Last night I finished a full page newspaper ad for Basic Rights Oregon that will be in the Gresham Outlook this Saturday. Take a look...

Click here to view larger.


Thoughts?

Post by Bryan Harding

In a press release by bill sponsor Mary Nolan...

Nolan bill revives hopes for civil unions, nondiscrimination
HB 3508 gives the House one more chance to vote on critical civil rights issue

Salem-Representative Mary Nolan (D-Portland) introduced House Bill 3508 Tuesday, which would authorize same-sex civil unions and ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The bill includes provisions from a bill that passed the Oregon Senate on July 8, with a bi-partisan vote of 19-10. Like similar legislation in Vermont, Nolan's bill also contains a separate Republican-backed measure to establish "reciprocal benefits" for unmarried people.

"This bill is one final call to the Speaker of the House, asking her to schedule an up-or-down vote on a critical civil rights issue-the issue of civil unions and discrimination," Nolan said. "We're not asking for the Speaker's personal vote for civil unions. But we are demanding the opportunity for the whole House to debate a matter that the Senate has already dealt with decisively. Each State Representative has the duty to vote his or her own conscience on how the state treats families."

Despite the Senate's passage of SB 1000, which would have established civil unions and banned discrimination based on sexual identity, Speaker Karen Minnis (R-Wood Village) and the Republican leadership last week maneuvered to block the bills' progress to the floor of the House, where a debate and a vote could take place. Nolan labeled Minnis' maneuver "underhanded," and called it an abuse of the House Rules.

"This new bill is not a symbolic effort," Nolan said. "We're giving the Speaker of the House one more chance to do the right thing. Her job as Speaker is to schedule debates of bills, not to dictate how other Representatives cast their own votes. The matter of civil unions and discrimination deserves a full and open debate on the floor of the House. The voters of Oregon are entitled to know where their representatives stand on these issues. it's not acceptable that one person, the Speaker of the House, should stand in the way and prevent the House from doing its duty."

Combining the civil unions and anti-discrimination measure with the reciprocal-benefits bill should broaden the appeal of HB 3508, Nolan suggested. "I see no reason why we shouldn't have both," Nolan said. "The important thing, however, is that we cannot walk away from an issue that's critically important to the people of Oregon. We must tackle it this session."

Posted by Bryan Harding

Major news coming from the Capitol today. With a new bill being introduced (HB3508) in the Oregon House that would include modified language from SB1000, as well as language from the Reciprocal Benefits Bill (HB 3476) we may have a last chance to get legislation passed in the last 2 weeks or so of the session.

There will soon be a press release from the bill sponsor, Representative Mary Nolan's (D - Portland) office any minute. I will get that as soon as I can and update this. Basic Rights Oregon will also be announcing this any minute. Stay tuned and gear up ladies and gentlemen.

Post by Bryan Harding

First of all, to all of those who come back here day after day - thank you. The fight is continuing and for anyone to give up at this point would simply be ridiculous. It is far from over. Over the weekend about 35 people canvassed homes in Queen Karen's district. It actually started on her own street. There were literature drops to her constituents as well. From what I hear it was very successful.

Rumor is that we have some things happening this week. SB1000 for all it's worth is dead at this point as it had been stripped by the House (Karen Minnis).

As soon as information is somewhat public, I will make sure to update you all ASAP.

Post By Bryan Harding

You know, there comes a time in ones blogging 'career' where you don't need to hold back any longer, no need to be on up and up all the time - right? Emotion gets involved with certain issues...



Yesterday, in a legislative move that caught many off guard, Speaker of the House Karen Minnis gutted and stuffed Oregon's SB1000 effectively taking out every word out of the original bill and using the language from HB 3876, The Reciprocal Benefits Bill. In less than 30 minutes our bill, SB1000, had gone from granting families close to 500 legal rights and protections, to oh - about five or so. Oh but wait - I'm not close to being done.

Think about this. The base that Karen is appealing to by pulling this, are those same people who complained about the 'closed door meetings' that occurred in Multnomah County previous to the marriage licenses being issued to gay and lesbian couples. Though, Speaker Minnis did this exact sort of thing. With only 30 minutes advance notice, the State and Federal Affairs Committee held a work session on Senate Bill 1000. By a vote of 3 to 2 on party lines, the Committee amended all the existing text out and replaced it with a limited set of provisions on reciprocal beneficiaries. It just so happened that the House had adjourned for the day and it was also during lunch break so that the House Democrats, bill sponsors, the Gov. and even members of her own caucus could not speak out against it. By the same vote, the Committee moved the bill to the House Budget Committee. In addition she closed it to public opinion. This was a closed door, 'no testimony wanted' sort of thing. She told the three Republicans on the State and Federal Affairs Committee to vote for it in it's gutted form. They did and it was VERY quickly moved to the Budget Committee where it cannot be touched. Therefore killed in a sense. There still are ways of getting things accomplished this session though. No need to let go of any hope. This fight is not even close to being over - it's just getting uglier.

Interestingly enough, these actions don't square with Speaker Minnis' statements in the voters pamphlet submitted in favor of Measure 36.

"Process subverted. They didn't hold any public hearings. They didn't give any advanced warning. Their actions were arrogant and wrong. The Multnomah County Commission purposefully subverted the public process." - Speaker of the House Karen Minnis (Voter's Pamphlet, P 82)

"House Speaker Karen Minnis was the first state official to respond. She blasted the Multnomah County commission: 'I think they circumvented due process. They made a decision and went forward with it without any public hearings, without any review by the state legislature who sets state policy and without consulting the citizens of Oregon. Minnis said she expected the Oregon legislature to address the issue in its next session."OPB 3/3/04

Insiders figure that the maneuver was done to make it harder to bring Senate Bill 1000 to a vote on the House floor. By replacing its text, the Speaker Minnis blocked potential motions on the floor to withdraw the civil unions bill from committee for a floor vote, one of the few tools of the minority for forcing consideration of proposals those in control want to kill. Many opposed the maneuver, stating that the issues of civil unions and nondiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians are matters of civil rights that deserve a full and open debate on the House floor. Imagine that... an up or down vote. This is the key right there. Speaker Minnis knew for a fact that this bill would pass "her chamber".

Thoughts? I know most of you whom are interested in the civil rights movement are outraged. For those of you who do not care so much about the issue - do you care about democracy? If so, you too will agree that Karen Minnis is a bitch.

Proudly written by Bryan Harding

David Sarasohn of the Oregonian sums up the situation with Karen Minnis perfectly.

The day after hundreds of people gathered to ask the Oregon House to vote on a same-sex civil-unions bill -- and the day after legislative counsel explained why civil unions did not violate the gay marriage ban in Measure 36 -- House Speaker Karen Minnis took the Senate-passed bill and threw it deeper into the closet.

After all, you have to be careful about giving people special rights.

Like voting.

It was widely suspected that if the Oregon House ever really got to vote on civil unions, the bill might actually pass the House. Next thing you know, legislators might demand other equal-protection rights -- like knowing what's going on.

Thursday, Senate Bill 1000-A, passed by the Senate 19-10, surfaced in the House State and Federal Affairs Committee, where without testimony it was replaced with a different bill and sent to the House Budget Committee, where no minority reports are permitted. The House actually voting on a proposal for civil unions is as about as likely as the Legislature having a working budget process.

"It's consistent with what the speaker's been saying all along," explained her spokesman, Charles Deister, that the House would vote only on a limited reciprocal benefits bill, not on civil unions. Asked if the House would ever vote on anything at all, he explained, "Undecided."

Wednesday, Minnis, R-Wood Village, told Brad Cain of the Associated Press that Measure 36, a constitutional amendment passed by Oregon voters last year, banned anything like the Senate's civil unions bill. "This issue has been discussed, it's been voted on," the speaker said. Civil unions would be "marriage by another name."

But also on Wednesday, David Heynderickx, acting legislative counsel, offered the opinion, "We believe Senate Bill 1000-A is constitutional as written," that nothing in Measure 36 prevents it and that "differences between a civil union and a marriage show that Senate Bill 1000-A does not create a 'same-sex marriage' under the guise of another name."

Lawyers. What do they know?

This week, the Legislature received another constitutional opinion. In a broad mailing, the Oregon Family Council declared Senate Bill 1000-A "The Most Dangerous Bill Ever" and accused supporters of "waging an all-out assault on marriage," that "Civil Unions is Gay-Marriage in Disguise" and that with the bill, "gays, bisexuals and even 'drag queens' would have special rights and privileges heterosexual people don't have."

Fortunately, it had an answer: "We know you're grateful for the work we are doing, so don't please don't forget to send your gift of $100, $50, $25 to help with this crucial battle to preserve marriage and family values for our children's future."

They might have to raise the money quickly. The trend of polling in Oregon shows rising support for civil unions and protection of gay families, demonstrated by the heavy support in the Senate.

"This is the civil rights struggle of our generation," says Sen. Ben Westlund, R-Bend, who supported the civil unions bill in the Senate after supporting Measure 36 last November.

Westlund, in fact, thinks Gov. Ted Kulongoski should announce that the Legislature won't be going home until there's a vote on civil unions, and that he will be vetoing things until it happens.

Kulongoski, a strong backer of the bill, doesn't think that would work. "I never give up," he said this week, "but I know that (Minnis) feels strongly about this."

Besides, the only bills that Kulongoski could veto to keep the Legislature from going home would be budgets -- and so far, the Legislature hasn't managed to produce many of those.

The one consolation of the civil unions bill being shoved into a legislative closet is that in this session, it has a lot of company.

Somehow, at some point, Oregonians will get to see an actual decision made on civil unions, a debate about what it actually might mean. But in this limping Legislature, the issue isn't about drag queens or an assault on marriage or about Measure 36.

This isn't about a vote that Oregon had last fall.

It's about a vote that the Oregon House is afraid to have this summer.

David Sarasohn, associate editor of The Oregonian, can be reached at 503-221-8523 or davidsarasohn@news.oregonian.com.

Democratic Leader Jeff Merkley stated the following:

I have received several calls to my office regarding concerns that SB 1000 violates Measure 36 and Oregon's constitution. Therefore, I asked Oregon Legislative Counsel to provide me with an opinion regarding the constitutionality of SB 1000.

I received a letter, dated July 20th, 2005 from David Heynderickx, Legislative Counsel responding to my request. I have posted the letter here for anyone interested to read, print out, copy and distribute:

Download LC-SB1000Letter.pdf

The letter clearly states that Oregon Legislative Counsel believes SB-1000-A is constitutional as written.

A couple of key excerpts from the letter:

"Senate Bill 1000-A does not create a "marriage" by another name..."

"...Senate Bill 1000-A does not create a "same-sex marriage" under the guise of another name."

"In conclusing, we believe Senate Bill 1000-A is constitutional as written."

Posted by Bryan Harding

About an hour ago, Karen Minnis pulled a fast one on the Oregon Legislature. Even her own caucus.

SB1000 was posted (by Speaker Karen Minnis) for a hearing by the State and Federal Affairs Committee about 30 minutes prior to the lunch break. The House was in session this morning but had adjourned until Monday. SB1000 was amended (gutted to be reflective of the Reciprocal Benefits Bill HB 3476) by Speaker Karen Minnis, then voted out of the State and Federal Affairs Committee on party lines. 2 Dems no. 3 R's yes. It then moved on to the Budget Committee where it is at this moment.

Speaker Minnis pulled this switch move with incredible sly and without due process or respect for the transparency of the Legislature by doing this. It is not against House rules for her to post notice 30 minutes prior, or to schedule it during a lunch hour for maximum hush. Although it does avoid due process in all ways.

House Dems plan to have a press conference very shortly to say just this. Karen has stepped out of bounds.

More to come. Stay Tuned.

Post by Bryan Harding

[UPDATE - CLICK HERE]

Huge news from Salem today...

In a surprise move SB1000 has been set for a hearing and work session. At this point this is all the information I can post. This is neither good or bad news at this point. I will make sure to update as soon as possible.

Call Karen Minnis and tell her to let the bill be voted out of committee and GET AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR! Her phone number is: 503.986.1200

CALL HER NOW! LEAVE A MESSAGE. THIS IS A DEMOCRACY. WE DESERVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE BY THE ENTIRE HOUSE.

Posted by Bryan Harding

Here is coverage from the rally last night on the steps on the Capitol. Pics are here - video to come. The turn out for the rally was exceptional. At last count there were over 800 people. Volunteers walked around with buckets collecting money for a full page ad to go in the Gresham Outlook - calling out Karen Minnis on her treating her seat as more of a monarchy - rather than a democracy by not letting SB1000 come to and up or down vote. We doubled the amount of money needed to run one ad and possibly more.

The speakers were amazing as always - the message was clear - and the House heard us. Here are some pictures...






Posted by Bryan Harding

Leaving now for the SB 1000 rally in Salem. I will be back late tonight with a full report and lots of pictures.

Thanks all!

Posted by Bryan Harding

Remember - Today at 6pm there is a large rally for SB1000 on the steps of The Oregon State Capitol. Speakers will include the Gov., the sponsors of SB1000 as well as PFLAG. It will be incredible.



Posted by Bryan Harding

GLBT civil rights groups are voicing concern over the nomination of John G. Roberts to the US Supreme Court.

President Bush Tuesday night went on national television to announce he was nominating Roberts to the Court.

The vacancy on the Supreme Court stems from the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The appointment of a conservative tips the balance on the court to the right. That Roberts is just 50 means he is likely to remain on the bench for 20 or more years.

Roberts currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He was appointed to that position in 2003 by President Bush.

Roberts attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School and was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist.

A conservative and longtime Republican, Roberts served as Deputy Solicitor General. In 1990, he argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs. His brief top the court contained a note that the Bush administration's belief that Roe v. Wade should be overruled.

"With the Roberts nomination, the right to privacy and the future of a fair-minded Court are in grave danger," Joe Solmonese, President, Human Rights Campaign told 365Gay.com.

"Judge Roberts has disputed the right to privacy laid out in Roe v. Wade, and urged that the case be overruled. Reversing Roe could undermine fundamental rights to privacy and liberty that are the legal underpinning for the freedom of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.

"Judge Roberts has advocated for prayer in public schools and for weakening the wall between church and state," Solmonese noted. "He should make clear whether or not he would distort religion for misuse as a proxy for discrimination. Americans deserve a justice who will uphold the separation of church and state.

"The unique powers of the Supreme Court, including the power to revisit previous Supreme Court decisions, mean that Judge Roberts’ record should be subject to rigorous inspection," said Solmonese.

Lambda Legal, which is fighting lawsuits in several states on behalf of same-sex couples seeking to marry also expressed concerns.

"We don't have a position yet on John Roberts yet, but there are troubling things in his record that we need to take a careful look at," Michael Adams, director of education for Lambda Legal told 365Gay.com

Adams noted that Roberts' position on Roe v. Wade was particularly troubling since it was one of the precedents the court took into consideration in overturning the Texas sodomy law in 2003.

The American Civil Liberties Union also said it was concerned about the nomination calling for a through examination of Roberts' personal positions on abortion and gay rights.

"The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in advancing freedom," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director.

"Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."

"The stakes could not be higher," Romero added.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called for a thorough investigation of Roberts background.

"In exercising its constitutional 'advise and consent' function, the Senate must take the time necessary to thoroughly review and evaluate Roberts' commitment to individual rights and equal justice under the law, including his record and thinking about civil rights, the right to privacy and the reach of Congressional power under the Constitution," said NGLTF Executive Director Matt Foreman.

"We especially call upon our allies in the Senate to determine whether Judge Roberts subscribes to the holdings of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas , among other cases, and will affirm that the civil rights and privacy rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans are protected by the Constitution.

"And only if Judge Roberts meets these critical standards of qualification, judicial philosophy, fairness, independence and a dedication to protecting the rights of all under the Constitution, should the Senate vote to confirm his nomination to the court," Foreman said.

Although there is little on the record to indicate how he would vote on LGBT issues, Roberts received bipartisan support as a nominee to the federal bench.

Roberts' nomination is the president's first chance to place a justice on the high court and he may not have as easy a time in confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court.

"All questions are legitimate," New York Democrat and Judiciary Committee member Charles E. Schumer said earlier this month. "What is your view on Roe vs. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage?"

Other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee agree that all issues, including same-sex marriage, should be put to a nominee for the high court. They include Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Joseph Biden of Delaware.

And, Democrats are not discounting using a filibuster to sink a nominee they think too extreme. Democrats have been bracing for a showdown over the Supreme Court for more than a year.

In May they agreed to allow three Bush judicial nominees to appeals courts to go to a vote in return for Republicans abandoning legislation that would have prevented the use of a filibuster.

The president said he wants the nomination confirmed before the Supreme Court begins its fall session in October.

Among the issues the court will consider when the justices return to work October 3 is a legal challenge to the Solomon Law which allows the government to withhold federal funds from universities that bar military recruiters. Some universities have refused to allow recruiters on campuses because of 'don't ask, don't tell, the military's ban on openly gay people serving in the armed forces.

via 365gay.com

Posted by Bryan Harding

Just to keep you all up to date - we are moving to a new URL today. We will no longer be @ 'blogspot.com'. Please make sure to update links, rss feeds etc. Thanks everyone.

http://www.gayrightswatch.com

Posted by Bryan Harding

Here are a few things that you can do to help pass SB1000...

First off we've got a rally tomorrow. It's after work for most, at 6pm on the steps on the Capitol. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongowski will be delivering a speech and there may also be another well known speaker that has not been announced as of yet.



Call your House Representative NOW!


Call Karen Minnis - tell her to give SB1000 the decency of an up or down vote! Tell her that you support the bill! Call her now (503) 986-1200



Post by Bryan Harding

Big news today and just a lot to say. So to recap today's postings here they are:

Oregon:
Bow Down Bitches: The Queen is here.

TOP 5 MYTHS ABOUT SENATE BILL 1000

Oregon lawyers' group questions ‘don't ask, don't tell' policy

National:
Rick Santorum's Communications Director confirms he is gay

Posted by Bryan Harding

Just got an email from a friend... I cannot believe this. A true self-loathing fag.

In a phone call recorded by PageOneQ and blogACTIVE.com, Robert Traynham, Director of Communications for United States Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) has said he is an out gay man who completely supports the Senator.

When asked how a gay man could speak for one of the nation's most notorious homophobes, Traynham protested that has "been with the Senator for eight years." Traynham went on to say "Senator Santorum is a man of principle, he is a man who sticks up for what he believes in, I strongly do support Senator Santorum."

When pressed on whether he supported the Senator's stands on lesbian and gay issues, Mr. Traynham abruptly ended the phone call by saying "Senator Santorum is a family man with "I have been with Senator Santorum for eight years and I am very proud to be with him."

An attempt to follow-up with a question was met with Mr. Traynham hanging up the phone.

Senator Santorum, who trails the presumptive Democratic nominee by double digits in a recent Quinnipiac College poll, has been a staunch opponent of lesbian and gay rights and one of the Senate's strongest supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment. The amendment would prohibit lesbian and gay couples from ever achieving marriage
equality in the United States by requiring that all marriages be between one man and one woman.

"Isn't that the ultimate homeland security? To defend the sanctity of marriage?" asked Senator Santorum during last year's debate on the cloture motion to force a vote on the Amendment. The statement was seen by many gay and lesbian community members as a way to tie the struggle for lesbian and gay equality to the President's "war on terror."

In an interview with the Associated Press, the Senator suggested that the government has the right to prohibit gay and lesbian individuals from expressing love for each other physically. "The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that," said the Senator, "I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out
whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."

One month ago today, the Liberty Pennsylvania PAC, a Pennsylvania based political action committee mounted a joint effort with the national gay and lesbian democratic club, Stonewall Democrats, to help unseat Senator Santorum.

A number of years ago, openly gay columnist and writer Dan Savage began a campaign to educate citizens as to the meaning of the noun "santorum." PageOneQ visitors are able to see the site which developed from that effort, SpreadingSantorum.com. (Please note: the site is for adults only and contains sexually explicit writing.)

Via: by Michael Rogers

Posted by Bryan Harding

MYTH:
SB 1000 requires Oregon schools to teach on the subject of homosexuality

FACT:
SB 1000 does not compel or recommend any sort of “gay” curriculum related to Oregon schools
This was never an accurate claim by opponents of the bill. However, in the interest of clarifying that point, all references to public education at the elementary and secondary level have been eliminated from the bill and amendments were made (see section 12) to explicitly state that “advisory agencies and councils may not recommend programs of education of elementary or secondary students relating to discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

MYTH:
SB 1000 could force churches, religious schools or institutions to hire gay employees

FACT:
SB 1000 does not infringe on the religious independence of Oregon’s faith community nor does it require churches, etc. to hire gay employees SB 1000 was amended twice, based specifically on the testimony provided to the Senate Rules committee by religious organizations and institutions, to address the concerns of some in Oregon’s religious community.

SB 1000 provides churches and religious institutions in Oregon with the maximum amount of flexibility to discriminate based on sexual orientation in areas including, but not limited to: the ability to discriminate related to the employment of any employee of the church, even if a person’s job is not directly related to the mission of the church (such as a janitor), as well as settings such as religious camps, religious bookstores, religious thrift shops, religious day care centers, religious radio stations or religious shelters or any other religious activities other than commercial activities with no necessary relationship to a church or religious institution.

MYTH:
SB 1000 creates “gay” affirmative action or “hiring quotas”

FACT:
SB 1000 does not, nor was it ever intended to, require hiring quotas of gay employees
Nevertheless, clarifying amendments have been made to remove all references to state affirmative action statues.

SB 1000 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment decisions, meaning that a qualified, competent employee can not be denied a job or promotion or be dismissed from employment solely because he or she is gay.

MYTH:
SB 1000 violates Measure 36 by creating “marriage by another name”

FACT:
Civil unions like those created by SB 1000 are not marriage and do not violate Measure 36.
SB 1000 does not provide same-gender couples with access to the institution of marriage or all of its legal, social and cultural import. If SB 1000 becomes the law, partners in a civil union will continue to receive substantially fewer protections and responsibilities from their fellow Oregonians who are in a marriage, including a lack of portability, application of federal law relating to spouses and certain limitations in state law where federal and state statues overlap or interact.

State courts are increasingly finding that “domestic partner” and “civil union” laws DO NOT violate state “defense of marriage” statutes or amendments. California’s Supreme Court just held that a California law with a similar construction to SB 1000 did not violate its “Defense of Marriage” ballot measure approved by California voters several years ago.

In addition, proponents of Measure 36 claimed during the campaign that Civil Unions like those in Senate Bill 1000, which had existed for nearly five years at the time in Vermont and provided same-sex couples with similar protections and responsibilities to marriage, would be an option available even if the measure passed.

The Defense of Marriage Coalition’s own attorney, Kelly Clark, argued before the Oregon Supreme Court and testified before the Senate Rules Committee that Measure 36 did not preclude civil unions like in SB 1000, nor was it intended to preclude the legislature from enacting them.

MYTH:
SB 1000 would harm the Oregon economy by making businesses vulnerable to “frivolous lawsuits” and forcing the state and private employers to benefits to partners of gay employees

FACT:
SB 1000 has virtually no impact on Oregon business
A 2002 report by the General Accounting Office examined existing state non-discrimination laws related to sexual orientation and determined that anti-discrimination statutes like SB 1000 DO NOT lead to an increase in litigation and that “overall, the states’ data showed that relatively few complaints of discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation were filed annually, whether measured in absolute numbers or as a percentage of all employment discrimination complaints under state law” says the report.

Cementing the point, several Oregon municipalities have had nondiscrimination ordinances in place for a number of years without any significant increase in litigation or hardship to business.

In addition, the vast majority of the private sector will not be impacted by SB 1000 with regard to health or pension benefits because those businesses are self-insured and governed by ERISA, which is federal law, and controlled by the Federal Defense of Marriage Act or because they offer no health benefits at all.

Many employers already choose to have a cost sharing arrangement with employees for their spouses and dependents and SB 1000 would not create a higher standard for the domestic partners of same-sex couples, also creating no additional cost.

Furthermore, common sense dictates that few companies that could be required to provide benefits employ such a large number of gay employees as to “overwhelm” the benefit system of the company itself as a result of the passage of this bill.

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

Info via BRO

Post by Bryan Harding

Oregon lawyers' group questions ‘don't ask, don't tell' policy

The U.S. military, at least for now, is not welcome to advertise in the Oregon State Bar's monthly magazine because of its "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals.

"It's engendered quite a bit of conversation," said Paul Nickell, editor of the Oregon State Bar Bulletin. "It gets to people's core values, and people are speaking up."

Nickell, who has edited the magazine since 1990, said he has never seen one issue spark as much interest.

Read the entire story.

Via: Christian Trejbal, The Bulletin

Her royal highness Karen Minnis is not budging. She is holding Senate Bill 1000 in her legislative dungeon. Call her now (503) 986-1200 - tell her to bring SB1000 to an up or down vote NOW. If it is up to her she will continue to take 3 days off at a time until it's too late. Is this a democracy or a monarchy?

Also - call your representative in the House. Click here to get your Representative's phone number.

Seriously you guys - it take 30 seconds per call. That is one minute of your day. Call as much as you can. Leave messages. Do whatever you can. Encourage your friends to do the same. We can pass SB1000 - we DO have the votes in the House. Tell Speaker Karen Minnis to give SB1000 the decency of an up or down vote!

Post by Bryan Harding

Now that the Oregon Senate has passed civil unions in Oregon, the extreme religious right is making all sorts of insane claims. They realize that they are on their way to losing this fight - and the civil rights of all Oregonians are becoming a reality.

TrackTheLies.com exposes the Oregon Family Council and the "Defense of Marriage Coalition's" lies. This new site has an amazing flash animation that you have got to see.

Bloggers - if you are interested in posting about this and want an image to put up, use this link:
Track The Lies Blog images - Click Here

Fascist? She seems to think that she can delay SB1000, the bill granting civil unions to gay and lesbian couples, as well as a statewide anti-discrimination policy for Oregon. She wants to kill the bill. It's passed the Senate by a two-thirds margin (including support from many Senate republicans), the Governor has backed it and the people of Oregon support it. Why is she trying to stand in the way?

It doesn't matter whether or not you are gay or straight - you are bound to have a friend/family member/neighbor etc that is gay. If you have stayed out of the the civil union debate, this is the time to speak out. Take 30 seconds out of your day and call Speaker of the House Karen Minnis (Phone# 503-986-1200).

We need to make it absolutely clear that keeping this bill out of committee and not letting it have an up or down vote is just plain WRONG. She DOES NOT OWN her seat - the people have elected her to carry out our process of democracy - not to stifle the will of the people.

Even members of her own party in the House support SB1000. So what is she so afriad of? Take 30 seconds - call her office at (503)986-1200 and tell them this:

"You represent ALL of Oregon and the people want an UP or DOWN vote on SB1000"

Republican or democrat, gay or straight, man or woman - this does not matter. This is a fight for the people of Oregon. It is due time for equal protection under the law. The best example of that in Oregon’s constitution is Article I, Section 20...

“No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Here are some quotes from two of the bill sponsors. Both Republicans, both strong Christians.

Sen. Ben Westlund (R-Tumalo):

"...and today I am proud to stand in this room, on this floor, and play a small role in the continuing struggle to validate the dignity of all human beings... to recognize the legitimacy of all human relationships... regardless of race...color...creed... gender ...or sexual orientation. Colleagues I did not sponsor this legislation to support gays and lesbians, I sponsored this legislation because gays and lesbians are human beings."

Sen. Frank Morse (R-Albany):

"Recognizing the diversity of thought and strength of convictions on both sides of the issue of homosexuality, I offer my beliefs with conviction that Senate Bill 1000 is just and it is right.

For many, this is an issue of civil rights and properly interpreting Section 1, Article 20 of the Oregon Constitution. For most, however, it is a moral, religious issue. Often we look to the church as a moral compass for direction. What we find is tremendous diversity within the church.

For me, the answers to these questions arise from my own life experiences and convictions of what God has called me to be and do. It is, for me, these personal experiences and convictions that so clearly frame the issues before us."

These are some very strong words from very strong Christian leaders. Stand with them. Support equality. Call Karen Minnis right now. Tell her to "Let SB1000 get to the floor for an up or down vote!". Time is running out. Call her at (503)986-1200.

Can't call her? Click here to send her an email.

Post by Bryan Harding

Karen Minnis will be to blame if she follows through on her promise to hold SB1000 in a legislative dungeon - never allowed to see the light of day. Why won't she bring it to a vote? Wouldn't she love the opportunity to publicly smack down the gays and prove once and for all that the will of the majority is against civil unions and anti-discrimination as they have so often claimed? She isn't bringing it to a vote because she knows and is afraid of the truth: that if brought to a vote the bill will pass.

In a editorial piece by the Register Guard, they sum it up quite well...

Don't blame Oregonians: Same-sex marriages, not civil unions, are banned

If Senate Bill 1000 dies in the Oregon House of Representatives, its legislative pallbearers won't present themselves as opponents of civil unions or as defenders of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Instead, they'll point to Oregon voters. They'll say that SB 1000, approved 19-10 Friday by the state Senate, conflicts with Measure 36, the constitutional amendment approved last November that prohibits same-sex marriages.

But it doesn't. SB 1000 doesn't allow same-sex marriages like the ones licensed in Multnomah County last year - licenses that have been nullified by Oregon courts. It doesn't allow any marriages at all. What it does is allow people to enter into a contractual relationship with rights, responsibilities and protections "substantially equivalent" to those gained through marriage. It also bars discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment and public accommodations, with exemptions for religious or sectarian organizations.

Is that same-sex marriage by another name? Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland, answered that question with another during Friday's debate: "Is anyone on the Senate floor willing to trade their marriage for a civil union?" There were no takers.

Measure 36 added the following language to the Oregon Constitution: "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." The subject of the measure was marriage and marriage alone - not the status of children, not inheritance rights, not family visitation rules, and certainly not discrimination in employment, public accommodations or housing. Oregonians voted against allowing gays and lesbians to marry. They didn't vote to deprive them of any other rights as citizens or human beings.

Indeed, leading figures on both sides of the culture wars - including President Bush and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry - favored civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage. Sen. Ben Westlund, R-Bend, paid to place an argument in favor of Measure 36 in the Voters' Pamphlet, and on Friday not only voted for SB 1000 but was a member of the bipartisan group of senators who carried the bill. Oregonians have rejected anti-gay measures in the past, then voted last year against same-sex marriage. The latter vote should not nullify the former ones.

SB 1000 is widely expected to be rejected by the House, probably without ever coming to a vote. Marriage will be no more secure in Oregon. Indeed, the Oregon Supreme Court made it clear that Multnomah County officials lacked the authority to license same-sex marriages even before Measure 36 was approved. The issue of same-sex marriage is settled, by the voters and by the courts. The issue of civil rights, however, is very much alive. House members should not sanction discrimination and less than full citizenship for any group of Oregonians, and then blame the voters for their action.

SB1000 though does stand a chance in the Oregon House. We DO have the votes. Speaker of the House Karen Minnis needs to realize that this bill needs to be brought to the floor. Up or down - it deserves the decency. It's so funny that the Republican party was making such a stink and about to use the "nuclear option" just recently and now look - Speaker Minnis is doing just that.

Post by Bryan Harding

The following is the speech that Frank Morse made on the Senate floor last Friday as they passed SB1000.

"Recognizing the diversity of thought and strength of convictions on both sides of the issue of homosexuality, I offer my beliefs with conviction that Senate Bill 1000 is just and it is right.

For many, this is an issue of civil rights and properly interpreting Section 1, Article 20 of the Oregon Constitution. For most, however, it is a moral, religious issue. Often we look to the church as a moral compass for direction. What we find is tremendous diversity within the church.

For me, the answers to these questions arise from my own life experiences and convictions of what God has called me to be and do. It is, for me, these personal experiences and convictions that so clearly frame the issues before us.

Since becoming one of four chief sponsors of SB 1000, I have experienced the best from people and I have experienced the worst from people. I have experienced everything in between.

I have received beautiful heartfelt expressions of thanks from gays and lesbians and parents of children who are gay and lesbian. In contrast, our office received an ugly expression of hate from a caller who said, "We should do what the Bible says to do. We should take them out and stone them."

The relevant question of SB 1000 is, "Where should public policy fall along life's social continuum, where at the one pole there is hate and at the other pole there is acceptance?"

I recognize there are many for whom religious convictions create barriers to accepting homosexual relationships. For me however, the answer lies in defining destructive relationships, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.

My first campaign piece was a mailing to all households and a full-page ad in the newspapers to inform voters what I believed. I said, "I believe that a person's sexual orientation is determined at birth and I fundamentally believe that in all relationships, we are called to treat one another with dignity, respect and love. These beliefs will guide me when legislative issues affecting gay rights arise."

A few days following the mailing, my wife Linda called her sister Joan and read to her what I had said in the mailing. Joan's response was, "You are not ready for this. You won't understand."

Linda, having a good idea what Joan was about to share, said that yes indeed, we are ready and we do understand.

And then, in a flood of tears, Joan proceeded to tell Linda about her son Bob, who is gay. The many years of silence were finally broken. While we had long suspected that Bob was gay, we never asked and it was never offered.

Joan then shared with Linda that many years ago, when Bob told his parents he was gay, he related the struggles he had coming to an understanding of his sexual orientation. He said, "It's not a lifestyle anyone would ever consciously choose for themselves, but it's who I am."

The reason I share this very personal experience is that it expresses so clearly and defines so succinctly the issue we are debating today. In a very close and loving family, why did my wife's sister and husband never mention their son's sexual orientation? Why did our nephew never mention his sexual orientation? I believe it was because they feared we would not understand, would not be tolerant, and would not accept.

The issue before us today is to first determine the space we personally choose to occupy on life's social continuum. Do we have hate in our hearts? Are we intolerant? Are we tolerant? Can we accept? From the depths of our convictions, let us cast a vote for acceptance."

Post by Bryan Harding

Here is a breakdown of the Yes and No votes cast around noon today on Senate Bill 1000.

Atkinson: No
Bates: Yes
Beyer: No
Brown: Yes
Burdick: Yes
Carter: Yes
Deckert: Yes
Devlin: Yes
Ferrioli: No
George: No
Gordly: Yes
Johnson: Yes
Kruse: No
Metsger: Yes
Monnes Anderson: Yes
Morrisette: Yes
Morse: Yes
Nelson: Excused
Prozanski: Yes
Ringo: Yes
Schrader: Yes
Shields: Yes
Starr B.: No
Starr C.: No
Verger: No
Walker: Yes
Westluind: Yes
Whitsett: No
Winters: No
President Courtney: Yes

Total: 19 Aye, 10 Nay, 1 Excused.

Post by Bryan Harding

I am sitting here in the Meeting Room at the Oregon State Capitol. Today, Senate Bill 1000 passed by a margin of 19 to 10 with Senator Nelson being absent for the vote.

After nearly 3 hours of testimony from all Senators, both pro and con. The testimony was absolutely amazing.

Starting off the testimony was Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown whom we owe so many thanks to. Thank you to Senator Westlund, Bates, Ringo, Morse, Deckert only to name a few. Their speeches were impassioned and true. They spoke out. They spoke out to their fellow Senators, colleagues, and the over 125 supporters of the bill that were watching this entire historical event unfold. I want to thank the amazing staff of Basic Rights Oregon who worked 12 hour days to help get this legislation passed.

I will never forget this day. It is a day that will be with me for the rest of my life.

So thank you Senator Brown. You truly pulled through. You make us proud. Thank you to all involved in helping get SB1000 passed today.

Now the real battle begins. Let take it to the House!

More to come...

Post by Bryan Harding

[Updates: As I watched the Senate Pass SB1000, Vote Breakdown for SB1000]

The Oregon Senate has approved Civil Unions in Oregon. 19 votes were in favor and 10 opposed. There was extraordinary discussion on the Senate floor as 24 out of 30 Senators spoke. Senator Nelson was not present at today’s vote.

-Adam

Senate Majority Leader Kate Browns office is still reporting a morning vote on Senate Bill 1000. Senate President Peter Courtney's office is as well. Senator Richard Devlin's office is also reporting the same.

I believe that Basic Rights Oregon is encouraging supporters of SB1000 to be down there at the Capitol at 7:15am for visibility, then proceed to the Senate gallery to watch this historic vote take place.

Updates to come as soon as I get any additional information.

Post by Bryan Harding

Senate President Peter Courtney's office is reporting that SB1000 is now on the schedule for a Friday vote. At this point I will believe it when I see it. It seems that there has been delay after delay. All I know is that if our Senate leadership can pull their shit together, it will be a very good happy our on Friday.

**UPDATE** Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown's office has also given indication that the vote will happen on Friday. On the last pink slip of the day SB 1000 was listed.

Stay tuned. I will update as soon as I learn more.

Post by Bryan Harding

[UPDATE] It's 6:15am and we are heading out now for Salem. Wish us luck!

This is the message that we will take to Salem tomorrow morning at 7:15. I'll make sure to take pictures of the gathering and post them up here as soon as I get back. It should be very interesting. We have no idea how many people will show up - though the organic way in which this has spread seems promising. Check back tomorrow afternoon and I'll give you all the rundown.

If any of you want to join us there is still time. Here are the details.
No Excuses. No Delays. Vote on SB 1000 Now!

• We'll meet from 7:15 to 8:30 AM outside the Capitol parking garages to let legislators arriving to work know that we are counting on them.
  
• From 8:30 AM to 9:00 AM, find us in the Capitol Rotunda.

Post by Bryan Harding

Seems like this has been the consensus for a while now. We've been delayed on progress, now it looks as though we are all set to move ahead and it will receive a vote on Thursday, as opposed to Wednesday as we previously thought. The bill was amended slightly last week which caused it to go back for a fiscal review even though nothing would be changing on that front. Just standard protocol... or did the Senate leadership fuck up?

The bill will create a civil unions registry and grant same-sex couples many of the rights available to married couples including inheritance benefits, pensions, property rights when a partner dies, and the right to make medical decisions for a partner. It's just common sense.

The bill also adds sexual orientation to a law that forbids discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on race, color, religion and several other factors.

It has the backing of Gov. Ted Kulongoski and is expected to pass the Democratically controlled Senate with little difficulty.

"The Oregon Senate will be making a very important statement about prohibiting discrimination in this state and providing all of Oregon's families with stability and security," said Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown (D-Portland).

Even though the bill was amended last week (hence last week's delay) to carefully differentiate between civil unions and marriage opponents say it amounts to the same thing.

"Our argument is that they are amending every marriage statute," said Tim Nashif, political director for the Oregon Family Council.

Tim Nashif is also quoted as saying the following (lying - a good Christian value?):

"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

“Oregon's measure [36] was written specifically not to address civil unions."
Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign Bend Bulletin. 11/6/2004

TOMORROW:
Supporters of SB1000 will be gathering in Salem. Click here for our previous post regarding times and details. It's in the morning and won't take much time.

Post by Bryan Harding

This is our LAST chance to get SB1000 passed out of the Senate and onto the House. It is getting way too late to the end of the session and we cannot let that happen. The gay haters will have won - yet again. The vote will happen on Wednesday. We need bodies in Salem on Wednesday morning. You only have to take like 1-2 hours off of work first thing in the AM. This will be well worth it.

Here ya go... from Basic Rights Oregon:

ACCEPT NO EXCUSES:
We Demand a Vote on SB 1000 Now!

Together, we began this legislative session with a goal to put an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Oregon and protect the relationships and families of same-sex couples equally under the law.

Since then, hundreds and hundreds of Oregonians have traveled from across Oregon to rally on the capitol steps and testify in support of SB 1000 during hearing after hearing.

Nearly 20,000 individual emails, letters, faxes and personal visits have been made by you to legislators from every district in the state.

Oregon newspaperslarge and smallhave commended the courage of lawmakers who began the legislative session as champions of SB 1000 and called on the legislature take seriously their moral responsibility to make the bill the law this session.

Despite the most visible lobbying the legislature has ever seen on these issue, despite overwhelming support across the state and plenty of opportunity to pass this bill (not to mention many promises of an impending vote), MONTHS have gone by without a full vote on the Senate floor and the legislative session is rapidly coming to a close.

We still have the opportunity to pass SB 1000 this session, but only if the Senate puts and end to its stalling and puts SB 1000 to a vote immediately. We've been assured that the Senate will vote on SB 1000 Wednesday. Let's be there to hold the Senate to it's word.

Come to Salem Wednesday, July 6th!
Send a Message to the Senate:
No Excuses. No Delays. Vote on SB 1000 Now!

We'll meet from 7:15 to 8:30 AM outside the Capitol parking garages to let legislators arriving to work know that we are counting on them.
From 8:30 AM to 9:00 AM, find us in the Capitol Rotunda.

Seriously guys. This IS IT. All or nothing. The final push.

Posted by Bryan Harding

The grassroots are growing... Every morning at 7:15am people are gathering at the entrance to the parking garage where our elected officials drive into. The group is demanding that SB1000 is passed. More legislators were seen today - maybe 35-40. The response from the Senators and Representatives has overall been fantastic. There are of course some (ech hem Karen Minnis) who for example smiled and waved from their vehicles when in public she has vowed to do whatever she can to stop this bill from passing the House. Oh Karen - if the public knew your dirty little secrets.

Other responses have been as follows:
- String of Minnis, Krupf, Richardson waving energetically.
- Charles Starr, who has called gays terrorists was giving thumbs down; What a surprise!
- Sen. Maj Leader Kate Brown yelling bill status out of her window
- Shields coming by to thank us; string of legislators throughout the day thanking us for being out there.
- Betsy Johnson waving quite a lot - she's not been too energetic the other mornings
- A number of legislators have taken to yelling bill status from their vehicles
- Sen. Westlund stopped, opened the window, got off the phone and yelled "I love you guys!" and then blew us a big kiss.

JOIN THEM! Every morning at 7:15am at the entrance to the parking garage. Each day more and more people are showing up to support SB1000.

Posted by Bryan Harding

As some may already know, yesterday SB1000 (Civil Unions/Anti-Discrimination) was voted back out of committee and is on to a floor vote either next Wednesday or Thursday.

Our Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown needs to show some leadership right now and pass this bill. We have plenty of votes without question. It's the House we are a little bit concerned about - although it is still likely that it can be done in the House. Time for this session is running out and the House may just try to pussy foot around this and let it sit.

I was reading an article on oregonLive.com this morning about how Minority Leader Karen Minnis will not pass this through the House. Don't read too far into that. It's not as true as you think. Politics are dirty. Just rememeber that.

Posted by Bryan Harding