Don't Blame Oregonians; Blame Speaker of the House Karen Minnis
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
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
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
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 2:27 PM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
ByI find it interesting that Minnis has orchestrated a "rolling recess" on the basis of there not being anything for members to do, yet she somehow can't find the time to bring bills up for a hearing.
Hmmm....
By
Right - the whole point of the rolling recess is because is they could cycle one day on - three off, the earliest that SB1000 would have to be given a firs thought would be August 8th. Ummmm.. end of session?
By
Minnis acts like a monarch - an extremely sorry one. Flood her office with calls, emails and letters demanding she bring SB1000 to a vote.
By
Hey all it's Bryan - so on that note (comment above) here is everything you need to contact "Queen Karen's" office.
Phone: 503-986-1200
Email Her - Click Here
Address:
900 Court St. NE
Room 269
Salem, OR 97301
By
We have to mobilize around this! It takes 30 seconds to make the phone call. Thats 3 1/2 minutes a week if you call everyday like I do. Just a small amount of a person's time can have an affect that changes Oregon in a tremendous way.
On a side note. Anybody familiar enough with procedure to know if there is a way for the House members to Supercede the Mean Queen and bring it to a vote themselves?
By
Yes there is a way for that to happen.
I believe that the procedure is that we would need to have a majority of the House decide to bring it to a vote. I think that it wold have to be in committee though. That is where we have the problem. We need to get it to committee. This is my understanding. I put a call into the Legislative Clerk's office to get an answer. Got her voicemail - though I assume she will call me back. Once I hear back I will leave a comment on the posting.
Thanks Marshall :) Everything you said is the truth. We are so close to passing this. We DO have the votes in the House.
Though we may not think Speaker Minnis is listening to our calls - believe me when I say that she is. Her staff has been given certain instructions on calls regarding SB1000 - so seriously - EVERY call counts.
-Bryan H.
By
The problem is that it has been dumped in the committee with the most conservative R's on it. It can theoretically be "pulled" but you'd need 4 R's to cross and essentially give their leadership the finger, which they have not been willing to do.
Btw, don't be shocked that Minnis's staff has been given instructions on how to answer calls. I've heard reports that the low number of contacs supporting this bill any office has received is about 200-250, so of course they'd have a plan to deal with it.
By
I would have to disagree with you on a few points. First off - I do not believe that it is in any committee right now. I think that they have 7 days to assign it. With the "rolling recess" schedule they could postpone that until August 8th. In order for it to be pulled doesn't it have to be in a committee?
And you would be surprised at the support for this bill and the number of people ready to give "Queen Karen" the finger. I can't tell what side you are on...
On the note about Minnis's staff. Of course they are/have been expecting it. I have heard that they have specific instructions that go beyond what you suggest.
-Bryan H.
By
It's not in committee according to her office, and they explain it by saying that bills come over and wait for assignment all the time. They also say the Senate has bills from the House they're not acting on, which is probably true.
I tried to get in touch with the LA who has this issue, but left a message. The person answering the phone called it a "difference in philosophy." I asked, "So what's the philosophy--bills you don't personally like, don't get heard?" :)
I think we need to push the fact that civil unions, apart from marriage, have overwhelming support among Oregonians, so what Minnis is doing is thwarting a bill that most Oregonians want to at least see heard.
By the way, I also asked if it was because they thought the vote might pass. She snickered and said she really didn't think that was it. !!
Keep up the pressure. And what I'd really like to see are people like Kulongoski and Potter speaking up. If they're going to put their capital on the line to come out for it publicly, they ought to be pissed that it's being held from a vote. Up or down, right?
By
Right I called yesterday and it is not in committee. As far as the anonymous comment above that says "The problem is that it has been dumped in the committee with the most conservative R's on it" is just plain wrong. First of all THERE IS ONLY ONE COMMITTEE that would hear the bill. One.
Kulongoski does need to be more public. Agreed.
Everyone make sure to visit the new site (my company did) for BRO. Track The Lies
- Bryan H.
By
Also - I can tell you right now. We DO have the votes in the House.
-Bryan H.
By
Then I think Ted needs to get involved. Could his rating get any crappier than the mid 30s? Take a stand on SOMETHING, for heaven's sake. The Oregon I remember does things like this--big changes that increase individual freedoms.
Courtney, Brown and Kulongoski are about the only people--along with Westlund, who frankly has done more than is good for him, so I wouldn't ask more--who can make a vote even plausibly come up. Their silence is bothersome, particularly when nothing else is happening.
» Post a Comment