Gay Rights Opponents Deliver Signatures: But Do They Have Enough?
Opponents of two recently passed Oregon equal rights bills have delivered over 60,000 signatures to the Oregon Secretary of State in order to force referenda on the two bills. However, there may not be enough signatures to block the bills from taking effect.
From the Oregonian:
Groups hoping to overturn two Oregon gay-rights laws delivered nine boxes filled with petitions to the Secretary of State Wednesday. But they may not have enough signatures to win a spot on the November 2008 ballot.Marylin Shannon, a former state senator and spokeswoman for Defense of Marriage Again, said the groups had delivered nearly 63,000 signatures to overturn each of the two laws.
Opponents of the laws need 55,179 valid signatures from registered voters on each.
The 63,000 figure is a deceiving number because many of the signatures will be deemed invalid.
From Oregon Public Broadcasting:
Last week, Shannon said not enough signatures were coming in to qualify for the ballot. But in the last few days she says her office outside of Salem has been deluged with packages.Marylin Shannon: "I’m cautiously optimistic that we will make it. I don’t want to say we will or we won’t but I’m very positive about it."
Shannon says her group has collected more than 60,000 signatures. 55,000 are needed, but campaign experts say a buffer is needed because the Secretary of State’s office tosses out invalid signatures.
John Hummel, with the group Basic Rights Oregon, is hoping the referendum campaign fails.
John Hummel: "You know I’m surprised. The threshold is very low and I would be surprised that they can’t do than just the bare minimum required. I think we’re actually encouraged that Oregonians are not interested in overturning our anti-discrimination laws."
Gay rights opponents in Oregon just aren't finding the support that they used to. We'll have to wait and see if the signatures are enough to force referenda for the two bills.
Discuss.
|
September 26, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (93 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 26, 2007 5:52:37 PM
Ugh.
Is usual the invalid signature rate higher than 12% on most petition drives?
Should read:
Is the usual invalid signature rate higher than 12% on most petition drives?
Posted by: Bob R. | Sep 26, 2007 6:06:14 PM
According to this Portland Mercury Blogtown PDX post, the best validity rate in recent history was Measure 36 at 86% valid.
So they have a shot, assuming their baseline number of signatures is correct, but it will be very, very, nail-bitingly close.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Tyrone Reitman | Sep 26, 2007 6:07:35 PM
Yes. Usually around 20-30% or so. I believe it is usually lower for groups that use established social networks, such as churches.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 26, 2007 6:31:00 PM
86% of 63,000 is 54,180 which would mean it would not qualify. Of course that 63,000 is a estimate of the number they turned in not a hard count. But even it they have 64,000 turned in, with a 86% valid rate keeps them off the ballot (barely).
They would have to do better than any other petition with around a 87.5% valid rate and then they would just barely squeak onto the ballot.
Nail-bitter indeed. Thanks for the link Bob R.
Posted by: Bill Sizemore | Sep 26, 2007 8:25:03 PM
It is highly unlikely that Shannon et al gathered enough signatures to make the ballot, but that is not because there weren't plenty of willing signers. Successful signature drives are very much about organization.
There may be a million willing signers out there, but if you don't put a petition in front of them, they never have the opportunity to sign.
This drive did not appear to be well organized. I requested petition sheets a few weeks ago, so I could sign and get friends and neighbors to sign. The petitions never arrived. I have to wonder how many others had the same experience.
So, when you make up your list of signers, so you can tell the world who they are, perhaps you would be kind enough to include my name. I would have signed, if I would have had the opportunity.
I doubted from the beginning that this drive was organized enough to succeed. Frankly, they did better than I though they would. But it is highly unlikely that their validity rate is high enough to make it. In fact, they probably missed by a fair amount, what with your side counting the signatures.
Validity has dropped from 85 percent or so (on the average) a decade or so ago to down around 70 percent or less under Bill Bradbury. The quality of signatures has not decreased. The legislature and secretary of state have accomplished that on their own. They have created a ton of new roadblocks and gotchas to invalidate perfectly valid signatures.
Bradbury does plenty of bad mouthing of petition circulators and chief petitioners, including me, but if there is a crook or thief at work here, it is he.
I feel sorry for those who worked so hard to get this issue on the ballot and probably fell short. This question should have been put to the voters, not shoved down our throats by a bunch of liberal Democrats.
You holler at the religious right for trying to foist their values on everyone else and then turn around and do the same thing. I guess it all depends on whose values are being foisted, doesn't it.
Posted by: James X. | Sep 26, 2007 8:43:56 PM
"You holler at the religious right for trying to foist their values on everyone else and then turn around and do the same thing. I guess it all depends on whose values are being foisted, doesn't it."
Gay people haven't prevented you from marrying the one you love. You've done that to gay people. Get back to me when you're foisted into a gay partnership.
Posted by: PDX Lesbian | Sep 26, 2007 8:50:35 PM
Glad to know that Bill Sizemore feels put upon because he may not be able to openly discriminate against the LGBT community anymore. Poor Bill! He didn't even get a chance to sign the petition. I know all of our hearts are breaking for him. I have news for you, Bill. Equality is not a value. It is a right.
Posted by: liberalincarnate | Sep 26, 2007 8:55:59 PM
-Billy,
You arrogant Satan worshiping slut! Take your money and sleeze and move out of the state. Go someplace where you are more welcome... Iraq, perhaps?
Posted by: David | Sep 26, 2007 9:25:26 PM
I agree that they are probably toast, especially because, as revealed by the Nader failure in 2004, there are MANY MANY ways to invalidate a signature. They probably needed at least 70-75k to be safe, but we shall see.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 26, 2007 9:25:34 PM
I requested petition sheets a few weeks ago, so I could sign and get friends and neighbors to sign.
Good to know you are a bigot as well as a sleaze-ball (assuming this is the actual Bill Sizemore, sleaze-ball petition scam-artist, that is).
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Sep 26, 2007 9:29:40 PM
"You holler at the religious right for trying to foist their values on everyone else and then turn around and do the same thing. I guess it all depends on whose values are being foisted, doesn't it."
People fighting for civil unions, same-sex marriage, non-discrimination rules, etc. does nothing to you. You lose no rights, unless you actually think you have the right to discriminate against others.
However, the religious community pushing its views against these issues does harm other people. It keeps them from having rights that are available to others.
There's this whole thing about rights - you have them until they interfere with the rights of others. You can believe that same sex marriage or whatever is wrong. No one can stop you from believing that. But the moment you take action to keep people from having that, you're interfering in their rights.
I want same-sex couples to have the same rights as me and my husband. I want people to not be discriminated against at work, with housing, etc. I want everyone in the GLBT community to be treated fairly and with respect, even if you disagree with their views.
Posted by: David English | Sep 26, 2007 10:12:20 PM
If the measure does qualify, one thing is for sure, it's going to be an ugly fight. Hopefully, as Mr. Hummel of Basic Oregon said, it won't make it. But then again, who knows.
Two questions:
1) When is the deadline?
2) How soon after the deadline will we know?
Just curious...
D
Posted by: raul | Sep 26, 2007 11:24:59 PM
Hey Bill,
Get a real job and pay your back taxes. I find it amusing that someone who takes money from Loren Parks, famous for:
Parks Medical Electronics Inc., which was founded by
Parks in 1963. The company, which employs about 50
people, sells electronic equipment that measures blood
flow, most notably a penile plethysmograph, which senses
male sexual arousal.
doesn't want GLBT couples to marry. Why does all of this weird sexual stuff keep coming up in connection with big GOP types?
Thank goodness there is finally a device that measures male sexual arousal !
All of this weird right wing repressed sexuality, and just some of the odd coincidences are quite amusing.
I hope I don't see you in the men's room stall.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Sep 26, 2007 11:28:31 PM
The deadline was September 26th at 5 p.m.
It'll take a few weeks for the signatures to be verified.
Posted by: torridjoe | Sep 27, 2007 12:10:01 AM
Yes Bill, the problem with initiatives in the state MUST be Bradbury. Can't be you, can it?
Posted by: James X. | Sep 27, 2007 5:27:35 AM
Loren Parks sells the "peter meter?" That was the tool used to find that homophobic men are aroused by gay porn.
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Sep 27, 2007 5:34:28 AM
I voted against the last anti-gay rights initiative. In a weird way, maybe it would be a good thing to get this one on the ballot. End the debate once and for all by shutting down this one also at the ballot box.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Sep 27, 2007 6:14:55 AM
The obvious thing that has changed since a "decade or so ago" is how signatures are gathered. They used to be gathered by committed volunteers who had a personal investment in seeing the measure on the ballot. Now there are sleazy companies that hire less-than-savory people to harrass folks on the street.
There have been many instances of paid signature gatherers copying signatures from one petition to another. There's no accountability. The gatherers get paid whether their signatures are valid or not.
Initiative drives -- at least the right-wing ones -- have become a business. Signatures are the product and petitioners are the customer. I'm not surprised that, when the business model is "create more product (signatures) at lower cost," the quality of the product suffers. It's the same business model as Chinese toy manufacturers.
And, Bill, if you disagree with the Sec. of State on the number of invalid signatures, you can do something about it. But you have to show that they invalidated valid signatures. Vague feelings of persecution and hopelessness are not enough -- though you may want to talk with your doctor to find out if Prozac is right for you.
Posted by: David | Sep 27, 2007 7:25:00 AM
I suggest that Bill Sizemore spend his time satisfying all the court judgements against him that he has failed to pay. Didn't Oregon already stick a fork in Sizemore's butt and concluded he was done?
Posted by: Bill Sizemore | Sep 27, 2007 8:54:12 AM
No, David, you may be able to stick a fork in me, but I am not done yet, as you will see next November. The OEA spent a million and a half dollars, stacked a Multnomah County jury, and even found a dishonest judge whose son is an OEA activist, to preside over their lawsuit, but that was not enough to force me out of politics. Heck, it's too much fun to quit.
And yes, Bradbury does cheat. He is easily worse than any secretary of state in my memory. Go to www.billsizemore.com and read my article about when your signature doesn't count. The man has no conscience. Bradbury uses his office to further his own political agenda, plain and simple. That might be overlooked in some offices, but secretary of state? Even left wingers ought to demand integrity from that office.
And what back taxes are you talking about, Raul. That's a pretty lame shot, since there are none. Personal attacks are the last resort of shallow people with nothing intelligent to say.
There was at least one intelligent post on this thread. Jeni makes a reasoned argument. Just because I believe homosexuality is wrong does not mean others should have to live by my values. But the thing is, Jeni, this values war was not started by homophobes attacking gays. It was started by a militant gay and lesbian movement, which is trying to force society to give their lifestyle some official stamp of approval.
There are valid societal reasons for resisting that movement and one can do so without being homophobic. You don't have to have animosity towards gays to oppose their politial agenda.
I find it interesting that on those rare occasions I post on this or other liberal sites, the first thing that happens is the cheapshot artists begin their personal attacks. Such behavior is immature and pitiful. Some of you really don't have anything intelligent to say, do you?
The question I pose to serious readers on this site is this: What is the source of the supposed right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships, adopt kids, etc? Why is this a right? Is it a right simply because they want to do these things?
Is this one of those inalienable rights to which all men were endowed by their Creator? If so, what creator are you talking about? Certainly not the Christian or Jewish Creator. If this right does not stem from a creator, what is the authority for claiming it is a right, other than personal preference? And all of us want things and have preferences that are hardly rights.
For your side to win this argument, other than by legislative fiat, you need to persuade society that there is now some basis for legitimizing behavior that has been deemed ill-advised, antisocial and immoral for pretty much all of human history, except near the end of a few collapsing civilizations.
If you cannot do that, then you are going to have to be content with forcing your will upon the rest of us. But then, don't blame us for resisting.
Posted by: Eric J. | Sep 27, 2007 9:03:00 AM
Is it too much to ask these people to just mind their own business and leave the people be? Why must they stick thier nose into something that really isn't any of their business to begin with? Why must they butt in? What they do in their lives is of no concern of me or others. We have no right to control these people.
To call these people 'christians' would be hypocritical and fraudulant.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 27, 2007 9:06:31 AM
The question I pose to serious readers on this site is this: What is the source of the supposed right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships, adopt kids, etc?
Why, that would be the US Constitution, Bill (which you apparently confuse with the Declaration of Independence). The latter document does nevertheless bear quoting:
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Sep 27, 2007 9:08:33 AM
>I voted against the last anti-gay rights initiative. In a weird way,
>maybe it would be a good thing to get this one on the ballot.
>End the debate once and for all by shutting down
>this one also at the ballot box.
The "last anti-gay rights initiative" was Measure 36 - and it PASSED.
Thanks to all those prejudiced Catholics, Mormons, and African American Protestants who came out in droves to deny basic civil protections to their fellow Oregonians because their evidence-free, imaginary gods and goddesses told them so...
And thanks also to limp, pathetic Democrats who pander to these folks, and who still fail to acknowledge gays and lesbians as fully human, due the same Constitutional rights and responsibilities as they enjoy.
I suspect it's much better if we are spared further voting on my family's equal participation in American life..! Who's going to stand up and speak for us this time? The Archdiocese of Portland? Hillary Clinton? Ted? Please...
Posted by: Tom | Sep 27, 2007 9:41:29 AM
I thought Sizemore was a closeted gay - doesn't he live off his sugardaddy (the Oregon billionaire) Jeld Wen, down there in Klamath Falls?
Posted by: Mary | Sep 27, 2007 9:47:00 AM
The reason the right-wing neo-con nuts didn't send Sizemore any petitions is because Sizemore is unwanted anywhere in Oregon politics; no grouip wants to be associated with him. And Sizemore's posting here shows that he is trying to stroke his own ego and feel important. The fact is that Bill Sizemore is a pariah in Oregon politics.
Posted by: James X. | Sep 27, 2007 9:47:25 AM
Bill S., the right for people who are gay to be treated by the government in the same way that the government treats people who are straight is derived from "All men are created equal." Note that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of any "marriage protection" act. Rather, etched in stone above the entrance to the court are the words, "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW." The court has unanimously determined that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Posted by: Inthewoods | Sep 27, 2007 9:59:45 AM
liberalincarnate
You move your A#$ out of this state, git, get out, we don't need you here. Bill S is what we need in this state, not YOU!!! Let me be the one to pay for the U-haul for you so you can MOVE out of this state...Hurry up now
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 10:07:27 AM
Wrong Inthewoods, we Oregonians don't need people like you or Sizemore shitting up our state.
Posted by: Bob R. | Sep 27, 2007 10:29:10 AM
It has been said before by me and others, but it bears repeating: Civil marriage is a right that is recognized even for terrorists (who can still marry), murderers (who can still marry), (heterosexual) child molesters (who can still marry -- even their victims after time), the "underage" in some states (who can still marry), the multiple-divorcees (who can still marry -- so much for "sanctity"), everybody. Just not gay people.
- Bob R.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 10:31:14 AM
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 27, 2007 9:06:31 AMThe question I pose to serious readers on this site is this: What is the source of the supposed right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships, adopt kids, etc?Why, that would be the US Constitution
Yep. Specifically the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Which makes things like denying access to the legal instrument of civil marriage to same-gender couples a violation said couple's equal protection under the law because their genders are the same.
This was part of what struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence v Texas back in 2003 when it overturned Bowers v Hardwick and as such laws treating same-gender couples unequally violated substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
It seems people like Inthewoods and Sizemore have a real problem with treating everyone including non-heterosexuals equally under the law. Why they can't stomach the idea of everyone being equally protected under the law I can't say, but there it is.
Most fair-minded people who aren't bigots or head-cases, when given honest information come to the conclusion that it is wrong to discriminate against non-heterosexuals. Only head-cases working through there own issues (or not working through them I should say) obsess about gay and bi people to the point where they want the law to discriminate against non-heterosexuals.
Posted by: Kristin Flickinger | Sep 27, 2007 10:40:13 AM
I’d just like to say thanks to Mr. Sizemore for giving us some first-hand discussion of signature-counting in Oregon. There are probably few people who have as much experience with this topic, and I’m happy to hear the numbers he has to report.
Aside from that, I’d merely like to offer that what I want is simply to be treated as human. What that means to me is that I would like to be treated with respect, equality and understanding when possible. The source for my claim is my humanity. That simple. My mom gave birth to me 30 years ago. I exist. Just like Mr. Sizemore. That’s it. For that reason, I try to treat others the same way.
Here’s what I have started to notice about myself: When a marginalized community has existed in a subordinate position within a power structure it seems that we absorb that power structure so completely that when we gain the smallest bit of power, we impose that familiar structure on others, believing that subordination is the route to what we want – that by making someone else small, we become greater. I just want to challenge that, mostly because I find myself falling into that trap on occasion and I have to remember why.
One of the greatest things I’ve ever seen was at the Portland pride parade a couple of years ago where a number of protesters, holding signs and yelling slurs, rushed a group of queens. The lovely ladies encircled them, held hands and chanted “We love you. We love you.”
So, Mr. Sizemore, thank you for your addition to this dialogue. I disagree with nearly everything you stand for. I will work diligently for those things that I stand for – including your humanity.
Posted by: jeremy | Sep 27, 2007 10:45:48 AM
Sizemore,
First, I apologize for the vitriolic, personal attacks thrown at you by my liberal cohorts on this site. I consider Tom’s post particularly distasteful.
Second, homosexuals derive rights from the same source as heterosexuals: the U.S. and Oregon constitutions. Discrimination based on sexual orientation violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses) and Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution.
Just because a law discriminates according to sexual orientation does not render it per se unconstitutional. Courts apply different standards of review to discriminatory laws depending on the importance of the interest involved. Thus, courts apply strict scrutiny (almost always fatal to a law) to the discrimination against homosexuals in the exercise of their political rights, as in Romer v. Evans. But courts apply only rational-basis review to discrimination with respect to less fundamental interests, such as adoption ( Lofton, 358 F.3d 804). Thus, when those of us who oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation argue that homosexuals have a right to adopt, what we are really saying is that to the extent that government permits adoption, it cannot discriminate against homosexuals because this discrimination is not rationally-related to a legitimate government interest. Most courts have disagreed with us on this point, but I am confident that our argument will ultimately prevail.
Posted by: Joe Vardner | Sep 27, 2007 11:02:06 AM
The question I pose to serious readers on this site is this: What is the source of the supposed right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships, adopt kids, etc?
Bill, as both a gay man and a jewish man, I can tell you I'm a believer that my religion does support me in relationships. If you want references, I can send you to a few Rabbis who agree. In fact, there are entire congregations that agree.
It helps to know that when we talk about the generalities of equality, everyone deserves it (thank you James X). Yet, we're not treated equal. In over half the states of the union, I could be fired for simply being gay. Not for any reason of my performance. And with every serious, major medical study showing that this is not a conscious choice (trust me, it isn't), how can you stand there and say I'm not equal because of a decision I never made?
The laws adopted by the legislature support the belief that the government can't treat differently people just because the government doesn't like them. Ironically, this is exactly what Bill's accusing Bradbury of.
Yet I digress, the government can't stop committed couples from enjoying the legal benefits, tax incentives, and many of the other dozens of things that previously were only given to heterosexual couples. As well, the laws protect me from being fired simply because my employer disagrees with things that have no impact on my performance.
Bill, if you wanted to fire one of your staffers cause he's gay, and no you can't because you have no other reason, then too bad. But you're still free to go hating anyone or loving anyone you want. That's your right, and I'll fight for your's, even though you won't stand up for me.
p.s. I'm proud to be a progress democrat. So throw that word around as slander as much as you want, I'll wear it with the respect it deserves.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Sep 27, 2007 11:26:05 AM
Jeremy, thanks for introducing some nuance into the discussion of the 14th amendment. One of the reasons that a special woman suffrage amendment to the U.S. constitution had to be passed is that the Supreme Court decided in the 1870s that the 14th amendment did not apply to women's voting rights. It sounds like protection of political participation rights has gained importance since then, but we need to be aware of 14th amendment limits.
Bill S., when Jefferson & Franklin wrote "endowed by their Creator," they probably were not referring to a specifically Christian or Jewish creator. Had they wished to do so very common language such as "endowed by the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth" was easily available to them. In the historical context, they made a deliberate choice not to do so.
Both Jefferson and Franklin were deists, who spoke mostly about "Providence" -- a divine force that provides -- possibly modelling themselves on Roman Stoics who did likewise. For the Stoics the idea of Providence was very close to that of Nature and in some ways prefigures the Universalim that emerged in the 19th c. U.S. & merged with Unitarianism denominationally in 1959.
Jefferson may have been less consistent about his deism than Franklin, though since he operated in Virginia rather than Philadelphia, where the Quaker doctrine of the universality of the presence of "that of God" in all persons tended toward liberality in religion, Jefferson's religious references sometimes have to be seen as affected by politics. Certainly also his political opponents in the early republic lambasted him as an atheist and profoundly unChristian.
Franklin was quite systematic in his views, having been raised in Cotton Mather's starkly Calvinist Puritan congregation in Boston, and flirted with "free-thinking" (atheism) in his youth, before into a belief in a universal creative and providential force. He was agnostic about much further than that, e.g. Is that force personal -- taking the form of a person on whom humanity is modelled? Is the Bible literally true? Was Jesus divine? Does Providence operate through other religions than Christianity? Etc.
In any case, the First Amendment makes it quite clear that the rights embodied in the Constitution do not depend on the specific Creator(s) envisioned in either Judaism or Christianity. Our rights cannot be properly interpreted or restricted by reference to Biblical texts.
Posted by: JHL | Sep 27, 2007 11:27:06 AM
Hooray... BlueOregon dialogue has achieved the intellectually-void "No YOU!" reasoning of NW Republican.
Guys, please remember that the R's started quoting blogs on their direct mail last cycle. Pointing out their foibles and idiotic reasoning makes for fine sport... but shouting back insults isn't going to spark any measure of self-reflection and -- at worst -- colors the left as dim-witted moonbats.
If you count Bill Sizemore as your foe, then relish the chance to see a little deeper into his [bizarre] thought process (with more than just a grain of salt, of course).
Posted by: Sarah Wetherson | Sep 27, 2007 11:34:18 AM
Is this one of those inalienable rights to which all men were endowed by their Creator? If so, what creator are you talking about? Certainly not the Christian or Jewish Creator. If this right does not stem from a creator, what is the authority for claiming it is a right, other than personal preference? And all of us want things and have preferences that are hardly rights.
Let's put aside, for the moment, the fact that the American system of laws is not a theocratic one. As a Jew, I take deep offense at your characterization of the Creator as one who did not endow us all with the rights that we are only too slowly now getting around to granting to gay men and lesbians explicitly through our laws. It takes a certain chutzpah for you to tell me what the Jewish Creator thinks.
Posted by: David English | Sep 27, 2007 12:01:40 PM
Thanks for the clarifcation on the deadline. I guess it's a wait and see situation to see if it qualified.
I was overseas when Measure 36 was on the ballot (which I voted against) and when I checked the election returns online, I was shocked that it passed. I honestly thought it had no chance.
Posted by: James X. | Sep 27, 2007 12:06:20 PM
I'm perfectly happy to see Sizemore come here. He can become a guest contributor. I just think some of his arguments are not fully reasoned, and I'm going to explain why I think that.
And while I'm not a fan of name-calling and cheap shots, I'm not wary of the GOP quoting us, either. Someone could perfectly easily come here and post something just to use it in an ad against us. Oh well.
Posted by: Patton Price | Sep 27, 2007 12:08:55 PM
Bradbury does plenty of bad mouthing of petition circulators and chief petitioners, including me, but if there is a crook or thief at work here, it is he.
Tell it to the judge, Bill.
Posted by: Misha | Sep 27, 2007 12:19:23 PM
The question I pose to serious readers on this site is this: What is the source of the supposed right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships, adopt kids, etc?
While I appreciate Jeremy's thoughtful response, I really don't understand the question.
What is the source of the right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships? The source of the right is a statute passed by the Oregon legislature last session, just like the source of the right for straight couples to enter into relationships recognized by the state is a statute (or, more precisely, a variety of statutes).
In most states, gays and lesbians have no right to enter into state-recognized relationships. But they can still encourage the government to create such a right.
Bill, what do you believe to be the source of your right to enter into a relationship with your spouse? (I'm assuming you're straight. Correct me if I'm wrong.) If you think the source of your right to have the state recognize your marriage is God, then I'd ask you to point me to a passage in the Bible that discusses state recognition of marriage. (Being that the church did not consider marriage a sacrament until the year 1215 CE, and state recognition of marriage was an innovation of the 18th Century, I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a Biblical passage.)
Even if the Bible did say something about state recognition of heterosexual marriage (which it doesn't), I wonder why that should have any bearing on the present discussion. The Bible doesn't say anything about the right of Hindus to get married, and yet we don't stop them from entering into state-recognized relationships. Conversely, the Bible does expressly sanction polygamous marriages (see, e.g., Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15), and yet we don't permit men to have more than one wife. So, to borrow a phrase, "What's the Bible got to do with it?"
The whole discussion seems to be beside the point, Bill. Jeremy argues that there is a constitutional right for gays to enter into state-recognized relationships and for them to be free of discrimination. I think he's right. But even if he is wrong, so what? It is still good public policy for the legislature to provide these rights.
Posted by: Recovering Straight Girl | Sep 27, 2007 12:32:22 PM
I also agree that we, as progressive people should not lower ourselves to a level of name calling and malicious remarks. There is always room for respectable debate, and a lot of that has certainly been shown here today. It's important that we stick to the facts, and I would suggest that Mr. Sizemore and his constituents do the same.
The last time I checked, those "liberal democrats" who are "shoving this down our throats" were elected by the majority of Oregonians to make and pass laws on our behalf. It is unbelievable to me that a group of people who are obviously ignorant to the facts are able to delay my basic rights as a person. I don't have a "lifestyle," I have a life, and that life includes my wife and my children.
My partner and I deserve the same protection under the law that I received when I was married to a man. No more, just the same.
Why is that asking so much?
Posted by: tl | Sep 27, 2007 1:30:47 PM
It's 3.5 years old, but this cartoon still is relevant as long as there are arguments about "defending traditional marriage" and who should or should not be allowed to marry or gain civil unions.
Some of my relatives, US citizens by birth, who fought in WWII for the US while the rest of their families were placed in concentration camps were still not allowed to legally marry Caucasians in Oregon and had to cross over into Washington state to marry.
-tl
Posted by: Misha | Sep 27, 2007 1:41:10 PM
Also, let's remember that what Mr. Sizemore calls policies "shoved down our throats by a bunch of liberal Democrats" are actually policies supported by a solid majority of Americans.
1. The Legislature passed a ban on employment discrimination against gays and lesbians. According to a May 10-13 Gallup Poll, a solid 89% of Americans support this policy.
2. The Legislature passed a domestic partnership law, giving same-sex couples many (but not all) of the same rights as opposite-sex married couples receive. According to a Fox News poll from last November 4-5, a full 60% of Americans support either gay marriage (30%) or "a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage" (30%).
So, Bill, think what you will about the merits of these policies, but let's not pretend they are part of some kind of radical agenda forced upon Oregonians by an out-of-touch legislature. These policies are well within the mainstream.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 2:10:12 PM
Posted by: Recovering Straight Girl | Sep 27, 2007 12:32:22 PMMy partner and I deserve the same protection under the law that I received when I was married to a man. No more, just the same.
Why is that asking so much?
Come on.. admit it.. you also want the toaster oven that nefarious Gay Agenda™ gives out when you convert someone into being gay or bi (though you have to convert two people into being bi instead of just one if they are made gay).
;-)
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 27, 2007 2:33:02 PM
>you also want the toaster oven that nefarious Gay Agenda™ gives out when you convert someone into being gay or bi (though you have to convert two people into being bi instead of just one if they are made gay)
Wait! They can get the toaster oven anyway, if they register for it when they get married!
%^>
Here's what I don't understand. How would my rights, or Bill Sizemore's rights, or any other non-gay person's rights, be infringed if the state of Oregon were to recognize civil marriages (not civil unions, civil marriages) between individuals of the same gender?
Nobody proposes forcing the churches to solemnize marriages or other unions they do not approve of. We are talking about state law and an agency of state or county government. Where is the attack on anyone else's rights by simply extending the recognition to same sex couples? I just don't see it.
It's not even like employment discrimination. Never mind how deeply wrong it is, I can theoretically ALMOST understand an employer saying, "Sodomy squicks me out! If I know somebody who works for me is committing sodomy, I can't even look at that person anymore!" (Well, above and beyond the fact that many straight people enjoy various flavors of sodomy from time to time, I can almost understand that.) But allowing same sex couples to get married need not even TOUCH the life of a committed homophobe. Where's the issue?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 27, 2007 3:11:02 PM
That is what it always comes down to, isn't it? Thank you for at least being honest about it.
Well, thankfully, DanS, we do not live in a theocracy ... YET.
We are talking about civil rights under civil law.
Posted by: Minny | Sep 27, 2007 3:31:48 PM
DanS--
I just read those two Bible passages three times, and I can't for the life of me figure out what they have to do with allowing gay couples to file their income taxes jointly or allowing gays to visit their life partners in the hospital.
Maybe you can explain....
Also, maybe you can explain to me how we should give these Bible passages effect in the law:
Deuteronomy 23:1
Deuteronomy 23:3
(Under those Biblical provisions, bastards and eunuchs are not permitted to get married.)
Posted by: Recovering Straight Girl | Sep 27, 2007 4:00:51 PM
Or one of my favorites from Leviticus 20:9--
"If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head."
Perhaps we should use this to justify legalized infanticide?
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: lestatdelc | Sep 26, 2007 5:51:29 PM
Is usual the invalid signature rate higher than 12% on most petition drives?