What's in a Name? Domestic Partnerships: The New Civil Unions?
Maybe it's just me. I mean, really, maybe it is.
Okay, Follow the bouncing ball:
First we debated about whether GLBT people wanted marriage.
Then we got marriage.
Then we fought really hard to keep marriage.
Then the Oregon Family Council said that they didn’t care if we had Civil Unions, but that we couldn’t have marriage.
Then we lost marriage.
Then we debated about whether we wanted Civil Unions if we couldn’t have marriage.
Then we fought for Civil Unions.
Then the Oregon Family Council said that they didn’t really mean that thing about not caring if we had Civil Unions and offered the totally inadequate Reciprocal Benefits instead.
Then Civil Unions were blocked by the Republican Speaker of the House.
Then we found out that most people think it’s a good thing to give the GLBT community Civil Unions.
Then the Democrats took back the House.
Now we’re fighting for Civil Unions again.
And the Oregon Family Council is threatening to refer Civil Unions to the people.
So, the Democrats are going to change the name to Domestic Partnerships.
Wait – what?
This is where I wonder if it's just me. According to the Statesman Journal, the Democrats are reportedly planning to amend the Civil Unions bill and change the term to Domestic Partnerships in order to make the measure more palatable to voters if that measure winds up on the November 2008 ballot.
Domestic Partnerships are better because the term is more palatable to voters? In a setting where language is so terribly important, I understand wanting to use the term that will garner the most votes, but even if polling shows that Domestic Partnerships are more palatable, I'm having a hard time believing that a name change is the magic bullet that will make my existence as a lesbian more palatable. But, I guess nobody said that it would.
|
April 9, 2007 |
Kristin Flickinger | Comments (91 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Bob D | Apr 9, 2007 5:24:17 PM
You are right to be confused. The Democrats have a chance to stand up for what is right--we will see what they will do. But the more they work to accomodate the religous, the farther behind they will get standing up for civil liberties. If the D's make the change in this legislation, I for one will change my party affiliation.
Posted by: Bill | Apr 9, 2007 5:28:04 PM
OK, that's the last straw. My husband and I (married in Canada in 2003, but together almost 20 years) are leaving the Democratic party.
Oregon Democrats, already debating a watered down version of equality, are now considering kowtowing further to the religious - people with no evidence for their prejudices, just their prejudices - by changing the term by which Oregon's second class offer of "civil union" will be known.
Enough already.
We've had it with Democrats who won't face baseless religious prejudice head on.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Apr 9, 2007 5:40:46 PM
Marriage by any other name would be as sweet.
At least that's my opinion.
I just wish people would stop calling bigots "religous". Hating other people has nothing to do with religion, and has everything to do with pretending you're perfect by pointing out what you see as flaws in everybody else.
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure there was a man born some 2000 years ago who said the same thing.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Apr 9, 2007 6:13:40 PM
Well if the idiots at BRO had gotten their collective heads out of their asses years ago, and began playing OFFENSE instead of defense for decades fighting bigoted ballot measures, and instead put a Constitutional measure on the ballot stating simply: "The State of Oregon shall not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation." we would not be fighting for any of this. It would have been settled (in favor of equality) ages ago.
Make the bigots actually have to fight on the terms of explicitly saying the State HAS to discriminate. Totally shifts the terms of the debate. Make them spend multi-millions explaining against the direct language why the government must discriminate against people.
The second the debate becomes them having to say "we have to discriminate because..." you win the debate. But no, better to always play defense and raise millions since it keeps BRO in business, raising funds. When it comes to business models, BRO and the OCA are the same thing, just on opposite sides of the issue.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 9, 2007 6:15:25 PM
Anyone who has watched our ballot initiative process understands that in the realm of public perception, titles matter.
Is the Oregon Family Council wrong on civil unions? You bet.
Are some Democrats cowards on this issue? Yep.
Are house democrats wrong to change the name of the legislation if it reduces the risk that gains made during this session will be overturned via the initiative process?
Absolutely not.
The civil rights that are at stake are more important than the name used to describe them.
Seriously.
Can anyone imagine a billionaire refusing to accept Bush's cuts to the inheritance tax because they don't happen to like the name: "death tax"?
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 9, 2007 6:21:43 PM
Well if the idiots at BRO had gotten their collective heads out of their asses years ago, and began playing OFFENSE instead of defense for decades fighting bigoted ballot measures, and instead put a Constitutional measure on the ballot stating simply: "The State of Oregon shall not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation." we would not be fighting for any of this. It would have been settled (in favor of equality) ages ago.
I don't agree with your characterization, but your point is spot on.
I remember having a conversation with Roey Thorpe about that a few years ago. She said that she didn't believe that civil rights should be the subject of a popular vote.
The result was that OFC and their allies kept putting civil rights on the ballot, and BRO spent millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours fighting battles that were being dictated to them by their opposition.
BRO isn't the only group making that mistake, basically the entire progressive side has been outmaneuvered in the ballot initiative process for the past 16 years in this state. Hopefully Looper will start turning the tide in the right direction.
Posted by: Bill | Apr 9, 2007 6:42:47 PM
>I just wish people would stop calling bigots "religous". Hating other people has
>nothing to do with religion
I just wish religious people would stop being bigots.
Hear any faith-free reasons for denying us basic civil rights? Are House members debating legal exemptions for non-religious organizations? Hatred has everything to do with religious prejudice, and it's time we confronted that head on.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Apr 9, 2007 6:46:41 PM
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 9, 2007 6:21:43 PMI don't agree with your characterization...
Fair enough, just an issue I get very pissed over (as you can tell).
I get more than a little peeved at BRO and other issue-centric groups who don't fight FOR the issues. BRO is certianly not alone in that. Just that because it IS so vital an issue (equal basic rights under the law is not bottle return depost rates, 5 cents vs. 25 cents, after all) it really and seriously pisses me off to see stupid positioning and strategy within the background of BRO employing the same basic m.o. as the OCA in how they stay in businiess.
Posted by: LeoXXIII | Apr 9, 2007 6:51:42 PM
BS to the public perception. At some point, Oregonians must show who and what they are. If they are against Civil Unions, let them vote that way. But I think it is time to stop running away from this. Stand up for god's sake. Stand for something or you will fall for anything. (ooopppsss sorry to quote a country song)
Posted by: Johnpdx79 | Apr 9, 2007 6:57:45 PM
This change is cowardly at worst, patronizing at best. People elect Democrats to be Democrats, not Republican Lite. Call the Oregon Family Council out...I certainly will.
Posted by: realistic idealist | Apr 9, 2007 7:02:37 PM
Being a purist at times like these can feel righteous, but a word of caution on kicking the best friends we have to the curb.
Sure, there are better friends in theory, but are there enough of them elected to office -- from K Falls and Pendleton -- to get us what we want? Nope.
Let's remember that a (granted, misguided and twisted) majority can easily be persuaded to vote to against any/all civil rights legislation. Each one of their votes counts as much as mine and yours. It sucks, but it's reality.
If the D's are dressing something up so that it will win, maybe we should all go out for a drink, curse all the bastards everywhere, especially the ones that are not as sympathetic as our D friends ... and keep voting for candidates who are on our side MOST of the time, in MOST of the ways we want them to be.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Apr 9, 2007 7:17:47 PM
Personally, I'd like to see us remove the word marriage from the law completely. Replace it with whatever-- civil union, domestic partnership, etc. I don't care. Just remove the word marriage.
Then let the religious bigots rationalize themselves.
I get so sick and tired of sitting in church and hearing heterosexuals go on and on about how gays only think of themselves, that they're "me, me, me," and that they don't care about how it affects others' marriages. To me, I see it the opposite way. I see those standing in the way as those who are selfish and not caring about the marriage of others.
Not that long ago my husband and I wouldn't have been able to marry (I'm Caucasian and my husband is Asian). Many of the same excuses are used today. We'll be celebrating our 10th anniversary this year. I'd like to see same sex couples have that same right.
Posted by: Randy2 | Apr 9, 2007 7:29:16 PM
"Domestic Partnerships are better because the term is more palatable to voters? In a setting where language is so terribly important, I understand wanting to use the term that will garner the most votes, but even if polling shows that Domestic Partnerships are more palatable, I'm having a hard time believing that a name change is the magic bullet that will make my existence as a lesbian more palatable. But, I guess nobody said that it would."
***Here is one of the reasons I think progressives lose so many political arguments at the ballot box.
***Republicans have been masters at controlling the "debate" by their use of language. "Death tax" instead of inheritance tax. "Surge" instead of escalation (although that doesn't seem to have been as effective).
***The fact is there are many people who live fearful and sheltered lives and react to slogans/phrases rather than substantive deliberation.
***I appreciate the fact that the Democratic majority recognizes that and is taking steps to blunt that fact. Whether you call it "Civil Unions", "Domestic Partnerships" or "A Housekeeping Measure" -- isn't the goal passing a substantive change in the law?
***Face it. There are no "magic bullets" that will suddenly turn bigots into rational citizens.
Randy2
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 9, 2007 7:29:35 PM
Sure, there are better friends in theory, but are there enough of them elected to office -- from K Falls and Pendleton -- to get us what we want? Nope.
That's a door that swings both ways. I've written and spoken in favor of both civil unions and full equality. I even used my house as the drop-site for the "No on 36 campaign in Yamhill County". But when I ran for office in 2006, in what turned out to be a competitive district, I couldn't get anyone from BRO or HRC to return a telephone call -- this, after agreeing to sponsor and advocate for civil unions and anti-discrimination legislation.
As for the topic at hand ...
I guess the question you need to ask yourself is whether you are fighting for your civil rights or fighting for a term used to describe those rights?
I could understand it if we were talking about uaing the term "marriage", which actually has some meaning outside of the definitions section of a statute, but "civil unions" versus "domestic partnerships"?
Isn't that like debating whether something is called "pop" rather than "soda"?
Frankly, I'm wondering whether the OFC isn't doing a little astroturfing around here to see if they can help kill this issue with friendly fire, knowing that they don't have the votes to win this fight in the Oregon legislature.
Having said all of that, any Democrat who does not support civil unions or domestic partnerships when it comes up for a vote deserves a challenger in the 2008 primary.
Posted by: Thomas Ware | Apr 9, 2007 7:33:20 PM
Marriage is a relgious issue, the sate has no business being involved. My wife and I were married recently, pissed us off so much that we were forced to participate in a ceremony overseen by a state sanctioned "minister" that we promptly divorced.
Posted by: Misha | Apr 9, 2007 8:21:20 PM
Why does any progressive care if the Legislature calls it a "civil union" or a "domestic partnership"? Civil unions didn't even exist until Vermont created them for the first time in 2000. And at that time, domestic partnerships already existed in California!
Isn't the point that gay and lesbian couples get all of the rights, privileges, and legal responsibilities of married couples? As long as that happens, who cares what euphemism the state uses for it?
Posted by: ellie | Apr 9, 2007 8:29:41 PM
Wait, a minute... when did this happen? Where/who/what is the source? I haven't heard anything about this.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Apr 9, 2007 8:46:36 PM
>Isn't the point that gay and lesbian couples get all of the rights, privileges, and legal responsibilities of married couples? As long as that happens, who cares what euphemism the state uses for it?
The whole point of this debate is that unless it is called "marriage," it is separate and unequal.
Federal law in particular extends to married couples hundreds of rights, privileges, and protections for which by definition couples in civil unions are not eligible.
As much as I loved Bill Clinton, I have never forgiven him for signing the "Defense of Marriage Act." I think it's one of the most despicable and cowardly things a Democratic President has done in my lifetime.
Posted by: doretta | Apr 9, 2007 9:44:12 PM
I get the anger at being denied a basic human right that most other people take for granted. I also understand how much it sucks to constantly feel jerked around over it.
I think Sal nailed it though. If it isn't called marriage, I don't personally care what it's called.
Does anyone know of any polling that indicates that "domestic partnership" is a better bet for getting or maintaining those substantive changes in the law that are the point of the legislation?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 9, 2007 10:01:41 PM
Ellie, check the post. Kristin has helpfully provided lots of links to sources.
Posted by: Johnpdx79 | Apr 9, 2007 10:04:44 PM
No polling that I am aware of....As a matter of fact, the only polling I remember at all was taken a while back and Civil Unions were supported by a large majority of people. The point that angers me, though, is because of other states people do recognize a difference between civil unions and domestic partnership. Domestic partnerships are glorified boyfriends/girlfriends...
So which Rep decided to change the name? Anyone know?
Posted by: Susan Abe | Apr 9, 2007 10:15:04 PM
Kari, you're right that Kristin did a super-incredible job of sourcing this post. But Ellie's got a valid point -- this whole discussion hinges on one sentence from the Statesman Journal: "Democrats are reportedly planning to amend the civil unions bill and change the term to domestic partnerships instead."
And that sentence is really horribly devoid of sourcing. Which Democrats? Reported by whom?
So far, we have hearsay about a rumor.
Posted by: Jason Evans | Apr 9, 2007 10:18:04 PM
Welcome to pandering to the nutjob religious right. While the repooblicans may be in the minority in our legislature, it seems that old habits die hard.
I agree with others here, that Basic Rights Oregon has failed to take the offense in this fight. When my husband (Bob Richardson) and I went to San Franscisco to get married during the 2004 Valentine's Day same-sex unions, I published our stories here and on my old, defunct blog What in the Blue Hell? for all to read. We tried several times to contact BRO and received ZERO reply from them. We wanted to push the message foward, we want to be proactive instead of defensive. The only time we have ever heard from BRO is when it is time to collect a check.
Now look where we are...facing "domestic partnerships" in Oregon instead of marriage equality. Oregon Family Council is a hypocritical non-sensical organization which has proven itself unstable and incompetent at best. We don't need to harp on about them - they are their own worst enemy in this fight.
Our own governor, while making big press about bowling with local gay leagues during his first campaign, has declared his objection to "marriage" for same-sex couples. Why we think we can attain this status now is beyond me. The legislature has no motivation to ask for "marriage" as long as they know the governor is not in favor of it.
What are we left with? Crumbs, table scraps, and legal bills which ensure that we have taken our own steps to protect ourselves in spite of the state's disinterest in protecting it's tax-paying citizens.
Yeah, I'm still pissed...
Jason Evans
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 9, 2007 11:38:28 PM
For those looking for some sourcing on "domestic partnership", here's the latest press release from Basic Rights Oregon:
Senate Bill 2, The Oregon Equality Act, and House Bill 2007, The Oregon Family Fairness Act, Receive Historic Committee Hearing(Salem, Oregon) Today, the House Elections, Ethics and Rules Committee heard public and invited testimony, for over six hours, on The Oregon Equality Act (Senate Bill 2) and The Oregon Family Fairness Act (House Bill 2007).
Hundreds of supporters of equality came to the Oregon State Capitol today to testify and show their support for The Oregon Equality Act, a bill that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in Oregon, and The Oregon Family Fairness Act, a bill created to grant same-sex couples and their families a set of rights, responsibilities and protections through Domestic Partnerships. Together, these two bills will ensure basic fairness to all of Oregon's citizens.
Nancy Frantz-Geddes from Salem pleaded with the committee, "My family is a loving, devoted and cohesive family that is equally deserving of the same protections, rights and responsibilities afforded to other Oregon families without question. My children are invaluable. My children are Oregon's bright future. Please value and protect my family's future from unnecessary discrimination by fully supporting House Bill 2007 and Senate Bill 2."
Dan Bryant, a member of the Governor's Task Force on Equality and a Reverend for 23 years stated, "Contrary to those who claim that these bills are 'anti-Christian,' I find them to be very consistent with the Christian faith I profess and have proclaimed from the pulpit for 23 years." Bryant continued, "Such inclusively is at the center of the Christian gospel."
Bryant testified on behalf of Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon (EMO)--a statewide association of Christian denominations, congregations, ecumenical organizations and interfaith partners.
Kristin Carrico, a Sunriver resident, mother of a gay son and a third-generation Republican gave spirited testimony to the committee. "Extending equal rights to every Oregonians is not a partisan issue, but rather a moral and ethical one. Partisan politics have no place in allocating legal protection from discriminatory acts." She concluded, "Passing Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007 will put Oregon solidly and positively into a brighter social and economic future."
"This session is in high contrast to that of 2005," said Basic Rights Oregon Interim Executive Director Aisling Coghlan. "This is the first time in history that a bill granting rights, protections and responsibilities to same-sex couples through Domestic Partnerships has received a public hearing in the Oregon House. We are very optimistic that both of these bills will make it all the way to the Governor's desk for his signature."
Tomorrow, April 10th, Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007 are scheduled for a work session in the Elections, Ethics and Rules Committee at 9:30 AM.
Senate Bill 2 previously passed the Oregon Senate on March 21, 2007 by a 21-7 vote.
I'm not very well educated on the latest ins and outs of these measures, but this looks like they're applying "domestic partnership" to the nondiscrimination stuff - not the marriage or civil unions stuff. But, I could be wrong.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Apr 10, 2007 2:19:37 AM
Personally, I'd like to see us remove the word marriage from the law completely...Not that long ago my husband and I wouldn't have been able to marry
You couldn't marry, as a mixed-race couple, but now you can. That's progress. Who would argue, today, that, well, as a mixed race couple you still shouldn't be able to get married but you could have a "domestic partnership?" And you'd have some of the benefits of marriage...but not all?
Anybody want to argue that "domestic partnerships" for mixed race couples should be the stand of "progressive Democrats?"
As a married heterosexual I don't feel it's my place to suggest strategy to loving couples being vilely discriminated against, but inequality is inequality, and anything less is, well, I'm sorry, simply less.
"Marriage" as an institution isn't going away, and it's got nothing to do with religion. My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony that had zero religious overtones. The problem isn't "marriage" as an institution --or as a word-- the problem is discrimination against some couples not being able to marry.
"Dressing up" the language of discrimination, pretending lesser is more, may well be an effective strategy to "sell" a measure of equality, but I can't accept that institutionalized inequality equals equality.
Posted by: Misha | Apr 10, 2007 8:00:09 AM
Just for the record, the right to marry is now denied to gays and lesbians by the Oregon Constitution. Neither the Democratic Party of Oregon, nor the State Legislature, has any power to change that.
So what we're talking about here is not "marriage equality"--that door has already been closed (for the time being) by the voters of Oregon. The question is whether the next-best alternative should be called "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships." And, frankly, I don't understand why anyone cares which euphemism the state uses.
Posted by: doretta | Apr 10, 2007 8:13:19 AM
I'm not very well educated on the latest ins and outs of these measures, but this looks like they're applying "domestic partnership" to the nondiscrimination stuff - not the marriage or civil unions stuff. But, I could be wrong.
You are clearly wrong. As quoted in your post:
...The Oregon Family Fairness Act, a bill created to grant same-sex couples and their families a set of rights, responsibilities and protections through Domestic Partnerships.
...The Oregon Equality Act, a bill that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in Oregon...
"Domestic Partnerships" is clearly about what we've been calling "civil unions" in this context up to now.
Posted by: Phil Jones | Apr 10, 2007 8:25:53 AM
I hope this legislation passes soon. I want to have a civil union with my sister. She's hot!
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Apr 10, 2007 8:33:17 AM
"I hope this legislation passes soon. I want to have a civil union with my sister. She's hot!"
If you are making statements like this, you are a pretty sick bastard, even if you are joking.
I do not agree with amending this legislation to change the wording. I do not agree with making things more "palitable" to voters when voters in polls showed that they supported Civil Unions by a fairly wide margin in Oregon. I think that the GLBT community has suffered quite enough from these biggots. I am tired of them attempting to get into my bedroom and my personal life, frankly. They are all closet cases, every damn one of them.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Apr 10, 2007 8:51:56 AM
-Dear Rep. Diane Rosenbaum;
I have heard the news on Blue Oregon, via the Statesman Journal that House Democrats are attempting to amend the bill to allow civil unions to change the wording to "domestic partnership". While I understand the power of words, polls in 2004 showed that while a majority of Oregon voters were not ready for same-sex marriage, a majority were for civil unions. I am hoping that this bill will not be amended to alter the language as such. I believe that the GLBT community has suffered long enough without equal protections under the law. Frankly, even civil unions does not go far enough, but it is progress.
You and I know, as do the rest of politically aware Oregonians that passage of this bill or the gay rights bill will be challenged in '08. I am sure that they will also be challenged in 2010, 2012 and 2014, frankly. When you dealing with fanatics that make their money from frightened people, there will be an anti-gay measure on every ballot. I have grown accustomed to this fact. With this likely reality known, why not go for the most that we can get? Why not reach as far as we can? How rarely does the legislature meet to address these important issues? Please, if I can be brave in the face of biggotry, you can surely vote to keep this bill as it is. We can face the battle together in the years to come.
Posted by: Johninpdx | Apr 10, 2007 9:15:39 AM
Maybe instead of domestic partnerships, we should change it further so as not to offend anyone at all...
Perhaps "2nd class partnership", or maybe "Gays offend me but they sure do dress nice - Union"
Still waiting to find out who'd bright idea it was to change this.....
Posted by: Taoiseach | Apr 10, 2007 9:55:22 AM
It's Official.
In a capitulation to polling and politics, the House Elections Committee just approved the -3 amendments made by Rep. Tina Kotek to change the substantive language from 'civil unions' to 'domestic partnerships'.
The bill was also reported to the full House floor.
We will never reclaim what was lost in the 2005 Session.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Apr 10, 2007 10:01:16 AM
I agree with Sal's viewpoint on this. It's sad to need to play politics over basic human rights, but that's the reality. Language can be very politically important, and many voters fall prey to fear tactics by the right on this issue. If the voters reject whatever system is established to guarantee partnership rights for all, it will set back the effort for years. Is terminology worth that risk?
Gay people deserve human and civil rights, but rights are always subject to politcal will. That is reality. Ask Jose Padilla, though he may have trouble answering after all the torture he has endured at the hands of our govenment.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 10, 2007 10:15:25 AM
Thanks, Doretta. I'm going to dig in further on this.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Apr 10, 2007 11:04:30 AM
Generally, this demonstrates one problem with the initiative (or in this case, the referral) process.
Whether voters want something depends not on the content of the measure, but the title. Voters aren't engaged enough to have equal support for "civil unions" even if it's exactly the same as "domestic partnership."
The same thing happened with Measure 37, where two-thirds of Oregonians want our land use laws to stay the same or get stronger, but they take 10 seconds to decide on a law given the title.
Sigh. Given that we have such a process, passing the content this session and messing with the title next session is the smart thing to do.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Apr 10, 2007 11:07:07 AM
Sorry, I meant referendum (not referral).
In Oregon, three terms:
initiative (citizen initiated law)
referral (legislature refers law to voters)
referendum (voters refer legislative-passed law to voters)
We seem to be dealing with the third in this case.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Apr 10, 2007 11:50:22 AM
Evan is correct that voters often don't look into ballot measure issues closely enough. Still, I believe the initiative and referendum system is needed to counter the ease with which legislative bodies are coopted by wealthy interests.
Posted by: JT | Apr 10, 2007 11:52:08 AM
I watched the Committee meeting online this morning. All they did was change the name from 'civil unions' to 'domestic partnerships'. What's the problem? They didn't change any of the rights that same-sex couples would get.
You can call it civil unions. You can call it domestic partnerships. You can call it a ham and cheese sandwhich, for all I care. What matters is that it will get couples the rights and protections they deserve.
And many Oregon businesses already use the term Domestic Partnerships - so why not use the term people are familiar with?
And as for all those people talking smack about Basic Rights Oregon... where you there last night when hundreds and hundreds of supporters showed up to testify? Where you there on BRO's Lobby Day in March when well over 500 people rallied and lobbied their legislators?
Where you there at the BRO office during the election in November when staff and volunteers were working 7 days a week to elect a more friendly legislature to make this momentous legislation possible?? Do you think this all happened by magic? No, it happened because BRO is one of the most effective GLBT organizations in the country. I'm honored to be a volunteer and a donor.
Posted by: Are you kidding? | Apr 10, 2007 11:55:20 AM
Are you all kidding me?
It is nothing more than a name change. HB 2007 will still provide the exact same rights as it was going to before when it was called civil unions.
Don't we have more pressing things to worry about than to argue about a silly name? How about the real issues here. How about these rights, responsibilities and protections? They have remained and will remain constant. How about our families and our partners that this law is intended to protect.
It just makes me sick that we are arguing about something as silly as civil unions vs. domestic partnerships.
You all need to look ahead to the 2008 ballot. The Oregon Family Council has vowed to bring this issue to the voters. What are voters more likely to do when voting on civil unions vs. domestic partnerships?
Someone on the fence about civil unions would be much more likely to say "Oh domestic partnerships? We have those at work for people. Sure I'll vote for that."
This BRO blasting is ridiculous too. Give it a rest. Myself, as a gay man, is much more interested in protecting my family. Be it domestic partnerships or civil unions, as long as the rights are the same--who the f&$k cares what it is called?
Think about what truly matters here.
Posted by: Debs Gleeson | Apr 10, 2007 11:57:05 AM
As an activist and an academic, I wholeheartedly understand the debate on the precision of language. After all, change one word in a sentence and you can completely alter its meaning. With that said, be it civil unions or domestic partnerships, both still enshrine, into state law, the same rights, same priveleges, and same responsibilities. And above all, they are not marriage. Either way, civil unions or domestic partnerships are just one step on the way to full marriage equality; one is not better than the other, and both are mere stepping stones. Instead of debating and fighting about what to call them, we should be working to get them passed.
With that said as well, if you have a problem with BRO, the HRC, or any other organization, instead of complaining about it, seek out that organization and volunteer your time and effort. Work from the inside to create the change that you seek. How are we (we as a constituent minority group fighting for recognition) going to create any form of change if we cannot present a unified front.
And...as someone who has volunteered with BRO in the past, I know that they are knee-deep, on the front-line trenches of this battle. BRO runs almost nightly phone banks to garner state-wide support for basic equality for ALL Oregonians. Were you there with the other 500 equality supporters on Lobby Day this past March, a Lobby Day that was organized, paid for, and implemented by BRO Staff and Volunteers? Were you part of the BRO-led support at the Hearings for SB2 and HB2007 yesterday? They're there, you just have to look for them.
Like I said before, instead of engaging in petty bickering amongst ourselves, we need to band together and fight for the rights, responsiblities, and priveleges that we, as human beings, believe that all human beings should be afforded. So stop complaining and stand up and do something for what you believe in! Hopefully I'll see you at the next rally, lobby activity, or phonebank.
Posted by: Ashley | Apr 10, 2007 11:58:54 AM
I've been working with the BRO staff through the youth organizing program - and as a student I've been working to organize other students in support of this legislation. There has been tons of work going into this. I hope you all have been working hard as well to get support for equality for all Oregonians, and not just critiquing from the sidelines.
I'm simply excited that the legislation is where it is now, and charged about getting it passed! Sure, it's not going to bring us marriage equality, but that's unfortunately against the state Constitution right now.
We should all be working on SB2 and HB2007- which will bring us closer to what we want, and provide necessary rights and protections, regardless of what it needs to be called.
Posted by: Amy D. | Apr 10, 2007 12:02:17 PM
I second what JT said. Where were all of you when we were knocking on thousands of doors and calling tens of thousands of phone numbers last summer and fall, lining up pro-LGBTQ candidates to make sure this kind of legislation had a chance? Where were you leading up to the election? Where were you on lobby day last month? And where were you last night?
If you want to see change, make it happen.
Posted by: Jennifer | Apr 10, 2007 12:08:39 PM
I understand the anger around not being able to achieve marriage equality, but remember, that descision was made by oregon voters in 2004, NOT by the democrats, NOT by BRO, NOT by our legislators.
If you are on the frontlines of fighting for LGBTQ rights and are listening to what voters are saying, it would become clear that the climate on same-sex marriage in this state is still for the marriage ban, but WOULD support domestic partnerships. We are a state full of moderates and it will take time to educate and shift opinion on full marriage equality and an eternity to dismante marriage all together, as some have suggested and in my radical idealism, i understand. But there are SO many immmediate rights domestic partnerships provide for Oregon families NOW. and being a queer person of color i am not willing to turn my back on civil liberties that are within reach and empower our communities that have been so systematically oppressed.
I am happy and proud to stand with BRO, with the legislators standing up for non-discrimination & domestic partnerships, and thank them for being on the frontlines on this fight.
where are you all??
Posted by: lestatdelc | Apr 10, 2007 12:13:31 PM
Posted by: Ashley | Apr 10, 2007 11:58:54 AM
I have been in this fight alongside and supporting BRO when I first moved to Portland in 1997, and I call BRO's craptacular (i.e.. always playing defense) to the mat because I have done more than just critiqued it from the sidelines. This is not some uninformed opinion in my criticisms of the hugely boneheaded basic strategy of BRO. While piddling around with things like side-show PR efforts of the Rural Organizing Project and useless corporate lobbying to companies whose HR is already moving the right direction on the issue (like Nike, Intel, etc.) is about fundraising for BRO salaries, and ineffectual side-show crap and NOT about pushing FOR equal rights for everyone.
Posted by: Johnpdx79 | Apr 10, 2007 12:16:16 PM
Wow, did someone at BRO get wind of this thread and ask all their people to come and post about how wonderful they are?
Listen, we all know they do good work....But like someone posted above, its always defensive work...but I dont want to get off on that tangent....
If we are so ambivalent about the name, then why change it at all...? Ultimately, it seems like another dig at the GLBT community, although this time there is no good reason.
Posted by: Kristin Flickinger | Apr 10, 2007 12:17:28 PM
Just a few things:
The false dichotomy of gays vs. religious folks does not serve us. In my experience, the majority of religious people agree with ideas such as equality and love for fellow humans.
I am a proud Democrat. I am involved with organizations within the party such as the GLBT Caucus of the DPO so that I can help Dems to make good decisions and hold them accountable when they stray.
In the end, I agree that if it's not marriage, it's not marriage equality. The change of terms from Civil Union to Domestic Partnership won't change the number of rights afforded to me or my family. On the whole, I have rallied behind Civil Unions, because they are a middle-ground that will help to protect families. Changing the name won't change that.
I'm sure that those who made the decision to change the term looked at polling on the issue. BRO is very good at using polling data and I'm glad of that. What troubles me is the apparent moving target that our lives and livelihoods have become.
I know there's no magic bullet. That's the point. Polling after Measure 36 showed that the people of Oregon were solidly in favor of Civil Unions. If that has changed so much that we need to change the term, I find it dubious that in the year and 4 months between passage of this bill and the 2008 elections, people's support will not have shifted again. The question is which way it will shift and what we will do to make sure it shifts in our favor - not only by political maneuvering, but by true outreach.
Perhaps it is time for a true education campaign - instead of a voter education campaign - that would familiarize people as people with their neighbors, vendors, customers and friends.
The politics are important. The words are important. The people are also important. It's the people who make the politics possible and the words meaningful.
Posted by: brian | Apr 10, 2007 12:25:49 PM
Oh my lord, let's not glorify the good ol' days of 2005. They couldn't even get the non-discrimination off the floor.
The practical nature of this bill is that it will allow me the right to visit my partner in the hospital as 'family', pick up our child at school as 'family' and pass on my inheritance to my partner as family. These basic rights are extremely important to me and I don't care if they call the bill civil unions, domestic partnership or heather has two mommys.
We will continue to be treated as second class citizens until we receive federal recognition and rights.
Obviously, they played politics, and they kept it on the QT. There was method to the madness.
Posted by: Jim Clay | Apr 10, 2007 12:34:18 PM
I had the honor of working with the BRO team 3 years ago, during the period of time that Multnomah County was issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
BRO staff and volunteers were (as I was) working 19 hour days, knowing full well that not all phone calls nor e-mails were being, nor could they be, answered. It was a system of triage, and anyone who was remotely near it knew that this had to be.
Disagree with BRO's policy directions, or goals, if you must; honorable people often disagree. But bashing BRO for being anything less than 100% dedicated and highly effective, is just wrong.
Posted by: frank carper | Apr 10, 2007 12:48:14 PM
But bashing BRO for being anything less than 100% dedicated and highly effective, is just wrong.
no bashing here, just analysis: 100% dedicated? yes. highly effective? no.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 9, 2007 5:20:00 PM
OK, comments on this post are working now. Phew!