BLOG: Little has been done recently to help Oregon’s GLBTQ community
Sam Adams
My remarks to the Oregon Queer Youth Conference, Saturday February 25, 2006, 10:00 AM, Catlin Gabel School:
In the past year, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community (LGBTQ) has achieved strides in acceptance with the popular movies like, “Brokeback Mountain” and with critical recognition for other queer-themed movies like, “Transamerica,” and “Mysterious Skin.”
While we benefit from this movie-propelled acceptance in the hearts and minds of some, we have not yet seen that new acceptance translated into basic legal protections for Oregon’s LGBTQ community.
Today, 229 Oregon communities still allow discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity; so does state law.
Only Ashland, Beaverton, Bend, Benton County, Corvallis, Eugene, Lake Oswego, Multnomah County, Portland and Salem provide any sort of protections.
In fact, since last we met a year ago, little has been accomplished to help Oregon’s GLBTQ community.
The Oregon Supreme Court voided 3,000 same-sex marriages, ruling that Multnomah County commissioners did not have the authority to issue licenses.
SB 1000, to enact Civil Unions and ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, passed in the State Senate by a 2 to 1 vote but was blocked in the State House in a procedural maneuver by Speaker Karen Minnis.
We can take inspiration on progress outside our state:
• January 2005, Illinois banned anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination.
• Connecticut passed Civil Unions legislation in April.
• In September, California became the first state in the nation to pass equal marriage legislation in both houses of the legislature without a court order.
• Also in September, Massachusetts defeated a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to ban same-sex marriages, after having voted to pass it in 2004.
• Also in November, Maine voters rejected an anti-gay ballot initiative that would have repealed the state’s new nondiscrimination law. Maine is the 17th state to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and the 7th to protect transgender people from discrimination.
• And last month, the Washington State legislature passed a housing and employment nondiscrimination bill protecting gay, lesbian and bisexual people.
These efforts show us what is possible.
That is why this gathering is so important, why I have come back here to offer my support for your efforts and why I will keep coming back.
And why I will back up my support with action by introducing a City ordinance next month that will ban the city government doing business with contractors who do not provide equal domestic partner benefits.
I will need your help. Get prepared today.
Together, we will make Oregon and our local governments protect our basic rights.
Thank you.
Posted by Sam Adams on February 25, 2006
(14) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Equality, Front Page
Comments by site visitors
Sam,
I just want to mention, once again, the problem with small companies obtaining Domestic Partner benefits from their insurance carriers. I think you need to lobby hard to get the providers of health insurance to small companies to offer these benefits. Right now, my company can't get it from our carrier.
Dave
Posted by: Dave Lister | Feb 27, 2006 11:13:22 AM
Dave,
I agree. I have been meeting with local insurance carriers to advocate for provision of DP policies for small bisinesses. We are making headway. I'll report myresults next month.
Posted by: Sam Adams | Feb 27, 2006 11:54:16 AM
Nice spin Sam, but that is all it is, spin. SB1000 was a blatant attempt to circumvent the amendment which says marriage is between one man and one woman. Is this depriving homosexuals a basic or civil right? No, marriage is not a 'right', it is an institution designed by society and to encourage that institution certain privledges on people within that institution. The people spoke and said we wish that institution to be available to only one man and one woman; not two people of the same sex, not 2 women and one man, not 3 women and 10 men - we drew a line. SB1000 tried to circumvent that law; to make SB1000 fair republican law makers said let's change SB1000 to include any two people living in a co-dependent relationship. Mother and son (non-sexual), to elderly sisters (non-sexual), etc. - but no, the gay community wanted to make sure that the acid test was what was going on in the bedroom; which is a form a discrimination (to me).
Do I wish to see GLBTQ discriminated against? No, they have every right to exist peacefully, they have every right to apply for a job and be considered, to apply for a place to rent, etc. However, even hetrosexual males (the "privledged class") get turned down for jobs and places to rent. You can get turned down for things for many reasons, but pass a "GLBTQ special class" and that will be the first line of defense that every GLBTQ will use when turned down for something.
The next cry I'll hear is about 'gay bashing' - you are covered under the assault and battery law like anyone else. If you hit me with a baseball bat because you want to rob me, it doesn't hurt any more or less than if a baseball bat hits you because you are gay. I don't care why the assault is carried out, it's wrong and the assailant needs to be punished.
Last point - as an employer I need the right and freedom to offer my employees whatever benefits package my company can afford (while still making a profit - otherwise there are no jobs and no one works). I also need the right and freedom to hire and fire per my business needs. I might not hire a gay man if he insists on coming to work in drag and my place of business is say a funeral parlor. However, in that same business I might not hire someone who insists on dressing like a 'goth' for the same reason. This can be viewed as discrimination, but the discrimination is NOT because they are gay (or 'goth') but because their appearance and manners will drive away more customers than it will bring in.
So I expect to be hammered for this posting, but I throughly disagree with the goals that you put forth on your posting. I'm NOT homophobic but I want them treated no better and no worse than any other man or woman within the system of laws that we presently have on the books.
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Feb 28, 2006 8:00:54 AM
mmmarvel, your blog entry helps make the case why true equality under the law for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is so necessary.
Posted by: Todd J. | Feb 28, 2006 9:05:49 AM
Mmarvel,
It is disengenous to say that Oregonians voted on same-sex civil unions. They did no such thing. They voted on same-sex marriage. In fact, during the campaign many anti- same-sex marriage crusaders went to pains to make sure the public knew that this was just about marriage and did not rule out civil unions in the future. They did this to garner additional votes from moderate people.
Now, after using that winning strategy, to go back and opportunistically say that Oregonians expressed their will on same-sex civil unions is intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible.
As for anti-discrimination and hate crimes legislation, when someone attacks or discriminates against someone for their sexual orientation, they do more than assault/hurt one person- hate crimes are intended to terrorize an entire class of people and keep them on notice that they are not safe and that they need to "watch out." So since the impact of a hate crime is far greater and affects far more people, it should be penalized more severely.
(FYI: More than 40 percent of homosexuals and bisexuals report having been attacked because of their sexual orientation at some point over their life.)
Furthermore, existing hate-crime and anti-discrimination laws do not mention gays or lesbians. Such legislation thus creates no "special class of people" because by using the term "sexual orientation," the laws protect everyone equally, including heterosexuals. Straight people will be legally protected from straight-bashing gays, and gays won't be able to discriminate against straight job candidates.
Finally, when it comes to marriage, all I know is that Britney Spears can go get hitched for the weekend and then ditch out on it, while I am paying substantially higher taxes this year because my long-term domestic partner's health insurance is taxable income according to the Federal Government. If you want everyone to be treated the same, either you should pay those taxes for your partner, too, or I shouldn't have to pay that tax for mine.
Posted by: Roland | Feb 28, 2006 4:24:01 PM
Todd - you supply nothing to refute or dispute anything I said; so your point would be???
Roland - I never said we voted on civil unions, I stated that SB1000 which was a bill for civil unions (which we were not being given an opportunity to vote on) was putting into law something that the voters had voted against. Meaning that what SB1000 granted was the same thing as marriage without calling it marriage. A rose by any other name ...
You didn't address the issue of changing the wording of the bill to where the 'bedroom test' wasn't the litmus test for couples under this bill. Why should the bill have passed allowing YOUR partner to have health insurance but the son living with his elderly mother couldn't? The re-worded bill sounded MUCH fairer to me and I would have seriously considered it. The way SB1000 was worded sure seemed like an 'end run' around measure 36 to me (do you disagree?).
The hate crimes portion I still have problems with because as I stated, I don't care why any person is attacked, the attacker should be punished and punished severely. The pain hurts no less, the punishment should be severe no matter what the the assailaints motive (and I use the word motive loosely). You ascertion that the attackers mean it as a form of warning to entire classes of people has merit but like the death penalty, is it really a deterent? You don't stop that type of crime by an "intent" law, you stop it by teaching that gays are people too. Regardless of the reason for the attack, the punishment should be swift and severe.
Thanks for the conversation.
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Feb 28, 2006 8:06:34 PM
Actually, mmmarvel, Roland is right, you did write TWICE in your blog entry that Oregonians passed judgement on civil unions when they did NOT:
"SB1000 was a blatant attempt to circumvent the [marriage] amendment which says marriage is between one man and one woman..."
"...The people spoke and said we wish that institution to be available to only one man and one woman; not two people of the same sex, not 2 women and one man, not 3 women and 10 men - we drew a line. SB1000 tried to circumvent that law...].
Hmmm...what does the Bible say about people who lie...I wonder...
Posted by: Todd J. | Feb 28, 2006 9:16:14 PM
On the one hand I'd really like to let this go, on the other hand I feel like if I don't reply Todd will think he's correct.
Nice quotes Todd, but read the exact words - do I actually say that we voted or passed judgement on civil unions? No I declared that SB1000 as written appeared to be an attempt around measure 36; and that the voters had reserved the institution of marriage for one man and one woman. We didn't get a chance to vote on civil unions and the sponsers of SB1000 apparently didn't want to give us that opportunity either.
Funny how you don't address the change to the bill that was proposed (two people living in a loving relationship able to have certain rights and privledges). Again I ask, why is the "bedroom test" so important?
Posted by: mmmarvel | Mar 1, 2006 1:48:54 AM
Yes, mmmarvel, you actually do say voters passed judgement on civil unions WHEN THEY DID NOT, again, you wrote, "...The people spoke and said we wish that institution [of marriage] to be available to only one man and one woman...SB1000 tried to circumvent that law...].
Posted by: Todd J. | Mar 1, 2006 6:27:16 AM
As a single hetero. I have found a recurring problem. Working in the construction industry (where any job is "temporary") I have constantly been displaced by guys with large families. I am not begrudging anyone a job, but it seems like anytime I have just started to get my head above water-boom!--I am once again in the ranks of the unemployed. I don't feel this makes me a good prospect with the opposite sex. So I am always in a stae of depression.
There is a battle for the financial security of group benefits and employment rights-- which now come from the policies of private companies and public law. That is why I feel expanding the definition of who can qualify for such benefits is a dangerous, unprecedented act. I am certainly not protected in my rights to employment. Complicating policies and adding new rules won't help me...
I would simply like to see what already exists as policy upheld.
You would not believe the incredible hardships I have experienced through this unfairness.
Posted by: r. | Mar 1, 2006 11:53:03 AM
Mmmarvel-
I DON'T care about a "bedroom test." I DO care about equality.
Bottom line: when you A) deny same-sex couples marriage, and B) then try to lump their relationships in with that of "two elderly siblings" or some 4-some, you are implying that their love -their romantic, non-platonic, non-familial love- is "less than" the love that binds a man and a woman in their marriage.
Yes, a rose is a rose, but "separate but equal" logic does not cut it in America. I want the same state priveleges and recognition as you, and I deserve no less.
SO - If you are willing to give up your state-endorsed "marriage" for some "domestic parternship relationship" then I am more than happy to have that be the descriptor of my love for my partner. What does a name mean, really? But I don't think you will do that.
Honestly, I would feel most comfortable (for church-state separation issues) if the state would just grant "civil unions" for all couples - same-sex and opposite-sex - and leave "marriage" to churches. I doubt that will go over well here, but it is basically how it is done in European countries.
When all is said and done, I want the legal justification for your relationship's state-bestowed benefits and recognition to be the same as the legal justification for mine. Again, I deserve no less.
Posted by: Roland | Mar 1, 2006 5:17:42 PM
Roland -
Not so - it seems we are discussing two different arguments. On the one hand there was/is the question of marriage, measure 36 basically ended that question.
Now we come to relationships, priledges, equality, etc. The gay/lesbian side tried to argue that they needed the same rights granted married people even though a same sex couple can't be married in this state (see the first paragraph). Later, when the bill was expanded to include elderly sisters, unmarried men and women living together, sons and their mothers - then the bill was no good any more. I am not saying one thing about your love or your particular relationship. If you love your partner or live with them for convenience, matters not at all to me. As the law now stands we both have the same right to marry a female and get what society has bestowed on that particular relationship. Society hasn't bestowed (which amounts to encouraged) relationships other than one man, one woman. Society doesn't encourage unmarried men and women living together. It doesn't encourage same sex couples, it doesn't encourage multiple individual relationships. Also, relationships don't necessarily have to include love, and even if they do include love it doesn't have to be of a sexual nature.
Your last paragraph says it all, even though you are not in a "marriage" you want society to treat your relationship as a marriage. Can this change? Possibly, but it should be society, NOT the legislature that allows it. Had SB1000 been put in as an initiative, who knows what the outcome would have been. The way it was pushed through the legislature it felt like some of the law makers were ignoring what measure 36 had said.
Posted by: mmmarvel | Mar 1, 2006 9:55:20 PM
Mmmarvel-
This is going to be my last post because I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully, though, we can agree to take arguments at their merits, and not come up with a slough of different rationales for ending up with the same conclusion. That is sophistry, not reasoned debate.
Responding to your points:
-Representative government is supposed to be a proxy for society, so saying "let society and not the legislature" make the decision is a dubious argument.
- In fact, being attacked for who you are as a person -usually by someone you don't know- DOES hurt more than, say, an assault by a jealous ex-. On top of the physical pain, there is the emotional and psychological anguish of knowing that you are absolutely hated and not safe anywhere. As someone who hasn't been beaten and assualted for your minority status, I think you should leave this judgement to those who have lived with this reality.
- I disagree that Measure 36 ended the question of same-sex marriage. It is alive and well in Massachusetts, Canada, Europe, South Africa and the issue is not going away here, either. More than anything, this is going to be an issue of time. As people from my generation (who are less homophobic) get older and make up a larger part of the electorate, we will win the same rights that you have.
- Finally, in your view, what *IS* marriage about? You say there is no need for love in a marriage (which, personally, I think is pretty sad). You also say that society doesn't encourage unmarried men and women to live together - which I dont know about, actually, when you consider the existence of common law marriage - but if that is so, then marriage is not about procreation. (And even if it is, that means that sterile and elderly people should be denied marriage, which nobody believes). ...So what is left? What is marriage about? What justifies all of these legal and economic advantages bestowed upon you by the state? The only other thing you mention is "convenience," which sounds pretty cynical to me, and not at all like a valid justification.
I believe that marriage *IS* about love, and I believe that love is something that society, and the government that represents it, should encourage.
And, really, truly finally this time - Yes, it's true that I could marry a woman. But if I am genetically hard-wired to love men -which is what all the research says, and what rational people have believed for decades- why do think that it is okay to disregard that fact in the law?
With your logic, you could say that people with disabilities shouldn't get favoritism via their own parking spaces, because that creates a favored class of people, and anyways, they already have the same parking options that everyone else does.
But, by disregarding the fact that there ARE real differences between you and someone who is disabled, you are being heartless and create a law that DOES in fact denigrate the innate humanity of disabled people and discriminate against them.
You have not said up to this point why I should not have the right to marry a man. What is your reason?
I believe you might bring up tradition, yada, yada, yadda, but that is the same stuff that conservatives pulled out when the debate was about interracial marriage. "Marriage has ALWAYS been between people of the same race," they said. But doesn't that argument strike you as pretty absurd right now?
Yes, I could marry a woman, but frankly that makes a mockery of the institution of marriage. And yes, I do think that there is sanctity in marriage. Sanctity derived from the love between two people. End of story. What other test would you put to it, and most importantly WHY?
You haven't been able to articulate why you don't think I should be able to marry a man I love - you talked about the legislative process, you talked about "bedroom tests," you talked about societal encouragements, but you never once said why a man should not be able to marry another man.
Why do you hold that view?
Posted by: Roland | Mar 2, 2006 2:25:00 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Sam, Stu and Chris!
Posted by: Benjamin Kaplin | Feb 25, 2006 9:37:17 PM