friends -- "with dignity, respect and love."

Civil unions can become a reality in this session if Oregonians join together in the center.

From OregonLive.com

ASHLAND — Fliers urging violence against homosexuals — including murder — have sparked a campuswide safety alert and a police investigation into a possible hate crime at Southern Oregon University.

Several versions of increasingly threatening fliers have been found during the past two weeks attached to doors and tucked into mailboxes on the Ashland campus, said Eric Rodriguez, SOU interim security director.

"They weren’t that violent at first and they got more and more so," said Rodriguez.

Fliers were found just before this week’s student government elections and mentioned a candidate, according to an e- mail forwarded from Danielle Mancuso, interim coordinator of SOU’s Queer Resource Center.

"The Bible says that homosexual offenders should be put to death!" read one flier.

"Dykes and fags have no soul, so when you kill them you haven’t really committed a crime," read another.

Local gay-rights advocates held a campus protest Thursday and others plan a vigil and rally at 8 tonight on Ashland’s Plaza.

"These are the first steps before serious crimes happen and we all know that," said Jeffrey Foust, Southern Oregon organizer for Basic Rights Oregon.

Creators and distributors of the fliers could face charges of harassment and intimidation, which include crimes of bias based on sexual orientation and other factors, Rodriguez said. Ashland police have launched an investigation, he said.

SOU officials and police are taking the threats of harm seriously, he said.

"That kind of ratchets up this thing when you’re advocating violence against a person or a group of people," Rodriguez said. "That’s when it goes beyond the free speech issue."

In a campus safety alert issued Monday, officials urged students to stick together at night, to call for campus escorts, to close dorm room doors and to report any suspicious incidents.

Several students have indicated that the fliers made them uneasy, even scared, Rodriguez said.

The fliers apparently were distributed in connection with the SOU student election in which new president Kurt Manseau and executive vice president Alicia-Lynne Ryland-Nation ran unopposed.

This is the second time in a month that questions of intimidation based on sexual orientation have been raised at SOU. A 19-year-old male student said he was verbally harassed and spat upon by a group of men who perceived he was gay.

Mancuso said she believed there was a connection between that incident and the fliers.

"These kinds of things spawn more people who feel that same way," she said.

SOU President Elisabeth Zinser sent a campuswide letter condemning the incident and vowing to reiterate the campus culture of tolerance. Zinser and other SOU officials will hold a press conference about the issue at 11 a.m. today.

The 5,000-student campus is in the center of Ashland, which long has been regarded as a place that welcomes homosexuals.

Rodriguez said he was surprised by the fliers, but not naive about the possibility of threats and violence.

"I don’t think we’re immune to the ills of the rest of the world," he said. "We’re not taking anything for granted because of our reputation for tolerance. We know bad things can happen anywhere and we’re trying to make sure they don’t happen here."

By JONEL ALECCIA
Mail Tribune

Then and now. How quickly things change. What do you think Oregon? Who do you believe? When Oregon's 'Defense of Marriage Coalition' and the 'Oregon Family Council' were seeking a Yes vote from Oregon Voters on Measure 36, the DOMC was clear that the vote was not about civil unions, and even suggested it would be open to civil union legislation to provide same-sex couples with the benefits of marriage. The proof is all here.

Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in California will go to a full vote in the Assembly next week.

The measure was approved Wednesday night by the Appropriations Committee, the final step in getting to the floor for a vote. The legislation was one of a handful of bills earmarked for the lower house. The committee shelved 506 other bills.

"We have very high hopes it will prevail," Equality California spokesperson Eddie Gutierrez told 365Gay.com.

"But as every piece of LGBT civil rights legislation that reached this stage of the process -- from hate crimes to domestic partnerships - the vote will come down to the wire."

The legislation is called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, and was authored by openly gay Assemblymember Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco).

The bill would require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings.

A similar bill last year was pulled by Leno when it became obvious there were not enough votes to pass it. This time though, the measure has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Last month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage are vowing a fight and have called on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to come out publicly against the legislation.

So far Schwarzenegger has sent mixed messages about whether he would sign the legislation if it were passed.

In a January meeting with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle Schwarzenegger suggested that this may not be the best time to push gay marriage, saying that a legislative push to fully recognize marriage rights for gays might backfire.

"Eventually in a few years from now, you can readdress it again and see what the people of California think,'' he told the paper. "You cannot force-feed those kind of things.''

Last year in a Tonight Show appearance Schwarzenegger said gay marriage would be "fine with me" if it were enshrined in state law or ruled legal by the courts.

The issue of same-sex marriage also is slowly heading toward the California Supreme Court. Last month a San San Francisco judge ruled that state laws preventing gay marriage are illegal.

Meanwhile, a a conservative group called the "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" has begun collecting signatures to have a proposed amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage placed on the 2006 ballot. If approved by voters it would not only bar gays and lesbians from marrying but also void the state's landmark domestic partner law.

Wednesday, LGBT groups and their supporters announced a broad coalition to combat any attempt to amend the Constitution.

Source: 356gay.com

For some reason this made me laugh. Was it the title? Probably.

Portland has always gone after the seasoned traveler. The city's natural beauty draws big money from empty nesters, retired people and cultural tourists. The Portland Oregon Visitors Association also wants to tout the city as a destination for gay and lesbian visitors.

With an updated travel brochure due out this summer, the visitors association plans to highlight the city's new gay friendly clubs and culture -- along with the beautiful scenery, vibrant culinary scene and tax-free shopping.

It couldn't come at a better time. Last year, Multnomah County put itself on the map as a gay-friendly area when it issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"Nationally, that opened peoples' eyes to who Portland is," says David Paisley of Community Marketing Inc., a San Francisco research firm. "Until that time, gay and lesbians outside of the Pacific Northwest didn't really know Portland."

Gay and lesbian travelers tend to mirror the cultural traveler: They spend more money on travel, take many longer trips, stay in hotels and spend more money shopping and on cultural activities than typical tourists. The travel industry can't ignore that group, which spends $54 million a year on travel just in the United States.

"That's 10 percent of the travel market," says Barbara Steinfield, director of tourism development for the visitors association. To capture some of that money, Portland must compete with well-known gay-friendly cities such as San Francisco and Philadelphia. In the past two years, the visitors association spent about $24,000 on advertising and trade shows to do just that. It was, for example, one of 90 cities with a booth at the Gay and Lesbian World Travel Expo in Seattle in March.

The updated brochure -- first created two years ago -- will help.

But it's already outdated, says Debbie Caselton of the Portland Area Business Association, the city's gay and lesbian chamber of commerce. "Now, there are many more choices for night clubs and for gay-owned restaurants," she says.

Last year, the visitors association joined with Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., to create the Pacific Northwest Vacation Planner, marketed to gay and lesbian tourists. The publication included two local hotels -- the Hotel Vintage Plaza and Fifth Avenue Suites. Although Seattle listed several hotels, Paisley says, Portland continues to make strides.

"Nationally, the Pacific Northwest is ahead of the curve," says Paisley, who spoke earlier this month at a seminar to study the value of marketing to the gay and lesbian community. "There's still plenty of room to grow."

Story By Lori Mendoza

Gay groups and their supporters announced a massive battle plan on Wednesday to combat a proposed amendment to the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

At simultaneous press conferences in cities across California, representatives of more than 200 groups announced the formation of a coalition to oppose the amendment.

The coalition, which calls itself "Equality for All", will soon begin fundraising and organizing, its leaders announced.

A group called the "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" has begun collecting signatures to have the proposed amendment (AB 19) placed on the 2006 ballot. If approved by voters it would not only bar gays and lesbians from marrying but also void the state's landmark domestic partner law.

“The sponsors of this initiative are ‘hate groups’ who have decided that they are not going to let lesbian and gay people be fully accepted and fully a part of our society,” pastor Cecil Williams of Glide Memorial Church told a rally in San Francisco Wednesday.

“We are not going to take this sitting down. This type of initiative and this type of discrimination should not exist in the 21st century.”

Victor Hwang of the Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach said the Asian American community knows a lot about discrimination.

"In the past, state and federal laws have barred Asian American women from entering this country, have prohibited marriages between whites and ‘negroes, mulattoes, or Mongolians,’ and have directed that any U.S. citizen marrying an Asian would be stripped of their citizenship

“If passed, this initiative would make California the most backwards state in our nation and turn back our clocks more than a hundred years," said Hwang.

The "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" was filed with the state Attorney General's Office last week by the California Campaign for Children and Families, a group that has been involved in legal battles against same-sex marriage in the state.

Randy Thomasson the group's leader said that the CCCF decided to begin the initiative after state Assembly and Senate committees this month rejected a constitutional amendment.

Meanwhile, a bill that would allow same-sex marriage is moving forward. The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act passed a key committee late last month. The legislation, sponsored by openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco) would allow gays to marry but also allow churches opposed to same-sex unions to refuse to perform the marriages.

It has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Earlier this month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage.

Source: 365gay.com

I came across a post from the Benton County Republicans today. It's amazing how the Oregon GOP is basically run by the Oregon Family Council - as well as the so called "Defense of Marriage Coalition". They are the same group - just different names.

This is what they said:

Recently supporters of SB 1000 have been very vocal in contending that Oregon Family Council and Defense of Marriage Coalition’s opposition to SB 1000 contradicts their position on civil union legislation during last year's measure 36 campaign.

For the last 25 years, Oregon Family Council has always contested same-sex domestic partner relationships and continues to do so with its opposition to SB 1000.

However, during the M36 campaign DOMC did not take a position on the issue. This was purposeful because the M36 debate related to marriage not civil unions. Also any discussion related to civil unions” would have been speculative because until SB 1000, “civil union” legislation did not exist in Oregon.

OK - So here is the proof they do in fact contradict their own position time after time. Read the following quotes from these same groups - said during the Measure 36 campaign.

“Same-sex couples should seek marriage-like rights through another avenue, such as civil unions.
Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director, and organizer of the Measure 36 campaign, Bend Bulletin 8/20/2004

“If same-sex couples need legal protection, they should consult their legislative representatives. If they need legislation to do that, no one is going to stand in their way.
Defense of Marriage Coalition, Executive Director, Mike White, Lincoln City News Guard 11/10/2004

The Coalition'’s amendment did not preclude the state of Oregon from creating civil unions, so that same-sex couples could have the same rights as married heterosexual couples.
Defense of Marriage Coalition Spokesperson, Georgene Rice, The Dalles Chronicle 9/30/2004

I'm sorry - did I miss something? I could list about 6 pages of the Oregon Family Council and The Defense of Marriage Coalition's back and forth rhetoric - but truthfully isn't that enough? So my question is how the hell can they so blatantly lie to the public? Do people not see this?

Wake up Oregon! Reciprocal Benefits: NOT a Reasonable Alternative to SB 1000

So I called my senator this afternoon to urge him to support SB 1000 as one bill - not two. I spoke with his staffer for quite a while about the calls they were getting regarding Senate Bill 1000. She said that they have been getting some very nasty phone calls from the opposition. She also informed me that they had been getting a ton of phone calls from those same people. Now, that is expected - the 'Oregon Family Council' has their propoganda machine together and can organize their base and get them involved like no other. They use whatever it takes - most of the time they use flat out lies. Well, not most - all.

I urge you to take the 30-seconds to call your state senator. It is so easy to do and this site will even tell you who your senator is and give you their phone number. Click here to go there now.

Why would it not surprise me if we started to see this in to the U.S.?

Despite international condemnation Saudi Arabia continues mass arrests of men suspected of being gay. On the weekend Saudi heavily armed security forces burst into a building in Riyadh and arrested 92 men.

Al-Wifaq news, which has close links to the Saudi Arabian Interior Ministry, quotes officials as calling the venue a "deviants' party" - a term frequently used in describing gays.

Homosexuality is illegal in the Saudi kingdom and punishable by by flogging, lengthy prison terms or death under Sharia Islamic law.

Al-Wifaq reports that some of the men were foreign nationals - from Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Syria and Lebanon.

In March month, 110 men were arrested at what was described as a "gay wedding" in the city of Jeddah.

About eighty men were later released. The remaining men were sentenced to prison and floggings.

Four of the men (two Saudi Arabians, a Jordanian and a Yemeni) were sentenced by a court in Jeddah to 2,000 lashes and two years' imprisonment, and 31 others to 200 lashes and six months to one year in prison.

The sentences prompted an appeal to the government by Amnesty International. There has been no response from the government.

A day prior to the March arrests, a gay couple was beheaded in a public execution in the northern town of Arar, near the Iraq border.

A First-in-the-Nation Decision of State Legislature to Hire Evangelical Group Demands Scrutiny.

Let me preface this by saying that the group they have chosen is the Alliance Defense Fund. The Alliance Defense Fund has an extensive history of anti-gay actions.

Recently, the group was involved in a lawsuit to overturn a voter-enacted domestic partner registry in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

Alliance Defense Fund co-founder James Dobson has attacked SpongeBob SquarePants for being gay and has called for a "second civil war" in the United States. Bring it on James.

The people of Wisconsin elected the Attorney General who should be the one seeing this case through - not an extremist right-wing Christian cult. The Legislature has seriously overstepped its bounds here.

In expressing his discomfort with the selection of the Alliance Defense Fund, Rep. Mark Pocan said in a May 17 statement, "If bringing in fringe extremists who think cartoon characters are gay is the only way to fight providing health care benefits to Wisconsin families, it is a sad day in Wisconsin."

"The decision by the Republican leadership to hire an evangelical Christian group to represent the entire state legislature in a lawsuit—apparently the first such move anywhere in the country—is shocking and unprecedented.

"It demonstrates the dangerous trend toward politicizing the judicial process. It is an attempt to usurp the role of the duly elected Attorney General in defending the state of Wisconsin. And it reveals a level of personal hostility toward gay Wisconsinites on behalf of a small group of Republican leaders that appears to know no bounds.

"Republican leaders have told us they hired the evangelical Christian group because the Legislature--not the courts--is the proper body to consider this issue. Yet the Legislature has consistently refused to even consider the issue. Domestic partner benefit bills introduced in past sessions were refused hearings. And now the Joint Finance Committee is refusing to give fair consideration to Governor Doyle's request for UW System domestic partner benefits.

"Republican leaders have told us they oppose partner benefits for state employees because they must defend taxpayers. Yet any one of the 233 Fortune 500 companies that offer domestic partner benefits will tell you their cost increase was insignificant, and that there is actually a bottom-line benefit to offering them.

"Republican leaders have also told us they must amend the Wisconsin Constitution to 'define' and 'protect' marriage. Yet the amendment they propose would ban civil unions and any meaningful legal protection to thousands of Wisconsin families.

"So what's the real issue? Legislative leaders seek to deny gay and lesbian citizens of Wisconsin even the most basic protections afforded to other families--and they're willing to put that ideologically driven goal before the best interests of the state.

Statement by Action Wisconsin Executive Director Christopher Ott

Gay marriage opponents in California file proposed constitutional ban.

Gay marriage opponents filed a proposed amendment to the California Constitution on Thursday that would ban same-sex marriage in the state and strip domestic partners of most spousal benefits.

Randy Thomasson, organizer of a group called VoteYesMarriage.com, said the far-reaching measure he hopes to qualify for an upcoming election is designed to prevent judges and lawmakers from eroding laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman.

The move comes as state lawmakers debate a bill to legalize gay marriage and follows a March ruling by a trial judge in San Francisco who said state laws prohibiting gays from marrying are unconstitutional.

"The bad guys here are the judges and the politicians. The people are frustrated," Thomasson said outside the state Capitol. "The people are ready to protect marriage once and for all."

The amendment's sponsors must submit nearly 600,000 signatures from voters to the California Secretary of State to qualify the measure for the June 2006 ballot.

Under the proposed amendment, same-sex couples still would be allowed to register as domestic partners, but most of the privileges and responsibilities the state has provided for such unions would be taken away. State and local governments, for example, would no longer be allowed to provide health coverage for the partners of their gay employees.

Gay rights supporters described the measure as among the most extreme attempts nationwide to block the gains same-sex couples have made since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage a year ago. If passed, it would make California the 20th state with a constitutional prohibition against gay marriage.

"It's extremely mean-spirited and far-sweeping in its effect," said Thalia Zepatos of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "It's absolutely ahead of the pack in its viciousness."

Outside of Massachusetts and Vermont, which recognizes civil unions, the Golden State offers the strongest legal protections to same-sex couples in the nation.

Since Jan. 1, domestic partners in California have had all the rights and responsibilities of marriage conferred by the state except the ability to file joint income taxes.

Thomasson said he would seek as much as $2 million in donations from around the world to fund the signature-gathering campaign.

Elections held on Tuesday ushered three gay candidates into new offices, advanced two candidates to general elections and maintained a strong win rate established for candidates endorsed by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, a Washington, DC-based political action committee that identifies, trains and supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) candidates for public office.

Earlier this month, Victory Fund played a pivotal role, both financially and strategically, in the election of the first-ever openly gay official in Nebraska. Barbara Baier captured 56 percent of the vote and a seat on the Lincoln, NE School Board. Also in early May, Elena Guajardo won the primary in a crowded field for an open seat on the San Antonio City Council and Mary Jo Hudson won the primary to keep her seat on the Columbus, OH City Council.

On Tuesday, May 17:

-- Bill Rosendahl beat Flora Gil Krisiloff by more than 6,000 votes to pick-up a seat on the Los Angeles City Council

-- Mike Gin was elected Mayor of Redondo Beach, CA with a spectacular 60 percent of the popular vote

-- Dan Ryan won a seat on the Portland, OR School Board

-- Kevin Lee won his primary for the Lansdowne, PA Borough Council and Dan Miller placed a very close 3rd in the Harrisburg, PA City Council primary to secure a spot on the general election ballot

"Gays and lesbians deserve equal access to the American dream and we will never get from here to there without having a voice and a vote in the halls of government," said Chuck Wolfe, Victory Fund's president and CEO. "Victory Fund's 2004 strategy proved successful and this year we're taking it up a notch to elect gay and lesbian officials in states that do not have a single gay person in their legislatures," Wolfe added.

So far in 2005, Victory Fund has endorsed 27 gay and lesbian candidates and expects to endorse dozens more before the end of the year. Year-to-date, 65 percent of Victory Fund candidates have won. A full list of currently endorsed LGBT candidates can be found at http://www.victoryfund.org/candidates.

Victory Fund is the largest LGBT political action committee and one of the nation's largest non-connected, non-partisan PACs. In 2004, 41 of 65 Victory Fund endorsed LGBT candidates (local, state and federal levels) won their races in 20 states and D.C., including five in states that also passed anti-gay amendments in 2004: Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon and Utah. Since its founding in 1991, the Victory Fund has invested over $15 million and secured more than a fivefold increase in the number of openly gay and lesbian officials serving in America to over 285 today.

A Press Release from the Victory Fund.

Dan Ryan was elected to the board of Oregon's largest school district by a wide margin, according to preliminary election results reported by the Multnomah County elections division.

Ryan, a Portland State University development director, defeated his nearest challenger, teacher and former school board member Steve Buel, by a wide margin.

Ryan also defeated Charles McGee, a Portland State University student; Sheryl Butler, a community college administrative assistant, and Steve Kayfes, a production manager in the Portland Nabisco bakery. His final opponent, Juanita Johnson, dropped out of the race.

Ryan will replace Derry Jackson, who did not run for re-election.

"I feel great because a lot of people came together to make this campaign successful," said Ryan, 42. "Really, my job now is to keep them engaged."

Ryan said his primary goal is to address the achievement gap, "especially how it relates to the students in North Portland," he said.

The Basic Rights Oregon EqualityPAC had also given Dan their endorsement - Go Dan! The BRO EqualityPAC green lighted a total of 3 people for the Portland Public school Board. All three won their races.

A new report weighing the effects of anti-gay measures nationwide against the positive ones has concluded that 2004 wasn't that bad after all.

The report was prepared by the Human Rights Campaign. It shows that on a variety of fronts - from family rights to workplace protections - there has been consistent progress made in obtaining LGBT legal rights, in spite of reports characterizing last November’s election as a ‘backlash.’

“Even with the setbacks at the end of last year, we’ve seen more progress in the past 12 months than we’ve seen in any other year since 1992,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese .

“In spite of the best political maneuverings of those on the ultra-right, there is undeniable progress across the spectrum from family rights to workplace protections to rising polling — hearts, minds and laws are slowly changing for the best.”

The report showed, among other things, that 14 state legislatures defeated anti-gay constitutional amendments in 2004 (compared to the 13 states where these measures passed) and six state legislatures have defeated them already in 2005.

Two states, Connecticut and Maryland, legislatively approved civil unions and domestic partner benefits, respectively. Two other states are considering legislation granting rights to same-sex couples this year so far - California is debating a marriage bill, and Oregon a civil unions measure.

Four state legislatures have passed or strengthened workplace protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois and Maine.

In addition, polling on election day last November showed that a high-water mark of 60 percent of the country supports either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples, the report says. Similar polling in Massachusetts and New Jersey has shown that a majority of residents in those states favor marriage equality.

“Clearly, we still have a long way to go,” said Solmonese. “But the American people over time always value fairness over discrimination, and we continue to see that dynamic play out all across the country.”

The American Civil Liberties Union announced plans on Monday to launch a national Marriage Campaign to persuade Americans that it is unfair to deny legal protections to the families of same-sex couples.

The campaign will be led by Michael Mitchell, who comes to the ACLU after serving as the Executive Director of Equality Utah, that state’s lesbian and gay advocacy organization.

"Our Constitution guarantees basic fairness to all people, yet lesbian and gay couples who make lasting commitments to each other just like married couples, are denied protections for their families," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU.

"With states racing to enact amendments that will forever ban same-sex couples from getting legal protections, it is critical to show why it’s wrong to keep people from visiting their partners in the hospital or from making emergency medical decisions, and how it hurts children to be legal strangers to their parents."

The goal of the Marriage Campaign is to step up the dialogue with the American people and show through firsthand accounts how lesbian and gay couples and their children suffer when their families are not recognized by the law. Among other public education efforts, the campaign will offer assistance to local campaigns fighting constitutional amendments that seek to ban gay people from marriage and other family protections.

"One thing I learned during Utah’s recent constitutional amendment challenge is that most people don’t realize the toll these measures take on very real Americans with very real families," said Mitchell.

"When people are given the opportunity to see the chaos caused by our government’s treatment of gay families, their attitudes change. I’m eager to bring the lessons I learned here in Utah and from my colleagues around the country and focus them into an active, honest conversation with the American public."

Mitchell has served as the Executive Director of Equality Utah since 2001, when he helped to oversee the campaign to defeat Utah’s anti-gay relationship amendment. He is also on the board of the Equality Foundation, a network of statewide LGBT advocacy organizations. Prior to joining Equality Utah, he worked as a senior advisor on the congressional election campaign for Donald Dunn. He also served as the Executive Director of the Gay/Lesbian American Music Awards.

"We’re at a defining moment in the civil rights struggle for gay people," said Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

"While we have recently made several important breakthroughs, our opponents are motivated like never before. It’s time to fight back, and with Michael’s enthusiasm and leadership we hope to show America that this is simply a matter of basic fairness for all families."

As reported by 365gay.com

LINCOLN, Neb. -- A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.

The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

Bataillon said the ban beyond "goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

The judge said the "broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals."

Forty states have laws barring same-sex marriages, but Nebraska's ban is the only one that prevented homosexuals who work for the state or its university system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

Nebraska has no state law against gay marriage, but state Attorney General Jon Bruning said same-sex marriages were not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now.

Bruning said he will appeal the ruling.

"Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit," Bruning said.

The challenge was filed by the gay rights organization Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project.

Lamba Legal attorney David Buckel has called the ban "the most extreme anti-gay family law in the entire nation."

Carla Petersen, a member of Metropolitan Community Church in Omaha, which advocates for gay rights, hailed the ruling.

"Every step is a good step," Petersen said. "It really will get the ball rolling again."

The ruling did not surprise the executive director of the Nebraska Family Council, which led the petition drive to get the ban on the ballot. Al Riskowski said the decision will renew the call to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since last May. Vermont has offered civil unions to gays since 2000; Connecticut will begin offering civil unions in October.

Source: AP

Conservative groups vowed Tuesday they would immediately begin gathering names to force a vote on amending the California Constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

The move followed a broad rebuff this afternoon in two committees at the Legislature.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 6 to 3 Tuesday to reject a proposed amendment sponsored by Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Riverside).

The defeat was not unexpected despite supporters' claims the proposal would reinforce voters' intentions when they approved Proposition 22 five years ago.

That ballot measure was designed to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere. Other laws bar the state from approving same-sex marriages that take place in California.

The proposed amendment was supported by the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative group fighting same-sex marriage in the California courts.

The proposed amendment in addition to banning gay marriage would have repealed any legal protections and responsibilities for LGBT people and their families, including California’s comprehensive domestic partnership law.

The Senate Judiciary Committee later in the day voted 5 to 2 against a similar amendment.

The only recourse for opponents of same-sex marriage is to get enough signatures to get the proposed amendment on the ballot to let voters decide.

“This is a major defeat for the proponents of this immoral, anti-family measure,” said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California.

“This is a classic bait-and-switch where anti-gay extremists want to repeal California’s domestic partnership law and prevent the legislature, the courts and the voters from passing laws to provide any legal rights and protections to lesbian and gay couples and their families."

Meanwhile, a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry is moving forward.

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act passed a key committee late last month, (story). The legislation, sponsored by openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco) would allow gays to marry but also allow churches opposed to same-sex unions to refuse to perform the marriages.

It has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Earlier this month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage. (story)

The marriage issue is also before the courts. A San Francisco judge ruled in March that law banning same-sex marriage violate the state Constitution. The issue could reach the California Supreme Court later this year.

Source: 365gay.com

Gay Men Respond Differently to Pheromones... research points to biological involvement in sexual orientation.

Gay men's brains respond differently from those of heterosexual males when exposed to a sexual stimulus, researchers have found. The homosexual men's brains responded more like those of women when the men sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone.

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Witelson, who was not part of the research team, said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.

The study, published in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was done by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

They exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones.

These chemicals are thought to be pheromones _ molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals.

Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose.

The Swedish study was one of a series looking at whether parts of the brain involved in reproduction differ in response to odors and pheromones, lead researcher Ivanka Savic said.

The brains of different groups responded similarly to ordinary odors such as lavender, but differed in their response to the chemicals thought to be pheromones, Savic said.

The Swedish researchers divided 36 subjects into three groups _ heterosexual men, heterosexual women and homosexual men. They studied the brain response to sniffing the chemicals, using PET scans. All the subjects were healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV negative.

When they sniffed smells like cedar or lavender, all of the subjects' brains reacted only in the olfactory region that handles smells.

But when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men, the researchers found.

The response in gay men and straight women was concentrated in the hypothalamus with a maximum in the preoptic area that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior, the researchers said.

And when estrogen, the female hormone was used, there was only a response in the olfactory portion of the brains of straight women. Homosexual men had their primary response also in the olfactory area, with a very small reaction in the hypothalamus, while heterosexual men responded strongly in the reproductive region of the brain.

Savic said the group is also doing a study involving homosexual women but those results are not yet complete.

In a separate study looking at people's response to the body odors of others, researchers in Philadelphia found sharp differences between gay and straight men and women.

"Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study.

In particular, he said, finding differences in body odors between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference.

It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said.

Wysocki's team at the Monell Chemical Senses Center studied the response of 82 heterosexual and homosexual men and heterosexual and homosexual women to the odors of underarm sweat collected from 24 donors of varied gender and sexual orientation.

They found that gay men differed from heterosexual men and women and from lesbian women, both in terms of which body odors gay men preferred and how their own body odors were regarded by the other groups.

Gay men preferred odors from gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by heterosexual men and women and by lesbian women in the study. Their findings, released Monday, are to be published in the journal Psychological Science in September.

The Swedish research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Karolinska Institute and the Magnus Bergvall Foundation. Wysocki's research was supported by the Monell Center.

Reported by:
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
The Associated Press

More BS from the so-called "Defense of Marriage Coalition".

Opponents of same-sex marriage are calling on Multnomah County to reimburse their legal fees.

To win its lawsuit last month, the Defense of Marriage Coalition spent a total of $399,023.25, according to official records. [rumor has it that the Alliance Defense Fund paid for these legal fees not the DOMC]

In a petition filed Thursday with the Oregon Supreme Court, the anti-gay marriage coalition claims its four experienced attorneys billed 2,477.68 hours during a yearlong legal battle over Multnomah County's March 2004 decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"This is a reasonable amount given the difficulties on this case, the experience of the litigation team, and the successful outcome," Kelly Clark, the lead attorney [and accused "rapist"] in the case, wrote in the petition.

The Oregon Supreme Court in April ruled that Multnomah County had no authority to issue licenses against state law, which allows only heterosexual marriage. [Although at the time they were issued Constitutional Amendment 36 was not even in the picture - why did the supreme court mention Measure 36 in the ruling if you cannot use newly enacted laws retroactively?]

In Oregon under certain circumstances, parties that prevail in a lawsuit can get attorney fees from the losers. It is unclear whether the Defense of Marriage Coalition will meet the test to get the fees in this case.

Multnomah County Attorney Agnes Sowle said Friday she could not comment because she had not seen the request for attorney fees.

Sowle concluded in a legal opinion last year that state marriage law violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians — refusing to give the couples marriage licenses would put the county on the losing end of a lawsuit.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Basic Rights Oregon, the states leading gay-rights group, eventually sued the state, which had refused to accept the county-issued marriage licenses.

Multnomah County intervened to defend its actions, as did the Defense of Marriage Coalition, which countersued, claiming the county had no authority to issue the licenses. [So this is where I think they will have trouble. The DOMC was not sued. Basic Rights oregon sued the State - therefore the DOMC chose to intervene in this case and therefore should not receive a penny for the money they spent on attorneys]

In April, the Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit and ruled that the 3,000-plus same-sex marriage licenses issued by Multnomah County were invalid.

From the Statesman Journal... I am the mother of three children, one of whom is gay. I am a community volunteer and churchgoer. Constitutional Amendment 36 has me gravely concerned about the direction in which Oregon is headed. I wish to urge legislators to vote in favor of Senate Bill 1000.

Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that allowing such civil rights would destroy the institution of marriage, confuse the children involved, and lead to the condoning of polygamy. The same arguments were used 40 years ago when the issue of mixed-race couples came into legislation. All one needs to do is exchange terms like "same-sex" with terms like "mixed-race" and they are the same sentiments.

As is obvious, allowing mixed-race couples to legally marry has not caused any of these troubles. People still marry and start families, and the idea that mixed-race couples are the first step toward the destruction of family values is viewed by most as ludicrous.

I implore legislators to please consider the fact that preventing same-sex couples from, at the very least, having legally recognized civil unions will only serve to inflict harm upon Oregon families. SB 1000 is a compromise to protect families, and deserves your support.

Please vote in favor of the bill.

-- Kim Willaman, Independence

After two weeks of gay community outrage, public relations headaches and employee rancor, Microsoft has reinstated its support for a Washington state gay rights bill that it quietly bailed on last month.

Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer announced the company's renewed backing of the legislation in an e-mail to all U.S. employees on Friday.

"After looking at the question from all sides, I've concluded that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda," Ballmer wrote.

"Microsoft will continue to join other leading companies in supporting federal legislation that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, adding sexual orientation to the existing law that already covers race, sex, national origin, religion, age and disability," he wrote. "Obviously, the Washington state legislative session has concluded for this year, but if legislation similar to HB 1515 is introduced in future sessions, we will support it."

The announcement came two weeks after it was revealed that Microsoft had taken a neutral stance on gay rights legislation. Bill 1515, which would have banned discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment and insurance, died by a single vote in the state Senate last month.

Before reversing its position Friday, Microsoft brass tried to downplay its meetings with the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, pastor of a Redmond, Wash., church, who reportedly threatened a national boycott because of the company's support of the bill. The oft-repeated company line -- that Hutcherson had no influence, and that the company's neutral stance on the bill reflected its focus on fewer legislative priorities -- did not appease the LGBT community or employees.

In Friday's e-mail, Ballmer admitted that the company had made a mistake, though he did not mention the pastor, nor did he indicate who was behind the decision to go neutral on a bill the company had strongly supported for years.

LGBT leaders expressed relief and gratitude at the announcement.

"We are proud that Microsoft did the right thing and has come down squarely on the side of fairness for all employees," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "It is clear from Mr. Ballmer's statement that it is a business imperative to value a diverse workforce and support public policy that reinforces that principle."

"We congratulate Microsoft for changing their position," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task force. "For a corporation that size to do this so quickly is extremely admirable."

The withdrawal of support rankled many employees, gay and straight, who blasted the company for going weak on its long-held commitment to LGBT equality. Internal dissent reached a peak earlier this week when a leader of Microsoft's gay and lesbian group, GLEAM, announced his resignation from the company.

In his resignation letter, Jeff Koertzen, an operations program manager and the secretary-treasurer of GLEAM, blasted Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft's senior vice president and general counsel, for not being honest about the company's position on the bill.

Koertzen told the PlanetOut Network that he was elated by Ballmer's e-mail, but that he still plans to leave the company, he said, "to pursue opportunities to unite my passions of technology and LGBT rights."

Koertzen said Ballmer's e-mail was a direct response from a GLEAM letter sent last week. "We demanded that, first, Ballmer must support anti-discrimination legislation anywhere in the country -- not just 1515, and not just LGBT legislation. Second, we requested that he emphatically reaffirm diversity as the company's core value. Third, we wanted him to acknowledge that their reversal on 1515 was a mistake, and finally, tell employees. With the e-mail he did this all within our one-week deadline."

"I hope this has been a real education process for Microsoft," said Jim Key, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center (LAGLC). "They heard from shareholders, employees and customers and understood that diversity and equality are important not only in their workplace but in their legislative agenda."

The LAGLC, which had demanded that Microsoft return a corporate vision award for its forward-looking approach to LGBT issues, rescinded that demand Friday. "We once again believe they are worthy of the award," Key said.

Although the bill has no effect outside Washington state, Microsoft's renewed commitment to it will be heard throughout corporate America, according to Foreman.

"This decision is very important to our community because so many companies look to Microsoft for leadership," he said. "If they had not reversed, it would make our work much more difficult."

by Larry Buhl
PlanetOut Network

I am no different than you. I am your neighbor, your co-worker and the friendly smile that walks past you on the sidewalk.

I am sick and tired. Sick and tired of the all-out-attack on myself... the all out attack on those close to me. The funny thing is that the people who are attacking us are no different that us; yet they think that they are so different.

Oh Oregon... where hath thou gone? What happened to the fair-minded citizens of this beautiful state we all call home? I know you are out there - but where?

So here we are in the middle of a movement. This is by far the biggest and most heated political debate of my lifetime - as well as most of yours. There has been extreme joy at times and there has been absolute heartbreak. They both breed a will to fight harder and harder for what will eventually be easily obtainable. I can taste equality - advances at least.

I feel as though we could be doing more as a collective whole. I see some gays and lesbians complaining about the current state of civil rights - though that's where it stops. They are not getting involved, not taking any measurable action. Day in and day out I see heterosexuals who do the same exact thing. Forward thinking Oregonians - WE NEED YOUR HELP.

We all know that this is a movement that history will remember. We also know that throughout history civil rights do eventually come - though not without a fight. So this is my question. Are you going to be on the lawful side of this fight, knowing how unfair the treatment of gays and lesbians is, but you do nothing? Be a part of the fight that we will win. With your help we can make this happen faster.

I encourage you to speak up about SB 1000. SB 1000 just had it's first Senate hearing on Wednesday. SB 1000 would grant same-sex couples the right to civil unions and it would also create a statewide non-discrimination act. This would prevent employers from firing a person JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. They need no other reason. In many cities across Oregon it is still legal to fire your best employee - because you don't agree with their private life. We need you to take FIVE MINUTES. That's it - just five minutes. If you do nothing more than take this five minutes, at least you are doing something that will help to make a big difference.

We need people writing to their legislators. It's so easy to do via the web and there are even sample letters for you to use.

All you have to do is click here to go to Basic Rights Oregon's Legislative Action Center. It will tell you who you legislators are - it seriously could not be any easier.

OregonLive reports that a Vermont lawmaker is urging Oregon to enact civil union legislation.

A former Vermont lawmaker who helped pass the nation's first civil union law urged Oregon lawmakers to grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples.

But former Rep. Tom Little said supporting civil unions does hold political risks for some lawmakers.

Little said that some Vermont lawmakers lost their bids for re-election in 2000, but he added that re-election shouldn't be the focus for Oregon lawmakers if the civil unions bill comes to a vote.

"You have to be willing to take some pretty significant risks" to afford civil union rights and privileges to gays and lesbians, Little said.

The Vermont lawmaker came to Oregon Wednesday for the first hearing of Gov. Ted Kulongoski's bill to both create civil unions for same-sex couples and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Democratic governor's bill has bipartisan support in the Senate, but there is resistance in the Republican-controlled House. [Not exactly true about the Senate - more to come about this in a later posting]

The gay marriage debate in Oregon began just over a year ago, when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Soon after, the county was ordered to stop, but not before 3,000 marriage licenses had been granted by the county.

Last fall, voters passed Measure 36, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman in Oregon's Constitution.

In April, the Oregon Supreme Court threw out the Multnomah County marriage licenses, saying it was not within the county's rights to issue them.

Kulongoski's bill would grant same-sex couples the same rights under civil unions that married couples get through marriage.

In response to civil unions, some Republicans have proposed a "reciprocal benefits" bill, which would grant a select list of rights — like hospital visitation — to any two adults who apply for them, including siblings and roommates.

Little said reciprocal benefits were also provided under the 2000 Vermont civil unions legislation, but that no one had filed for the benefits in the first two to three years that he tracked registration.

By 55-40 Percent, New Jersey Favors Marriage for Gays, the State's Highest Support Ever, Bucking National Trend; 49 Percent Would Consider Voting for Jim McGreevey Again.

By 61-33 percent, voters oppose idea of state constitutional ban on gay
marriage, want legislature to accept what courts rule.

Stunning 81 percent of voters say legislature has better priorities than to
try to ban gay marriage in the state constitution.

TRENTON, N.J., May 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Bucking the national trend, New
Jersey's support for marriage for same-sex couples is at its highest point
ever, according to a Garden State Equality-Zogby poll released today of
804 New Jersey voters surveyed from April 12-14, 2005. The poll's 55-40%
pro-gay marriage result is virtually identical to that of Zogby's July 2003
New Jersey poll, whose result was 55-41%. North, Central and South
Jersey are each at about 55% pro-gay marriage in the new poll, which
has a margin of error of +/- 3.5%.

The poll results and demographic data are at
http://www.GardenStateEquality.org

By 61-33%, nearly a 2-to-1 margin, New Jersey voters oppose the idea
of the legislature's putting on the ballot a measure to ban gay marriage.
And by 81-19%, New Jersey voters say the legislature has more important
priorities than to spend time trying to put a constitutional amendment
on the ballot to ban gay marriage. 68% of New Jerseyans say they hold
that view strongly.

"If marriage equality prevails at the state Supreme Court and national
anti-gay activists think of coming here," said Steven Goldstein, chair of
Garden State Equality, "they will meet their Waterloo. New Jersey
marches to a different drummer and the beat of equality. New Jersey
is the state that doesn't hate."

The poll asks New Jersey voters if they would consider voting for
former Governor Jim McGreevey should he ever run for U.S. Congress
or state legislature. 49% say they would consider voting for McGreevey.
43% say they would never vote for him, but it has nothing to do with
his being gay. 6% say they would never vote for McGreevey because
he is gay.

Advocates of marriage for same-sex couples in New Jersey have waged
an aggressive grassroots campaign to buttress support for the issue. Since
January 2003, nearly 6,000 New Jerseyans have attended, and dozens
of state and national news organizations have covered, the 17 town
meetings in a series called "New Jersey: A State That Doesn't Hate."
Garden State Equality's next town meeting will be in Maplewood on
Sunday, July 10, 2005, the one-year anniversary day of the state's
domestic partnership law. Speaking will be Congressman Barney Frank.

New Jersey's marriage equality lawsuit, brought by the national civil
rights organization Lambda Legal, was heard by the state's intermediate
appellate court in December. A decision may come at any time. The
case will then go to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which will have
the courts' final word.

Garden State Equality is the statewide political action organization
uniting straight and gay New Jerseyans who support equal rights
for the LGBT community.

SOURCE: Garden State Equality
Web Site: http://www.GardenStateEquality.org

Republicans today failed to get a constitutional ban on gay marriage on the November ballot after opponents called it an attempt to write discrimination into the state Constitution.

Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said recent attempts by gays and lesbians in other states to get legal recognition of their civil unions threaten the institution of marriage, which Lundberg said is clearly defined as a union between a man and a woman. He said voters should make the final decision.

"It's a referred ballot measure because we should let the voters decide. I'm not asking you to make the decision, I'm simply asking that we put this before the people of Colorado," Lundberg told the House Judiciary Committee.

The committee killed the measure on a 6-5 party line vote after Democrats said it was unconstitutional and would cost taxpayers to defend in court if it passed.

Cathryn Hazouri, representing the American Civil Liberties Union, said the measure would probably face a court challenge if lawmakers tried to put it on the ballot.

"It's just plain wrong to write discrimination into the constitution," she told lawmakers.

She said the title of the referred measure mentioned nothing about civil unions, which would also be excluded.

"Clearly this is a deceptive title," she said.

Lundberg said voters are smart enough to figure out what it meant.

Last year, Lundberg failed to get a majority of members in the Republican-controlled House to back GOP Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's proposed gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Michael Brewer, spokesman for Equal Rights Colorado, said the state already has a statutory ban on legal recognition of gay marriage. In 2000, lawmakers and Gov. Bill Owens approved a "Defense of Marriage Act" restricting marriage to between one man and one woman.

Supporters said a constitutional amendment is needed because the statute could be easily overturned in court or by the Legislature.

Last November, 11 states outlawed same-sex marriage.

By Steven K. Paulson, AP

The reciprocal benefits bill is being introduced today in Salem. The point of this new 'reciprocal benefits' bill is to undermine the bill (SB 1000 - civil unions and statewide non-discrimination act) introduced by Gov. Kulongowski and sponsored by two senate republicans and two democrats.

Who is helping to introduce the reciprocal benefits bill? The same people who helped pass the hateful and discriminatory Meausure 36 this past November. They also happen to be the same people who said the following statements during the Constitutional Amendment 36 campaign...

"Same-sex couples should seek marriage-like rights through another avenue, such as civil unions."
- Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign, Bend Bulletin 8/20/2004

Or this (for a complete list of these hypocritical quotes click here)...

"If same-sex couples need legal protection, they should consult their legislative representatives. If they need legislation to do that, no one is going to stand in their way."
- Defense of Marriage Coalition, Executive Director Mike White, Lincoln City News Guard 11/10/2004

So if "no one is going to stand in our way" - what the hell are they doing now? They have hired a lobbyist for the first time to work Salem. "Rumors" of internal memos show how disgusting these people are and how much they hate gays and lesbians. It is amazing that these people dedicate their lives to trying to fight against civil rights and "morals".The "Defense of Marriage Coalition's" attorney, Kelly Clark, has an interesting past as most of us know. On June 10, 1992, at 2 am Clark broke into his ex-girlfriend's Keizer home, disconnected the phone line, and locked the door behind him. She awoke with Clark standing above her in bed. For four hours, he subjected her to what the courts deemed "sexual contact without consent." I assume that would be rape.

Clark later pleaded guilty to criminal trespass and third-degree sexual abuse, paid a $5,000 fine and received five years' probation. The Oregon State Bar suspended his license to practice law for two months. Then he disappeared.

Are these morals? For some reason I was brought up thinking that wasn't a good thing to do. I guess it makes sense that he is their attorney though.

So back to the reciprocal benefits bill. Why is it so important to pass our civil unions bill instead? This week opponents of fairness for GLBT Oregonians, the Oregon Family Council, Defense of Marriage Coalition and extreme house conservatives, are introducing a "Reciprocal Beneficiaries" bill in the Oregon house. This bill is an attempt by religious extremists to appear "moderate", to undermine any real chance at fairness for same-sex couples and to dominate the terms of this debate by making civil unions look 'too extreme' for Oregon.

With this move by the Right and Senate Bill 1000 firmly supported in the senate, the name of the game now in the Oregon legislature is negotiation. If Oregon lawmakers don't hear from supporters of REAL fairness and equality, then those on the fringe will decide this issue for the rest of us.

Our opponents say this bill addresses "legitimate issues of fairness" for same-sex couples. But don't be fooled. Reciprocal beneficiaries are anything but fair. . .and they are not the same as civil unions.

• While civil unions provide roughly 500 rights and protections, reciprocal beneficiaries chip away at the bedrock of family protections civil unions offer to provide only a handful of rights (most of which can already be achieved through contracts).

• While civil unions seek to recognize committed same-sex relationships and create a lasting family unit, reciprocal beneficiaries degrade these relationships by lumping same-sex couples into a status also available to two siblings, roommates, parents and children, or two widows.

• The State of Oregon has a moral and constitutional obligation to ensure that all committed, same-sex couples have the ability to enter into a civil status that allows their families to be treated equally under the law.

• In the debate over same-sex marriage, civil unions (Senate Bill 1000) are the only reasonable compromise in step with Oregon's values of fairness and dignity for all its citizens.

Great news from California! One step closer... I am trying not to get my hopes up because of the up and downs of this movement - but still, a step forward. As a born and raised Californian, I would have thought California would have been first before Mass... maybe they will be the second?

Religious institutions may decide whether to perform ceremonies as this is a civil matter between the state the the two parties involved.

An Assembly bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in California overcame its first hurdle last week when the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee approved it with a 6-3 vote.

AB 19, written by state Rep. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would amend the state Constitution from defining marriage as a contract between a man and a woman to a contract between two people.

If passed, the bill would force the state to present marriage licenses to any and all couples. However, there is a stipulation that allows religious institutions to decide whether or not to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

In an Apr. 26 press release, Leno said the advancement of the bill shows the desire to reinforce the separation of church and state while still granting every American equal rights and protections.

“AB 19 puts that fundamental right into practice -- allowing loving, committed same-sex couples who want to devote their lives to one another, raise families, and protect themselves and their children the same rights and responsibilities as different-sex couples.”

Opponents of the bill, however, remain adamant that Leno’s attempts contradict the wishes of the voters, who approved Proposition 22 in 2000, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

State Sen. Bill Marrow (R-Oceanside) continues to stand behind Senate Constitutional Amendment 1, which he introduced shortly after AB 19 went public.

SCA 1 would enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the state Constitution, making future legislative attempts like AB 19 useless.

Pam Loomis, a spokesperson for Marrow, said SCA 1 is scheduled to be heard on May 10 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This will be the first round of hearings for the amendment.

Both sides agree any legislation will face major battles as majority votes will continually be needed in every phase of discussion.

But according to UC Davis psychology professor Gregory Herek, getting majority support for either side of the gay marriage debate is not as clear cut, as the issue has now taken on numerous symbolic meanings.

“I think it has also become an issue of liberal versus conservative, attitudes about religious rights and attitudes about the judiciary,” Herek said. “All of these things are being thrown into the mix and I don’t know what sort of effect that will have on people in the middle.”

What is also unknown is the effect recent decisions by other states have had on California voters.

On Apr. 21, Connecticut became the second state to offer civil unions, following Vermont’s 2000 decision. Massachusetts now allows same-sex couples to marry after a 2004 court ruling.

However, gay marriage opponents have also had victories over the last year. The Oregon Supreme Court nullified 3,000 same-sex marriage licenses on Apr. 12, and on Apr. 5. Kansas voters overwhelmingly approved a ban on both gay marriage and civil unions in that state’s most recent election.

Although no recent numbers have been produced for California, Herek believes the gap between the two sides of the gay marriage debate remain closer than the rest of the country, regardless of other states’ actions.

“The most recent numbers I know of are from a field poll a year ago, which showed 50 percent who disapprove of same-sex marriages and 46 percent who approve,” Herek said. “And while it is still the case that there is more opposition than support, that six-point gap is pretty narrow and has certainly been a lot bigger in the past. What it suggests to me is that we’ve been moving in a direction of greater support in California."

During last year's heated campaign over an initiative banning gay marriage, there seemed to be a fall-back position that both sides agreed on: civil unions.

The legal arrangements, pioneered five years ago in Vermont, allow same-sex couples to claim the benefits and privileges of marriage without a marriage license. Gay-marriage opponents regarded civil unions as a viable alternative to marriage, while supporters grudgingly acknowledged them as a better-than-nothing Plan B should the Measure 36 same-sex marriage ban pass - which it did.

Politicians - averse to alienating any constituent group - saw civil unions as a way to extend certain rights to gays and lesbians without offending the cultural and religious sensibilities of others.

But this week promises to expose just how polarized activist groups and some politicians remain regarding gay rights and same-sex couples. The Senate Rules Committee has scheduled a hearing Wednesday evening on Senate Bill 1000, Gov. Ted Kulongoski's bill that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and extends the rights and benefits of marriage - but not the institution itself - to same-sex couples through the creation of civil unions. The bill was sponsored by two Republican and two Democratic senators.

By the time the hearing convenes, conservative Republicans in the House hope to have a bill of their own in circulation, which offers an alternative to civil unions. The proposal, which could be in bill form by Tuesday, would allow any two unmarried adults who cannot marry - sisters, a gay couple or a grown man caring for his aging mother - to arrange for "reciprocal benefits."

The proposal's chief architect, Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, said he hopes to have the bill ready for a hearing the second week in May.

The two bills' treatment of rights and benefits for nonmarried adults differ starkly.

The reciprocal-benefits proposal is limited to 18 benefits, according to a draft document provided by Richardson. Among them would be preferential hospital visitation privileges, protection from eviction from a shared home upon the death of a partner, the right to inherit a deceased partner's assets if a will was not drawn up, and the right to make medical and end-of-life decisions on a partner's behalf. To view the differences between reciprocal-benefits and civil unions please click here.

The civil union legislation extends hundreds of benefits, rights and privileges - all of which Oregon law currently affords to married couples - to same-sex couples. Beyond those in the reciprocal-benefits proposal are entitlements to such financial benefits as worker's compensation if a partner is disabled or killed on the job and pension benefits. Legal rights include immunity from testifying against a partner, and counseling and mediation services, which are offered by circuit courts upon dissolution of a marriage.

For Kathy Flynn and Becky Hanson, a Cottage Grove-area lesbian couple, there is little question that they'd rather have stayed married in the eyes of the court. They've been partners for 15 years and formalized their union last March with a marriage license from Multnomah County, which briefly issued such licenses to about 3,000 same-sex couples before a court ordered it to stop.

Then in November, voters passed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages with a 57 percent majority, and the state Supreme Court ruled last month that those Multnomah County marriage licenses were never legally valid.

Like many lesbian and gay couples, Flynn and Hanson said it's difficult to be enthusiastic about civil unions in the wake of Oregon's brief period of allowing same-sex marriage.

"The civil union doesn't really embrace or address the social and religious community connotation that goes along with the word `marriage,' " Flynn said. "We were laughing about it earlier. We can say, `We're married.' But how do you say, `We're civil-unioned?' "

Social and religious connotations aside, though, Hanson and Flynn see civil unions as a practical solution to legal inequality.

Hanson retired as a captain after 27 years with the Eugene Police Department and Flynn is a sergeant on the force.

The lack of marriage or civil union rights put Flynn and Hanson on unequal footing with married cops and their opposite-sex spouses.

"I often thought about that when I was working. If I should die, Kathy would have had to sue the state in order to inherit my spousal benefits from a memorial fund, and now I'm in the same predicament if she were to die," Hanson said. "And it really doesn't seem fair, particularly when we're out there risking our lives every day for the community."

The right to spousal survivor benefits would be extended under the Legislature's civil unions bill, but not the reciprocal beneficiaries legislation being drafted.

Richardson said it was important not only to limit benefits to avoid granting to same-sex couples "marriage by another name," but also that beneficiary rights be limited mainly to legal issues, such as end-of-life decisions and how to pass on assets if one person dies without a will.

Allowing partners to file a joint tax return or receive a deceased partner's pension benefits are intentionally left out, he said.

"What we have with reciprocal benefits is a list of specific issues of fairness that would apply to any couple that's not married regardless of sexual orientation," he said, later adding, "but if it's going to start costing the government or employers, the House is not willing to go that far."

Senate Democratic Leader Kate Brown of Portland sharply disagrees with the notion that civil unions amount to "marriage by another name" for gays and lesbians.

She cites documented statements during the Measure 36 campaign by gay-marriage foes, such as a quote in the Bend Bulletin newspaper of Oregon Family Council official Tim Nashif saying, "Same-sex couples should seek marriage-like rights through another avenue, such as civil unions."

"We're going to hold Mr. Nashif's feet to the fire," Brown said. "He said he didn't oppose civil unions and it's my understanding that Measure 36 did not prohibit civil unions."

Brown said she suspects Measure 36 was specifically written to allow civil unions because backers worried it would fail to win a majority if it banned both marriage and civil unions, as more far-reaching initiatives such as one passed in Kansas did.

Nashif could not be reached for comment. Oregon Family Council Executive Director Mike White said that while Measure 36 didn't ban civil unions, Kulongoski's bill goes beyond what the initiative's supporters had in mind, and amounts to gay marriage.

"The term `civil unions' didn't have a framework. Nobody actually knew what we were talking about," White said. "The things that they brought up during the campaign were like visitation rights in hospitals, property rights, those types of issues. And we were saying, `OK, we agree that there's fairness for those families to have access to some of those benefits.' Reciprocal benefits actually provide that."

But that's not how Flynn and Hanson see it as they wait for Salem to decide what, if any, rights and privileges same-sex couples are entitled to.

To Hanson, the push for reciprocal benefits instead of civil unions "feels like a betrayal from conservative groups. They want to shut the door completely on any recognition or acknowledgement of a same-sex relationship."

As reported by: By David Steves, The Register-Guard