▼ 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.