Source: Portland Mercury, June 15, 2006

Early in March 2004, I heard the news that Multnomah County would be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I was as shocked as anyone - probably more so, given that less than a week prior, my partner and I had contacted Basic Rights Oregon in person and asked what they were doing to bring marriage equality to Oregon. We were moved by the marriages in San Francisco and wanted to know what - if anything - was being done in our own state.

Of course, there was no reason for Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) to spill all the details: that they were finalizing plans to get Diane Linn's approval for issuing marriage licenses and that within the week we could be having our own wedding.

But what they did choose to tell us still takes my breath away: BRO Executive Director Roey Thorpe told us herself that issues like same-sex marriage were very delicate, given Oregon's recent history with anti-gay initiatives. They were approaching the topic with extreme caution. In a second conversation with BRO, lobbyist Maura Roche told us the idea of pursuing same-sex marriage in Oregon was still being researched.

Just over a week later, my partner and I married, along with some 3,000 other couples.

As shocked as my partner and I were about that turn of events, friends with more experience with BRO were not so surprised. Secrecy seems to be BRO's habit. When my partner and I asked BRO about marriage, they could have remarked that they were working on it and might have some exciting news soon. Or, they could have outlined a few hypothetical strategies for winning marriage equality—which would have earned them our undying support. Instead, they warned us of the damage that could be done should we wish to press for equality on our own.

"You just don't understand," we were told by Thorpe.

I fail to see the need for such demeaning tactics when relating to the community they supposedly represent. BRO shouldn't be brushing off the gay community's questions and concerns. Rather, encouraging a cross section of opinions and ideas is necessary for any civil-rights organization to be viable and successful. Insular organizations don't achieve as much as ones that build a coalition among a broad range of groups and individuals, and hold regular meetings where supporters - the grassroots community they represent - can stay involved and give input and feedback. Two organizations which opt for this strategy come to mind: MassEquality and Equality California. Both have significant wins - marriage in Massachusetts, and ever increasing relationship protections in California - to show that community involvement works.

So far, attempts at building a healthy grassroots coalition and making gains in relationship rights here in Oregon have been miserable failures. One start-up coalition in Oregon, Equality Coalition - started by young people (our nation's future civil-rights leaders) at Portland Community College - attempted to bring the grassroots together with BRO and other civil-rights groups. BRO pulled out, after a BRO insider told Just Out that the coalition was "toxic."

We're frustrated by such an anxious defense from an organization that demands everything be done on its own terms, but won't take responsibility for failing to bring positive change to our community. This cannot continue. The future of GLBT civil rights in Oregon can no longer depend on the leadership of one insular organization. We must build a broad coalition of individuals and organizations from across the state of Oregon - like United Sexualities, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the good folks at Blue Oregon - working directly with groups from neighboring states and on the national level.

We must go after the rights we desire in a unified voice - a voice that seeks first to listen, then to understand, before it sets any plans in place.

As I read the opinions of bloggers on a variety of topics - from the Ted Wheeler/Diane Linn Multnomah County chair race to the Federal Marriage Amendment - I see just the sort of talent and energy our entire community can benefit from. My challenge to BRO is to bring these individuals and organizations together and leverage the one thing those who oppose us cannot: passion for equality.

Sounds like the party of equality.

Then you have to include a discussion on suicide prevention in the heterosexual population as well, don't you? To be true to the title or risk being accused of giving special treatment to the GLBT community. See how easy it is to water down an important conversation?

Conference organizers removed the word, gay. And the word, lesbian. And the word, bisexual. And the words, transgender individuals. They replaced those words with 'vulnerable populations'.

Vulnerable, indeed.

The suggestion was also made to include a session on faith-based suicide prevention.

The thug agency, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, housed within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, denies any force was involved but as agency spokesman Mark Weber explained, "Well they do need to consider their funding source."

There is a word for compelling someone to do something against their will through force -- changing the name was made at the objection of conference organizer's -- that word is coercion.

When do we stand up?

When do we start hiding?

. . .

A side note. I orginally came across this story in The Oregonian today, but inexplicably the information about the agency's attempt at getting a faith based program into the conference and the spokesman's acknowledgement that organizer's had little choice in making the required change to the conference title "they do need to consider their funding source" was left from the report.

Leaving key facts from a report changes the tenor of this administration's actions considerably.

I expect more from my state's newspaper of record.

The mission: Sell Dove's new Cool Moisture bath soap. The Magna Corp commercial theme was the brainchild of contestant Bren Olswanger -- an Assistant District Attorney General in Memphis, Tennessee -- who envisioned a woman suggestively massaging her fellow cook's cucumber only to have him walk off with another man after he got ahold of her bath product.

What yuks!

Or is it just "yuck"? In the boardroom, Olswanger confesses "these aren't my moral values, Mr. Trump" in order to distance himself from any suggestion that he approves of homosexuality in any way. He just thought the idea would sell soap.

Love the homosexual's money, hate the sin.

Not to be outdone, Chris Shelton -- a Las Vegas Realtor from the opposing team, 'Net Worth' -- weighed in on the content of the ad with such vein popping histrionics that to shut him up The Donald asked him if he was a homosexual.

Apparently lost to everyone in the boardroom, including The Donald, was the appropriateness of the conversation once it had moved from the success of the commercials and into one's personal moral values. After all, this is a show wherein the final candidate becomes an employee of Donald Trump, and manages other people. (You think I'd want to wake up to find that Bren Olswanger was my new boss?) And come to think of it, can a prospective employer even ask if you are a homosexual as The Donald did? Not in New York, one of only a handful of states which includes sexual orientation in its non-discrimination codes.

So now, who should be fired here?

(Oh heck, take me -- for watching such indolent nonsense.)

The measure 36 challenge, part one - "Some Late-Night Layman's Legal Annotations."
The measure 36 challenge, part two - "Some More Late-Night Layman's Legal Annotations."
The measure 36 challenge, part three - "Still More Late-Night Layman's Legal Annotations."

Word this morning from a brief mention on KGW news channel 8 that Basic Rights Oregon will mount a challenge against Oregon's constitutional amendment measure 36 which won support of voters in 2004 banning same-sex marriage in this state.

This is quite a nice surprise as in community meetings and conversations with BRO their response to questions about such a strategy was that it would be virtually impossible to consider, though not off the table completely.

No information is yet available about the announcement on the BRO web site; more to follow here.

[Update: 1/31/2005 9:41 AM]

KOIN news channel 6 is reporting that BRO will be making their announcement on filing a challenge to measure 36 in a news conference at 11:00 AM this morning at the Marion County Courthouse in Salem, OR.

[Entry updated, see below.]

Word this morning from a brief mention on KGW news channel 8 that Basic Rights Oregon will mount a challenge against Oregon's constitutional amendment measure 36 which won support of voters in 2004 banning same-sex marriage in this state.

This is quite a nice surprise as in community meetings and conversations with BRO their response to questions about such a strategy was that it would be virtually impossible to consider, though not off the table completely.

No information is yet available about the announcement on the BRO web site; more to follow here.

[Update: 1/31/2005 9:41 AM]

KOIN news channel 6 is reporting that BRO will be making their announcement on filing a challenge to measure 36 in a news conference at 11:00 AM this morning at the Marion County Courthouse in Salem, OR.

[Update: 1/31/2005 11:22 AM]

BRO held their news conference, then issued the following statement in an email to supporters:

Basic Rights Oregon Attorneys File Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of Measure 36 Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Basic Rights Oregon attorneys filed a lawsuit today on behalf of Oregon voters challenging the constitutionality of Measure 36, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage approved by Oregon voters on November 2, 2004. Measure 36 reads, "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."

"The Oregon Constitution belongs to all Oregonians, including same-sex couples and their families," said Basic Rights Oregon Executive Director Roey Thorpe. "Using the Constitution to treat some Oregonians differently violates every Oregon tradition of fairness and is an insult to the spirit of the Oregon Constitution, which was created to establish justice, maintain order and perpetuate liberty and prevent a majority from deciding or diminishing the basic rights of a minority."

The legal challenge, filed in Marion County Court, is based primarily on a two-part argument. The first claim asserts that Measure 36 revises, rather than amends, the Oregon Constitution by violating the fundamental principles of liberty and justice on which the Constitution is based, by changing the allocation of power among the branches of government because it restricts the role of the courts in interpreting the constitution and by imposing a policy on local governments

Secondly, while Measure 36 contains only one sentence, the addition of this provision to the Oregon Constitution creates multiple changes that should have been proposed as separate amendments. Because these multiple amendments and fundamental changes were all included under the umbrella of Measure 36, the measure violates constitutional provisions which require that voters must approve separate amendments with separate votes.

"This legal challenge is about much more than the issue of same-sex marriage or Measure 36," stated Attorney Mark Johnson of Johnson Renshaw & Lechman-Su PC, one of the attorneys handling the challenge. "It's about defending the Oregon Constitution, maintaining the integrity of the initiative process and guaranteeing basic fairness for all Oregonians."

More than 20 plaintiffs from across the state of Oregon are represented on the case, including same-sex couples married in Multnomah County in 2004; same-sex couples married in Canada prior to the passage of Measure 36; same-sex couples who are not yet married, but want to reserve the right to marry in the future; and clergy who perform or want to perform marriages for same-sex couples according to the tenets of their faith.

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs are Beth A. Allen of Lane Powell PC and Mark Johnson of Johnson Renshaw & Lechman-Su PC.

If you don't have the current issue of 'Just Out', the article follows.

Much like the zine revolution on the ‘90s, blogs have become a catalyst for do-it-yourself self-publishing. In a culture dominated by mainstream media, blogging allows a method of knowledge production outside that dominate system, one that puts the power of publishing in the hands of anyone with Internet access.

Blogging also has the advantage of allowing writers to communicate with a worldwide audience. One of the major contributions of the Internet during the past 10 years has been its unhindered ability to connect people from diverse locations through shared interests, and blogs continue further online community networks through their expansive use of links and commentary on Web-based content. Blogs offer low production costs and a kind of immediacy unique to other form of publication, as they can be readily accessed through any Web browser and updated as frequently as one chooses.

Queer blogs have important implications for the sexual minorities community because they let the writer and reader have both individual expression as well as the chance to interact (and create) with larger communities. The Internet can leave many Web users dumbfounded in their attempts to search for blogs with specific content because of the sheer amount of information. Moreover, affiliations between bloggers and online sources are often obscure, leaving most queer blogs virtually invisible.

“Queer Filter” became the first Web-based directory to feature blogs from the sexual minorities community. The site, which uses a method of combined syndication, allows users to submit their blogs to the directory manually or through RSS feeds. Its creator, Matt Kingston, originally began the list to promote the visibility of gay bloggers.

“With so many young people on the Internet now, I wanted to help them find and read about the lives of queers and find some positive role models, “ he says. “Recent political events convince me that there is still a lot of work to be done, educating the world about the reality of everyday life for GLBT people. Blogs can provide a window into that life.

Blogs became explicitly political tools during the 2004 election when candidates,
lawmakers and citizens began using them as a device for posting campaign updates, critiques and predictions. Both presidential candidates sponsored blog sites (in addition to the unofficial blogs created by staffers and other observers). For the first time, bloggers were allowed into the Democratic and Republican National Conventions as legitimate members of the press.

In Oregon, No on constitutional Amendment 36 began a blog to provide information regarding same-sex marriage and campaign updates. Although the blog was short–lived (a mere 20 entries), it provided a new medium for information and served as a companion to the No on 36 Web site.

For a good introduction to Web Logs, Visit www.blogger.com, the most widely used site on the Internet. If you want to try your hand at blogging, go to www.livejournal.com.

Tori Stratton is a Portland free-lance writer. She does not have a blog of her own.

[sidebar]
Other Blogs of Interest
“Marriage Matters,” marriagematters.blogspot.com, created in early October 2004, continues to be continues to be updated with both local and national information on marriage equality.
“Gay News,” gay_blog.blogspot.com, continues to be one of the most popular and frequently updated blogs, with a wide variety of subject matter from politics to thought-provoking queer films.

For a lesbian perspective, try sisterstalk.tblog.com, authored by Genia Stevens, offering a witty take on politics and women’s issues.

Just Out, January 21, 2005

"Continuing to fight for full relationship rights for same sex couples in the legislature and in the courts."

Looks like BRO isn't even fighting for marriage rights at all anymore. I can't find the word "Marriage" anywhere is their weekly update. Now they say they are "Continuing to fight for full relationship rights for same sex couples in the legislature and in the courts."

I heard commentary the other day that said prior to Howard Dean's discussion for "Marriage Rights" 2 years ago no one would have even dreamed of civil unions being a possibility. Civil Unions were considered "way outside" the American Political landscape just a few years ago. But because he shaped it as full Marriage rights and because all the gay rights organizations were scoping it as "Marriage," the religious right was forced to use Civil Unions as a defense, which is something they probably wouldn't have budged on, until faced with a fight for marriage. Anyway it seems to me that the fight for marriage is responsible for gains in other gay relationship rights, but that it is important to continue to frame the fight around marriage. If other things drop out of that then all the better. I think it is a huge mistake to go for "Relationship Rights!"

Why should we be going back on what we have already laid claim to? Because we lost a couple of rounds? Sure, in Oregon we lost big, but that does not mean that we just give up and walk away from full equality. And while Basic Rights Oregon and others will say they are not giving up on marriage, to the extent that they have decided that we will be satisfied with 'relationship rights' they are writing in stone with legislators, community leaders, and voters in our state and nation, that in Oregon Gay Americans will accept much less than our right to full equality.

We may get less than full equality along the way, but we should never fight for less.

But things have changed.

Only a year ago we were spending all our energy fighting for the right to marry, arguing its salient points and rallying against those who would wish us to continue being discriminated against in our relationships. Now we find ourselves continuing in that fight, but also working to convince many of our leaders in our own community that full equality is our only interest.

Marriage equality has become the ultimate goal for them, rather than the only goal; civil unions, relationship rights, with marriage left for another day. The politically expedient is now the focus of their attention. Why? Because we lost a round against those who would continue to oppress us? It seems so.

Time is being wasted in this conversation. We deserve our full equality, and nothing less. We have crossed a line here already; a threshold. We told our supporters that nothing less than full equality was our due and many of them risked their own political futures in standing beside us for that right (remember Gavin Newsom?). Are we now going to say "oops" and settle for something less than that which we demanded only a year ago?

Not me. No thank you. I know now what it means to be married, many of us do. Our relationships are on the line here, and we are expected by our own to aim for something less than the recognition of what the U.S. Supreme Court called one of our most basic rights as citizens?

Now is not the time to falter. True, we have states which have instituted discrimination into their constitutions and no doubt there will be many more to come. But why back down in our fight for our right to marriage? We deserve nothing less. (Or maybe we don't believe that.)

So, where a year ago I found myself writing here arguments for the right to marry, and countered those who suggested Gay Americans deserved less, I now find myself arguing with those in our own community that we should not accept anything but our full civil rights; our inalienable rights.

I won't expend any energy here to fight for something less, you shouldn't either.

He has lived up to every aspect of the Welsh Terrier reputation and then some, a dog with more energy than just about anyone who has come in contact with him ever thought possible for a dog. We have a large city lot but a very small house and so naturally thought a small dog might be better for the long winter months in tight corners and I have always had small dogs and actually prefer them.

But now I know that the size of the dog really does not equate to how manageable he is, something Hudson has apparently decided to prove to us wholly on his own. The other day I was at the grocery store and saw a two year old pulling things off the shelves as his mother wove back and forth down the aisle trying to keep him out of reach while she attempted to put things back. That is what life with Hudson has been about these past 9 months or so -- of course we would not give him up for the world, but you can be sure we will not be too sorry to see him get past this stage of his young life.

And no doubt he is ready for the warm days to return so he can get out of this house and go back to protecting his little part of the world, also known as the backyard.

Happy Birthday, Hudson!

It marks a rather odd aspect of our national press, which quietly ignores same-sex relationships, most likely for reasons long proved unnecessary -- a holdover of much harsher times.

But there is also a significant part of our own community who, and for those who gain a particular level of celebrity especially, do not talk about their relationships openly or insist on referring to their companions as "friends". One painful episode is taking place right now around a couple with a certain amount of celebrity, Nate Berkus and Fernando Bengoechea. Mr. Bengoechea was lost in the tsunami and presumed to have died, and the other, Mr. Berkus, who was with him on the beach but inexplicably survived.

Mr. Berkus talks in terms of hoping to find his "friend".

It is his prerogative but seems so sad. I wonder if the term "friend" is used for those in our society who cannot accept the notion of lesbians and gay men in important, committed relationships. When Rosie O'Donnell "came out" after her retirement I doubt very few really figured her for straight -- yet she made her audience comfortable in their desire to believe that such a thing was best left in the bedroom, even if in reality our relationships are much more than that and worthy of our pride.

So thanks to people like Nick at 'Z I O N I D E' who has spoken up about referring to your companion as just a "friend" in this day, when the reality is that we have no reason to be other than open and honest about those we love and those we lose. Nick writes,

"Subversive (or subconcious) self-censorship is one reason why [G]ay American's fight for rights isn't nearly as successful as it could be. Allowing much of American society to pretend "real" gay people - the ones who just live their everyday lives together like any other couple - don't actually exist isn't protecting us from discomfort. It's adding to our invisibility. Until all of us stand up and make it perfectly clear who (or what, if you prefer) we are, they're still going to be able to silence us."

- - -

Interestingly, the New York Times writes

"He [Berkus] remained there [in Colombo], continuing his search along with private investigators for a man some news accounts referred to coyly as his 'friend' (they were [are?] a couple, 'very much in love,' Mr. Bengoechea's brother, Marcelo Bengoechea, said)."

And then I got about a dozen more comments after on ways I can remember to take my pills -- pill boxes, keep them with my keys, etc. -- and nothing about just getting a nurse! So I wrote this:

- - -

Well as friends I really have to wonder, despite my tale of missed dosages and the even worse: Did I or didn't I take them? Well it seems your response is meant to throw everything you've got at me -- every last strategy and modified behavior so I can what, take my pills on time? Make sure I don't miss doses? Are these your motivations?

I think not.

It seems that you really just want to derail any justification I may have for getting the nurse of my dreams, all chesty and tan with a big deep voice -- and even feeling wood as you put it Dave (or something along those lines).

Well there seems to be far too much competition for Vin Diesel and Colin Farrell around here, except from Dave and he's pining for Molly Ringwald and doesn't have any real competition for her affections from anyone except maybe France these days.

So while I appreciate all the help about getting boxes and laying them out every week, and putting them out with your keys and lunch money and stuff (all that worked really well btw!) nothing's going to come between me and getting a really hunky Hollywood nurse. And let me tell you it won't be fame either. Dave would not be thinking about Molly Ringwald if "The Stand" television mini-series had gone better for her -- even so, you don't get an Oscar for a mini-series, so you could see where that was going.

And all Vin has to do is make one more movie where he plays himself, only with different sunglasses, and I can start counting the days until I'm calling 'O, Nurse!' As for Colin Farrell his shooting star seemed to explode into a thousand cuts of layered golden locks in the movie Alexander. A bad hair choice cannot always recover the damage it has made to one's career, but a couple months of nasty blonde platinum hair with black roots and we'll be able to get him cleaned right up. In Hollywood some may think back on his brief career and wonder if he ever could have been something if he had just had a different hair dresser on that fateful set. But Colin and I will just giggle, and keep passing the whiskey back and forth as we both try to remember if I had taken my medicine.

Which reminds me, I owe some money to a hairdresser who did me a pretty kind favor, I'll have to fold her money up in my pillbox so I don't forget.

Wal-Mart is helping raise money for needy families, while the Target Corporation continues to serve as this year's "Ebenezer Scrooge." Earlier this year, Target told the Salvation Army to "take a hike" with its red kettles, refusing to allow them to raise much needed funds to help children this Christmas.

I hope you will consider making your Christmas purchases with companies, like Wal-Mart, who support one of the nation’s most beloved charities, the Salvation Army.

But with the power of a mailing list such as theirs, and the ability to rally support to aid this horrible disaster, organizations such as AFA have failed miserably. In fact, just a couple of days after the tsunami, AFA produced an action alert to President Bush over judicial nominations.

Judicial nominations: Important / Human suffering: Not Important

And on the AFA.net web site there are no calls to action on the tsunami, and no links to anything other than a report about how "in Indonesia, where less than 1 percent of the population is Christian, believers "have been very badly affected," which seems to clearly show where their concern lies: their own.

Read Chuck Currie, his post first set me to seeing the lack of relief from right-wing Religious organizations, and he points to an article on the subject by Bill Berkowitz.

2004 was the year the gay community paid the price for years of complacency, and letting a lackluster group like Basic Rights Oregon drive the car. As gay organizations struggled over what theme to choose for the annual pride parade ("How about "A Rainbow of Diversity'?"), the Christian right learned from aggressive locally defunct gay groups like ACT UP, and figured out how to organize. When BRO dipped their toes in the gay marriage waters, the Christians were more than ready--and handily delivered the smack down. Now BRO is slinking back into the closet, begging for, instead of demanding, what every human being deserves--full, unquestionable equal rights (For more info on what BRO isn't doing, see page 6). Rosa Parks didn't stand for this horseshit, and neither should you. In 2005, Gay-placency is OUT, and ACTING UP is IN.

WWP reflects on a missive he received earlier this month from Basic Rights Oregon announcing their statewide tour -- which ended with the now infamous Portland SPEAK NOW! meeting -- in which Roey Thorpe writes an encouragement to "keep all the momentum" going. WWP asks, "Er, what Momentum?"

Would that be the momentum of failing to engage the opponent's message directly? Bungling the attempt to come up with a cogent and compelling message of its own? [Can anyone remember what it was?] Failing to fully engage an advertising campaign until well after the mail-in ballots had been distributed? Or failing to aggressively distribute bumperstickers and lawn signs until weeks and weeks after the opposition had done so? Or to secretly work with public officials in the first place to draft a perfectly ill-timed scenario that, preaching exclusively to the P.C. choir, assured its political doom? Or would this this be the "momentum" of promising "nothing less than full marriage" before the election, and then, contrary to implied if not stated promises, ratcheting down the lobbying post-election to civil unions?

Because if you take it on as your own, you cannot go spreading the blame around after the loss, you own it. And don't kid yourself, Basic Rights Oregon would have made sure we knew who had owned the win.

As for the letter from Roey Thorpe with its announcement of the statewide SPEAK NOW! tour, WWP concludes

"Today's letter comes across not so much as "vision" as it does a revisionist history for a major fuckup."