You know, I wasn't even able to use a locker back when I was in highschool. It was vandalized each and every day. I was called every name in the book. I remember narrowly avoiding getting my face bashed in, repeatedly. All because of a perception regarding my sexual orientation.

However, it is very pleasing to me to see Mr. Nashif showing his true colors. Finally. This allows us to call a duck a duck. We shall see how well he can marshall his resources to pull this one off. FWIW, I am fairly sure he will be able to, mostly because the institutionalized opposition (BRO) is about as effective as pepper spray at 100 yards, upwind.

The best thing we can do is hammer at the 14th Amendment. Over and Over. And hope that our selective support for the Constitution doesn't sound too hollow.

what i want to know is: when are we going to quit discriminating against nerds?

b!x:

I apologize if I was one of the nattering nabobs of negativity.

Now, what are their ties to 1. the OCA, 2. any known white supremecist groups 3. any known troublemakers?

Who is funding them? We need to follow their money, or at least the money in their PACs. anyone know of anyone doing so? This sort of detective work has had a significant impact in the past on the OCA (for every infraction there is a monetary fine--and I am sure there are infractions), and I can only imagine that the PACs are in place and going.

I read the article in the Oregonian a few days ago about the plans for new anti-gay discrimination and may blog it. The data confirmed what I had suspected. There appears to be more presumption of discrimination against homosexuals than actual discrimination. (The issue of gay marriage is, of course, the exception.) I don't understand why a lack of discrimination is considered grounds for complaint.

Yes, teenagers have adopted 'gay' as a synonym for 'uncool.' But, trying to compare that to the unrelenting bigotry people of color and women face in America is evidence that a person either hasn't a clue about real discrimination, or, simply doesn't care. I think it is the latter. Gay men are largely white and have better educations and incomes than most of the population. A surprisingly high proportion of them voted for George W. Bush in both the last election and 2000. In addition, racism and misogyny are rampant among the gay population. Basically, many gay men try to have it both ways. They participate in the benefits of bigotry, while claiming at the same time to be opposed to bigotry. The only discrimination many of them are really opposed to is that against themselves -- and, not too strongly, or we would not be seeing that high vote for Bush. When I read an entry like this one, lamenting discrimination against gays while dismissing racial discrimination, I suspect it is because most gays are white. It can't because they suffer more discrimination than other minorities because they suffer less.

Part of the backlash against gays during the election may have been because of the hypocrisy people observe. I was curious, so I spent some time at African-American sites where the anti-gay marriage legislation in various states was being discussed before the election. The overall impression I gained was that people are angered by nonsense such as the kind of remark that started this thread. When homosexuals can point to more than 5,000 persons lynched between post-Reconstruction and the 1950s, when they can cite segregation de jure as defining their circumstances until the 1960s, when a homosexual with a college degree earns less than a heterosexual who barely finished high school, then they will have grounds to make claims about discrimination that will not get them laughed out of Black Voices. As it currently stands, they embarrass themselves when claiming teens using 'gay' as slang is grounds for legislation. Another of John Doty's complaints is even more telling. He is disgruntled because high school students tell gay jokes without realizing gays are present. Any person of color, myself included, sees the assumption of white privilege embodied in such an inane complaint. It would be better to be visually identifiable, which makes it easier to be discriminated against -- which resulted in genocide, slavery and Jim Grow? Please. Only a fool, or someone blinded by whiteness, (which may be synonymous), would say such a thing.

There appears to be some discrimination against gays in Oregon in housing and employment. But, the incidence is quite low. Reasons? Gays have the advantage (yes, advantage) of not being identifiable, and, most of them are protected by white privilege. The efforts to pass new, largely unneeded legislation, is meant as a sop to homosexual activitists because of the rejection of gay marriage in Oregon. However, it cannot fill that void. Either domestic partnership legislation, or, a new effort to get gay marriage approved is where the emphasis should really be. Tim Nashif may be speaking out of prejudice, but the data gathered makes it clear that there is little discimination against gays in Oregon in ways the law can address.

JJArk, the only time I have ever had my home vandalized -- furniture overturned or broken, garbage tossed all over the apartment, urine and feces sprayed and smeared on the walls -- it was done by a white, male homosexual apartment manager and his friends. I was the only person of color in the building. They were overjoyed to find someone they considered themselves better than.

John Doty, fortunately, I don't have a child in your class. But, if I did, I would ask that she moved to another. Based on the attitude you have expressed toward racial discrimination in this entry, I would not want you anywhere near any kid of mine.

JJArk, the only time I have ever had my home vandalized -- furniture overturned or broken, garbage tossed all over the apartment, urine and feces sprayed and smeared on the walls -- it was done by a white, male homosexual apartment manager and his friends. I was the only person of color in the building. They were overjoyed to find someone they considered themselves better than.

You know, Diva, I resent that implication. I didn't do anything to your apartment. I haven't vandalized anything. I haven't discriminated against anyone based upon their gender, race, or ethnicity. I don't consider whole classes of people "less than" me. But it seems just fine for you to lump me into that offending race/sexual identity split. You don't even know your facts, and haven't taken the time to get to know me.

Heck, I don't even know who or what you are, your race or your ethnicity, thanks to your desire to snipe from behind a veil of anonymity. So just do us all a favor and stop your race-baiting and stereotyping. While you are at it, get a spine. Come on out from your veil of secrecy. What do you have to hide?

You know...on second thought. Don't bother, Diva. snipe away. I think it will be more productive to ignore you than work with you.

So...anyone have any info on who is doing work on the PACs these guys use?

It matters a great deal which groups suffer the most discrimination because that is where remedies are most needed. For someone not to realize that is a failure of even basic analytical thinking. What's next? Ignore the continuing drastic nature of race and sex discrimination while lamenting the fate of the left-handed? (Who, incidentally, outnumber gays.)

Equally important is crafting legislation to meet a real need rather than as a sop. When one does not make the distinction between a significant problem the law can remedy and feel goodism, one ends up with proposals for unneeded legisation such as some gay activists are encouraging in the Oregon legislature. As I said above, the proposed laws do nothing to address the real problem gays face -- inability to marry. The proposed legislation is largely crying wolf needlessly. The next time a cry of wolf with a legitimate basis arises, it may be go unheeded.

I have said nothing personal about JJArk. However, I will not allow him to bully me into not telling it like it is. The incident I described of having my apartment trashed by gay white men in a frenzy of racism is completely true. And, it is the kind of bigoted behavior, much too common in the gay community, that makes members of other minority groups unsympathetic toward gay people.

MacDiva says "... the proposed laws do nothing to address the real problem gays face -- inability to marry."

You have no right to define another culture's concerns. It's arrogant, ignorant, ageist, and you're wrong.

While no two forms of discrimination will look the precisely the same they are discrimination nonetheless … After all, while women are actually the majority of the population do you doubt that discrimination against women exists?

MacDiva: I could go into detail and pick the points of your argument apart, but I won’t. I would instead refer you to an amicus brief submitted in Li v. Oregon – recommended reading starting at page 12 of 45 in the PFD file. I have taken the liberty of pulling out some of the finer points relating to discrimination against gays & lesbians.

http://www.aclu-or.org/issues/Gay%20Lesbian%20Marrige/pdf/GayLesOregonians.pdf

• In 2001 8,063 bias motivated crimes targeting gays & lesbians
• Until 1965 gays & lesbians were excluded from immigrating to the United States, as “psychopaths”
• Criminalization of gay & lesbian relationships legal until last year
• 12 ballot measures in this state alone targeting gays & lesbians since 1988.
• 3 out of 4 gay & lesbians reporting experiencing prejudice because of their sexual orientation

Wow. I don't want to pile on to MacDiva too much, but I just wanted to address a few points I haven't seen mentioned. You seem to associate being gay/homosexual with white males. I don't find that to be very accurate, just from my own viewpoint. Most of the gay people I know are woman and many are not white. Oregon has a large lesbian community, which I believe your arguments are overlooking. It's not all "queer eye" out there . . gay comes in so many different forms, not all of it visible (which I think was part of John's point).

I also get the sense from your posts that you view the homosexual community as this large, white, male, urban, raging, rich, racist entity and what I've experienced is far from that. In fact, I just looked at a survey from the national gay and lesbian task force, comparing gay and lesbian voters with the general population. On about the third page, they compare incomes for 2003 and actually the LGB population actually appears at a first glance to have made less on average . . . they also aren't very supportive of Bush (although still not as "angry" as I would have wished). Furthermore, on page 5, it asks about race . . . and at least in this survey are just as diverse as the general population

The site to check it out is http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/LGBVoters2004Sherrill.pdf

Now, I can't verify all of this information. I can say that it comes from a credible source, which is the national Gay and Lesbian Task Force. But I think MacDiva, after reading your posts that you might want to explore your own biases. It just seems like you have a lot of misconceptions about the gay population.

And I'm sorry that your asshole landlord did that to you. That's truly unforgivable and maybe if I were in your shoes I would have developed a bias against the person who did that to me . . . . .

But, I believe that your ideas regarding discrimination are flawed. Just because you don't see homophobia doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I work with teen-agers and have talked to many about what it is like to be gay in high school. They're scared, fearful, bullied, taunted. The discrimination is so much more than just hearing the word "gay," which by the way is definitely starting to decline, I've noticed.

Here are some facts, also from the task force:

Twenty-six percent of gay and lesbian youth leave home early because of conflicts with their families over their sexual identities, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Twenty-eight percent of gay and lesbian youth drop out of school because of harassment resulting from their sexual orientation, the Task Force reports.

Twenty percent of street youth in a Portland survey, and 40 percent of street youth in a Seattle survey, identified themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, the Task Force on Sexual Minority Youth reports.

The 1989 Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide found that gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual youth.

The report estimated that up to 30 percent of completed youth suicides are committed by lesbian and gay youth annually.

A study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice reported that "homosexuals are probably the most frequent victims" of hate crimes.

I don't know. I just believe that we should offer protection for all people. No question about it. Besides, all this publicity about how we don't have the law now might encourage the bigoted landlord to toss out the gay couple living on his property.

Ugh! I was just trying to review Li at Findlaw when Safari crashed. There's something about that site and that browser. I will have to get back to Li, using another browswer, later.

However, I can make a summary comment about the claims that discrimination against gays being as serious as racial discrimination, now. It isn't and never has been. All those white Americans discriminating against people of color for centuries included white homosexuals. The blood is on their hands just as it is on white heterosexuals' hands. Maybe moreso, since, during the last century at least, they were complaining about discrimination against themselves while being racists and misogynists. Nor have disciminatory laws impacted gays nearly as much as they inmpact nonwhites. For example, Auggie points out that for a time there was a law forbidding immigration by homosexuals. For a much longer time, there were laws forbidding immigration of people of color. Furthermore, homosexuals could easily get around anti-discrimination laws. People of color couldn't. Gay activists really need to give up their claims of suffering discimination equivalent to that of racial minorities. All they do is embarrass themselves when they make them.

The Constitution does not protect gays qua gays because the 14th Amendment grew out of slavery and its implications. Gays have never been enslaved, or even subjected to segregation. There have been no movements to declare them genetically inferior. The courts have recognized that discrimination based on sexual preference is a far cry from discrimination based on immutable physical characteristics. For persons as dismissive of the history of people of color as John Doty is, the distinction makes no difference. However, I don't believe most people believe a teen saying something is 'gay' (uncool) is equivalent to real discrimination, such as being stopped for driving while black. And, that is a good thing. It means most people have common sense.

Mac – I have never met a “gay activist” who had made claims that gay discrimination is the same (the equivalent) of racial discrimination. And, trust me I have met quite a few well-known gay activists.

As I said no two forms of discrimination will be exactly the same – but no one group gets the corner on discrimination. Do you really want to get into contest over who is discriminated the worst … the Holocaust vs. slavery, Asian vs. Hispanic, Women vs. etc.

As you noted the 14th came about because of the implications of slavery – should it not protect women then?

You also seem to believe gays can “hide” – some can, and some cannot (should they have to!) – but, does it really make a difference whether they are discriminated against or not?

There are factors which make discrimination against gays & lesbians much different that of race … I have known too many gay & lesbian individuals, as Georgia addressed factually, who have been turned away by their own family.

And, the link is sent to the amicus brief in Li – which is the case about same-sex marriage currently before the OR Supreme Court – you should try to cut & paste the link (I am horrible at creating links) – I don’t think you’ll find it in FindLaw.

Mac - And in reference to you comment: "There have been no movements to declare them genetically inferior."

Until 1973 the American Psychiatic Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder (aka genetically inferior). Not to mention Hitler's classification as homosexuality as genetically inferior...

“All forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere.”

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."

"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."

"Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others."

“I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.”

All quotes from Coretta Scott King, except last one which is from Martin Luther King Jr.

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/coretta.html

I have said nowhere on this thread that I oppose equal protection under the law for homosexuals, Doretta & Co. Nor have I said that no discrimination against gays occurs. Furthermore, I probably blogged in favor of gay marriage more than most liberal bloggers. What I did say is:

1) The historical record makes it clear that discrimination against gays in America has not been nearly as deep-seated and brutal as discrimination against racial minorities. (Correct me by pointing to slave sales featuring lesbians, or lynching of gay men for being gay or Jim Crow accommodations for either, and I will cheerfully retract that statement.)

2) The data John Doty refers to do not support his claim. Just the opposite. It reveals very few allegations of discrimination by gays and lesbians in Oregon. As I said above, the proposed legislation is a remedy for a problem that barely exists. It is meant to be a sop for failing to allow gays to marry -- sort of like treating a person for influenza when what he actually has is appendicitus.

Of course someone would trot out the old 'racial discrimination is in the past' claim. And, of course, the person trotting it out is white. People of color know better. We are still dealing with discrimination on a daily basis. The passage of laws means little if they aren't enforced.

This is not the first time I have had to address an educator trying to equate teens saying 'that's so gay' with racism. In 2003, Brian Emanuels, a white Seattle school teacher, decided to 'fix' a student in his class who used the phrase. He 'corrected' the situation by calling the child a n-----. It later turned out the incident was not the first time Emanuels had used racial slurs to or about the students at his predominantly African-American school. Emanuels, another of those white liberals who think they are here to tell people of color what they can think and say, claimed to be surprised when black parents objected to his behavior. John Doty is about a half-step from the same sort of misstep. I do not at all regret sounding the alarm before he took that half step. You can read about the Emanuels saga here.

I just checked for updates on the Brian Emanuels episode. It turns out that two more white male teachers have been suspended for similar behavior. There's a problem there alright -- white teachers using the pretext of being concerned about gays as a mechanism to engage in racist behavior. Can't say I'm surprised.

Doretta wrote - "It always saddens me to see how often people who have suffered from serious discrimination can't find any empathy for other people who are discriminated against."

There's only so much room on the SS Victimhood.

If you allow too many people to board that ship, it's bound to sink.

Bingo, PanchoPdx and John D.

Now that that is out of the way, lets move on.

Again: who is out there actually doing to work to attack the infrastructure these folks are using? I wish to help them do this and have a few ideas of my own.

jj ark:

Check into Defense of Marriage Coalition - the sponsor of Measure 36. Which raised approximately $2.2 Million in 2004. Over $100K coming from Focus on the Family (contrary to their statements to the "O" that they would not be giving $ to the campaign).

Also, look into Oregon Family Council PAC, the producers of a "Christian" voting guide.

You can look up their finances on the Secretary of State website.

Notice payments to Gateway Communications - which the Mercury & Statesman Journal report are owned by Nashif. There are some pretty sizeable payments from the OFC & DOMC to Gateway. OFC (if my math is correct) paid Gateway over $53,000 in about a month. Also, the Mercury reported $96,571 of the $120,996 in the last election cycle went directly to Gateway.

To be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in BRO. They seem to have made some serious mis-steps...first for dealing with Diane Linn at all, second for trying to do something like this in an election year, and third for running the campaing again 36 the way they did. I really question their ability to fight another grassroots organization based upon their institutionalized status. It takes motivated people, and I am more than a bit worried that paid staffers get complacent and lazy. At least that is what seemed to be evident in the last election.

My wife is currently doing some research on the national level to see how to tie in contributions. Thanks for the heads up on Gateway! Gotta read the mercury more often.

One can rightfully debate the strategies of BRO's campaign to fight measure 36. It's easy to look back and say that "if I had been in charge, things would have been different." But being in charge means that one is privy to all sorts of things not known by those of us on the outside. So I reserve my judgment.

That having been said, I think it is just simply wrong to assume that BRO staff are anything but incredible, dedicated, hardworking, caring, and driven people. I know them all personally and don't think it could be possible to come up with a more honorable and admirable group of activists. Disagree with their decisions if you must, but beyond that you are on thin ice.

Regarding considering it a mistake to have dealt with Diane, I was right there when they tried every possible way to avoid rushing into this. But the weight of national events forced BRO's hands, and the County Board's (except for Lonnie, but even then his response to his constituency was similarly forced upon him, although opposite in ideology).

Again, unless you were there, you really can't have an appreciation for what happened, and how big and how fast it came.

/rambling thoughts/

Jim:

You have known me for 18 years. You may not remember who I am, but I worked with you against the OCA down south. I worked for you at the WAC. I am not some rube that fell off the turnip truck, with no experience battling the Uber Christian nutjobs. I was doing this before I could legally drive a car, smoke cigs, or buy a beer. Over half my life.

I suppose I am frustrated, and taking it out on BRO. I am not sure how it happened, but the got us good this time around. I am kinda thinking that we were expecting Lon and Co's typically mismanaged state and perhaps were stunned by the OFC? Did we bring a stick to a knifefight? It sure looks like that from outside looking in.

I just keep finding myself wondering how a bunch of neobarbs that think like the Taliban on this issue managed to outflank our (admittedly) dedicated, hardworking staff. Why did we hold back, and not call it like it was: UnAmerican. How is that they got sooooo many folks motivated, and we got so few (and I was at the bars and adult places--there wasn't any fire on this issue). Where were the attack dogs, the 3rd party players that fill the roles of harrass and harangue? Where were the SEC complaints? Why the deafening silence when spurious claims were made?

I apologize if I hurt feelings over there, Jim, but the truth is, we lost. Heck, we got trounced. The last plan didn't work. If this is the extent of the playbook, its time to toss out the coaching staff, and move on to something that will work.

oh, and you are right about Dianne. I am not sure BRO could have avoided that. I just don't like her politically. She has the uncanny propensity to burn every stew she makes politically. I am sorry to have lumped BRO into it, but they have been tarred by association, fair or not.

jj -- I have great personal respect for you and I recognize your distress, because at other times -- dare I say "when I was younger" -- I felt much the same. But I've come to see winning and losing as something different from election outcomes. I'm seeing a bigger picture, and in this picture we are winning. We haven't won yet, but it's getting closer. I've been deeply involved in gay & lesbian equality in Oregon for 33 years, and overall we have seen steady progress, with the occasional bump in the road. But we always bounce back, each time stronger than before.

To have over 51% of Oregonians 60 or younger vote NO on M36 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OR/I/02/epolls.0.html) is a HUGE triumph, regardless of the election outcome. It predicts a very short (from my perspective) while until the major opposition is gone and we can find equality.

Part of our dilemma and shortcoming has been a collective misunderstanding that opposition is all from "uber Christian nutjobs." I probably believed some version of this myself until recently, and sure, they are the ones who initiated this. But re-read some of the stuff Mac Diva has written in this thread. There is a whole lot more to our opposition than the Christian right. Clueless lefties who don't begin to grasp the gay and lesbian experience voted yes on this too. And others voted no yet still oppose true equality because somehow our concerns don't have sufficient standing with them.

Enough. John, keep up the good work. Your heart is in the right place and I'm glad you've been there working for equality.

Jim, actually, I think you and JJArk are very representative of why much of the electorate is turned off by what they refer to as "the homosexual agenda." They see people with next to know knowledge of American history, a holier than thou attitude, contempt for every minority group but their pet (and not so accidently, mainly white) minority, and disdain for the heterosexual majority as well, being the spokesmen for it. A matter being pushed by mean-spirited airheads is not going to go anywhere.

Even if the unneeded legislation passes it will make no difference because the problems it is directed toward largely don't exist. What would be achieved is a non-effective substitute for the real issue -- gay marriage. Legislators will be able to point to a statute that bars practically non-existent housing discrimination against gays and say, 'we gave you all that, now stop bothering us' when the need for gay marriage arises again. Those of us who have studied the women's and civil rights movements know that offering disgruntled groups sops is not uncommon. However, it appears that the stupid have rushed to the forefront of the gay rights movement in Oregon. So, far they have been monumentally ineffective. It will serve them right if that continues. They should be replaced by people with good sense and good ideas.

I'm seeing a bigger picture, and in this picture we are winning.

I have to differ. I would say that we are not "winning" at the moment. I come to this conclusion not on the basis of gay marriage, but on the number of people who have gone BACK into the closet. The number of idiots I see in the triangle in Portland hollering "faggot" out their car windows, and the general feeling I get when I am in queer space.

The problem is that the religious right picks on the GLTB community cuz they can. The find ready accomplices in the African American Community, some Asian communities and among white middle class liberals of all faiths. This is not surprising, and has been going on for years. That isn't the real danger.

We haven't won yet, but it's getting closer.

Ok...I am willing to buy that...we are indeed getting closer. But what happens once we actually arrive? What will we arrive to? By whittling away at our cause, we cannot preserve what we have NOW, much less secure what should rightfully be ours. And after succeeding in legislating away the Gay Agenda, who will they turn to next? Who gets to be their next target in the name of "decency" and "morality"? They nature of scapegoating is that once established as a national policy, it must be built up. Fed. Given fuel in order to sustain itself because out of its nature, there is little (if any)indigeonous fuel.

To be honest, I never thought that I would ever see what we already have seen. Not in my lifetime, anyway. The lines around the Multnomah County building made my cry. But then to have that yanked away. It was cruel, wrong, and just plain dumb on so many levels.

I've been deeply involved in gay & lesbian equality in Oregon for 33 years, and overall we have seen steady progress, with the occasional bump in the road. But we always bounce back, each time stronger than before.

Wow...well, I am not sure where you live, but I recall the sheer exhaustion in late 70's Eugene, and the exhaustion after Son of 9. No other single group has under attack the way we have been, time after time with the initiative process. And now we are caught between a rock and a hard place: Save our ammo for another battle (which we are all sure is coming), or expend that ammo on this battle--and this isn't that big battle. We can't back off, cuz if we do, they win, increasing their political capital.

After this last election, I am debating how much I want to get involved. In anything. How much money can we give, and how much time can we donate? How much should I care about other groups that insist that we are not only "not discriminated against" but are actually the oppressors (nice trick, holding the boot at our own throats)?

Why should we support communities that seems to not support us?

Or should we just give up and start joining the jackbooted thugs? Become the Oregon version of the SA? Our own homosexual shock troops, holding down the kike, the nigger, the other uppity groups that are the truly discriminated against? After all, we are supposed to be this militant group with an agenda to be afraid of. Perhaps fulfilling that reason is a function to get us out of the hole we are in? Maybe we can all salute Thomas Lauderdale as our revered leader?

But re-read some of the stuff Mac Diva has written in this thread. Sorry, but I refuse to read Mac Diva's posts. I have to watch out for heart attacks, and she manages to post a never ending flow of racist tripe from one site to another. She posts racist garbage and does so anonymously, never owning her own words. That fits my definition of troll. She has been banned from other sites, and will be banned here eventually.

Jeff, as I said in my first posts to this thread, I object to John Doty's misrepresentation of the issues for several reasons:

1) He is dissembling about the data. It revealed a lack of discrimination against homosexuals in Oregon.

2) The 'that's so gay' comment being used to try to justify unneeded legislation. It is teenagers' slang, not some draconian government policy, like Jim Crow. The fact that he and others have to grab at something that lightweight is a giveaway about the lack of weight of their argument.

3) Most of the legislation suggested is a bad idea. There is no basis for it. What rational gay rights leaders want is gay marriage. They should keep their eyes on the prize instead of settling for sops. Unfortunately, knowing the difference between good legislation and a sop takes intelligence, something that seems to be lacking among advocates for gay righs in Oregon.

People who read my blogs know I have been a strong supporter of gay marriage. (Why not? Allowing gays to marry will not cause any harm that I can think of.) But, I am a tireless critic of stupidity. Much of what gay advocates are putting forth to try to justify themselves is just plain stupid, like the 'that's so gay' red herring. Even with the legislation, people would be free to consider being gay uncool. How can anyone be so foolish as not to realize that?

I again reiterate that misrepresenting history insults the people whose ancestors were subjected to slavery, segregation and genocide. It is a major reason that gay marriage has not become an important issue to other minorities. By pretending to be more oppressed than they are, members of the largely white and middle-class gay population have alienated other minority groups.

The gay rights movement in Oregon also needs better 'faces.' JJArk is an example of what is wrong with it. I have never seen him express an opinion that was not self-centered and smallminded about anything. Guns? He likes them so they should be more accessible, despite the epidemic of gun violence. Fluoride? It is fine for children's teeth to rot because the cost might raise his taxes a little. Everyone has read his dimwitted blathering on this thread, so I will not bother summarizing. JJArk is the kind of person that savvy organizers have stuff envelopes. They know that if allowed to run his mouth, such a person will increase opposition to whatever the cause is. I'm sure he more than earned the arse kickings he keeps whining about.

Mac says: "I'm sure he more than earned the arse kickings he keeps whining about."

This is surely the most vile comment made on tbis blog since it opened.

Vile? Obviously you haven't been reading your fellow traveler's comments which include threats to assualt people.

Two would-be gay bullies who are giving their cause a bad name. It is hard to believe anyone could look on the likes of Jim and JJArk favorably. Either you agree with them totally or they're gonna hit you with their purses. Hmmmm. Come to think of it, they and their cause were fully and completely rejected. If they had the intelligence to do so, they would've learned something from that.

In the past, I've enjoyed Mac's point of view and incredible knowledge of history and race in relation to current issues. She has called it like it is, in my opinion, and I've been amazed at her eloquence. However, I've been following this story and comments, often with my jaw dropping open, reading them aloud in my queer multi-racial household (yes, we exist Mac), and am disgusted, dismayed at what Mac has said here, complete with huge flames and points that are personal put-downs made on assumptions. Pitting racial groups against gays, making a case for who has it worse, dismissing "hey faggot"s use in the schools, does a disservice for everyone and is total BS. The sad thing here is that I can only believe that Mac's desire is for equality, an end to racial discrimination, and fair laws and protection for all: but her alienation and absurd comments and denial of "there's a problem" will forever keep us from that. She's precisely the gay movement's biggest issue: our own liberal friends of color that are so angry at us.

I don't want your support Mac, at this point in time, as you pity yet scoff at the gay community's lack of proof of discrimination. You have just managed to piss people off in this thread. But I would ask you, where's our common denominator? You've clearly pointed out you've had it worse, and all the differences that exist in our communities and movements, but where is the point of connecting values? Is there, or is there no hope? Please stop posturing your support for gay rights through clenched teeth and scoffing at the poor white faggots that don't know what it's like to really hurt: it's an offense to all of us, including the community you don't seem to acknowledge that exists: queer, women, of color.

Mac, you are a coward hiding behind your anonymity. John Doty and JJ Ark (his real name--I'm his wife, I should know) own their words. Why can't you? Oh yeah--your words are vile. That'd be why.

LeAnn says: "She's precisely the gay movement's biggest issue: our own liberal friends of color that are so angry at us."

This hits the nail on the head. (ok, so now you know that I am a carpenter.) When we stop pretending that religious right fanatics are our only opposition, we'll make more progress.

I'm thankful that many right-thinking people of color do not hold this bias.

Thanks, LeAnn. I was trying to figure out what to say along those lines.

Because of my color, I was subjected to different standards of discipline in school, and to shouted insults and sexual suggestions from people in the street.

Because of my religion, I was spat upon.

Because of my sexual orientation, I was fired from a job (it wasn't subtle -- I was called in on Monday after my boss encountered me with my family one weekend, and just a month after I'd had a positive review).

Because of a landlord's guess about my sexual orientation (he had no reason to know), I was denied an apartment. And yes, he said it was because he had policies about "sexual morality" on his premises.

Which of those things do I feel better about? Oh, gosh, well, they just all warm my heart, doncha know?

Discrimination is not a good thing. It traumatizes its victims. Many face some form of post-traumatic stress disorder, which makes them react to the mere word "discrimination" with irrational and disproportionate vitriol.

I don't have the citations, but there are studies showing that many abuse victims lose some or all of their capacity for empathy. In the case of discrimination victims, who have the message "You are different" hammered into them, I believe that empathy, the ability to see others as similar to oneself, would have to be particularly vulnerable. (Unless there is a cultural imperative to fight that impulse, in which case you see inspiring things like the Japanese American community's standing up beside Arab Americans and American Muslims after 9/11.)

One reason to fight discrimination, in whatever form, is that we as a society can't afford to create more wounded, traumatized people who lash out angrily and irrationally without concern as to whom they hurt.

Another queer woman of color...

(And I can honestly say that the only discrimination I remember personally facing because of my gender is that my male cousins wouldn't throw me the football. Am I convinced that, therefore, sexist discrimination is not a problem? No, I'm made aware that I owe much to the people who worked diligently to minimize the sexism around me. I pay that debt by working to give other people a similar environment to grow in.)

All politics SHOULD be a personal narrative. Never lose sight of others in that narrative, they have a very important role. However, if your politics isn't about your personal narrative, then you will not be effective.

When we stop pretending that religious right fanatics are our only opposition, we'll make more progress.

I have to agree with this statement. I'm using an old playbook, trying to match up the silhouettes of enemies. I keep looking at the outlines in my book, and they just aren't matching up anymore.

Given what some folks are saying, the same people who count my community as allies don't wish to return the favor. Of course, my conscience doesn't allow me to return the slap in the face, but I do question if that is what is needed.

In some ways I am unprepared for those who should be our allies, but instead have taken on the role of collaborator. I am confused by why discrimination against one group isn't just automatically considered a transgression against us all. Why is it that it is OK for someone to call me a fag, and not ok to call an African a racial epitaph? Is there some magical point at which discrimination becomes acceptable cuz we "really can't be discriminated against?"

Lastly, I will readily admit I am bewildered at the deckhands on the SS Victimhood. Those who say that they have it worse off than me probably do. I have a roof over my head, a wonderful family, loving friends, a strong, vibrant community. I won't let myself be bashed and take a strong defensive stance for my friends and family. I am a bit fuzzy on why I am supposed to apologize for those connections. I suppose that makes me privileged, but even so, I still want to make the world a safer place for the babydykes and babyqueens. Those who will come after me. I would like to think that my efforts would spill over onto other communities, perhaps even toss a lifering out to those very deckhands and passengers who want to get OFF the boat, but maybe I am being overly optimistic.

I'm thankful that many right-thinking people of color do not hold this bias.

But I wonder how much paint can be spread with a wide brush? As I have said, I am accountable to that face in the mirror, so I will not return the slap in the face, but what about someone who looks at things from a wholly self centered perspective, and gives as good as they get? The percentage of Americans of African descent stands at around 13. The percentage of Americans who identify as gay or lesbian is roughly 4%, perhaps a bit higher. I am leaving out those who are Bi or Trans or are just not picky when it comes to gender (which would probably push us into the 8-10% range). Does that 13% wish to lose the support of the 4% and in the process ruin 20 odd years of cooperative involvement in each other's causes?

13% or 17%, we are still outnumbered.