measure 36

BRO Brings in Heavy Hitter for Marriage Equality (w/ Venue Change Info) by: torridjoe Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 13:57:59 PM PST The O gave some good pub this morning to Basic Rights Oregon, the GLBT advocacy group who have announced that they will be spending the next three years leading up to Election Day 2012 attempting to have Measure 36, "One Man One Woman," repealed. The ballot measure constitutionally limiting the rights of marriage to heterosexuals was passed eight five years ago, at the height of the political wave attempting to preemptively ban efforts to grant marriage equality. But BRO thinks the time is ripe to ask again:   Basic Rights will kick off the first phase of a public education campaign with rallies Monday night in Portland, Tuesday night in Bend and Wednesday evening in Eugene. The group will encourage gay and lesbian couples to reach out to their neighbors in a conversation on "why marriage matters and how it impacts their daily lives to be excluded from the freedom to marry," said Frazzini. The group expects to send representatives to speak to churches and civic groups, she said, and it has hired two organizers who will travel the state and make 1,000 short, two-minute videos featuring gay and lesbian Oregonians talking about why marriage is important to them. The videos will be posted on various web sites and e-mailed to residents. Evan Wolfson, founder and executive director of Freedom to Marry, a New York City-based organization fighting for same-sex marriage, will speak at all of the Basic Rights kick-off events. Marriage "is one of the most important statements we make about who we are," he said. "It is so important to commitment and love that most people wear the symbol of it on their hands." People's attitudes about gay marriage change when they know gay couples, he said. Now's a good time to mention that tonight's event in PDX has been moved to the Vanport Room of Smith Memorial Hall at PSU. (I hope they moved it to a bigger room and not a smaller one; click the link to RSVP and for more info). IS this a smart move? Is it the right time to begin pressing for equality in Oregon, less than a decade after 57% of voting Oregonians (the lowest winning percentage in any of the states that voted in 2004, it should be said) pretty clearly indicated they were against it? I'm going to say yes, for a couple of reasons. First of all, intervening events have transpired, particularly in the last year or so, that have changed the game from one of defense to a more offense-based position for seekers of marriage equality. The number of states with the full freedom to marry threatens requiring another hand to count, and other localities like NY and DC have made it clear they will honor those marriages in their own jurisdictions. Given that the sky has not yet fallen in the heartland of Iowa, discerning voters might eventually realize that apocalypse is NOT in fact the inevitable outcome of Adam and Steve. Part and parcel of that time elapse is demographics: simply put, the younger you are the less likely you are to be against marriage equality, whether by virtue of your active support for it, or simply not giving a rip. The younger generation has benefitted from being exposed to gays and gay culture in a much more open environment, even as homosexuals continue to be discriminated against, harrassed and even assaulted and killed for who they are. It's nearly impossible for detractors to convince young voters that they should care; they simply don't see the threat. Even something like watching the movie MILK is shocking to them--people actually got arrested for drinking in a gay bar? WTF? The final reason for me is the general state of the political pendulum--we're in a progressive wax, such as it is, and we know there are real opportunities to move forward on sensible legislation with a majority of the electorate...because the far right has gone absolutely batshit crazy. This flatly does NOT happen among people secure in their beliefs that the swing of history is with them; rather it is usually born of deep insecurity and fear that indeed things are irretrievably slipping away. The problem with that perspective is, the scared and insecure people are shouting and yelling and saying things that just don't hold up for most regular folks. It looks like hysterics rather than a reasoned argument against (which isn't surprising, because the craziest thing about the whole anti-gay movement is that it's 100% bereft of rational arguments that can be made for it), and that simply indicates to the masses that any fears are probably unfounded or motivated by sensibilities most Americans don't share. Interestingly, the Human Rights Coalition, of which Evan Wolfson is a leader* the most prominent and well-connected GLBT advocacy group, is known to many in the GLBT community as a somewhat plodding, moderate, work-within-the-system organization that has the ear of Washington and would like to keep it that way without making waves. The younger, more activist gay communities would like action now, nationally, on things like Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. But ironically, it's at the national level where HRC is typically focused, and if anything is to get done at that level it's HRC's resources you'd want to tap. By contrast, BRO is firmly in the state-by-state camp, figuring that as with many social rights movements in this country, the Snowball Effect will apply. Massachusetts' pioneering marriage law would seem to substantiate that premise; there's almost no question that having MA as an example has made the job easier in subsequent states, and at some point a critical mass is reached where national policy becomes the next obvious step. It's hodgepodge and necessarily parochial to start, but the eventual dividends can be much higher.  Equality in 2012! Remember it.      *Wolfson is in fact the head of Freedom to Marry, not HRC. I do very weird things when I hear Evan Wolfson's name: I think of Howard Wolfson, advisor to Hillary Clinton during her Presidential run. Why this somehow forces me to continually perceive of Evan as the guy from HRC when Howard never was and isn't even gay, I really can't say. Duly corrected, welcome to my neurosis.  Discuss :: (2 Comments)

Coquille Tribe Apparently First to Grant Same-Sex Marriage by: torridjoe Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 13:08:35 PM PDT The most interesting ongoing legacy of the way America has treated its indigenous people, IMO, is the sovereignity of each nation and tribe distinct from the US Constitution. As most people know, simply put it often doesn't really apply to them; tribes are free to create and enforce their own ideological principles of governance--the most notable and visible of which until now has been their general embrace of casino gambling.  I say until now, because the Coquille Tribe of southern Oregon has found a new way to express its sovereign views on society--by becoming what appears to be the first Indian tribe to sanction same-sex marriage. The implications are fascinating: Tribes have the right to manage civil regulatory affairs on reservations, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in the same way they are able to conduct gaming, Shammel said. That means they can perform marriages and divorces, and grant rights and responsibilities to their members. Generally, the United States recognizes marriages from other sovereign nations and the right of its own citizens to travel between states. Thus, it would be unconstitutional for a marriage to be legal in one state and not in the next, Shammel said. But no one ever has sorted out what that means for tribal sovereignty and marriage because it hasn’t come up, at least not in this way. “It does throw in a real interesting twist,” Shammel said. “We have the power to do this, but how’s it going to be treated?” Brian Gilley, an anthropology professor at the University of Vermont, said the Coquille action could test the very notion of tribal sovereignty, should the federal government decide to challenge the Brantings’ marriage. “It would be a federally recognized marriage that is against federal law,” Gilley said. “Sovereignty is a slippery thing you can’t always grasp onto. If a tribe owned a nuclear energy facility, they couldn’t send workers in without protective gear, because that’s against EPA regulations. There are these ways in which sovereign nations must still adhere to federal rules, regulations and policies.” If a tribe authorizes a marriage, but the marriage isn’t recognized by the federal government, “they’re only as sovereign as the U.S. allows them to be,” Gilley said. Obviously as a strong supporter of marriage equality, I find this to be great news, and a strong example for other tribes that it's doable as a federally recognized tribe. The tension with federal DOMA will be interesting to see resolved; one wonders immediately what Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the new "swing vote" (such as he is) would think of it. But that's for another day; today let's just celebrate another chink in the armor of Bigotry.      Discuss :: (0 Comments)

GOP Leaders, Still Lying About the Session by: torridjoe Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 16:54:16 PM PDT From the Senate GOP leadership, the results of their "Worst Bill of the Session" contest: A landslide victory for Worst of the Session goes to the bill that extend marriage-like benefits and special legal status to same-sex couples.  From the numerous responses we received, it is clear there is little patience for Governor Kulongoski and legislative Democrats trumping voters’ will.  Voters spoke, and their wishes should be followed rather than ignored. The runner-up for Worst of the Session goes to a bill under the same ‘will of the voters’ theme. Again, Governor Kulongoski and legislative Democrats decided they knew better than voters as they wrote their repeal of Measure 37, Oregon’s property rights measure.  Readers were obviously displeased with the blind eye shown to their vote. {more} There's More... :: (0 Comments, 118 words in story)

Return to LO home...!