Officials in the Poway school district near San Diego did not violate the First Amendment rights of a student they punished for wearing a homophobic T-shirt to class, a federal judge ruled.

Tyler Chase Harper sued the school district in 2004, arguing that his rights were violated when he was removed from class for wearing the anti-gay shirt on the Day of Silence, which is intended to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians. The shirt read "I Will Not Accept What God Has Condemned" on one side and "Homosexuality Is Shameful, Romans 1:27" on the other side.

The next day, he wore the same shirt, but it had been altered to read "Be Ashamed [of What] Our School Has Embraced." School administrators asked him to remove his shirt on the second day because they said it violated their dress code, which bans promotion of "violent or hateful behavior."

Harper refused, and he was removed from class and assigned to the front office to complete his day's remaining schoolwork.

"The main point of the case is free speech, and students have their right to be heard on campus," Kevin Theriot, one of Harper's attorneys, told The Advocate in May. "Just because other students don't agree, doesn't mean that he can't voice [his opinions]."

The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which eventually nullified it because at that point Harper had already graduated from high school. His sister Kelsie then took his place in the case, where it is now. When her brother first went to the federal court, he won.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Houston overturned the court's earlier decision. Houston decided not to issue an injunction to stop the district from enforcing the policy in 2006. A year later, he threw out the case against the district.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Houston's decision not to issue an injunction, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Houston wrote Tuesday that Poway school district's "interest in protecting homosexual students from harassment is a legitimate pedagogical concern that allows a school to restrict speech expressing damaging statements about sexual orientation and limiting students to expressing their views in a positive manner."

Free-speech advocates and the Harpers' legal team are distraught over the decision, which states that school districts are within their rights to protect students by limiting freedom of expression.

David Blair-Loy, the legal director for San Diego and Imperial County American Civil Liberties Union, told the newspaper that the ruling is troubling. The organization filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the student's behalf, siding with religious groups they normally argue against.

"And let's face it: What about high school is not psychologically damaging?" Blair-Loy said in the article. "This student wore a T-shirt that expressed an idea. It's an idea we don't agree with at the ACLU, but that is the essence of free speech. It's not just for ideas you like."

Via Planetout

Labels: anti gay, california, federal court, lawsuit

I could not be more proud of my former coworker Jeana Frazzini (see video below) who has just in the last month filled the shoes of BRO's Executive Director. Hats off to her for an amazing job well done as well as to the staff at Basic Rights Oregon. And congrats to all our Oregonians! Fairness, justice and equality have had a bumpy ride - but Domestic Partnerships are the law!

The case, though won, will be appealed by the anti-gay, out-of-state groups. Be confident though as this ruling was incredibly strong - stating that the plaintiffs arguments had no constitutional basis.

Join Basic Rights Oregon in Portland Monday evening at Holocene for a major celebration at 6-11pm. Holocene is at 1001 SE Morrison, just up the road from the Multnomah County Building.

Labels: basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, lawsuit, lemons v bradbury, video

In an unexpected ruling from the bench today at about 4:20pm, Judge Mosman through out the case by out-of-state, anti-gay forces, allowing Oregon's Domestic Partnership law to go into effect immediately.

The ruling prompted applause and cheering in front of the courthouse and was greeted by honking cars passing by on SW 3rd Ave downtown.

Here are the details of what happened in the courtroom (via Just Out):

Only two witnesses, handwriting experts, were called today to be cross examined (all witnesses submitted their testimony by deposition). Heather Carlson, a forensics expert who trains clerks in the elections office, made a very weak case for the standard by which clerks use in determining the genuineness of signatures. Mosman later chastised the Secretary of State on that count.
Throughout the hearing, the plaintiffs, the Alliance Defense Fund, attempted to argue that signers of petition 303, which attempted to refer Oregon's domestic partnership law to voters, were constitutionally entitled to have their signatures counted, just as participants are in the vote-by-mail process.

The Secretary of State's attorney and Basic Rights Oregon's attorney argued that these signatures were not at all protected by the strict scrutiny of voters on ballots and that the petition process is actually at the whim of the petition controller, who is by no means a state official.

Although Mosman's ruling from the bench was swift, it was thorough. He engaged with attorneys throughout their closing arguments, asking both sides tough questions and citing a range of precedent that only the attorneys were following.
Mosman's ruling, which he said would be available this evening by clicking here, basically stated that the state never promised petition signers that their "votes" would be counted, therefore, they were not entitled to due process (he acknowledged this was a cruel thing to say) such as having their signatures rehabilitated.

Mosman agreed that calling every "disenfranchised" signer, which statistically represented 20 other signers, would place an unrealistic burden on the Secretary of State's office, which has 30 days to verify the signatures. He further said it was impractical to let one person speak for 20.

Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin Nimocks told the media after the hearing that this was a sad day for Oregonians who sign petitions with the belief that our voices will be heard. He confirmed everyone's guess that an appeal will be filed. He would not extrapolate.

Marylin Shannon, a spokeswoman for the ad hoc committee of petition gatherers, also confirmed that she was ready to call on her resources for a reversal of this ruling.

Jeana Frazzini spoke for Basic Rights Oregon, saying that although she was surprised that Mosman ruled today, the outcome was expected. "I expected to win on the merits of this case," she said.

In any case, same-sex couples here in Oregon now have Domestic Partnerships. Though it is the law right this second, county buildings will not be open until 9am on Monday morning.

We'll be down at the county building snapping some photos at the Multnomah County building here in Portland and we will bring you those photos of this amazing, long awaited day.

What a long, long journey this has been.

IMPORTANT DETAILS IF YOU ARE PLANNING ON GETTING DOMESTIC PARTNERED:
Oregon has already made the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form available (they sure wasted no time getting this up!). you can download them here: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/chs/order/dp.shtml. IMPORTANT: This MUST be printed on legal size paper for them to accept it.

For additional details - please visit Basic Rights Oregon's Domestic Partnership Resource Guide located here.

Labels: domestic partnership, lawsuit, lemons v bradbury, oregon

The judge ruled against the anti-gay. out-of-state bigots on ALL COUNTS.

Come 9AM on Monday morning same-sex couples can get a Domestic Partnership.

More to come.

Labels: domestic partnership, lawsuit, lemons v bradbury, oregon

I just published a very matter of fact post on today's court hearing, but what doesn't come through is my incredible anger, disgust and contempt (and as most of you know, I typically don't have a problem holding back my feelings on this blog).

I'm outraged that these out-of-state, anti-gay extremist groups who have infiltrated the courts are parading around as "trying to fix the process". It's a lie. It's a joke. It's bullshit.

Up until the point that they filed suit, all they spouted was anti-gay filth. Absolute filth. The Portland based attorney brought in on the anti-gay side by the out-of-state group was there at the legislative hearings on the bill. He testified against the bills - and not only in 2007, but in 2005. He has a long track record.

These forces are masquerading themselves as saints attempting to alter the Oregon initiative process - when in reality it has little to do with the process itself, but the end result. The end result being to advance their extremist, out-of-state, anti-gay agenda here in Oregon.

They are blind to the facts of the issue. Blind to the fact that these INCREDIBLY basic rights and responsibilities that come with Oregon's Domestic Partnerships do nothing more, though more importantly nothing less than grant committed same-sex couples and their families safety and security. The basic right to take care of one another in times of crisis.

So hey, fuck you, fuck your falsehoods, fuck your lies and fuck your "god". For my God is one of love and compassion, not one of hatred and bigotry. Leave us alone and get the hell out of Oregon - this is not your state to screw over and you have NO right to attack my family and steal what is not yours for the taking. You have tainted my state and for that the people of Oregon will not forget you. You are a stain in our history books.

Be it in Lemons v. Bradbury - or in November when Oregonians decide, fairness, justice and equality will prevail. Lets not forget a major ruling back in Parman v Oregon earlier this year. Judge Eric Bloch ruled that if Oregon's Domestic Partnership law did not go into effect, it would cause a "constitutional crisis".

So no matter what - Domestic Partnerships will happen, it is just a matter of when and these anti-gay groups need to realize that they are fighting the inevitable.

Whew. Glad I got that out.

Labels: anti-gay, domestic partnership, federal court, lawsuit, oregon

Starting at 10am this morning, a federal court has been hearing from both sides of the Lemons v. Bradbury issue.

They'll here from a myriad of people including the Secretary of State's office, handwriting experts, anti-gay attorney's from the Alliance Defense Fund and of course Basic Rights Oregon and their counsel.

While the fate of Oregon's Domestic Partnership law may or may not be decided today - at least we have made it to this day. Judge Mosman, who is hearing the case, made it clear at the first hearing in late December that he saw the harm that a delay in this law would cause, therefore he wanted to keep the timeline as short as possible.

So today we could see two outcomes. He could rule from the bench based on the close to 5 hours of testimony - or he could make a ruling in about a week to two weeks.

We should know in just a few hours. Stay tuned.

Labels: domestic partnership, federal court, HB 2007, lawsuit, oregon

Early estimations say that there could be upwards of 1500 people filling Terry Shrunk Plaza at 5:30 tonight - all rallying for equality. As most of you know Friday is the federal court hearing on Oregon's Domestic Partnership law. We probably won't know the fate of the law on Friday as the judge is expected to take some time to make his ruling. Possibly a few weeks.

Not caught up on everything that has happened? Here is some of our recent coverage:
DELAYED: Oregon Domestic Partnership Law
Squashed: The Hope and Dreams of Oregon Families
Oregon Domestic Partnership Law Delay: What's Next?
Photo Journal: Portland's Candlelight Vigil
Judge Mosman Grants BRO's Motion to Intervene in Lemons v Bradbury


Stand Up and Be Counted TONIGHT. For more info on TONIGHT'S rally - click here.

Also - check out Jeana Frazini's (Exec. Dir. of Basic Rights Oregon) guest piece on Blue Oregon.

Labels: basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, federal court, lawsuit, oregon

Well known Portland Attorney Beth Allen who has played large roles in the Li v. Oregon and Martinez v. Oregon cases has penned a no hold barred op-ed in the Oregonian today blasting anti-gay forces who have infiltrated Oregon. These forces are masquerading themselves as saints attempting to alter the Oregon initiative process - when in reality it has little to do with the process itself, but the end result. The end result being to advance their extremist, out-of-state, anti-gay agenda here in Oregon.

Allen asks the question, "At what cost do we unravel our process?".

And here is her op-ed:

The Legislature last year passed a bill that would finally grant Oregon's gay couples state rights and responsibilities similar to those of married couples. The governor signed the bill in May, to go into effect on Jan. 1.

Some Oregonians, angered by the Legislature's vote, attempted to refer the issue to the ballot. They gathered petition signatures, but their usual constituency had apparently grown tired of the divisive issue, and the ballot measure's proponents turned in for review less than 62,000 signatures. They needed 55,179 valid signatures.

The process used to determine the validity of the signatures was the same process that has been used for years. The secretary of state's office employs a statistically appropriate sampling method to determine whether enough signatures are likely to meet the threshold number of valid signatures. This allows the state to avoid the burden of verifying every single signature, which would be prohibitively costly.

While reviewing the signatures submitted for the referral, people for and against the ballot measure peered over the shoulders of the signature verifiers, often offering comment. But unless there was a good reason to doubt the veracity of any signature, it was counted. By Oct. 8, the ballot measure proponents knew that the number of signatures they submitted was insufficient.

All of this should have come as no surprise. Oregonians (and, yes, too often out-of-staters) have been engaging in this process for decades. It's well-known that some signatures gathered in the petition process on Oregon's streets will be invalid, so it's advisable for advocates to submit significantly more than the threshold amount to ensure success. In this case, they didn't. And most people in Oregon breathed a sigh of relief -- one less discriminatory ballot measure to divide the state.

The days, weeks and months ticked by. And then, just as the law was about to go into effect, enter Joseph Infranco, an out-of-state lawyer with something called the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative anti-gay group. He ran to federal court to cry foul on the state. And now, we all must wait for the law to go into effect while he attempts to argue why our state should review signatures the way he wants them reviewed.

To Joseph Infranco, I say this: This is not a football game, as portrayed in the analogy of your commentary in The Oregonian ("Hijacking Oregon's democratic process," Jan. 16), and no one was cheated of the opportunity to participate in democracy.

What you clearly don't understand is the damage that you are doing to the democratic process. If you and your anti-gay allies are successful, the victory will be Pyrrhic. It will become more difficult and much more expensive to get any measure on Oregon's ballot. If unsuccessful (my expectation), you will have wasted Oregonians' tax dollars, which are being used to defend our state's process, and hurt real Oregon families who could have benefited from the law while it was held up in court.

Oregonians will rue the day you rode into town. When you're done, you'll ride away, probably to muck about in some other state's political processes, looking for ways to oppress the civil rights of people you find distasteful.

Oregonians, on the other hand, will be left to wonder: Are we so afraid of gay people committing to one another that we're willing to allow outsiders to unravel our initiative process and continue to divide our state?

Only time will tell.

Labels: domestic partnership, lawsuit, oregon, referendum

We just received word that counsel representing Basic Rights Oregon has been granted their motion to intervene in Lemons v. Bradbury. The motion was filed Wednesday and although the judge had two weeks to make a decision, it only took him one day to approve it.

Folks this is some fantastic news. This will give Basic Rights Oregon the proper standing in the case, enabling them to ensure that the voices of hundreds of families and committed couples are heard before the court.

The interveners in the case include:

Basic Rights Oregon

Jeana Frazzini, plaintiff in Parman v. State of Oregon et al, in addition to being the new Executive Director of Basic Rights Oregon

Erin Sexton Taylor, a woman who is in a committed partnership and is expecting her first child in May

Sally Sparks, also in a committed long-term relationship and is expecting second child in February

More to come.

RELATED POSTS:
BREAKING: Basic Rights Oregon Files Motion to Intervene

Labels: basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, lawsuit, lemons v bradbury, oregon, portland

While today would have marked the day that committed same-sex couples in Oregon could enter into Domestic Partnerships, we instead gathered with nearly 500 others to join side-by-side in candlelight in dedication to upholding the law. While no one can forget the nearly 35 year struggle for a statewide anti-discrimination law, we also cannot forget that last Friday the 28th, a federal judge put Oregon's Domestic Partnership law on hold for at least a month - pending another hearing on February 1.

I wanted to share some photos of this evening's ceremony which was on of seven across the state. Other cities south of Portland brought about 300 people. Photos below the recent story links.

Here are some photo highlights. Sorry about the lack of quality on some of them.

RELATED POSTS (old to new):

Squashed: The Hope and Dreams of Oregon Families

Judge Who Made Yesterday's Anti-Gay Ruling Has Shady Past?

Oregon Domestic Partnership Law Delay: What's Next?

One Oregon, One Hope: A Community in Mourning

BREAKING: Basic Rights Oregon Files Motion to Intervene



Nearly 500 people attended the vigil at the Q Center in Portland. Cops closed the street out front as it was so full inside, they began to fill the streets.


Basic Rights Oregon's former Executive Director Roey Thorpe.

Labels: domestic partnership, lawsuit, oregon, portland

This JUST in. Basic Rights Oregon, in cooperation with their counsel, has filed a motion to intervene in Lemons v. Bradbury. If granted by Judge Mosman, this would give Basic Rights Oregon standing in the case, allow BRO to work with the state to defend the law and ensure that the interests of Oregon families are represented fairly before the court.

Details are still coming in, but here is what we know so far aside from the above.

The interveners in the case would include:

Basic Rights Oregon

Jeana Frazzini, plaintiff in Parman v. State of Oregon et al, in addition to being the new Executive Director of Basic Rights Oregon

Erin Sexton Taylor, a woman who is in a committed partnership and is expecting her first child in May

Sally Sparks, also in a committed long-term relationship and is expecting second child in February

Judge Mosman has two weeks to make the decision as to whether or not he will allow this motion. Opponents will have a chance to way in on the motion to intervene.

More details to come as well as an interview with one of the expecting mothers.

Labels: basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, lawsuit, oregon

Following Friday's ruling from a Multnomah County Federal Court delaying Oregon's Domestic Partnership law from going into effect on January 1st (story here), there are a myriad of emotions swirling around each and every one of our heads.

The sorrow, the anger, the crushing of a thousand dreams, the basic aspiration that one day very soon each and every Oregon family would be granted their basic human right to take care of one another in times of crisis.

Right now we feel defeated. Right now we feel trampled on. For far too long we have fought tooth and nail to just get to this day. And now with the banging of a gavel, we again are forced to wait in a state of what seems like perpetual limbo. Many of us want to take to the streets demanding that our voices be heard and be heard loud... but that won't get our families anywhere. Right now we must remain focused on those actions that can truly make a positive difference. Actions that will show the strength and unity of our community and allies.

The magnitude of what we as Oregonians have accomplished to get to this day cannot and will not go unnoticed. For many of us it is far too easy to become discouraged. My fellow Oregonians, we have been here before and what did we do? We dusted ourselves off and got right back up.

As a voice in this community I urge all of us to give everything we've got to give. We are so close to putting an end to inequality for gay and lesbian couples. If we give up right now - we could lose it all.

I call upon all of you. Gay, straight, fellow Oregonians and fellow non-Oregonians. We can create lasting change in Oregon by taking the opportunity to close the book on this chapter of history.

Please join my partner and me in making a donation to the one organization in Oregon that has the power, the means and knowhow to seal the deal on equality. Click here to make a donation to Basic Rights Oregon. They have set up a legal defense fund specifically for this case and your gift is 100% tax- deductible.

Again, whether you are straight or gay has no bearing. We're all in this together, one Oregon, one hope and one shared vision of basic equality. Please make a contribution to the Basic Rights Oregon legal fund now. Be it $25 or $500, each and every dollar helps. Or, make a $60 contribution - the exact amount that it would have (and will someday soon!) cost to register for a Domestic Partnership.

And for those of us craving an opportunity to demonstrate our strength as a community, meet up at Q Center (69 SE Taylor at Water Avenue) for a candlelight vigil organized by BRO on Wed., January 2nd from 5:30 to 7pm. Community leaders, our families, neighbors and allies will be there to stand with us, and together we will make sure the public understands the harm this delay will cause to committed couples and our families.

I leave you now with the words of a dear friend. Her beautiful words sum up what we're feeling and offers her very personal account of her journey to equality.

Did you hear that sound?

That's the sound of me being kicked in the stomach again. Yeah, it hurts. It's the same pain I felt after Measure 36, when the state ruled my marriage was invalid.

There it is again. That sound.
When we received the refund check from the county for our marriage license.

That sound? I hear it every day. Every week. All the time. It's the sound of inequalities of gay and lesbian couples in Oregon who are denied the benefits of marriage that our friends, family and other members of the Oregon community enjoy.

Enjoy? They're actually benefits that really matter mainly in times of life or death. The stories I've heard..of the partner of a war veteran denied being handed the flag at his partner's funeral. Of an emergency room scenario where a partner is denied access to be at the bedside of their loved one. Of a partner whose name was crossed through on their child's birth certificate because she was not "wed" to the birth mother. The list goes on and on of the stories I've heard. They're horrible, and tragic, and they hurt.

And today? There's the sound again.

Just days before AdRi and I planned on going to the county courthouse and registering as domestic partners, a judge has delayed the laws. Thanks to the outside influence of an Arizona based organization fighting the laws here in Oregon, AdRi and I will just cool our heels. Again. And wait. Despite that we've been together over ten years. Despite that we celebrated our marriage with friends and family 3 years ago. Despite.....the list could go on forever, really.

Sigh. Yes, we'll wait. We'll wait to stand in line to get a partial list of benefits that the majority of people in this country benefit from, when this makes it through the courts.

Make the difference. Unite with your family, friends and neighbors and make a contribution to the BRO legal fund to ensure that Oregon's Domestic Partnership law rightly goes into law. Again, it is 100% tax-deductable so make your donation quick before the end of the year if you'd like to get it on your 2007 taxes.

Candlelight Vigil Wednesday in Portland
Join with us and a community that supports you, at a candlelight vigil, Wednesday, January 2nd, at Q Center with Basic Rights Oregon. 5:30-7pm. 69 SE Taylor (at Water Avenue)

Labels: basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, lawsuit, oregon

What's Next?
U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman will hear arguments Feb. 1 about whether the state correctly counted petition signatures gathered by opponents of domestic partnerships. If he rules for the state, the law takes effect immediately, and gay couples can register. If he rules against the state, opponents want the judge to order a statewide vote on domestic partnerships. Either way, his decision can be appealed and probably will be.

Also, I just came across some info from Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams:

We can help.

Oregon's domestic partnership law is a matter of basic fairness to all Portlanders and Oregonians.

I will ask the Portland City Council to authorize the Office of the City Attorney to provide legal help as needed to fight off this out-of-state effort to block implementation of Oregon's domestic partnership law.

In case you have missed the coverage of Oregon's Domestic Partnership law getting a temporary restraining order halting it for at least a month - here is the wrap up of some blog coverage and traditional news coverage.

From us (oldest to most recent):

DELAYED: Oregon Domestic Partnership Law

Squashed: The Hope and Dreams of Oregon Families

Judge Who Made Yesterday's Anti-Gay Ruling Has Shady Past?

Associated Press:

Oregon Domestic Partnership Law Halted

LeLo in NoPo:

Did you hear that sound?

Willamette Week:

More Details On The Temporary Injunction to Domestic Partnership

Just Out:

Making Sense of the Injunction

Labels: domestic partnership, lawsuit, oregon, wrap up

We've got more information on the ruling out of the Multnomah County Federal Court surrounding Oregon's new Domestic Partnership law. It's sort of a wrap up on the events of the day. Don't let the title of this post fool you, the fight is far from over. Read on for the whole story - but first! This just in! My mother emailed me as she received the email in California from Basic Rights Oregon about the ruling. This is what she had to say (and yes, this is all):

The delay of the partnership law really makes me ill - that some evil idiot sicko could get this law stopped... So not right.

Thoughts,
Mom

How can you not love my mother?!

Additional information from Just Out's Julie Sabatier who was in the courtroom today:

Judge Mosman presided over the preliminary injunction hearing today on the 16thfloor of the Federal Courthouse in downtown Portland. He made it clear at the outset that he thought the case depended heavily on whether or not the plaintiffs could demonstrate that the signing of a petition utilizes the same fundamental right as the signing of a ballot. Mosman pointed out that he had not seen any case law in the briefing materials that clearly argued this point. "I'd be tentatively inclined not to find a fundamental right where none has been found before," he said. Then, the lawyers for the plaintiffs pulled out some case law that hadn't been in the original brief. It was a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court in Idaho that they argued basically defined the signing of a referendum petition as a fundamental right. There was a brief recess to consider this new bit of information.

When the session resumed, the judge heard arguments for and against the fundamental rights issue and eventually decided that the case did, in fact, involve a fundamental right. Therefore, the plaintiffs had shown that they had a strong possibility of prevailing on the merits of their case. Judge Mosman also ruled that any denial of a fundamental right is equal to irreparable harm. Thus, he said, he was obligated to put a temporary injunction in place until Feb. 1, when he will hold a hearing on a permanent injunction, which will essentially be a hearing on the merits of the case.

And finally, we normally wouldn't post an entire email from someone, but in this case it is different. The following comes from Jeana Frazzini, Executive Director of Basic Rights Oregon:

I couldn't have been more shocked and saddened when, sitting in the courtroom today, I heard Judge Mosman announce that he was temporarily delaying the implementation of Oregon's domestic partnership law.

This decision is nothing short of an outrage. As Basic Rights Oregon argued in our amicus brief to the court, this delay tactic results in very real harm to countless Oregonians and their families, and is absolutely unnecessary.

The suit, brought by right-wing, out of state interest groups The Alliance Defense Fund and Restore America is an eleventh hour effort to keep gay and lesbian Oregonians from critical and necessary rights, and it is shameful.

The suit was brought against the State of Oregon and Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, who oversees Oregon's elections. Since BRO was not named as a party to this lawsuit, it was the State's attorney who argued the case in court. Nevertheless, we hired the top election attorney in the state to craft our "friend of the court" brief. In this brief, we explained in both legal and personal terms why it was absolutely critical that this law go into effect on January 1st.

But Judge Mosman grossly underestimated the harm that will be done to Oregon families. The law will not go into effect, at least until the next hearing which is scheduled for February 1st.

Moving forward, Basic Rights Oregon is conferring with our attorney about how we can become even more aggressively involved in the case. And we need YOU - our supporters - involved now more than ever.

But we must take action to ensure our domestic partnership law is not lost. Join BRO vigils in Ashland, Portland, Bend, Corvallis and Eugene on the evening of January 2nd - the day we should have been celebrating the beginning of domestic partnerships. Details are below.
In solidarity,

Jeana Frazzini
Executive Director, Basic Rights Oregon

TWO THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO POST RULING:

1.) Give and give big to Basic Rights Oregon who will not rest until this fight is over and we are victorious. Click here to donate to BRO now.

3.) NEVER forget that after 34 years and 17 consecutive legislative sessions of trying, Oregon passed and signed into law a comprehensive Anti-Discrimination law that will still go into effect on January 1, 2008.


- Bryan Boyd

Labels: anti-discrimination, basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, lawsuit, oregon

Details are just filtering in but what we do know is that anti-gay forces have succeeded in delaying Oregon's Domestic Partnership law. The law, slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, is now delayed until February 1st, 2008 - then the anti-gay groups will go for a permanent stay via the court.

More to come shortly.

Labels: domestic partnership, lawsuit, oregon

UPDATE: 3:20pm - Calls made to various sources for a status update. No status to report as of yet. More to come.

Due to the State's motion to quash the subpoenas to the county clerks, the Court rescheduled the TRO/PI hearing for 2PM Friday afternoon. The Judge will conduct a telephone hearing at 10AM on the State's motion to quash the subpoenas.

We were going to be there live blogging at 10am this morning and now that it is postponed we cannot make the 2pm.

We'll provide an update as soon as we hear what happens.

Labels: domestic partnership, federal court, lawsuit, oregon

We'll be blogging live from the first oral arguments this Friday starting at 10am. The case, Lemons v. Bill Bradbury (Oregon Secretary of State) and a bunch of other random people that the sue happy "Alliance Defense Fund" and "Restore America" are challenging after their inability to get their anti-gay referendum on the ballot. They are seeking an injunction/restraining order to stop Domestic Partnerships from going into law on January 1st. They've had since October to file this suit and they waited until now.

Basic Rights Oregon has submitted a friend of the court brief and have retained the counsel of Margaret Olney - not to mention the fact that they have an amazing legal team from the best firms across the state who work pro bono. All great people.

In any case, we'll be there. Hopefully they will have wireless and allow laptops - otherwise we'll be blogging via iPhones!

Labels: domestic partnership, federal court, lawsuit, live blogging, oregon

This just in from the opposition.

Oral arguments have been set for Friday, December 28th at 10AM by the Multnomah County Federal Court in which a motion was filed yesterday by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that could prevent HB 2007 creating 'domestic partnerships' becoming law in Oregon January 1.

According to the filing, "The instant action is one for injunctive and other relief wherein the constitutionality of Oregon's statutory and administrative scheme relating to petitions and/or referendums to place a statewide advisory question upon the ballot, is in issue. Plaintiffs are signers of Referendum 303 (my hilites) and claim that, inter alia, the statutory and administrative scheme utilized by the Defendants unconstitutionally disenfranchised them."

Oh cry me a river. FYI Restore America is asking that you pray for them. Get to it kids!

One of Basic Rights Oregon's attorney's, Mark Johnson, helped explain what it all means. (Thanks Just Out)

According to Johnson, "A temporary restraining order is an order a judge issues that freezes everything in place until the court can make a ruling. A preliminary injunction in this context would be a ruling that would stop the law from going into effect while the case is pending." He says these are common tactics in a case like this, where someone is trying to prevent something from happening.

The temporary restraining order is usually very temporary, and could just be a way for the judge to put things on hold while he decides whether or not to issue the permanent injunction, which could put the law on hold until the case is decided. Johnson explained that in order to get the preliminary injunction, the ADF would need to show that the plaintiffs would be "irreparably harmed" by the law going into effect and they have to show that they have a likelihood of winning the case.

Basic Rights Oregon has previously made a statement recently regarding the lawsuit:
Hummel said the lawsuit's chance's of success are slim to none. "On January 1st, same sex couples in committed, caring relationships will have the legal recognition they need to take care of each other," he said. "Nothing is going to prevent this law from going into effect."

Then came word from the Secretary of State's office:

"What it comes down to is there are statutes that govern how signatures on initiative petitions are verified and those statues were applied in exactly the same way as every other initiative petition that's delivered to this office. The law is applied fairly and neutrally across the board," says Scott Moore, chief of communications for the Secretary of State. "To bend the rules to allow for an exception in this case would be granting special privileges to a select group."

Labels: basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, lawsuit

In response to the lawsuit filed yesterday, Basic Rights Oregon responds - as does the Secretary of State.

Basic Rights Oregon Executive Director John Hummel said that a lawsuit filed by anti-gay activists in a gambit to revive a failed referendum on Oregon's new domestic partnership law is completely without merit.

"This lawsuit demonstrates our opponents' commitment to dismantling Oregon's anti-discrimination laws," Hummel said in a statement today. "We have to be vigilant, and prepared to meet them at every turn. We are confident that this case will be dismissed."

The complaint filed in Federal Court by out of state attorneys alleges that Oregon's Secretary of State and a dozen county clerks erred by not creating special procedures to reinstate the signatures of people who said they had signed the petition, but whose signatures were found to be invalid using well established criteria.

Basic Rights Oregon has monitored the signature verification process on many occasions over the years. The process we observed on these petitions was consistent with what we have seen year after year, Hummel said. "The Secretary of State's job is to ensure the uniform and efficient administration of elections, and we're confident that all of the proper rules and regulations were followed as usual.

In early October, Oregon's Secretary of State certified the results of the referendum effort and found that that the petitions fell short of the number of required signatures to force a referendum on the domestic partnership law. The law takes effect on January 1, 2008.

Hummel said the lawsuit’s chance's of success are slim to none. “On January 1st, same sex couples in committed, caring relationships will have the legal recognition they need to take care of each other," he said. "Nothing is going to prevent this law from going into effect."

Then comes word from the Secretary of State's office. Let me just raise a glass to Scott Moore for the following statement (mainly the last sentence).

"What it comes down to is there are statutes that govern how signatures on initiative petitions are verified and those statues were applied in exactly the same way as every other initiative petition that's delivered to this office. The law is applied fairly and neutrally across the board," says Scott Moore, chief of communications for the Secretary of State. "To bend the rules to allow for an exception in this case would be granting special privileges to a select group."

Labels: domestic partnership, HB 2007, lawsuit, oregon, referendum

Today, anti-gay fanatics filed a lawsuit in federal court against the invalidation of petition #303, an attempt to overturn Oregon's Domestic Partnership law that goes into effect in less than a month on January 1, 2008. Because honestly why not? You already failed twice at stripping the rights of Oregon families - what's one more?

The lawsuit by the notorious extremist group "Alliance Defense Fund" was filed against the Oregon Secretary of State, as well as "several Oregon county clerks".

First - why was it filed in federal court? Last time we checked none of the participating attorney's for the gay hating bigots were licensed to practice law in this state, but it looks like they found some jack ass attorney's to fill those shoes.

Lets all take a step back at the big picture here. The group (Restore America) who sent the email announcing the details of this lawsuit have now moved to Tennessee. Oh what? Thanks for the reminder. They also have a major elections violation filed against them. They've taken part in a quite fraudulent scheme of raising funds. You can read more about that here.

The following is from "Restore America" announcing the lawsuit. It's basically a bunch of bullshit but we're trying to be "fair and balanced" like their favorite news channel:

ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of several Oregonians whose signatures were invalidated by clerks' offices in 12 different counties. Many of the citizens sought, in person, to have their signatures revalidated since no legitimate reason existed to reject their signatures, but the clerks refused.

You can download a copy of the complaint here. So much fun!

No response yet from Basic Rights Oregon - I assume that will come within the next couple days depending on how serious they take this 'final anti-gay attempt of 2007'.

Deuces queer haters.

Labels: domestic partnership, HB 2007, lawsuit, oregon