Nearly one year ago, Oregon faced the hateful and discriminatory Measure 36. In Texas and Maine, GLBT groups are stepping up their campaigns this week as election day approaches on November 8.

TEXAS: A proposition on the Texas ballot, if passed, would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The campaign in Texas is the most heated, and shows every sign it will intensify over the few remaining days before the vote.

"We are making a horse race out of it for the first time in any state," said Glen Maxey, an openly gay former legislator directing the opposition group No Nonsense in November. "I believe there's a shot to win it."

The proposed amendment in Texas is the broadest to be presented to voters anywhere in the country. It would block gay and lesbian couples from marrying, prevent the state from allowing civil unions and, according to critics, could veto common-law marriages among heterosexuals.

Last week a straight group opposed to the amendment, Save Texas Marriage, said that not only would common-law marriage between heterosexuals in the state become illegal the amendment also would nullify wills and other agreements between unmarried couples. Something to think about Texas...

MAINE: For the third time extremists are trying to repeal a law that gives members of the GLBT community job and housing protections. This time it looks as though the opposition doesn't have enough votes to repeal it. We shall find out soon.

The Maine legislature passed the civil rights bill to protect gays, lesbians and the transgendered from discrimination in housing, employment and credit and it was signed by Governor John Baldacci last March.

The Christian Civic League of Maine swiftly began a repeal effort, gathering enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot. This same group has forced referenda on similar bills three times in the past decade and gays have seen the protections erased at the polls each time. The most recent was in 2000.

A poll released last week shows most residents support GLBT equal rights, but similar polls prior to the last two ballot initiates that over turned the laws also showed gay support. Most think it is too close to know at this point.

My gut feeling is that Maine will not end up repealing the new law. Unfortunately, I do think that the anti-gay initiative in Texas will pass with flying colors.

Similar to the Tanner decision here in Oregon... The Alaska Supreme Court on Friday ruled it is unconstitutional to bar benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, a victory for gay-rights advocates in one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Overturning a lower-court ruling, the state high court said barring benefits for state and city employees' same-sex partners violates the Alaska Constitution's equal-protection clause.

Gov. Frank Murkowski was "outraged" by the ruling and directed the attorney general's office to find a way to overturn it, said his spokeswoman, Becky Hultberg.

Nine gay or lesbian government workers and their partners in 2002 joined the Alaska American Civil Liberties Union in appealing a lower-court ruling in a 1999 lawsuit filed against the state and Anchorage.

[UPDATE 10/31/05] It looks as though the decision may not be on-time as expected. It could be later this week, instead of on/before November 1st.

____________

The rumor, is that the decision on Martinez v. State of Oregon will come this afternoon. The judge had said on or before November 1st. That would be next Tuesday. The Measure 37 ruling came out on a Friday... probably to minimize press during a week (like the press wouldn't be all over it the second it came out). Measure 36 and 37 were the biggest issues on the '04 ballot. It's all big news.

We've got to brace for a loss--though a win would be amazing for us. No matter what the outcome, either side will appeal their loss. It is expected to be solved at the Supreme Court level--not the circuit court level. It will take time ladies and gentlemen.

We'll make sure to keep you updated at the time nears. Brace yourselves.

[UPDATE] Basic Rights Oregon just released this statement.

The Starship Enterprise's helmsman Sulu steered the Starship Enterprise through three television seasons and six movies, has come out as a homosexual in the current issue of Frontiers, a biweekly Los Angeles magazine covering the gay and lesbian community.

The current social and political climate also motivated Takei's disclosure, he said.

Full Story Here

It sure is a possibility. It looks as though he is entertaining the idea of running as an Independent on the 2006 ticket.

This last session was when I got a much better sense of just who this Senator Westlund was. After all, he did champion Senate Bill 1000 in the Senate.

So what's next for Ben? He's still got another session left in the Senate, will he simply run for reelection when his term is up? Or will make a move for the coveted gubernatorial seat?

Where does he stand on this issues? This is where I'd like input from anyone reading this who can offer some insight or even if you have comments about what is said below.

This is what I can gather so far (your comments are welcomed)...

Right to Die:
As a current Republican, lawmaker and a leader how do you feel about states rights. People have made a decision that they want assisted suicide to remain here in Oregon. The people voted for it, the feds want it gone. Senator Westlund has had 3 lung cancer surgeries. When asked, Ben candidly stated "I'm outraged, as an Oregonian and as a human being.It was calming to know that it was something that was available to me."

Equal Rights:
Ben is all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Civil rights are obviously important to Senator Westlund, he has clearly demonstrated that. When asked 'if he were Governor' during this last session, what would he have done about getting SB1000 passed?

Ben responded, "I would not go home without SB1000 passing. I would not let the legislature go home without a vote in both houses. It was not something followed through by our current governor and I am a bit disappointed in him for that."

"A governors tools are few and some of them are blunt. If I were Kulongoski, I would have put it on the floor. I wouldn't lobby one vote -- but I'd get it on the floor."

Last session Gov. Kulongoski was a do nothing for SB1000. He showed up to a rally here and there, press conference etc--but when we really needed him to flex a political muscle? He was no where to be found in my view.

The Environment:
Progressives that I have spoken with about Senator Westlund's stance on environmental issues haven't always been too impressed. Although he is doing much better these days.

Ben is up to 42% on OLCV this year compared to 0% last session. He's also very good on renewable energy--which is very encouraging as I see an extreme lack of that in this state.

In Closing:
In the end it isn't really about individual issues, it's about the lack of leadership that we currently have in this state... look at last session for great examples of that.

Senator Ben Westlund is someone who can work across the aisle and get people to talk about solutions-- the key is people won't agree with Ben 100% on the issues, but he's fair, he listens and he doesn't promote the ideology of the party. After all, I don't know too many candidates whom I can agree with on 100% of the issues.

Obviously, extreme partisanship is keeping us from solving the big problems facing Oregon: unstable tax structure, access to affordable healthcare, economic expansion, civil rights. It should be interesting to see what he decides to do.

Discuss.

Posted by Bryan Harding

As many of you remember, on September 26th attorneys presented oral arguments in Marion County Circuit Court re: Martinez v. State of Oregon. It was the first hearing in litigation which is expected to last at least two years and be decided ultimately at the Oregon Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of Measure 36, the hateful anti-gay, anti-family ballot initiative that passed in 2004 by a rather slim 57% majority.

The judge in the case stated that he would be issuing a ruling by November 1. We will make sure to keep you all updated on this case as we get closer and closer.

For a refresher on this case please see: Measure 36 Unconstitutional?

Posted by Bryan Harding

Geoffrey Kors, Exec Director of EQCA, speaks out with strong words on the absolute hypocrisy and lack of follow through by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The dramatic ride of California's Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, authored by State Assemblyman Mark Leno, came to a screeching halt on September 29 when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger carried out a promise to veto the bill. In early September, in a pair of landmark votes, the California Legislature became the first legislative body in U.S. history to pass equal-marriage legislation for same-sex couples, garnering 62 votes between the Assembly and the State Senate.

And then the governor carjacked the bill.

In a letter to the Sssembly announcing his decision, Schwarzenegger said that he believes that the legislature overreached its authority in enacting the bill, claiming it reverses the will of voters who approved Proposition 22 in 2000, which banned recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. The governor deliberately ignored the fact that the San Francisco Superior Court has ruled that law to be unconstitutional and instead is using the legislature's historic vote for equality as a weapon to convince right-wing voters to support his ill-conceived legislative redistricting initiative on the November ballot.

Following his veto message, the governor contradicted himself by stating that "lesbian and gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationships." Now I feel compelled to ask:

Governor Schwarzenegger, the marriage equality bill presented you with a sterling opportunity to back up your commitment to the rights of lesbian and gay couples with a simple stroke of the pen. What held you back? You could have made history. You could have risen to the stature of past leaders who had the courage and conviction to push civil rights forward-great leaders, such as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, or President Lyndon Johnson. Instead, you chose to become the first governor in history to veto equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

We at Equality California, the organization that sponsored the marriage bill, believe that equality is inevitable. We know you believe it as well. But that does not mean that marriage equality won't be hard-won when it finally happens. Antigay extremists, with the support of the majority Republican legislators, are gathering signatures for initiatives that would not only prohibit the courts or the legislature from ending discrimination in marriage laws, but would also eliminate existing legal protections currently provided by law to domestic partners, including rights enacted with the governor's signature last year.

When will you finally condemn these mean-spirited initiatives and urge Californians not to sign these petitions?

During his State of the State address in January, Schwarzenegger boldly and correctly stated that "political courage is not political suicide." It is truly a disappointment that he declined to follow those words with courageous acts. California voters will soon get to send the governor a different message, one that John Kerry learned the hard way: Political cowardice is political suicide.

Schwarzenegger's marriage veto has blocked progress on this year's bill, but the momentum behind the marriage-equality movement will continue to build. I urge you to clip out those newspaper headlines that say "Schwarzengger Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill" and stuff them in a drawer. In the not-too-distant future, you may come across those clips and wonder what the fuss over equal marriage rights in 2005 was all about.

Governor Schwarzenegger, we'll be back.

Posted by Bryan Harding

The Basic Rights Oregon EqualityPAC is kicking off BRO's 2006 Campaign for Justice.

ONE year from Election Day.
ONE step closer to victory.
ONE person: each of us can make a difference.

As a community looking to create equality, we need to have the right people in office to cast the right votes at the right time.

Our goal is to emerge from Election Day '06 with a Fair-Minded Majority-more than enough legislators in both the House and the Senate who will vote on the side of fairness for GLBT Oregonians and make equality the law of the land.

Wouldn't it be nice to know that we won't have another bill destroyed, killed, ignored etc?

Event Details:
Wednesday, November 9th, 7pm
$20 tickets in advance online or at the door

Lola's Room @ the Crystal Ballroom
1332 W. Burnside at the corner of 14th & W. Burnside

Complimentary appetizers. No host bar available.

Posted by Bryan Harding

via NYT: TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- Kansas cannot punish illegal underage sex more severely if it involves homosexual conduct, the state's highest court ruled unanimously Friday in a case watched by national groups on both sides of the gay rights debate.

The Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling that a law that specified such harsher treatment and led to a 17-year prison sentence for an 18-year-old defendant ''suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex.''

''Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest,'' said Justice Marla Luckert, writing for the high court.

The defendant, Matthew R. Limon, has been behind bars since he was convicted in 2000 of performing a sex act on a 14-year-old boy. Had one of them been a girl, the state's ''Romeo and Juliet'' law would have dictated a maximum sentence of 15 months.

The court said Limon should be resentenced within 30 days as if the law treated illegal gay sex and illegal straight sex the same, and it struck language from the law that resulted in the different treatment.

''We are very happy that Matthew will soon be getting out of prison. We are sorry there is no way to make up for the extra four years he spent in prison simply because he is gay,'' said Limon's attorney James Esseks, of the American Civil Liberties Union's Gay and Lesbian Rights Project.

National health groups and the National Association of Social workers had filed legal arguments supporting Limon's position. A conservative law group, Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, helped prepare written arguments from 25 legislators in support of the law.

Limon and the other boy, identified only as M.A.R., lived at a group home for the developmentally disabled. In court, an official described M.A.R. as mildly mentally retarded and Limon as functioning at a slightly higher level but not as an 18-year-old.

Limon's attorneys described the relationship with the younger boy as consensual and suggested that they were adolescents experimenting with sex.

Attorney General Phill Kline's office has described Limon as a predator, noting that he already has two similar offenses on his criminal record. Kline contended that such a behavior pattern warranted a tough sentence and that courts should leave sentencing policy to the Legislature.

His office had no immediate comment on the ruling.

Kansas law prohibits any sexual activity involving a person under 16, regardless of the context. The 1999 ''Romeo and Juliet'' law specifies short prison sentences or probation for sexual activity when an offender is under 19 and the age difference between participants is less than four years -- but only for opposite-sex encounters.

A lower court had said the state could justify the harsher punishment as protecting children's traditional development, fighting disease or strengthening traditional values.

Friday's ruline said the Kansas law was too broad to meet those goals.

''The statute inflicts immediate, continuing and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justification that may be claimed for it,'' Luckert wrote.

Posted by Bryan Harding

Some lighter news for today... Well I guess the rumors about Ryan Seacrest's sexuality can officially be quelled. The American Idol host will be crowned "Queen of the Carnaval" at the 18th Annual West Hollywood Halloween Carnaval set for Monday, October 31, 2005 between 6 p.m. and midnight on Santa Monica Boulevard between Doheny Drive and La Cienega Boulevard in West Hollywood. The honorary title of "Queen of the Carnaval" is a highlight at the Carnaval, with the coronation taking place in front of more than 250,000 anticipated revelers this year.

Sources are also reporting that Daniel, of "Daniel is Right", will also be performing on one of the many stages in his typical drag attire. All in fun Daniel, all in fun.

Yet again, Karl Rove has picked up his hate hat and is revving up the base for another attack on GLBT Americans and their families.

HRC said, "Times have been tough for our anti-gay opponents lately. Mostly due to a nominee to the Supreme Court with little known about her views on hot-button conservative issues and a President facing his lowest ratings in opinion poll since he started his job."

So how does the conservative leadership respond? By bringing up the Federal Marriage Amendment back into the limelight hoping to once again use GLBT equality as a way to divide the electorate and please their conservative base.

This administration and their cronies always seem to use civil rights issues to further divide this country time after time. Oh, our numbers are slipping? Let's make it look like we are attempting to change the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION to discriminate against a minority--why not? It sure seems to resonate every other time with their base. However, the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) has already failed numerous times in previous votes. Washington insiders do not see it going anywhere--it's simply what the right-wing extremists do when things aren't going their way. They use "morality" as a key to open up the door of support by their Christian base. It's nauseating that these righties use the GLBT community to satisfy their own extremist agenda.

And to think... another three years with this son of a bitch.

That said, we cannot let our guard down. Call your U.S. Senator and urge them to vote NO on any legislation that is anti-GLBT.

Click here for their contact information

Written by Bryan Harding

Earth to Senator David Vitter--come in--come in. That's right boys and girls, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana made these preposterous remarks while speaking at a luncheon on Oct. 12, he compared Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to marriages of same-sex couples. When describing an area in Louisiana, Sen. Vitter said: "Unfortunately, it's [Lafayette's] the crossroads where Katrina meets Rita. I always knew I was against same-sex unions."

Sen. Vitter should apologize for hurricane remarks. We might as well lump him into the senseless remarks of these people.

Here is a little history on Sen. David Vitter's voting record on civil rights issues. It's pretty ugly (and this is the short list).

- Discontinue affirmative action programs. (Nov 2002)
- Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
- Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
- Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Joe Solmonese, of the Human Rights Campaign, wrote the Senator the following letter:

Dear Senator David Vitter,

There is not a lot that happens in Washington that causes me to do a double take. Reading your comparison between Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and marriages for same-sex couples was one of those rare, jaw-dropping moments.

Katrina and Rita caused devastation and despair for millions of Americans, including gay Americans. There simply is no way to make a joke out of this kind of disaster.

Either you need a new speechwriter, or your sense of humor is really off the mark. Your state is home to almost 9,000 same-sex families, according to 2000 U.S. Census data. These constituents also faced devastating losses caused by the hurricanes, and I doubt they found any humor in your jokes.

More than 1,100 rights, responsibilities and protections are denied to same-sex couples without the right to marry. That means the same-sex couples who lost loved ones in the hurricanes will be unable to receive Social Security benefits as other spouses will. They won't get tax-free access to their spouses' pensions. For families already facing hardships from the hurricanes, they have these obstacles and more to confront. The last thing they need is their elected officials mocking their misfortune.

At the very least, the people of Louisiana are due an apology.

Sincerely,
Joe Solmonese
Human Rights Campaign President

Thanks Joe, it's the truth.

Posted by Bryan Harding

According to Multiple Studies, Children Reared in by Same-Sex Couples Do Just as Well as Other Children.

An analysis of multiple studies of 500 households shows that rearing children in a same-sex household does not affect the their self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional health, a Boston researcher reported.

"Pediatricians need to recognize that there are variations in families and learn what kind of advice to give them to optimize the child's development," said Ellen Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.

The researcher and colleagues looked at data from 15 studies evaluating possible stigma, teasing, social isolation, adjustment, sexual orientation, and strengths. The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition.

"The vast consensus of the studies is that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," Dr. Perrin said. "In some ways, children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

It has been estimated that one to six million children are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples in this country. Some children were born to a heterosexual couple and later raised by a same-sex couple; others were placed in foster homes, were adopted, or conceived through a surrogate mother through artificial insemination.

Previous studies of same-sex parenting have been criticized for being biased, but Dr. Perrin said the research team was extremely careful to select only solid, evidence-based research for review.

Based on nine studies from 1981 to 1994 of 260 children, aged three to 11 years, reared by either heterosexual mothers or same sex-mothers after divorce, the researchers found there was no difference in intelligence of the children, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, or parental stress. "The children all had a similar emotional experiences with divorce," she said.

What they did find was that after divorce children being reared by lesbian mothers had more contact with fathers than children reared by divorced heterosexual mothers, Dr. Perrin said. "There are interesting suggestions that these children are more tolerant of differences."

A separate longitudinal study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and an equal number of children with divorced heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships.

"What is exciting about this study was that they followed the children 11 years later when they became adults," Dr. Perrin said. "But they still found no difference in adjustment, self-esteem, psychiatric or psychological problems, family relationships, or in identifying sexual orientation."

Four other large studies of more than 100 couples that evaluated children either born or adopted into families found that same-sex parents were more likely to have contact with extended family for social support as well as a more equal division of labor in the home. However, children of same-sex parents did experience some stigmatization.

"The researchers found no differences in the parents other than that lesbian couples share household and child care tasks more equitably," said Dr. Perrin. "The children of lesbian couples also appeared to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more androgynous," playing with toys for both boys and girls.

A further analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health used randomly selected representative data from 44 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. The study compared children living with two women in a "marriage-like" relationship to teenagers living with two heterosexual parents.

The study showed that the adolescents were similar in intrapersonal adjustments such as self-esteem, depression, and anxiety. They also were similar in school success, family relationships, and neighborhood integration, Dr. Perrin said.

"What is striking is that there are very consistent findings in these studies," she concluded. "But further study conducted in a long-term systematic manner in community samples needs to be conducted."

Dr. Perrin pointed out that "as pediatricians we have a lot of different kinds of roles. We need to be extremely careful about confidentiality with these families and assure them that their family constellation won't be broadcast. This will give us a better chance of learning more about the family and providing needed advice and discussing some of the issues."

"This is valuable information," Carol Berkowitz, MD, told Medscape. She is the immediate past president of the AAP and professor and executive vice chair in the Department of Pediatrics at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, California. "This subject evokes a lot of emotions that have influenced some studies. Some studies in the past were weighted based on nothing more than their own views."

The value of this presentation is these are all evidence-based studies, Dr. Berkowitz said, adding this information will help pediatricians in their practices and for setting policy.

via WebMD

A GayRightsWatch.com exclusive. We've uncovered huge news regarding Oregon's own so-called 'Defense of Marriage' Coalition. For an organization which claims it has no plans to push it's anti-gay agenda, the DOMC has raised a staggering amount of money according to campaign finance reports made public this week.

From December 2004 to present the 'Defense of Marriage' Coalition PAC has raised just under a half a million dollars. Unprecedented amount for an off cycle. If this isn't a sign of what's to come, I don't know what is.

The exact figure is $443,674.18. Does this seem like the mark of an organization that will be staying quiet during the 2006 cycle?

I think not.

As a community [GLBT] that digs deep during anti-gay ballot measures, then generally scales back during non-campaign seasons, we've got to change something--and change it quick.

We all remember the nauseating Measure 36. How could we possibly forget that? It was hands down the most hateful ballot measure in Oregon's history. So what's next on the anti-gay agenda? Are they going to rail against civil unions or domestic partnerships at the ballot box? Are they going to ban all adoption for gays and lesbians? How far will we let them go with their over-the-top extremist and hateful agenda?

In order for the GLBT community to keep even more attacks on GLBT Oregonians at bay, we need to not only match our opponents--we need to exceed them.

Think about this. Prior to the Measure 36 campaign in 2004, the most that anti-gay groups has spent in any one cycle was just over--HEAR THIS--$100k. Measure 36 cost about $3 million for both sides.

To win those campaigns, our community had to pony up $2.5 million. That was for No on 9 in 2000. If the ratio we've seen over history continues, the amount of money our side would need to raise would be close to $30 MILLION required to beat our opposition. This is JUST to maintain the status quo. This does not include what is required to move forward proactively and create positive change. Scared yet?

So if history holds true, we've entered a new era of fighting back attacks on GLBT Oregonians. This would be a new era that would require us to start thinking about the resources we need years in advance. We need to be planning for 2006, 2008 right now. Planning with our wallets--and preparing our minds for the certain battles ahead.

Ladies and gentlemen, prepare yourself... will we see yet another anti-gay ballot measure campaign in 2006? It's entirely possible. As we've seen our opposition will stop at nothing to pursue an agenda of hate and oppression. The filing deadline for a ballot measure is July 7, 2006. It could come at anytime between now and then.

What now? Imagine if every single GLBT person living in the state, contributed say $25 a piece? Just imagine the massive amounts of money we would have to fight these attacks. The problem is that too many people simply assume that someone else will take care of it. Well wake up. It's not the case. You cannot simply sit back and assume that. Each and every one of us needs to get involved--be it with our time or with our money. I encourage you to visit Basic Rights Oregon and donate--even if it's $20, $30, $50. Everything will help defend our rights and help to create a state of equality.

Written by Bryan Harding

There is a battle afoot at Willamette University in Salem, just right across the street from the Capitol where the battle over SB 1000 was fought just a few months ago. The fight for civil unions and anti-discrimination legislation was personal for thousands of gay Oregon families, but rarely was the political fight ever personal. Now the dirty tricks, gay bashing and now art-bashing have literally crossed the street and have descended upon the ivory towers. Willamette has attempted to pursue a path of diversity and cultural understanding over the past 6 years under President M Lee Pelton; sadly public perception may now set them back a few years.

John Swanson, the Oregon President of College Republicans and a student at Willamette U., writes a regular column for the student-run newspaper, The Collegian. He is well known for his neo-con views and he regularly writes opinion pieces that border on sexist, racist, and bigoted. Recently, Mr. Swanson crossed the line in his recent column on the lack of school spirit by saying that where he comes from (Jacksonville, Oregon), the only people who don't like sports events and tailgating parties are "limp-wrists". Never mind that his disparaging comments undoubtedly dampened school spirit.

Oh, but it gets better. Swanson continues his illogical rant on school spirit by criticizing the University's support (or complicity) for a show of "offensive, perverse art". The four-piece exhibit features depictions of homosexual couples in embrace (non-sexual) juxtaposed to the text of four anti-gay pieces of legislation (DOMA, Oregon's Measure 36, California's Prop 22, etc.) with connoting Christian religious references. Apparently, Mr. Swanson's education hasn't included art history, civil rights (though he claims to be a political science major) or metaphors, irony, or... juxtaposition for that matter.

In the following issue of the school paper, numerous students, professors, and parents spoke out here, here, here and here against the bigoted opinion piece (for which he was undoubtedly paid and which was removed from the website). The paper apologized for printing it. There has been no retraction or apology from Mr. Swanson. So much for "compassionate conservatism," or a liberal arts education, or intellect.

But that's not all. This week Lars Larson brought the story to air on his radio program (prompted by a call from Mr. Swanson). Lars tried to attack the people in the art itself. Now it's personal and even more sleazy than before. Larson includes a sample of the exhibit on his website with a tagline "Christians everywhere should be offended..." Conservative bloggers have since picked up the gossip.

Perhaps a little more explanation of the exhibit would have been nice to all of those listeners who wanted to be informed about the story, rather than just a blind instruction to Christians.

Would it have been so "offensive and perverse" if the art had been black & white photography? Lithography? Pastels? Pencil? Would it have been "offensive and perverse" if the pieces had not included religious references? Perhaps someone may have wanted to think about the significance and meaning of the art before blasting a cap.

Is art offensive when it makes you think about the current conflict between loving, committed homosexual couples, modern anti-gay legislation, and Christianity? Is thinking offensive? Should society censor art that it finds "offensive"? Should a liberal arts institution be afraid of encouraging intellect, thought, questioning, and diversity? Apparently Lars, Swanson and Oregon College Republicans think so.

Overall, it seems that the neo-con community is attempting to employ the tactics of smear and slander to divert attention away from a potential devil in their midst, Lou Beres. Think about the hypocrisy and irony: art that juxtaposes religion, homosexuality, and the law in an academic environment versus a news story that has the leader of the Oregon Christian Coalition facing charges of sexual misconduct from several of his pre-teen family members. Now really, which is perverse and offensive? The hypocrite and those who have hijacked Christianity, that's what I thought.

Swanson calls Republicans the "party of morality"; if the morality to which he refers to is ignorance, lack of intellect, gay bashing, and sexual misconduct, then the leader of Oregon College Republican Party has a good following and a solid foundation to stand on.

Mr. Swanson, there is an enlightening study that you should read...

The artist that created this 'Icon' series is named Sean Gyshen Fennell. Great job Sean. I've seen one of these in person and it is amazing work. Sean went on the Lars Larson show yesterday to explain his work. Full transcript available here.

By LeAnn Locher

I'm so tired of that phrase and its complete lack of authenticity. "It's for the children that we don't believe you should be able to marry." "It's for the children: they need a mother and a father to be raised properly." I'll pipe up here and say, "It's for the children that all of you bible waving extremists need to stop harming them and start really protecting them.."

This weekend news emerged that Oregon's state chairman of the Christian Coalition, Louis Beres, is under investigation for molesting three female family members when they were children.

From today's Oregonian:

Law enforcement officials said Saturday they are investigating complaints that Louis Beres, longtime chairman of the Christian Coalition of Oregon, molested three female family members when they were pre-teens.

"There is an investigation of allegations that have been made," Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk said Saturday.

Beres family members told The Oregonian that they called the child abuse hot line last month after several women in the family said they openly discussed for the first time what happened with Beres.

Another family member said she does not recall being abused by Beres, but said she would often wake at night and see him in bed with another young female family member.

So let's get this right. In 2000, Lou Beres, the executive director of the Oregon chapter of the Christian Coalition, was working hard to advocate for the OCA's ballot initiative that would prohibit any discussion in the state's schools that "encourages, promotes, or sanctions" homosexuality. He said "I'm going to get it over the top... The Christian Coalition is fighting to protect our kids from the homosexual agenda."

Well good for you Beres. Protect them from the homosexual agenda so you can allegedly go after the preteen girls in your own family.

Beres is only one of many that scream of protecting our children yet act hypocritically. When it comes down to it, what does the GLBTQ community want that's such a threat? To have a family and to enjoy committed protected relationships? Many want to be loving parents, and many already are. But there's an unfounded fear that exists that gays are dangerous to children and we must be stopped. Legislation abounds representing this notion.

Take for example this last week when Indiana was home to an appalling proposed legislation regulating assisted pregnancy and requiring determinations about the proposed candidates.

From Nuvo.net

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation and egg donation must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor." The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction."

From 365gay

Among the determining factors is a requirement that the women be married to a person of the opposite sex. The assessment would contain a description of the family lifestyle and automatically exclude lesbians. Women would also have to provide proof that they have participated in faith-based or church activities.

The bill was proposed by Senator Patricia Miller. And yes, you read the above right. Patricia wants proof that you go to church if you want to have a baby, and you have to be married to a man.

Later in the week the proposed legislation was removed from consideration, but the fact that it was even put out there and considered by many to be logical is disturbing.

Oregon saw adoption rights for same-sex couples attacked by State Representative John Lim's proposed House Bill 2401. It called for the state to exercise a preference for heterosexual, married parents over unmarried same-sex or opposite-sex parents in placing children in adoptive homes.

So back to the allegations against the head of Oregon's Christian Coalition. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy when those who scream the loudest of "protecting our children" turn out to be a child's worst nightmare themselves??

This is just way too good to pass up. Lou Beres, longtime chairman of the Christian Coalition of Oregon also former chairman of the Multnomah County Republican Party, is facing some incredibly serious and disgusting allegations. Truly horrifying... Lou Beres is currently being investigated for molesting three female family members when they were pre-teens.

If true (I have no doubt it is, but for legal reasons I will say that) I have some words...

Fucking hypocrite. What happened to practicing what you preach, you sick fuck? I am outraged. Totally and completely outraged. How can you sit there preaching about morality, working hard to set back civil rights decades... You are a disgusting pervert Lou.

The GOP, known by themsleves as the party of morals, has proven time and time again that they are anything but. This--just the latest.

Beres of course denies the charges made by the three women... his family members. I have to say I'm pretty damn confident that these are true charges. Fight them Lou, you obviously will--you know the truth though and I hope it eats at you every single second of the day. You've destroyed lives.

"There is an investigation of allegations that have been made," Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk said Saturday. The Oregonian talked to three of Beres' female relatives, including two who told reporters that he molested them. All three said they have been interviewed for several hours by detectives.

"I was molested," said one of the women, now in her early 50s. "I was victimized, and I've suffered all my life for it. I'm still afraid to be in the same room with (Beres)."

My heart goes out to the women victimized by this vile man.

Written by Bryan Harding

Probe Launched Into Mass. Gay Marriage Petition Fraud Allegations.

Massachusetts legislators will hold a special hearing on accusations supporters of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions are using bait-and-switch tactics to collect signatures.

'Vote On Marriage' - an umbrella group made up of the Catholic Church and evangelical groups (don't they have other things to do with their life?) - needs 65,825 signatures by Thanksgiving for the measure to be considered.

The names then would need to be verified by the Secretary of State. The proposed amendment would then go to the legislature where it requires the support of 50 members. The earliest it could go to voters would be in 2008 (when public opinion will have grown so much more in support of same-sex marriage, it will not pass).

But, since the group began collecting names there have been a growing number of people who complain of illegal practices being used to get signatures.

A number of people have complained to authorities while others have contacted newspapers throughout the state. A spokesperson for Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, said Reilly's office has received about a dozen complaints. A special investigator has been assigned to follow up on the complaints.

They all appear similar the Boston Globe reports--shoppers at plazas and beer stores say that after signing a separate petition to allow beer and wine sales in grocery stores, they were asked to sign a second petition with little or no explanation. That second petition was the gay-marriage measure.

Vote On Marriage hired a private company, Arno Political Consultants--a firm with ties to Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger--to collect the signatures.

A spokesperson for Vote On Marriage said it was confident that there is no widespread fraud on the collection of names... so why the investigation?

Arno Political Consultants, of Sacramento was used by Schwarzenegger most recently to help sell his legislative reform package which goes to voters in a special election this November.

The company has been involved in a number of conservative ballot measures nationwide including the anti-gay marriage amendment in Ohio. That measure passed by a wide margin last year. It has also worked for the Republican National Committee to register GOP voters in Florida.

At the State House, the Joint Committee on Election Laws will hold a special hearing on Oct. 18 to examine the complaints of fraud.

Opponents of the ballot measure say that if the complaints are substantiated it could be grounds for challenging the proposed amendment in court. Remember people, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ALREADY cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling back in February 2005, that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. Chances are that this measure could be overturned even if it were to pass.

Why is it that a simple majority of the public can vote to ban the civil rights of the minority? If we'd rely on the Constitution to grant us the rights and protections, rather than a simple 51% of the public, we'd be much better off. What happened to liberty and justice experienced by all people? That is what we were founded on after all.

Posted by Bryan Harding

portions via 365gay.com

According to the AP there is a small movement within the Queer Community to "out" right-wing politicians that are allegedly closeted gays. These are people that have either publicly come out against gay rights or work closely within the current administration.

Here is part of the report:

"Though decried by many gay-rights leaders, "outing"--the practice of exposing secretly gay public figures--is expanding into new terrain as Internet bloggers target congressional staffers, political strategists, even black clergy whose sermons and speeches contain anti-gay rhetoric.

Few issues are as divisive within the gay community. Numerous gay organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans, staunchly oppose outing, yet many other activists support it when the targets are public figures--or their aides--who work against gay rights or condemn homosexuality.

"It's not the gay thing that's the problem--it's the hypocrisy," said Michael Rogers, creator of a Web log that has been at the forefront of several recent outing campaigns. "I'm going to be calling out the politicians who vote against us and work against the interests of the very community they come from."

I have to say that I understand where Michael is coming from and I have also checked out his blog and some of the posts seem valid although on the whole it is a little "rant-ish". But I still understand his point. People who use the detriment of their own community to advance their own power agendas really have no place in the community. But do we as activists need to tear them a new one "for being gay"?

I am not so sure about this. First, because while some instances have been more or less confirmed there are quite a few more that are clearly speculation. And when you are using only speculation to me that equates to nothing more than personal attacks and smearing. These kind of tactics make us no better than our opposition. Secondly, I know what it feels like to be "outed". It's not fun. And whether we like them or not, shouldn't we still be willing to consider these people our brothers and sister's anyways and treat them as we did our other friends and loved ones. (Think back to how you treated your closeted friends in college). Yes these people are working against us but again, isn't it our duty to 'take the high road' to separate ourselves from the heartless that stand against us?

Not sure if you can tell or not but for the most part I am not in favor of the "outing" campaign.

Still, part of me is very torn. Discuss.

Written by Marshall O'Coileain

In the wake of the Oregonian's "The last thing the gay rights movement needs in Oregon is another ugly battle over banning marriage" editorial last week, Byron Beck of the WW fires back with fierce, yet very personal retort. The O's editorial was nothing less than ridiculous and it needed a voice like Byron's to fire back at it.

Byron and his parter Juan are the lead plaintiffs in the Martinez v. Kulongoski (State of Oregon) case that challenges Measure 36. I encourage you all to read the O's editorial first, found here; then see Byron's response. Below is an excerpt of Byron's column.

The Oregonian pisses me off.

My partner, Juan, and I are the lead plaintiffs among other same-sex couples in Martinez v. Kulongoski. That's the legal challenge against the constitutional amendment Oregon voters passed last year stating, "Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or legally recognized as marriage" in the state.

The O's editorial board said we have no business in Salem fighting for the right to get married because we're using "technicalities'' to overturn the will of the voters.

Thanks for the advice, Big O, but as somebody who was inside the courtroom last week, and who is living this battle every day, you'll forgive me if I call bullshit on your argument.

Read Byron's entire column here.

Byron shouldn't be the only one the Oregonian hears from. Folks should write a letter to the editor and tell them they got it wrong: the case is not about technicalities, but fundamental questions about equality and they went astray when they argued that gay Oregonians should accept defeat and go to the ballot instead of fighting for full equality.

Byron, you rock. Thank you for this.

Post by Bryan Harding

Interested in writing a guest column to be featured on Gay Rights Watch? We're looking for a few good men and women who have a passion for the issues.

Here's what you do: Just submit your work to the email address below, and we'll take a look and get back to you quickly. Obviously, we won't publish everything we receive - though we'll let you know if we're going to pass on it. Just submit your work to the email address below, and we'll take a look and get back to you quickly.

Topics: Up to you. Keep it within the U.S. though, and we love work especially about Oregon, as well as other states in the middle of the fight for full equality. Rants are ok--but be insightful. Be yourself and write!

Send to: Submit Column

Posted by The Boys of Gay Rights Watch

Ok, so I 'love me some' SIRIUS Satellite Radio. Especially SIRIUS OutQ, the gay and lesbian station. John McMullen, of The John McMullen Show will be here in Portland--this week! He will be broadcasting live as he swings through our great city on his 38 state tour.

The John McMullen Show 2005 Subaru Tour of America will features an in-depth look at the people, organizations and all there is to be proud of as a GLBT community in Portland. The guests will be amazing. make sure to stop by Haven Coffee to check it out this Thursday and Friday nights from 7-10pm.

Posted by Bryan Harding

Steve Westly comes down on Gov. Schwartzengger for his incredibly poor decision to veto the Civil Marriage and Religious Freedom Protection Act.

California State Controller and 2006 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly made the following comments upon learning of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of Assembly Member Mark Leno's AB 849, legislation that would have created marriage equality in our state:

"I'm deeply disappointed that Governor Schwarzenegger has once again kowtowed to his right-wing base and vetoed this landmark legislation that would have created true marriage equality in our state.

"With today's action, this Governor has cemented his place in history as an obstacle in the great civil rights battle of the day."

Wesley (D) is running for governor of California against Schwarzenegger, learn more about Steve Westly: http://www.Westly2006.com

As reported last week, State Treasurer Phil Angelides also came out strong against Schwarenegger: Arnold on the wrong side of history; It will not be forgotten.

Angelides is also running for the gubernatorial seat against Schwarzenegger. His campaign site can be found at: http://www.angelides.com/

Posted by Bryan Harding