4 Just O U t » November 5.2004
out
Mechanics
that fix
everything.
Including
PDX Automotive is a certified
Eco-Logical Business.
(503) 282-3315
PDXPS
Mechanics With A Conscience
AAA aporovad repair shop
Ortaon (tnftod DEO m otlr
(* ■ !»
- C «r1ifi«d M a d ia n ic i
Gerard Lillie • 5934 N.E. Halsey
When an ordinary
Realtor simply
won’t do...
PPA: Protecting our
rights— or not?
To t h e E d i t o r :
n Oct. 14, 1 went to my union, the Port
land Police Association, to ask them to
endorse the .No* on Constitutional Amend
ment 36 campaign.
As a police officer, 1 have believed in justice
from the time my dad started telling me of in
justices. When 1 was a child, blacks and women
did not have an equal position in society. Income,
employment, legal and social disparities for these
groups were topics for discussion in our home.
Before 1 even hit the street, 1 received an
anonymous letter (probably from my dad). In it
were several pieces of advice. These are the
words that meant the most to me: “Treat every
person at every call the way you would want to
he treated— the victim of a burglary, a bicycle
theft, a rape. The person in handcuffs in your
back seat.”
Although African Americans and women
have made some gains in society, civil rights still
are being put to popular vote. Measure 36 is the
case in point.
City Commissioner Randy Leonard, several
other officers and myself pointed out at the
union meeting that the partners/spouses of sexu
al minority officers are not entitled to state line-
of-duty death benefits. These benefits ($25,000,
mortgage, education and health care benefits)
are only available through marriage.
My union has an obligation to protect the
rights and benefits of its members. Measure 36
eliminates these benefits for our families. But my
union said they would not endorse No on 36.
They “have concerns about the lack of eligibili
ty, hut....” As far as I, and other sexual minority
officers are concerned, the rest of the sentence
is, “hut your family is disposable.”
One executive board member, Officer Scott
Westerman, made a motion to support our
request. O f the other nine voting members pres
ent, not one seconded the motion. I guess if one
of us is killed, our family shouldn’t get any help
with stabilization from society. Oh, that’s right,
we’re the ones who by our sheer makeup are
causing its downfall.
The “Brotherhixxl in Blue.” The great big
family of law enforcement officers, helping each
other out in time of need— as long as you’re
straight. Personal belief systems are core to all of
us, however they originate and whatever their
basis. 1 wish we could all agree that rights and
benefits (and, Gixl forbid, even status) that gov
ernment sanctions should he accessible equally,
regardless of our belief systems.
The executive hoard members of my union
told me they cannot extend beyond their per
sonal belief systems to offer my family equality in
accessing benefits to which their families are
entitled. They were not willing to support me
even in their professional capacity. I hope they
care more about your rights as citizens in their
professional capacity than they do about mine.
Many of Portland’s finest are tmly exception
al human beings and officers. Many recognize
that unequal status and treatment is unaccept
able. These officers will vote no on 36. My
union representatives, save one, will not.
K atie P otter
Portland
Crumbling institution
3144 SE Belmont
Portland, OR 97214
office: 503-238-7617
To the E ditor :
he proposition of constitutional amend
ments makes me nervous in general— “the
devil is in the details”— and I see amendments
as a way to occlude and obscure what is actual
ly happening. These changes are falsely adver
T
tised and sold to us in a way that “sounds gcxxl"
hut may very well not be— like banning gay
marriage.
This whole “marriage = 1 man + 1 woman”
shtick stinks. Yes, marriage is a sacred union and
requires complete commitment. And yet l don’t
know many people my age and younger who,
like me, were raised in an unbroken home.
The institution of marriage has been crum
bling from within and without due to greed,
ignorance and selfishness. 1 don’t know the
exact statistics, hut 1 understand that the divorce
rate has been skynxketing for the past 60 to 70
years.
People have become so disillusioned about
the commitment and security of marriage that
they will even write up a prenuptial agreement
that would come into effect if (when) they
divorce. This degradation of intimate and com
mitted relationships is wrong, and it’s going to
take a lot of time, money and community effort
to slow the selfish and destructive behaviors and
attitudes of people.
That is the problem that marriage faces these
days, but does that get recognized? No, they say
that homosexual love and commitment are
somehow lesser (why else „define marriage so not
everyone can have it?) and thus not deserving
the rite of marriage.
And yet lifelong partnerships between two
women or two men have been going on un
noticed for all these years. We have the same
problems with each other as heterosexual cou
ples, hut they are allowed to marry and we are not.
Not only are we denied the recognition of
marriage, we’re even denied permission to screw
up a marriage like heterosexuals can. The reason
that this matters is because “divorce” is a much
stronger word than “left, broken up, etc.,” and so
while our pain is equal, it is seen as something
not so serious. Our pain is as real as our love and
needs to he recognized as such.
S arah “ S tatic ” K aeder
Portland
Join the 21 st century
To t h e E d i t o r :
onnie Roberts, county commissioner in my
area, sent a Yes on 36 letter to me with arti
cles from The Oregonian.
I have had four lawn signs stolen from in
front of my house, my partner had a couple of
guys yell “faggot” out the window as they raced
by in their tmck, and now a man who is sup
posed to represent me is voting to add bigotry to
the constitution. Here is the letter that was sent
to him:
How dare you, Mr. Roberts. How dare you send
me your “why you are voting yes on 36” paper.
I, as a gay man who lives in East County, do
not have your bigoted, narrow-minded views.
Do you want to tell married couples who do not
have kids that they should not be married?
What about people who are divorced? Should
they he allowed to marry again?
You want to change the constitution of our
state to allow hatred. Why does it hurt you if 1
can he married to my partner?
I live in your district, and I do not follow your
beliefs in any way. Does that mean I need to
move? Would it be easier for you to nor have to
see us?
We live in the 21st century. Bring your
thinking around to this time. What happened to
separation of church and state?
I am voting no on 36, and it has nothing to
do with getting married. It has to do with hatred
allowed in the constitution.
K elly O ’S haughnessy
Portland
An open letter to
Lonnie Roberts
To t h e E d i t o r :
was amused at the “why I’m voting yes on 36”
letter. Perhaps you overlooked the fact that the
letter was addressed to a lesbian couple who were
married March 4 on the steps of the courthouse.
Again, I am unimpressed with the arguments
presented in favor of Measure 36. With such
empty, cowardly and false claims toward gay
marriage, I can only feel pity for those who are
in support of this constitutional amendment.
As a responsible taxpayer, I am embarrassed
for elected officials such as yourself who work so
hard at taking away my rights. I do agree that the
commissioners’ decision without consult of all
the members was wrong in ignoring government
pnx:eedings. But we applaud those commission
ers for standing up for our rights, and it was an
honor to shake their hands and thank them
while in line for our marriage license.
The disgraceful acts 1 have seen in support of
anti-gay behavior has helped our decision to
leave this state. We no longer want our tax dol
lars supporting a government that will not allow
us to peacefully live our lives. Even if Mea
sure 36 passes, be assured that the love, dignity
and respect that upholds our marriage will never
he taken away.
J essica W oudstra
Gresham
An open letter to
Gordon Smith
To t h e E d i t o r :
hen you were endorsed by several gay and
lesbian organizations that 1 support, 1 was
shocked. I read what they had to say and, in the
end, made a decision to vote for you based on
what I saw as your apparently strong personal
integrity.
Just so you know the context, 1 am openly
gay and remain an elder in the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, even though I’m not
attending weekly. Integrity means a lot to me,
which explains why I will no longer support you.
I was surprised when you decided to support
the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Sen
ate; you know very well that it changed nothing
hut served merely as a tcxil to activate conserva
tives against gays and lesbians. Even then, I
thought I understcxxl the politics of it and was
willing to continue my support.
Then I picked up the mail. There you are
the spokesman on the cover of a mailer from the
hateful folks at Yes on 36, a measure that would
enshrine IN O U R STATE C O N STITU TIO N
their discrimination against gays and lesbians.
As you are aware, these public attacks and
hateful, divisive statements have the most
impact on our youth, causing a disproportion
ately high number of them to commit suicide.
Imagine the irony when the bill named after
your son passes at the same time you are pushing
more Oregon teens toward suicide— guess bi
polar is OK but gay isn’t.
You should be ashamed that you chose to
support this initiative— and to create an
increased chance of suicides for Oregon youth. I
am ashamed of you and disgusted that you con
tinue to claim you are a friend of the gay and les
bian community even while you help kill our
children.
For this act of evil I know you will he held
responsible before our almighty, and hopefully
before the electorate as well. I am sure you will
find a way to wash yourself from the blcxxl of our
next child who commits suicide because of the
environment you help create— but then your
integrity was lost before your endorsement was