The muscle-T wearing, White Party attending, Cher loving Starbucks cups? Hmmmm.

This is so ridiculous that people are up in arms about this. Leave it to the Christian right... I guess Starbucks is "promoting the homosexual agenda" with their cups. Whenever people use that term I have to wonder what the 'homosexual agenda' is. To me it is to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - just as equally as anyone else in the country would. Maybe it's simply to be left the hell alone. Fuck - I guess that is just too hard to swallow for the 'loving and compassionate Christian right'...


Click here to view the Starbucks "The Way I see It" Campaign info page.

The Seattle Times reports

Starbucks says it was hoping to inspire old-fashioned coffee-house conversations when it introduced a campaign this year featuring the words of notable Americans on its coffee cups.

But at least a few of those words are sparking more discord than discussion.

A national Christian women's organization is accusing the Seattle-based coffee maker of promoting a homosexual agenda because of a quote by author Armistead Maupin, whose "Tales of the City" chronicled San Francisco's homosexual community in the 1970s and 1980s.

Maupin's quote one of several dozen in "The Way I See It" promotion says his only regret about being gay is that he repressed it for so long.

"I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short."

Concerned Women for America, which promotes itself as the antithesis of the National Organization for Women and boasts 8,700 supporters in Washington, says most of those quoted on the coffee cups are liberal.

The group believes corporations have a responsibility to reflect the diversity of their customers by taking a balanced approach or staying out of divisive social issues altogether.

And while the group is not calling for a boycott, its position nonetheless raises questions about what role if any corporations should take on potentially sensitive matters, especially at a time when the nation is divided, largely along religious lines, on issues such as gay rights.

"Corporations have deeper pockets and therefore more influence than individuals do," said Maureen Richardson, state director of Concerned Women for America of Washington.

"I think it's wiser for them to stay out of these issues so that they don't offend conservatives and people of faith."

To these companies, she says: "If you want my money, support some of my causes."

But experts say that on controversial issues, no company can please all its customers all the time. Corporations, they say, need to pick their battles, staking out a position on issues they believe to be just.

"There are many religious-based social issues that are so hard for society to address right now things like abortion and capital punishment they're better left for another time," said Leo Hindery, author of "It Takes a CEO: Leading with Integrity."

"But there are a couple of places where it is clear to me that there should be no ambiguity of corporate responsibility the environment and civil rights," Hindery said. "As a corporation, you cannot let the desire for unanimity override your obligation for fairness."

"The Way I See It" campaign does not set out to take a political stand but rather to encourage discourse, Starbucks spokeswoman Audrey Lincoff said.

"If you think back to the history of the old coffee houses, before the Internet, these were places to converse," she said. "That's part of what the coffee culture has been for a century or more."

Lincoff said the company does not characterize the personalities quoted on its coffee cups as liberal or conservative, but rather as a diverse group of artists, musicians, educators, activists and athletes.

Among them: actor Quincy Jones, New Age author and alternative-medicine doctor Deepak Chopra, radio host and film critic Michael Medved, rap artist Chuck D and Olympic medalist Michelle Kwan.

The coffee company won't be pulling the Maupin quote or any other from the campaign, but in fact will expand it to feature quotes from regular customers.

"Embracing diversity and treating people with dignity is one of the guiding principles of our corporation," Lincoff said.

Richardson, of the women's organization, cites possible support by Starbucks for pro-life clinics and the Boy Scouts of America as ways the company might offset its support of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and gay pride.

But Starbucks spokeswoman Lara Wyss said decisions about sponsoring gay-pride events and other causes are made at the store or regional level, not the corporate level. And while Starbucks matches employee contributions to charities such as Planned Parenthood, Wyss said, it doesn't make outright corporate contributions to such groups.

Other corporations have also drawn controversy over sensitive topics.

Last spring, Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, threatened to boycott Microsoft if it didn't back off its support of anti-discrimination legislation for gays here in Washington.

Microsoft withdrew, but said it had decided before Hutcherson issued his threat.

In Oregon last month, Nike withstood opposition and an e-mail campaign organized by a Christian organization over Nike's support of legislation that would have allowed civil unions and banned discrimination against gays.

Both measures passed the Senate but did not make it to the House for a vote.

And for more than two decades now, members of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which advocates for the separation of state and church, said they have complained to Alaska Airlines about prayer cards the company distributes with in-flight meals.

The airline said it has been offering the cards for 30 years and has received positive responses along with complaints. Passengers are free to give the cards back or turn them over if they don't want them, the carrier said.

John Hoover, a national business consultant and author who has advised such companies as IBM, Delta Air Lines and Boeing on the art of confrontation, said, "It's not incumbent on corporations to operate with balance" as Richardson suggests.

"But when they stand by their conscience, they must be willing to accept the consequences."

As if Starbucks isn't already viewed as an amazingly progressive company. Please - these people need to worry about more important things in life.

For the article click here.

Story by Lornet Turnbull/Seattle Times Staff reporter
Photo credit: THOMAS JAMES HURST / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Posted by Bryan Harding

Direct from HRC as they officially oppose John Roberts as a Supreme Court Justice...

Today, HRC announced our opposition to the nomination of John Roberts to fill the vacancy left by moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court following a decision by our Board of Directors. I wanted to make sure that you, as one of our valued members and supporters, were informed right away about this decision.

Our decision is based on a variety of factors, including John Roberts' extremely skeptical view of the constitutional right to privacy—a view that could seriously endanger our rights as defined in Lawrence v. Texas; his hostility towards enforcement of civil rights; his severely limited view of the role of the courts to protect individual rights and liberties and his views about the separation of church and state.

As you may know, HRC has been involved in judicial nominations throughout the Bush Administration. Taking a moderate stance based upon clearly articulated criteria, we have opposed only those nominees whose records indicated a clear hostility to the enforcement of civil rights. In all, we opposed only seven of the more than 200 nominees named by President Bush. Given what we have seen of his record, we now feel strongly that John Roberts rises to this level and opposing his nomination is the right thing to do - not only for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, but in order to protect the civil rights of all Americans. Materials regarding our position can be found on our website at www.hrc.org/supremecourt.

You should also know that we have considered his noteworthy participation in Romer v. Evans - the landmark Supreme Court case protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Although his participation might indicate that he is not personally hostile to GLBT people, other aspects of his record lead us to believe that had he been on the Court, he would have voted with the three dissenters in Romer—Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. The fact that he has been tapped to replace a moderate justice who stood with us in this case is a cause for great concern.

Our action is well coordinated with and appreciated by the larger civil rights coalition, working on this nomination in Washington, DC, led by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Alliance for Justice. We are joined in our opposition by key GLBT allies, such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), and have released a joint statement of opposition with our colleague organizations.

Over the coming days, the GLBT community will be joined by other communities – the African American community, the Hispanic community and other civil rights communities. We recognize that a threat to the civil rights of one community is a threat to the civil rights of all communities. I hope that we can count on you in the days and weeks ahead to stand with us and raise your voices to challenge and oppose a nominee who could seriously threaten the rights and liberties of so many Americans.

Posted by Bryan Harding

The Human Rights Campaign has formally thanked Rev. Jerry Falwell for apparently speaking out in favor of gay rights for the first time publicly.

Falwell, the high profile televangelist, founder of the Moral Majority and of the Liberty University, recently discussed potential Supreme Court nominees with President Bush before a pick was named.

On Aug. 5, during an appearance on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson," Falwell raised eyebrowns when he said he was not troubled by reports that nominee John Roberts had done volunteer legal work for gay rights activists on the case Romer vs. Evans.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the state of Colorado could not create laws with the sole intention of discriminating against gay men and lesbians. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - the judges that President Bush has said best represent his preferred judicial philosophy - along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dissented from the majority opinion.

Falwell, who in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, blamed the terrorist attacks on "the pagans, the abortionists, and the feminists and the gays and lesbians," and who describes himself as "very conservative," told Carlson that if he were a lawyer, he too would argue for civil rights for gays.

"I may not agree with the lifestyle," Falwell said. "But that has nothing to do with the civil rights of that... part of our constituency."

"Judge Roberts would probably have been not a good very good lawyer if he had not been willing, when asked by his partners in the law firm to assist in guaranteeing the civil rights of employment and housing to any and all Americans."

When Carlson countered that conservatives, "are always arguing against 'special rights' for gays," Falwell said that equal access to housing and employment are basic rights, not special rights.

"Civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or conservative value," Falwell went on to say. "It's an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on."

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said his group welcomed the apparent softening of Falwell's position on at least some gay rights.

"Like most Americans, it seems Rev. Falwell has reached the conclusion that everyone deserves basic rights," said Solmonese. "I hope he also supports legislation that would deliver on these values."

Soulforce lobbying pays off?
Falwell was not available this week to discuss his views on gay issues. His office said that he was deluged with requests for comment on fellow televangelist Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of the Venezuelan president.

Earlier this summer, Falwell spoke at an "ex-gay" conference organized by the Christian group Exodus International. During his sermon he spoke warmly about the efforts of the activist group Soulforce, which seeks to free gays from religious oppression and is based in Lynchburg, Va., near Falwell's church. Soulforce has done extensive outreach to Falwell.

Falwell also spoke at length about a major heart operation he had had earlier that week.

Soulforce was founded by Mel White, a gay man who had worked closely with Falwell (even ghostwriting his autobiography) and his partner Gary Nixon.

White and Nixon founded Soulforce and moved into a rented house across the street from Falwell's church in 2001, after they realized that Falwell was not going to change his views and accept gays without long-term persuasion.

"I think last month when he dealt with his heart condition, he got closer to his maker," Nixon said. "And I think he knows in his heart that what he was doing is wrong."

To read more, including the transcript of Tucker Carlson and Falwell - click here.

Posted by Bryan Harding

Top of the list is New College of Florida, which provides a campus community most accepting of gay students. It also ranks number one for the most politically active tertiary institution, but ranks worst for a near absence of intercollegiate sports.

The top five gay-friendly Colleges are in order: New College of Florida; Macalester College of St. Paul, Minnesota; Wellesley College in Massachusetts; Eugene Lang College/New School University in New York City; and Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts.

The top College ranked by Princeton Review for academic experience is Reed College in Portland, Oregon; which ranks 18th on the list for being gay-friendly.

The least gay-friendly Universities in America according to this study are Hampden-Sydney College, Virginia; the University of Notre Dame; and Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Here is the complete list of the Top 20 Gay Friendly Colleges compiled by the Princeton Review:

1.) New College of Florida
2.) Macalester College
3.) Wellesley College
4.) Eugene Lang College/New School University
5.) Mount Holyoke College
6.) St. John's College (MD)
7.) Bryn Mawr College
8.) Lawrence University
9.) Emerson College
10.) Harvey Mudd College
11.) St. John's College (NM)
12.) Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering
13.) Wesleyan University
14.) Marlboro College
15.) Carleton College
16.) Smith College
17.) Haverford College
18.) Reed College
19.) Bard College
20.) Oberlin College

Posted by Bryan Harding

Labels: college

Legislation designed to prevent discrimination against LGBT individuals in political campaigns is one critical step away from becoming law -- a signature by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The State Senate approved Assembly Bill 866 Monday, authored by Speaker pro Tem Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/Daly City) on a 21-12 vote. The governor now has 12 days to sign or veto AB 866.

The legislation, sponsored by Equality California, would prohibit the use of any negative appeal based on prejudice against LGBT people by candidates or campaign committees who sign the voluntary pledge provided for in the Code of Fair Campaign Practices.

"I urge the governor to immediately sign this bill into law so we can move one step closer to ending anti-gay rhetoric in political campaigns," said Speaker pro Tem Yee. "Candidates should not discriminate and victimize the LGBT community for political purposes. Fostering campaigns that create fear and intimidation only incite a potentially dangerous situation for the LGBT community."

Currently, existing law establishes a Code of Fair Campaign Practices to which a candidate may voluntarily subscribe and provides a pledge by which the candidate declares that he or she will not use or permit any appeal to negative prejudice based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical health status, or age. This Code of Fair Campaign Practices and a copy of the Elections Code provisions are required to be provided to candidates by the Registrar of Voters at the of a declaration of candidacy, nomination papers, or any other paper evidencing an intention to be a candidate for public office are issued.

Anti-gay rhetoric, which often comes in the form of political hate messages, has been directly connected to violence against gay and lesbian individuals. Incidents of violence against LGBT people have peaked in national elections years, such as in 2004 during the presidential campaign, in which lesbian and gay issues played an unprecedented role at both the national and local levels.

In 2003, when San Francisco became ground zero in the struggle over same-sex marriage rights, incidents of violence rose over 14 percent in the city.

"Sidelining ethics and integrity to garner votes is simply bad politics," said EQCA executive director Geoffrey Kors. "We cannot allow a few bad apples to hijack political campaigns and really cheapen the voting process with homophobia and anti-gay prejudice. Candidates must live up to a higher standard willing to represent all constituencies and communities."

In 1996, then Assemblymember Shelia Kuehl introduced nearly identical legislation (AB 2283), which failed in its first hearing on a 3-4 vote. This year's AB 866 has received far greater support; in fact, two Republicans joined 45 Democrats when the bill passed the Assembly in April.

"When I run for office, I want to be sure that I am judged on my knowledge, experience and integrity, and not viewed on stereotypes or hate," said Marina Gatto, a 16-year-old LGBT rights activist. "AB 866 is a common sense measure; it is an important and vital step towards equality, and it deserves the support of every legislator as well as everyone in our community."

via: Out in America

via SF Chronicle

San Francisco -- Lesbian and gay couples who plan for a family and raise a child together can be considered legal parents after a breakup, with all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual parents, the California Supreme Court ruled today.

In three decisions that a gay-rights advocate described as historic, the court upheld the claims of motherhood by estranged lesbian partners who had been involved in relationships that resulted in children born by artificial insemination. The court noted that the three women had cooperated in conceiving and rearing the children in a family setting and, thus, had the right of parenthood under the law - from the privilege of visitation to the responsibility of child support payments.

"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women," said Justice Carlos Moreno, author of all three rulings. He said the court's statement in a 1993 surrogate-parent case, that a child can have only one natural mother, was limited to situations in which fatherhood was established and two women - the surrogate mother and the father's wife who signed the surrogacy contract - had competing claims for motherhood.

Courts in other states have granted visitation and other parental rights to same-sex partners who had bonded with their child, ruling that such a nurturing adult may be considered a "psychological parent" even if not biologically related to the child. But today's rulings are the first in the nation to grant full parental status to both members of same-sex couples who participate in planning and rearing a child, said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights , which took part in all three cases.

"This is one of those moments of legal history in the making," Minter said. "The decisions are going to be important not just in California but across the country."

The rulings were issued three weeks after another gay-rights decision by the same court, prohibiting California businesses from discriminating against registered domestic partners as couples - for example, by granting memberships or discounts only to married couples.

Another case heading for the state's high court is a constitutional challenge to California laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, in suits filed by gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco. That case would be derailed, however, if voters approve either of two proposed initiatives to lock the ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution and repeal newly established benefits for domestic partners.

Today's rulings apply to couples who never registered as domestic partners or who had broken up before this year, when a new law took effect that granted domestic partners most of the same rights as spouses. Those rights included the same parental status as opposite-sex couples in similar circumstances - rights that the court extended beyond domestic partners today.

In one case, partners Elisa Maria B. and Emily B. had children in 1997 and 1998, respectively, using the same sperm donor, and raised them together before separating in 1999. Elisa agreed to provide financial support whenever she could for her stay-at-home partner's twins - one of them seriously ill - but stopped making payments 18 months after the couple separated.

Reversing a lower-court ruling, the Supreme Court said Elisa was a legal parent of the children she had helped to plan and raise, and must reimburse El Dorado County for the welfare her partner was paid after she stopped receiving child support.

"We were doing everything we possibly could to form a family," Emily B. said at a news conference after the ruling. Noting that children of an opposite-sex couple would clearly have been entitled to support in the same situation, she said the court recognized the needs of "children who were invisible."

In a second case, the court said a Los Angeles woman, Kristine H., was bound by a pre-birth agreement she signed with her partner, Lisa Ann R., saying both would be parents of the child Kristine was carrying. Kristine opposed Lisa's request for visitation and custody after the couple separated two years later, but the court said Kristine had taken the benefits of the agreement and must accept the burdens.

Both those rulings were unanimous, but the court split 4-2 in a third case. A Marin County woman, K.M., donated eggs to her partner that were fertilized by an anonymous donor and resulted in the birth of twin girls in December 1995. The couple raised the children together for more than five years before separating, and the birth mother, E.G., took the twins to Massachusetts.

A state appeals court ruled last year that E.G. was the girls' sole parent, noting that K.M. had signed a prenatal agreement waiving parental rights. But the Supreme Court majority said the agreement - which K.M. claimed she signed under pressure - was not binding because K.M. was a biological parent and because the partners had intended to raise the children together.

In dissent, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said the ruling disregards the partners' intentions, violates E.G.'s right to choose to be a single parent, and calls into question the validity of many pre-birth agreements. One member of a couple who donates eggs to her partner may now be regarded as a parent in the future regardless of her intentions, Werdegar said.

The cases are Elisa B. vs. Superior Court, S125912; Kristine H. vs. Lisa R., S126945; and K.M. vs. E.G., S125643.

Some of the most popular posts in the past month or so. You all made them popular - why not repost the links to rehash all the good times/not so good times we've had together here at Gay Rights Watch. The following are in no particular order.

It was MASSIVE.

Karen Minnis, I'll just say it: A bitch is a bitch.

Don't Blame Oregonians; Blame Speaker of the House Karen Minnis

Karen Minnis: The Full Page Ad in Gresham Outlook

Tootie Smith: An Unethical Mess of a Lobbyist

The phone call came a little after 6am...

Please don't talk to me while I pee.


Posted by The Boys of Gay Rights Watch

This is just awful news.

(Atlanta, Georgia) Coretta Scott King, the 78-year-old widow of Martin Luther King Jr., and an outspoken supporter of LGBT civil rights, is listed in fair condition in an Atlanta hospital after reportedly suffering a stroke.

A spokesperson for Piedmont Hospital said her vital signs were stable but family friend the Rev. Joseph Lowery said she was having difficulty speaking.

Family members have made no public statements on King's health or her prospects for recovery. In a statement Martin Luther King III said "expressions of love and concern" have been pouring in for his mother and the family.

King has for a number of years spoken out in favor of LGBT issues - especially in support of same-sex marriage and against the proposed federal amendment to ban gay marriage in the Constitution.

In March 2004 King in a speech at Richard Stockton College in New Jersey affirmed her belief that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," King said.

"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

She has frequently denounced other black leaders who support amending the Constitution.

King has frequently said that her late husband also supported gay rights and saw it as a civil rights issue.

Last December she distanced herself from an Atlanta march organized by a prominent local black preacher who said Martin Luther King would have opposed gay marriage. King's daughter, Bernice King, attended the rally - speaking out against gays and same-sex marriage.

via: 365gay.com

Posted by Bryan Harding

Yesterday there was a ballot initative filed with the Secretary of States office for parental notification when it comes to minors getting abortions. (View the complete wording here).

So I want to open up a discussion about this topic. What do you all think about parental notification when it comes to abortion? I have some thoughts about it - but would love to hear what others have to say. Keep the discussion friendly.

Post by Bryan Harding

The so-called "Defense of Marriage Coalition' has been bitch slapped by The State of Oregon...

The Defense of Marriage Coalition has been fined $19,811 by the state Election Division for failing to report $58,000 in campaign donations by required deadlines.

The coalition successfully sponsored Measure 36, which amended the Oregon Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The fine is the largest since the Oregon Democratic Party was fined $20,000 in 2003, said Anne Martens, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, who oversees state elections.

"It's a failure to follow the rules and would have been easily avoided had the treasurer paid attention to the reporting requirements," Martens said.

The Defense of Marriage Coalition will contest the fine before the Oregon Court of Appeals, said Kristian Roggendorf, an attorney representing the group.

Roggendorf said the coalition is protesting the inability to make corrections to campaign reports without incurring penalties.

"There's no dispute there were some errors on the reporting forms," Roggendorf said.

via AP

Posted by Bryan Harding

As the Willamette Week once said, "...combination of self-serving hypocrisy and exquisitely poor timing". I am going to keep this post extremely short. In fact I've said most of what I want to say already. This so-called lobbyist is a lying scam willing to stoop to the lowest of lows and personal attacks to perserve discrimination in the State of Oregon. No wonder she works for the Oregon Family Council - it all makes sense. Tootie, you are a pathetic individual.

Call me Tootie - let's grab a drink. I'd love to have a face to face with you.

Pictured below: Tootie, Our #1 fan.


Posted by Gay Rights Watch

Sine Die, end of session for legislators - and our causes that we have fought so hard for were killed this session. I am in Laguna Beach, CA right now on vacation so I am going to let Basic Rights Oregon sum it up...

From the BRO Blog:
Oregon Legislature Fails to End Discrimination
Today the gavel fell ending the 2005 legislative session and we are faced with the harsh reality that the Oregon legislature did not meet its moral obligation to protect all of our State's families and make discrimination a thing of the past.

This is an outrage, pure and simple. Today, despite all of our work, all of our testimony, all of the heart and soul that we poured into the democratic process, all of the support that we garnered in both legislative chambers and -- in the end -- Karen Minnis, Speaker of the House, single handedly executed a series of mean-spirited political tricks that blocked civil unions and anti-discrimination legislation from becoming the law.

Your courage, commitment and unrelenting resolve to pass this bill did not go unnoticed. SB1000, a bill with bipartisan sponsors, passed the Senate 19-10, winning by nearly a 2 to 1 margin. We had the votes in the House to pass the bill, again with bipartisan support. Legislators heard more about SB 1000 than any other bill this session. Thousands of people contacted their representatives, and did so repeatedly. We have never had such a strong presence in Salem, and it was heard, for months and months.

But, in the end, one person stood between our state doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, and that person, Speaker Minnis, abused her power to make sure that the wrong thing was done.

Using a complicated set of procedural maneuvers that came to be called the "Midday Massacre" of SB1000, Minnis stopped justice right in its tracks. She again thwarted democracy only a few days later by throwing out a 140 year old rule that allows legislators to extract a bill from committee and bring it to an up or down vote. She resorted to these extreme measures because she knew that YOU had built the support for this bill and if it came to a vote it would pass. Knowing that we had the support and still the bill did not pass is nothing less than frustrating, infuriating, and unfair.

Some have already said to us, "Well, what did you expect?" as though somehow we shouldn't have decided to fight if we didn't know ahead of time that we would win.

So let me just say it now, loud and clear: we expected justice, we expected fairness, and we expected equality. We still expect those things, and we will not stop expecting them, ever.

We also expected a fight, and of course we knew we might not win. "What did you expect?" presumes that if the struggle is tough, it's not worth the trouble. I believe that the opposite is true, that the most valuable things are those that are hard won.

Given how high the stakes are, it's not surprising that the fight is a fierce one. But that doesn't make this bitter pill any easier to swallow. We are now faced with the reality that this fight will be tough and long, but we will not give up no matter what.

As we move forward we will look at where we have been and what we have learned and we are just beginning an important evaluation process of this legislative campaign that includes your critical feedback and input about what we have done and where to go from here. Look for much more about that over the next month. Here, though, are two things that we've learned that I think are worth sharing:

First, it's never been clearer to me how important it is that we are involved in electoral politics. We need to build into a mighty force the BRO Equality PAC, which seeks to elect openly GLBT and pro-BRO candidates for key legislative races. We need to be not only a force for the positive, rewarding and reelecting our allies, but we need to become a force that will hold politicians who vote against us accountable for their actions. With your help, we can make Karen Minnis regret her actions in 2006!

And second, I've learned that when we lift up our voices, people do hear us. The outcome of this legislative session is utterly maddening. It is a terrible blow.

But I can't think about this experience without thinking of the more than 700 "While You Were Out" messages we delivered to Karen Minnis, or the thousands and thousands and thousands of emails and phone calls that poured into the legislature every time we sent out an alert, or the intrepid band of Salemites that stood outside the legislators' parking garage every morning for a month -- a month!!! -- holding signs and asking legislators to vote on our bill. . .not to mention the hundreds of people from every corner of this state, who waited for as long as seven hours and stood up at the hearings and testified so honestly about their lives, their words sandwiched between hideous lies and expressions of bigotry offered up by the other side.

I have so many of these scenes in my head. I know many of you do, too. We have represented ourselves well, and truthfully, and with determination.

Shame on Karen Minnis for her abuse of public trust, and for misusing our democratic process to uphold discrimination in our state.

With this defeat, we will become even more resolute. A friend of mine sent me a quote from Winston Churchill that says: "If you're going through hell, keep going." I love that! We have seen how close we can get, and it's clear that we will eventually win the equality we deserve.

But for now, it's important to acknowledge the pain of this loss, deal with it, and turn it into determination and passion, so that we can fight another day until we celebrate full equality.

In Solidarity,
Roey Thorpe, Executive Director, Basic Rights Oregon

Posted by Gay Rights Watch

Democratic Minority Leader Jeff Merkley (D- Portland) stood on the floor of the House this evening at around 7:15pm standing up for the rights of gay and lesbian Oregonians. I truly wish I could have seen this. I'm not sure of all the details, but from what I hear Jeff was not happy at all. Outraged at what Speaker Minnis did today to destroy House rules - he did not hold back. He was gavelled about 4 times before either being told that his microphone would be turned off - or it was actually turned off by Speaker Minnis. He was called into Speaker Minnis' office to discuss the floor 'dispute'. Pretty intense.

So thank you Representative Merkley, for sticking up for what you believe and fighting for the rights of GLBT Oregonians. We applaud you and your efforts.

So supposedly this happened around 7:15pm this evening and there is audio from the Chambers available here. The most recent may not yet be available.

Here is an AP story as well that just came out: Civil unions bill caught up in dispute over rules

Are we really surprised at this point that Speaker Karen Minnis, yet again, shows gays and lesbians how strong her hate is for us? For the second time this session, Speaker Minnis has pulled a fast one on fairness for Oregonians. I am wondering where the democracy has gone. Here it is from the Basic Rights Oregon blog...

SPEAKER MINNIS REWRITES RULES OF DEMOCRACY
In a second Mid-Day Massacre on fairness for all Oregonians, Speaker of the House Karen Minnis rewrote the rules of Democracy in Oregon, cementing her supreme rule over the Oregon House of Representatives and blocking a potential House vote on civil unions and anti-discrimination legislation.

This move comes just one day before the Speaker is required to assign HB 3508, the newest effort at enacting civil unions and antidiscrimination laws, to a House Committee. Once in committee, under the standard House rules, legislators could have --by majority vote -- extracted the bill from committee (bypassing the need for committee approval or the approval of the Speaker) and allow an up or down vote on the bill on the House floor.

As a result of the Speaker's outrageous move, such options are banned for the remainder of the legislative session. The rule of the Speaker now outweighs even a majority of lawmakers.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle decried the maneuver as an abuse of power:

"This move flies in the face of the will of the majority and standard parlimentary rule," said Representative Steve March (D-Portland). "This is a tyranny move and I oppose such a move. It is not appropriate to do this."

"I want to note my concern about this rule change. I am very sorry that it had to come to this," Representative Billy Dalto (R-Salem)

Represenative Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland): "This is an absolute outrage and a pure affront to the rule of the majority and the minority. As it stands now, the leadership of the House has absolute ability to stop any bill or any vote from happening."


The rewriting of the rules is a done deal, but don't let this brazen disregard for democratic principles go unnoticed!

Click here to take action via the BRO blog.


Posted by Bryan Harding

[UPDATE BELOW]

Rumors around the Oregon Capitol are all pointing to Sine Die being either late this evening or tomorrow. To be honest there are a lot of factors that will play into this as there are still a few items they need to deal with. Resolutions have been passed through committee - although when it will make it to the floor is anyone's guess. I'll make sure to update the blog as soon as I learn more.

After the end of the session I will provide an opinionated wrap up of what happened with our issues - or in this case, what didn't happen.

UPDATE: It's looking more like Thursday will be Sine Die for the Legislature.

Post by Bryan Harding

Keeping in the theme of being off topic... I have a peeve that I must vent about. When I go to use the restroom I would rather strangers don't try and make small talk. So this just happened and if you get offended easily or work for the Oregon Family Council, go ahead and close your browser now.

And so the story begins...

I went to use the restroom here at work. They got new little things in the urinals that happen to be red. No idea what they are for - it really doesn't matter. I'm there for a reason. Well this man comes in and starts to make small talk. He says, "I hate these new red things in the urinals." - I laugh to be polite. Then he says (and I am not joking)... "They make me think that there is blood in my urine". I am drying my hands at this point - in shock of what I just heard I look for a quick escape. What do you say to something like that? Then he follows that by, "and at my age you have to worry about those sorts of things". He was probably nearing 50.

So to you sir - please remember what your mother told you and do not talk to strangers... at least not in the bathroom... or at least not about something as vile as that.

Am I alone in my feelings about this? Not that I really need validation - just creeps me out.

Post by Bryan Harding

Off topic, I just get excited about these things. Apple released the new multi-button mouse. It's about damn time. In reality there aren't any buttons though (see picture below). It's all touch sensative. I've always had to use a Logitech MX700, granted it has 9 buttons - that do get used, especially with Expose. Take a look...




So my main problems with it is that it is wired. I expect they will follow this one with a wireless version - they'll just ride the excitement wave as long as possible with the wired one.

Post by Bryan Harding

Mary Wendy Roberts, former Oregon labor commissioner, chimes in on an ad placed in the Oregonian by the so-called 'Defense of Marriage Coalition'.

As Oregon labor commissioner for 16 years, I enforced the state's anti-discrimination laws. Because of my extensive experience I must speak out against the misrepresentations of civil rights laws made in a recent half-page ad in The Oregonian, paid for by the Defense of Marriage Coalition.

Four "reasons" were presented to oppose Senate Bill 1000, the civil unions legislation that has passed the Senate and stalled in the House. I want to address the terribly misleading second reason the ad offers - although it's not the only one I found misleading. The coalition's statement implies that civil rights laws are only for defined minorities who then have special rights under the law. The is just not correct.

The ad claimed that SB1000 would give gays "the same minority status as African Americans." But Oregon civil rights laws do not confer "minority status" on African Americans or any other group. The ad is simply wrong and misleading and betrays either a complete ignorance of the law or a willful desire to be divisive and distort the truth. Anyone can read the laws in the public library, by going to the state civil rights division Web site or by getting a civil rights handbook from the Bureau of Labor and Industries and see this for themselves.

Oregon civil rights laws protect all Oregonians based upon sex, race, color, national origin (or descent ) or religion. No special status is awarded any particular sex, race, color, origin or religion.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries Civil Rights Division has and will accept complaints filed by a person of either sex. Likewise, the laws protect all Oregonians based upon race or color or religion regardless of whether any particular race or color is a minority or majority in this state.

SB1000 would add sexual orientation to the list, but since everyone has a sexual orientation, all Oregonians would be covered by the law and would have equal access to file complaints of unfair discrimination.

A heterosexual job applicant, for example, could not be discriminated against by a homosexual employer solely because of the applicant's sexual orientation. Currently, there is no protection under state law against such discrimination aimed at either heterosexuals or homosexuals.

In my experience, discrimination can occur against both. It can also occur based upon the perception and judgment (often wrong) about someone's sexual orientation. This discrimination would also be combated by passing SB1000.

Additionally, the advertisement's reason number 3, which is that SB1000 "violates separation of church and state by giving the courts and government the power to determine the primary purpose of the church or religious institution" is absurd on several counts. First, it does not change the current law in that respect, and second, the reason for the language is to ensure separation of church and state, not the opposite.

Current law allows an exception to prohibitions against discrimination of various kinds under certain circumstances -- such as when it is related to the primary purpose of the church or religious institution. The current law was written that way to limit the scope of discrimination laws where it might conflict with the primary purpose (i.e., religion ) of a church, synagogue, mosque or religious institution.

The civil rights laws against discrimination cannot therefore interfere when, for example, a church is selecting a minister or teacher of religious doctrines or beliefs, or morals. The church obviously can select a minister who meets their religious criteria, such as being of a specific faith, sex, marital status, age or any other qualifier.

In contrast, a church may not discriminate against a person on the basis of religion or race or sex when hiring a carpenter to make repairs on the church building because that job is not related to its primary religious function.

As readers must know, it is the courts, the judicial branch of government, that has always had the ultimate power to resolve constitutional issues. SB1000 does not change that.

I would hope readers will carefully review the facts and apply common sense when being presented with political ads, especially those that misrepresent the law.

If the ad cannot get that straight, how can you trust it to say what a proposed law would do?

Mary Wendy Roberts of Portland is a former Oregon labor commissioner.