Street roots
A pril 25, 2014
.-------------------- ----------- --------------------------- ------------------------------------------__________________________________
Oregon’s other gay record
regon has seen an estimated 35 anti-gay ballot
H
measures in recent history, and those keeping
count say that’s likely more than any other
state in the country. Oregon is now staring down No.
36.
The Friends of Religious Freedom has filed for yet
another anti-gay ballot measure. This one would carve
out an exception to Oregon’s anti-discrimination
allowing individuals and businesses to refuse to
provide commercial services to same-sex weddings or
similar ceremonies. For a look at how far we’ve cóme,
and where we’re going again, here is a synopsis of
Oregon’s anti-gay ballot measures based on an article
by George T. Nicola of the Gay & Lesbian Archives of
the Pacific Northwest (GLAPN).
1978: City of Eugene Measure 51
For years, Eugene’s gay community tried
to have sexual orientation added to the
city’s list of prohibited discrimination. In
1977, they succeeded. According to the
report by The Oregonian, the “measure
prohibited discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation in the areas of
employment, housing and public
accommodations within the city.”
The following year, a group called VOICE
(Volunteers Organizing and Involved in "
Community Enactment) collected signatures ,
for a referendum to repeal the ordinance on
the ballot. It won by a 29 percent margin,
repealing the civil right protection.
About two decades later, the city of
Eugene again passed an ordinance that
banned discrimination based on sexual
oriefrfhtiorLThis time, the law* ‘W’hS not ’ * *
challenged and remained on the books.
1988: State of Oregon Measure 8
In 1988, Gov. Neil Goldschmidt issued an
executive order that banned discrimination
based on sexual orientatidn ifrthe executive
department of state government. The
Oregonian described the order as “dealing
with sexual orientation and the state
government workplace.” The newspaper
stated that “This included both personnel
actions and the delivery of services to the
public. The order didn’t apply to state
employees not under Goldschmidt’s control,
such as judicial workers.”
Goldschmidt’s order was overturned by
Ballot Measure 8, sponsored by a group
called the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA).
Measure 8 also prohibited any state official
in the future from requiring non-
discrimination against state employees
based on sexual orientation. This initiative
won by a 5.4 percent margin. Harriet F.
Merrick, a lesbian and an employee of the
University of Oregon, took the new law to
court in cooperation with the American Civil
Liberties Union of Oregon. In Merrick v.
Oregon, 1992, the Oregon Court of Appeals
ruled Measure 8 unconstitutional because
its effect was “to restrain the right of free
expression.”
two votes short of a majority. It was a
building block in what would become
Oregon’s large LGBTO movement.
More recently, Nicola has been writing the
history of Oregon’s LGBTQ movement
through the Gay & Lesbian Archives of the
Pacific Northwest (GLAPN). For more
information on GLAPN, please visit
glapn.org/
1992: State of
Oregon Measure 9
The Oregon Citizens
Alliance sponsored Ballot
Measure 9 in 1992. The measure
was titled “Government Cannot
Facilitate, Must Discourage
Homosexuality, Other Behaviors.”
Measure 9 would have amended the
’ Oregon Constitution to ban civil rights
protection based on sexual orientation. It
mandated that schools “shall assist in
setting a standard for Oregon’s youth that
recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia,
sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong,
unnatural, and perverse and that these
behaviors are to be discouraged and
avoided.” A section erf the measure stating
the government could hot “promote,
encourage, or-facilitatehomosexuality” r
could have had many negative results, such
as banning gay-positive books from public
libraries.
Opposition to the measure was bipartisan
and included people of many faiths,
identities and ethnicities. Gay men and
lesbians came out to people they knew.
Straight people increasingly realized that we
are their friends, their family, their
neighbors, their coworkers. Oregonians
began to understand that when gay people
as a group are being threatened, someone
they love is probably being threatened.
Voters defeated Measure 9 by a nearly 13
percent margin.
1992 to 1994: Local measures
similar to Measure 9
Both before and after the statewide
Measure 9, the Oregon Citizens Alliance
took local action. Initiatives similar to
Measure 9, were placed on the ballots of 29
Oregon cities and counties. They included
Cornelius, Gresham, Cottage Grove, Kiezer,
Oregon City, Canby, Estacada, Grants Pass,
Junction City, Douglas County, Josephine
County, Klamath County, Linn County and
many others. However, it is difficult to
arrive at exact details because there is no
one primary online source to research local
elections. The vast majority of measures
passed, some by huge margins.
These local initiatives all appeat to be
similar to each other. Like the statewide
measure, they forbade civil rights protection
George T. Nicola
came out in 1970
through the Portland
Gay Liberation Front,
Oregon’s first political
gay organization. In
1973, George wrote
and lobbied for
Oregon House Bill
2930, the state’s first bill that would have
banned discrimination based on sexual
orientation. It failed House passage by just
on
sexual -
orientation
and prohibited public money from being
spent to “promote” homosexuality. However,
they apparently differed from the statewide
initiative in that the local measures did not
require an anti-gay curriculum in the
schools.
' In 1993, the Oregon Legislature
invalidated these local measures with House
Bill 3500, which prohibits local measures
that “single out citizens or groups of citizens
on account of sexual orientation.” The, law
was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court
in 1995.
1994: State of Oregon Measure 13
The Oregon Citizens Alliance went on to
sponsor more statewide initiatives. In 1994,
Ballot Measure 13 was titled: “Amends
Constitution: Governments Cannot Approve,
Create Classifications Based on,
Homosexuality.” The ACLU labeled this
measure the “Son of 9” because it
essentially did the same thing: legalized the
“discrimination, censorship and government
intervention in our families, schools,
workplaces and daily lives.” This measure
failed by a 3 percent margin.
2000: State of Oregon Measure 9
In 2000, the Oregon Citizens Alliance
sponsored its last statewide anti-gay
initiative, also named Measure 9: “Prohibits;
Public School Instruction Encouraging,
Promoting, Sanctioning Homosexual,
Bisexual Behaviors/’ The meaning of ,.
“encouraging, promoting and sanctioning”
was left open to interpretation.
The Oregon Parent Teachers Association
submitted an opposition statement in the
Voters’ Pamphlet clarifying that “There is
no curriculum in Oregon public
schools that ‘encourages or
promotes’ homosexuality
or bisexuality.” The
statement warned
that “this measure
endangers the
health of our
children and the
quality of our
schools.” It also
cautioned that
the measure
would cut, “access to all health education
related to sexuality including abstinence,
birth control, sexually transmitted diseases,
and HIV/AIDS. It would deny aÜ students
information they need to make responsible,
healthy choices. (It would cut) Counseling
or support program s for all adolescent
students, making it even more difficult for
teenagers to come to terms with their
sexuality or for counselors to give teenagers
information about support groups.... We
can’t let the agenda of-one extremist
organization endanger the health of our
children and the quality of their schools.”
This initiative lost by a 5.7 percent
margin.
2004: State of Oregon Measure 36
The most recent anti-gay measure,
Measure 36, was sponsored by a group
called the Defense of Marriage Coalition. Its
purpose was to ban same sex marriage in
Oregon by amending the state’s
constitution.
The amendment text is: “It is the policy
of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that
only a marriage between one man and one
woman shall be valid or legally recognized
as a marriage.”
The Measure passed by a substantial 14
percent margin.
When it was challenged through a lawsuit,
Martinez v. Kulongoski, the measure was
affirmed by the Oregon Court of Appeals.
The decision Was appealed to the Oregon
Supreme Court, but the high court denied
the petition to hear the case.
Oregon United for Marriage is Currently
engaged in a campaign to repeal the
amendment.