Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 27, 1997)
▼ EDITORIAL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Steven Asbury MANAGING EDITOR: Thom Schoenbom NIGHT EDITOR: Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITORS: Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond St !§§!§ ._J. ' 1 I m W ■■M-: mm 1|1§ ill editorials, letters, commentary and perspective ' r S S- ' • " v. s N ** •• * •. *• •• s"-. •• ' V. • V' V 5 NEWSROOM: E (541)346-5511 ■ DISPLAY ADVERTISING: M (541)346-3712 ” BUSINESS OFFICE: 2 (541) 346-5512 1 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: M (541)346-4343 A Domestic Debate ■ OUR OPINION: The fight to gain medical benefits for domestic partners doesn’t need to be so complex ^ 1 ''he idea of offering benefits to part ners of employees who are homo sexual is obviously controversial. —L. Views on the subject cut through moral and social divides, and each side of the debate has its own unwavering opinions that are unlikely to ever change. Now this contentious issue is coming to the University, and it shows no sign of dis appearing anytime soon. And rightfully so. Such an important sub ject needs to be addressed, and rushing the process will do no one any good. After discussion of the topic for years, a focused lobbying group has emerged on campus in favor of the benefits. The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Concerns Committee is pushing for medical benefits to be extended to the spouses of University employees who are gay. The local movement caught steam recent ly when a Multnomah County judge ruled last summer that another public state col lege, Oregon Health Sciences University, must offer benefits to domestic partners of all state workers. And more than 30 universities across the country have also extended benefits, includ ing Harvard, Yale and Stanford. But when it pertains to the University, the issue brings up many problems. First off, state law currently defines “spouse” as only a married partner. And any University decision must follow state law. Second, a University decision must also bow to the final decision of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education. Currently, the board’s policy only offers benefits to married couples and their dependents. So no matter how much the committee lobbies on the University level, it is the pow ers that be who make the final call. Probably the most intriguing problem in the whole issue, however, lies not in the question of whether domestic partners de serve benefits but in the exact definition of “domestic partner.” The committee has focused its efforts on obtaining rights for gay partners, but many long-term relationships also exist among heterosexual couples. Where does one draw the line? For the committee, focusing on gay rights makes more sense legally. Homosexual cou ples do not have the ability to marry (and therefore to obtain benefits) that straight cou ples have. So fighting for such an right for gay couples lends itself to more potential success. But for others, the question still remains. Many heterosexual couples will not marry, for whatever reason, and therefore could benefit from medical coverage. Should their cause not be championed? If the problem is to be resolved, a state def inition of “domestic partner” must exist. Re gardless of sexual preferences, domestic partner lobbyists are really fighting for the same rights. State requirements for reaching “domestic partner” status would help unite the cause and clear up a lot of gray areas in the debate. These could include the number of years the couple has been together, shared residence and other shared resources. The rights of domestic partners to receive benefits may never be completely resolved, but it doesn’t have to be quite so complicat ed. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. The Drawing Board Overheard j “I’ve always felt that i have the fun job on television. Now it’s going to be even bet ter." Vanna White from “Wheel of Fortune" on the new puzzle board that allows her to \ touch a switch to display the correct letter. “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.” Late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s the- ! ory on effective leadership. “I don’t want it to be, ‘Well they took the blood and dropped the sock.’” Bill Cosby’s appeal to police to make the \ case against his son's murderer air-tight. ! « | 1 “I guess I could be facing some serious charges right now." Danny Bonaduce of “The Partridge Fami ly“ after staging a car accident for his radio show that police thought was real. “We all should be joyful today. Our tech nology permits a change of the organs in animals so they are less threatening for the human immunology." Scientist Ian Wllmut's reaction to suc cessfully cloning a sheep. “I would rather see Amos n’ Andy. At least they were just straight up Uncle Tommin’. We’ve gone backwards.” Spike Lee’s criticism of Warner Brothers’ and United Paramount's portrayal of black stereotypes in their television programs. “The best-kept contraceptive secret is no longer a secret.” FDA Commissioner David Kessler on the release of the morning after pill. “I did not have any strangers here. The Lincoln Bedroom was never ‘sold.’" President Bill Clinton's denial that he let his top campaign donors spend the night in the White House. State Forestry Department needs widespread reform The Oregon Department of Forestry is more interested in quick fixes than really solving problems like landslides James E. Brown offers an interesting perspective on the work of the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) in his guest column (Feb. 7, ODE). But perhaps his view is a bit detached from reality. He says the agency is “currently con ducting vigorous geotechnical investiga tions” of the fatal November landslides. Hooray for them, but it is a bit late. The relationship between clear cutting, road building and landslides is already well-established. Apparently, Brown is too busy writing public relations pieces to read the scientific literature or talk to his co workers. A 1995 ODF study concluded, “Timber harvests in sensitive areas... may increase failure rates from two to forty times over rates on undisturbed sites.” Here is just one example of how the ODF works to keep “Oregon safe from land slides”: Susan and Rick Moon built their home in the Douglas County community of “Stump Acres” in 1973. Thirteen years lat er, they learned that Champion Interna tional was planning to clear cut the steep slope above their home. A forester visited the area and determined that their home had a “high potential for slide damage” if the unit was cut. Despite this and other information, ODF had neither the will nor the power to do anything but issue a clear cutting permit. ODF area director Craig Royce said, “ODF is not in the business of protecting hous es,” and district forester Steve Truesdel ac knowledges that the agency does not “have the authority to not allow activities on pri vate land.” In 1987, fellers rappelled down the slope and cut down the trees, clear cutting a 160 acre area. Nine years later, after hard rains and failing root systems that had lost their ability to hold the slope in place, the hill side came down upon the life and home of the Moon family. While Mr. Brown and others at ODF prattle on about the great work they are do ing and the need for more studies, Oregon’s forests are being beat to death. Management practices required by the Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA) focus on site-specific "quick fixes” rather than holistic solutions. The result is decreased function of ecosystems and watersheds, degraded water quality and lost forest pro ductivity. Real reform of ODF and the OFPA is crit ically needed, but it won’t happen when agencies and institutions are bought off by the likes of Boise Cascade, Willamette In dustries, Weyerhauser and the rest of the industry. What happens on “private” and “indus trial” forest lands affects us all. Function ing forest ecosystems provide clean water and air, sites for nutrient cycling and a place for critters to live. When managed with foresight and responsibility, such forests can also provide jobs for local com munities. When the ODF finishes its “critical” studies a couple months from now (after the coming logging season has come and gone), Brown says ODF “may make recom mendations that could lead to changes in current forest laws” [italics added]. If sustainable forest management prac tices are to provide for long term health of ecosystems and economies, real change is necessary before it is too late. For all its studying and stalling, the ODF is doing very little to implement such change. Michael Turaski is co-director of the Sur vival Center and a guest columnist for the Emerald. His views do not necessarily re flect those of the paper.
