Temporary

Kristin Flickinger

This week the LGBTQ community suffered a temporary setback when plaintiffs funded by two out-of-state organizations sought and were granted a temporary restraining order, which put on pause the issuance of Domestic Partnerships in Oregon.

At the same time, LGBT Oregonians throughout the state found themselves protected, for the first time, from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public services, and public accommodations.

To be sure, the temporary restraining order is a legal hurdle that has real effects felt by families throughout Oregon. For those poised to enter into a contract with the state that would afford the protections not provided by any other means, save marriage, this pause means uncertainty. For those who sought the recognition of the state as nearly-full citizens, this decision feels unjust. And for those who looked forward to celebrating the creation of an almost-equal system for LGBT citizens, this is a bitter disappointment.

But it is temporary.

This legal pause is but a gasp, uttered by those fearful of the LGBT community as they realize that the march of history is toward an uncomfortable equality. This gasp is heard around the country, from the mouths of the same fearful people.

Today, while we are temporarily restrained from gaining the rights promised by our legislature, we are at least partially protected in our jobs, homes and public spaces. While we wait for the court’s ruling, as we have so many times before, we can take the opportunity to work toward a lasting victory.

As I’ve said before and truly believe: it is our humanity that will allow us to have lasting impact. It is our humanity that is our greatest strength.

Now is the time to talk with those we know about what equal rights mean for our families, about how we are personally affected by the historic legislation passed during the 2007 session. Now is the time to talk with our neighbors about their gardens and our schools and the importance of health care. Now is the time to help those who act out of fear to understand that we are human – not almost human, not similarly or separately human, but fully human.

Whatever the decision of the court, the real victories – the lasting victories – will be those we experience with our neighbors, our families, our coworkers and the guys in our bowling leagues.

So, start talking. And, while you’re at it, talk about how important it is to you that we elect fair-minded officials who appoint and confirm fair-minded judges.

Comments

  • Mary (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h1>"This legal pause is but a gasp, uttered by those fearful of the LGBT community as they realize that the march of history is toward an uncomfortable equality."</h1>

    Not really. It is a question of law. Is a signature on a petition similar to a vote on a ballot? Can a person validate his/her signature on a petition, even if the county clerk says (incorrectly) it is not a valid signature? With a written vote, you can do this. Can you do this on a petition?

    This question of law was not uttered by 'those fearful of the LGBT community', but rather by those who want a honorable and respectable process by which signatures on a petition are treated with the same level of respect as a write-in vote, regardless of political ideology.

    "Whatever the decision of the court,..."

    Either the court allows or does not allow the petitioners a vote on this issue. If it does allow a vote, then the people of the state of Oregon will also have their say.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mary is lying. Thes plaintiffs are not motivated by any desire to honor signators. They're motivated by dislike of homosexuals.

    There have been several recent petitions -- e.g. The Oregon Political Campaign Fianance Reform Act in 2006 -- that didn't have enough valid signatures. The people who filed this suit didn't care about those signators rights. They only care about this one because, for weird reasons I can't comprehend, they want homosexuals to stay second class citizens.

    It is disingenuous for them to pretend otherwise. I suspect they know that bigotry is considered distasteful by most people, so they're trying to find some other plausible justification. I don't buy it.

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    what Bert said

  • Lewis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Check out my call for a WIDESPREAD LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN....we need everyone's help....today:

    http://spiritofsaintlewis.blogspot.com/2008/01/letter-writing-campaigncivil-unions.html

  • (Show?)

    All we have to do is follow the money behind the suit to understand the motives...and it AIN'T what Mary said.

  • Mary (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bert Lowry is lying when he says:

    "Thes plaintiffs are not motivated by any desire to honor signators. They're motivated by dislike of homosexuals. There have been several recent petitions -- e.g. The Oregon Political Campaign Fianance Reform Act in 2006 -- that didn't have enough valid signatures."

    Obviously, Bert Lowry does not know the motivations of the plaintiffs. He knows only his own bigotry.

    Nobody who signed for that petition (The Oregon Political Campaign Fianance Reform Act in 2006) went to their county to contest that their signature was improperly rejected.

    But in this case many people went to their county clerks to protest that their signature was rejected improperly.

    To claim bigotry when Judge Mossman is clearly not bigoted, (and has been deemed to be free from homophobia by BRO, no less, see wweek.com), is a poor excuse for your lack of sound reasoning. And your lack of debating skills. Perhaps you will now claim all who believe like Judge Mossman are Nazis?

  • Oregon Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What Jamie and Bert said

    They only care about this one because, for weird reasons I can't comprehend, they want homosexuals to stay second class citizens.

    Weird religious reasons - i.e., based on what someone's supernatural, imaginary god or goddess told them. Americans gain equal legal rights and responsibilities based on a human Constitution, which promises equal protection. For all.

    Of course, many of the most vociferous are self-hating, repressed gays and lesbians (priests? Larry Craig?), or those hiding some other sad "testimony." And it's always so convenient to have an invisible friend to back your un-American prejudice!

    But the times they are a'changing. Poor Mary.

  • (Show?)

    Now'd be a great time to practice some of that humanity I mentioned earlier.

    My point is that the reason there was even a petition in the first place is fear.

    This will be a fascinating exercise in jurisdiction based on a federal question, election law, and motions pleading.

    While we're watching the show, there will also be an opportunity to continue conversations that will lead us all to a better understanding of each other.

    As Yoda said, "Fear is the path of the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."

  • (Show?)
    Weird religious reasons - i.e., based on what someone's supernatural, imaginary god or goddess told them.

    In fairness to the UCC and Unitarians/Universialists, and probably others, laying this reaction at the feet of deists is misguided.

    Bottom line: The state has no more business dictating religious rites to Churches than Churches have dictating civil rights to the State.

    It's well past time to completely disengage the State from sanctioning "marriage." Let folks like Mary seek sanctioning religious rites wherever they like. Let's leave such matters to the individual's religious preferences and change the State's end of the equation to a straight-up Civil Union for everyone regardless of sexual orientation or religious beliefs. That's the only way that we're ever going to protect the rights of everyone to believe as they wish without imposing those beliefs upon the unwilling.

  • Oregon Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As Yoda said, "Fear is the path of the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."

    Ignorance is a huge wellspring of bigotry and fear. And religion is a huge source of ignorance. The only "arguments" proposed to explain why my family (two dads, two kids, multiple exchange students) is any less worthy of full equality are based on religious ignorance (my imaginary god says you bad).

    And my family is real, human, and American - and my constitution guarantees equal protection for all. You can believe in nice gods and goddesses, or nasty ones. But my rights don't depend on your supernatural doggerel. They depend on the recognition, by Americans, that everyone is due equal rights.

    But I think it's important to clearly identify the source of this ignorance, fear, anger, and hatred - the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and many African-American Protestant churches. And remind people that however much their Flying Spaghetti Monster rails against, say, brunettes - brunettes are still due equality.

  • Oregon Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In fairness to the UCC and Unitarians/Universialists, and probably others, laying this reaction at the feet of deists is misguided.

    But my rights are not based in someone's supernatural musings, however nice these may be. My rights are based in the Constitution, and reality - I'm real, my husband and I are celebrating almost twenty years, we have great kids, contribute mightily to our school and community. We're due the same civil protections as everyone else.

    So the UCC and Unitarians thankfully don't share the same active prejudice as many Catholics, Mormons, and African-American Protestants. But my rights don't depend on their imaginary goddesses or spirits either (no matter how nice they are!).

    Yoda ain't the source of my rights, either (though clearly he's a saint!)

  • (Show?)

    Thank you Kristen. And, what Bert said.

    "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself," those are the words of an open, accepting, loving God. Any family "defense" fund who thinks they are on the righteous path could not be more wrong.

  • Mary (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "And my family is real, human, and American - and my constitution guarantees equal protection for all."

    True statement.

    "My rights are based in the Constitution, and reality - I'm real, my husband and I are celebrating almost twenty years, we have great kids, contribute mightily to our school and community. We're due the same civil protections as everyone else."

    Also true.

    But the Mosman case is not about you and your husband's twenty year 'marriage'.

    It is about several county clerks who rejected signatures for not matching, even after the persons who signed the petitions presented affidavits swearing that the signatures were indeed theirs.

    Can county clerks determine that your signature (which kinda does look like your voter card, but also kinda doesn't look exactly like your voter card signature) is really not your signature? ...even if you sign an affidavit stating that it actually is your very own signature?

    Since this will affect your rights (and your husband's rights) on future petitions, maybe you should be interested in your civil rights in this area, especially since the Secretary of State's office will not always be held by a partisan hack like Bill Bradbury, but someday might even be held by a partisan hack like ex Speaker Minnis?

    Or are you only focused on one part of your Constitutional rights, but not any other parts?

  • (Show?)

    however much their Flying Spaghetti Monster rails against, say, brunettes - brunettes are still due equality.

    As are those who believe in "Flying Spaghetti Monsters."

    I understand why you're saying what you are saying, but I'm quite sure that demonizing and dehumanizing anyone will just create more fear, which is exactly what we should be moving away from with all of our might.

    One comment that appears to be from someone who disgrees with the idea of GLBT equality has derailed a discussion of how we can show compassion and humanity to those who would rather see us as less-than.

    If Mary would like to talk about the importance of election reform or the form of our representative government, I'm sure we can find common ground there.

  • truffula (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If signatures on petitions are equivalent to votes, then why don't petitions include options for "I want this to be on the ballot" and "I do not want this to be on the ballot?"

  • Jennifer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oregon Bill writes, "...Religion is a huge source of ignorance..."

    This strikes me as a polite way of saying, "people who are frightened by my sexual orientation are stupid hicks blinded by their religious beliefs".

    Perhaps the least effective way to persuade those who believe that homosexuality is a behavioral aberration (aka "sin") is to call them stupid.

    Similarly, efforts to demand tolerance are unlikely to achieve widespread success until it reflects a majority of public opinion. Specific rights enumerated in the domestic partnership law will (eventually) be secured.

    But it is a mistake to conflate tolerance with a fully functioning domestic partnership law. Tolerance will only be achieved over time, as the straight community realizes they have nothing to fear. Calling them stupid, or insulting their religion, only serves to exacerbate those fears.

    Peaceful coexistence demands less fiery rhetoric and more thoughtful interaction.

  • (Show?)

    Oregon Bill,

    You missed my point. If the UCC is reading from the very same scriptures that Catholics are, then "based on what someone's supernatural, imaginary god or goddess told them" can't be the correct explanation for the knee-jerk opposition you see to the DP law. I submit to you that the onus of responsibility is on the interpreters rather than on the scriptures, as the UCC example demonstrates.

    Beyond that, I agree with Kristen and Jennifer about the relative value of heated rhetoric in this case.

  • (Show?)

    Kristin,

    Thank you for this post and your comments. Eventually there will be domestic partnerships and civil unions. Those who say domestic partnership = marriage by another name will go on in their marriages (and divorces etc.) and find that d.p.s don't actually change them -- that heterosexual marriage is not harmed by this supposed "marriage by another name." And down the line that will lead people whose fear that full marriage equality would somehow harm them/ their marriages led them to vote for M36 will change their minds. Not all of them, but enough of them.

    That's because the simple truth is on our side. The simple truth is that marriage equality harms no one and helps more people have socially-supported strong families.

    As for the actual case, at this point I have an impression that we don't actually know what it's about. That is to say, the plaintiffs at the last minute brought in this case from the 9th Circuit saying that initiative petition signatures deserve the same level of legal protection that votes do. Judge Mossman not ruled as far as I know that the case definitely is relevant to this suit at all. I believe all he has done is say, "there's enough of a chance that this ruling may apply to this suit that I need to think about whether it does."

  • Holly Martins (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mary – several questions. One, did you sign the petition to overturn domestic partnerships and anti discrimination laws for gays and lesbians? And, if it did come to a vote, would you vote to overturn these laws? If so, please justify these votes based upon the idea that domestic partnerships are secular and legal, not religious, recognition of these couples.

    No one is asking you to become a lesbian, or even like homosexuals, or have anything to do with them. You may even denounce their lives as immoral and refuse them entry into your church. But, I suspect sadly for you, America and Oregon are not a theocracy (yet), and your church and your God are not the final arbiters of law and fairness in our republic: our constitution is.

    And beyond all that, you do realize, like those who supported anti miscegenation laws two generations ago, you’re on the losing side of history. All dogmatic conservatives are. In fifty years no civilized individual is going to think twice about this, just like we don’t now when we encounter a mixed race marriage – at least I hope you don’t.

    Of course, a lot of citizens will suffer between then and now because of people like the poor, misguided souls who tried to overturn these laws.

    Sad -- terribly sad. I pity you.

  • (Show?)

    Bert Lowry is not correct. He says:

    There have been several recent petitions -- e.g. The Oregon Political Campaign Fianance Reform Act in 2006 -- that didn't have enough valid signatures.

    But that petition had more than enough signatures and was certified to the November 2006 ballot.

    So I have no idea what he is talking about.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dan:

    But that petition had more than enough signatures and was certified to the November 2006 ballot.

    Yes, it looks like when I randomly chose an initiative that was rejected, I was consfused between "not certified" and "rejected." Thanks for pointing that out.

    Even so, you must have very little imagination to have no idea what I'm talking about. Frankly, I suspect you're just playing dumb. But I'll try to make my point more clearly:

    1.) The people who filed the suit in question have no history of advocating on behalf of voters/signators.

    2.) They DO have a history of working against gay rights. The initiative in question is about limiting gay rights.

    3.) Therefore, I don't believe them when they say their only motivation in the case is to ensure the rights of signators.

    It seems awefully silly that anyone would believe them.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, Kristen, for this post. I agree with Chris Lowe -- I feel that fair marriage laws are inevitable because people like me and Kristen and a lot of other people will not give up and because it is simply the just cause. It is as inevitable as segregation falling the second that Rosa would not give up her seat.

  • (Show?)

    Perhaps the least effective way to persuade those who believe that homosexuality is a behavioral aberration (aka "sin") is to call them stupid.

    Similarly, efforts to demand tolerance are unlikely to achieve widespread success until it reflects a majority of public opinion....But it is a mistake to conflate tolerance with a fully functioning domestic partnership law.

    While I agree with the general thrust of those arguing for measured rhetoric here, it's worth noting that Oregon Bill used the term ignorance which should not be conflated with stupidity as Jennifer did above.

    Ignorance is voluntary in this place and time. We all have areas in which we are ignorant, and we can solve that problem by becoming informed. Good factual information is out there, and if your belief system prevents you from internalizing it, that is your choice, however wrongheaded and damaging to your fellow citizens.

    On the other hand, stupidity is forever, and there is no cure.

    So calling someone "stupid" condemns them to a box that they cannot escape.

    Calling someone ignorant puts them in a box that they can leave anytime they choose to inform themselves.

    <hr/>

    Mary also has a point:

    None of us can credibly assert that we know what's in the minds of those who challenged the rejection of their signatures. But here, too, there's a case to be made for additional clarity re the counting process. When you have a petition that was rejected by a very narrow margin, the statististcal model currently in use, is rendered ineffective regardless of overall accuracy.

    It looks like we need to either reject all challenges based on individual experience, allowing only challenges to the overall outcome, or;

    We need to verify every single signature.

    Of course, whether driven by irrational fear or deeply held convictions about how other people ought to be made to live their lives, Mary and her fellow travellers are as doomed as the 19th century Luddites in the long term.

  • Laura C (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This question of law was not uttered by 'those fearful of the LGBT community', but rather by those who want a honorable and respectable process by which signatures on a petition are treated with the same level of respect as a write-in vote, regardless of political ideology.

    Um, then why have these same people stated that they will mount an ballot initiative for Novemebr 2008 to repeal domestic partnerships if the Judge rules against them?

    Measure 36 proponents who defined marriage as being one man and one woman (creating a special right for heterosexual committed couples) all said that same sex couples should go to the legislature to get civil unions/domestic partnerships.

    Hard to argue all they want is an honorable and respectable process when they are in fact neither behaving honorable nor respectable.

    What they really want is their theology to be the only law of the land. You got to ask yourself as an American, where else in the world are people wanting theocratic governments?

    "My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there."

    -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816

  • (Show?)

    The problem with the probable truth that petitioners are motivated by merely an overriding interest in preventing civil unions, is that it has nothing to do with the strength of their argument...

    "Judge Mossman not ruled as far as I know that the case definitely is relevant to this suit at all. I believe all he has done is say, "there's enough of a chance that this ruling may apply to this suit that I need to think about whether it does.""

    I think he actually said on the merits they would have a likelihood to prevail based on that ruling. However, I think the applicability of Bears United v Cenarussa may be tough to prove. The Idaho case really isn't much like Lemons v Bradbury at all.

  • Jennifer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oregon Bills assertion that "Religion is a huge source of ignorance...." most certainly implies that those who reject homosexuality are ignorant.

    While you may disagree with their religious beliefs, they certainly aren't "ignorant" simply because they have a moral/religious opinion that homosexuality is a sin, or that homosexual acts represent deviant behavior.

    Ignorant is synonymous with uneducated, which implies that homophobic opinions will be overcome with sufficient education. I simply don't believe that is true.

    To suggest they are "ignorant" implies that they will remain ignorant unless and until they share your "tolerant" views. Intolerance doesn't equal ignorance: education is unlikely to persuade them if they believe that homosexuality is proscribed by God.

    There are many educated and worldly people who maintain deeply intolerant opinions of homosexuality. They are not ignorant; they believe (quite literally) that God created men and women to love each other. Any other coupling is, for them, an abomination.

    Ignorance in this context quite easily translates into "stupid hicks." Given their willingness to hate the sin, but love the sinner", I think that kind of inflammatory language is harmful to the cause.

  • Rose Wilde (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think the reason I care so much about this one is that I AM married, and I often feel very guilty about taking advantage of an unearned privilege. There, I said it. (Not that this fixes anything, but I want to acknowledge this.)

    So I want to fight like heck to even the playing field as quickly as possible.

    About the ignorance comment -- I don't agree that homophobia is just about ignorance OR religious intolerance, though both may influence some of the haters out there. What about the intense dose of gender training we immerse ourselves in day in and day out, teaching boys not to be a wimp and never ever to be gay? Just look at the Oregon Healthy Teens Survey to see how often kids in school report harassment because of gender or sexual orientation and identity. What about our country's militaristic culture, which often equates might with right (so if I beat up a gay person I must be right)? There are many, many reasons why matters of the heart (and genitals) enter the public arena.

    What seems foremost among homophobes that I've met, however, is utter lack of empathy and compassion for their fellow humans. Who could watch Boys Don't Cry, The Matthew Sheppard Story, or (such a tear jerker, I cried and cried) Brokeback Mountain, without feeling love and compassion for all those star-crossed lovers out there in the world who feel a love they can't safely express?

    An earlier post said "It's just mean" and I still can't really think of a better word for it.

    I hope this is just a pause, and that we don't have to deal with yet another hate-fueled ballot measure in '08. It really brings out the whackos. And, more importantly, makes all my gay friends feel really unsafe (and actually increases violence against them).

  • (Show?)

    Mary wrote: "Can county clerks determine that your signature (which kinda does look like your voter card, but also kinda doesn't look exactly like your voter card signature) is really not your signature?

    So, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) wants the State of Oregon to implement a wildly expensive new petition signature verification system, so that every clipboard scrawl can be independently validated without resort to the economically efficient and scientifically sound statistical sampling methods currently used.

    Sounds expensive. Proving yet again the Religious wing of the Republican party is hard at war against the Business and Conservative wings.

    ... where's my popcorn?

  • Oregon Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I understand why you're saying what you are saying, but I'm quite sure that demonizing and dehumanizing anyone will just create more fear, which is exactly what we should be moving away from with all of our might.

    Hi Kristin (& Co.) -

    I was out of internet range for awhile, so this is probably too late to add, but...

    I can attack someone's argument for being utterly baseless; i.e., Zeus, while a character in great stories, does not physically exist. And I can say all sorts of things about the horrific things the followers of Zeus do. In fact, when Zeus followers, say, abuse children, dumb down science education, restrict health care for women, or prevent you from marrying, we should all attack their arguments!

    But what I cannot do - what I would never think of doing - what, as an honest American, I'm not raised in any way, shape, or form to do - is deny basic civil protections to the followers of Zeus.

    I think Zeus followers are (clearly) deluded, and their arguments are evidence-free, sorry and pathetic - but they can certainly marry. They can assemble, vote, speak, etc. They are fellow citizens, due the same rights and responsibilities as I am.

    Coddling the religious by "respecting" their utterly baseless mythologies to the point where they are afforded the status of legitimate arguments for denying their fellow Americans basic civil rights is ridiculous.

  • Jennifer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You might do a bit of research into Natural Law before you conflate Zeus and Christianity (hint: it ain't Darwin). Much of English Common Law (and the U.S. Constitution) was founded on the belief in a divine creator, from which all rights are derived. It's true with Islam too (now there's a tolerant bunch!).

    Don't confuse freedom of religion with freedom from religion. Worse, you're playing into the "Godless Homo" stereotype when you call some/all religions "utterly baseless mythologies".

    You also undermine the winning of hearts and minds game with such drivel.

  • Oregon Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Worse, you're playing into the "Godless Homo" stereotype. You also undermine the winning of hearts and minds game with such drivel.

    I am a "Godless Homo" - and proud of it, too!

    "Respecting" myth-based prejudice from Christianity, paganism, Islam and other evidence-free, "faith-based" belief systems hasn't gotten us very far...

    And it's time we clearly recognized the utterly baseless supernatural opposition to full inclusion for gay and lesbian families in the American promise of equality.

    I.e., you can certainly believe the Flying Easter Bunny hates short people - though I think you're utterly nuts for your belief (you have absolutely no evidence that a Flying Easter Bunny even exists!). But Flying Easter Bunny believers can vote, speak, marry, assemble - those terrific, secular, American ideals are guaranteed for all.

    However, your imaginary Easter Bunny is no basis for removal of short people rights.

    I know this is hard for the Flying Easter Bunny believers - you just can't get past the shock of hearing someone not respect your imaginary, furry little friend. But more and more Americans think you're a little nuts - and more and more will say it. When your bunny is the basis for denial of basic civil rights, more should.

  • Jennifer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I guess "myth" and "religion" are synonymous in the absence of faith. Good luck with that.

  • Oregon Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I guess "myth" and "religion" are synonymous in the absence of faith. Good luck with that.

    To believe a religious argument requires faith - i.e., belief without evidence - because there is not a shred of evidence to support religious, supernatural claims.

    Don't get me wrong here. I love a good story! My kids know all the myths, from Hermes to Jesus. But my family is under attack - and the effort to reduce my legal worth and value comes from Catholics, Mormons, evangelical Christians, and their utterly baseless, evidence-free beliefs. And I'm not ignoring the obvious.

  • Jeffrey Foust (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kristin Flickinger Is so right on the money with this on WE AS a QUEER state need to know our community . I have for one said it over and over do you know who lives in your building ? besides the other queers Now is the time for us to let them know who and what we are all about ... oh and btw I am Jeffrey Foust I am from Medford Or. yes the other end of the state where it is MOST IMPORTANT that they know who we are and what we stand for just as i am sure i stand with then on several thing .... GO on MISS K Speak the truth I for one and gonna drink your kool-aid anytime .... love ya

  • Carmen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We'll never really know why Judge Mossman ruled as he did, just as we'll never truly know why the petitioners requested the temporary stay. We all can speculate, based on our own life experience or ideals, but in truth, only they know what was in their hearts and in their minds. I am tired of people equating religion with bigotry and homosexuals with heathens. I am a 45 year old lesbian, and a CHRISTIAN!!!! I was baptized, I pray to God, and I consider myself "born again" in the sense that I believe Christ is my Saviour. Can anyone answer me why discussions such as this one, that started as a request to show others our best qualities, seems always to bring out our worst? Where are all those "Christian values" like love, honor, patience, tolerance, mercy, peace? You've taken one passage from the Old Testament and made it a mantra. Has any of you noticed the other restrictions in Leviticus, like not eating shellfish, pork, or rabbit, the laws regarding Yom Kippur, and that a man must marry the widow of his dead brother? There are 16 abominations listed in Leviticus, yet people seem to be stuck on this one. Last I heard, Christ's teachings, which are the basis of Christianity, are taught in the New Testament. Get over yourself.

connect with blueoregon