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.