Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Just out. (Portland, OR) 1983-2013 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 18, 2005)
4 jUSt OUt » ffthruary 18, 2005 ífWíflotit German Formula Inc. Repair Facility & Collision Center BMW, Mercedes & Porsche * -A* To the E ditor : 100 NE 11th Ave service @ germanforfnula.com naturopathic body works .n< Nrw patients: \ Mcr>tion this ad for \ I O% off your first office visit! /' , Dr. Karen Fran- gos, PT, ND Sports Medicine * Physical | herapy Joint Realignment * Massage Nutrition * R at Right 4 Your | ype Women's R"jealth 2035 NW Overton 503-233-0388 www.naturopathicbodyworks.net Where your body gets the “works”... naturally iry OPB demonizes gay families Richard Voss, GRI abr Principal Broker / Owner Peninsula Realty 6110 N.Lombard St. Portland, OR 97203 Business (503) 286-5826 Cell (503) 804-9424 Full Service Real Estate Office •On Site Real Estate School •Full Service Property Management Se habla Español •Notary Services •Fax Machine Services •In-office Closings •Buyer and Seller Seminars OPPOHI •On-site Mortgage Broker richard.voss(‘',century21 com www century2 lpeninsula.com Each office is independently owned and operated Laminated Wood Floor Installed for $2.99 sq.ft. jgjg Granite Kitchen Counters Installed starting @ $1,500 (3 pieces 26"x96") Ensured Proper Fit WE DO ALL REMODEL JOBS! WE WILL BEAT ANY PRICE! FREE ESTIMATES! Zurich, |nc. Andy Peng 503.680.3685 s a proud member of OPB, and a member of a gay family, 1 was deeply offended at your decision to air the now-famous “Sugartime” episode of Postcards from Buster at an irregular time in order to provide “parents the means to control the context in which they use the pro gram to introduce this subject to their children” (to quote Maynard Orme, OPB president and CEO). While I commend you for agreeing to air the episode in the first place, your “compromise” sends the message that gay families are contro versial and that our existence should be treated with care and discretion. Tell me: Why is it appropriate to give parents the means to “con trol the context” in which same-sex families are presented to their children, but not other kinds of families (single-parent households, interracial relationships, etc.)? Gay families exist. This is a simple fact that will not go away. That our existence has become politicized of late is through no fault of our own but rather because others have chosen to demo nize us for their own ends. By treating gay fami lies differently from other families, OPB has unwittingly taken rhe side of the demonizers. In short, to be told that one’s very existence is controversial can only be construed as an insult. I’ve come to expect this kind of shabby treatment from the Bush administration and the mainstream media—but OPB is different! 1 hope that in the future you will take a more courageous attitude in presenting the truth about people’s lives. M att P earson Portland BRO ignoring reality To the E ditor : t the risk of seeming divisive (once again), I’d like to make a few comments about my perception of gay marriage rights as 1 see them in Oregon. There are several couples, as reported in Just Out, who are challenging Oregon’s version of the Defense of Marriage Act, which changed our state constitution ¡“Couples Challenge Same-Sex Marriage Ban,” Feb. 4|. Contrary to what reporter Meg Daly stated—that, “if suc cessful, the case could mean the end of anti-gay ballot measures in Oregon”—1 do not believe this challenge will change anything in the long run. To me, the challenge is based merely on technicalities that do not fundamentally chal lenge the denial of equal marriage rights. If the measure is found unconstitutional on these technicalities, the sponsors of the original mea sure will just rewrite it and submit another one that does comply with the law. Basic Rights Oregon and others will be engaged, distracted and spending lots of money on a court challenge that may take several years to resolve, only to become moot when a cor rected ballot measure of marriage discrimina tion is passed again. BRO must have had some idea of rhe tenuousness of its position, as it waited until the last day they could wait to file a challenge. Before Measure 36 was voted on, three polls of voters showed the measure failing, except the one that BRO commissioned. I stopped my con tributions to BRO at that time because of what I believed was ignorance in the face of reality. Now, while BRO is challenging Measure 36, a Republican state representative from Bend is writing a civil union measure that could include gay couples. Do we really want a Republican defining civil unions for gays and lesbians? Just as national gay and lesbian organizations “got it How would you market Oregon to out-of-state gay and lesbian visitors? What’s the hook to bring in these tourist dollars? Should local businesses be rewarded with lavender money, or does Ballot Measure 36 warrant punitive measures? Yes, bring all the gays and lesbians to Oregon that we can, but simultaneously identify “friends” and direct the tourists to businesses that actively support equal rights for all. The campaign contribution lists have the info needed to find out which businesses are not GLBT-friendly. Don’t “target" them; generate lists of alternatives, and publish those lists. As a lesbian, I will chixise to patronize businesses that support equal rights for my wife and me. If 1 had a list of such businesses, I could be even more effective. Then bring on thy tourists...and point them toward our friends. R osemary T eetor Portland wrong” in underestimating the backlash of vot ers against gay marriage, BRO has it wrong in continuing this challenge. 1 am a lifelong Oregonian (more than 55 years) and adv<x:ate sanctioning gay marriage in Oregon. I firmly believe in that part of the con stitution that states, more or less, “No laws shall be passed granting rights or privileges to any group or individual that shall not be granted to all.” I feel BRO is once again ignoring reality. 1 believe that efforts should be directed toward approving a civil union ordinance that includes gays and lesbians for the present and make the long-term goal full marriage privileges for the future. K im B aller Portland BRO responds D ear K im : hanks for sending a copy of your letter to me; I appreciate it. You might not be aware that BRO i$ working with key legislators—including state Sen. Ben Westlund, R-Bend, as well as Democratic lead ership in the House and Senate—on the civil union issue and has drafted more than one bill to reflect different strategies and situations that might unfold. All the legislators we’ve spoken with have agreed that it is best to wait a few months before introducing any particular civil unions bills, so that the Supreme Court has a chance to rule in Li vs. Oregon, which may or may not give the Legislature some direction on the issue. Our lobbyist is very much on top of this, and 1 agree with you that framing this issue ourselves is very important and that it is prudent for us to support civil unions as a step in the right direction. As for the timing of the lawsuit, there’s no connection between the timing and the strength of the arguments themselves. In fact, I would think that if we had a weak argument that we would have filed it with a big splash the day after the election as a political move that would have created a big stir. Instead, we have worked with attorneys and constitutional schol ars to craft the very best arguments we can. I am concerned, as .you are, that to win on a technicality is not politically sustainable. That’s why the first two of our arguments are made in a way that winning would preclude another bal lot measure that just changed a word or two. The third argument—the one about “policy” vs. “law”—does leave that d<x>r open, and it was a difficult decision about whether to include it. The reason we did was that every attorney we spoke with felt that the distinction was extremely important to make and that without it, the credibility of our whole complaint was in question. So we are indeed taking a risk, and it’s one of those areas where legal and political concerns are not in harmony. 1 understand that you may not agree with this decision, but 1 want you to know that it was not made without many long and serious discussions. BRO has two legislative priorities this ses sion: passing the Oregon Basic Fairness Act, which is a broad nondiscrimination bill (the governor, by the way, didn’t come up with the idea of this bill—he agreed to make it a priority because of our pressure on him) and passing a civil unions bill. It sounds to me like you proba bly agree with both of those priorities. We are putting our energy and our money into creating a lobbying effort on both issues that is larger than anything our state legislators have ever seen or would predict. We are gather ing 1,000 people to our Day of Action in Salem on March 3. I hope you’ll consider joining us there, and I’d be glad to talk with you further about that day, or about any of these issues, at any time. I appreciate your past support of BRO, and 1 am grateful that there are thoughtful, experi enced people like you who are voicing your opinion and adding to the discussion about the direction of our work and our movement. Take care, and please do feel free to call anytime. R oey T horpe Basic Rights Oregon Nikki Jauron (left) and Kristi Culver were legally wed Nov. 6, 2004, in Vancouver, British Columbia. It was a small ceremony witnessed by Jauron s youngest sister, Stacy Mills. A reception will be held in the near future so the couple’s friends can celebrate their marriage with them. Culver and Jauron are living happily in their Northeast Portland apartment with their two cats, dog and dove and hope to start a family soon.
