Comments

1
Proving once again that only through litigation and ideological activist judges can the perverts win....
2
I for one welcome our new Freedom overlords
3
Our win was inevitable! Time for NOM to take their ball and go home!!
4
boring boring boring BORING seattleblues! you're nothing but a pack of cards.
5
I guess these people are out of work.

http://www.ifc.com/portlandia/videos/por…
6
@1 I don't know what perverts you're talking about, but gay marriage has won through referendums* and legislation** in many places.

*Referendums: MD, ME, WA
**Legislation: VT, CT, NH, DC, NY, RI, DE, MN, HI, IL, and most other countries where gay marriage is legal, like the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Argentina, England, France, etc.
7
Hey Dan, I remember the "Oregon Christian Alliance", but not the "Oregon Citizen's Alliance". A quick search showed that Mabon was head of both. Were they even separate organizations? I also remember he tried to start the "Washington Christian Alliance". What became of that?
8
@1,

Is it just me or is nearly every judge to have issued a ruling on gay marriage an "ideological activist"? Either that's really coincidental, or your world is crumbling around you.
9
@1: Replace "perverts" with "race traitors" and you've just made that same argument against racial equality and civil rights legislation, with about the same level of accuracy I might add.
10
I remember Lon Mabon. He's been held in contempt of court for not paying a judgment, returning donation checks to the group that was found liable in the judgment, and refusing to recognize the court's authority due to some change over time in the judicial oath of office. He's a real peach.

At the time--mid to late 90s--I was known to say, "If Lon Mabon came out in favor of chocolate pudding, I'd rethink my position on the subject."

His former partner in (moral) crime was Scott Lively, who in the last few years has occupied his time by exporting (supposed) Christian anti-gay hate to Uganda.
11
Haters gonna hate, and lose.
12
@1: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the resounding thumping you guys got at the ballot box in 2012.
13
Oh look, Seattleblues is demonstrably wrong again, for only the 203,577th time.
14
I'm planning to retire in a year, and my husband and I want to move to an equality state when I do.

The list keeps getting longer.

And--to put this in perspective--when the husband and I got married in 2008, there were only *two* states with marriage equality. One was California, but Prop 8 was headed to the polls, and one was Massachusetts, which would not (at that time) perform same-sex marriages for non-residents. Hence, we went to Canada.

Now the number of equality states is deep into the double digits, and there are pending court challenges nearly all the remaining non-equality states.

What a difference 6 years makes!
15
As far as I know, Mabon was last seen helping enact anti-gay laws in Uganda:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpoliti…
16
Cascadia is now complete!
17
@1: See @6.
This makes me so happy. Every day it seems, another state comes to the right side of history. There is so much joy in that.
@1: The tide is rising, and you little island of bigotry is getting smaller and smaller. Can you feel the water lapping at your toes?
18
Hurray, Oregon!
19
@1 I'm a Quaker, and I'm not sure we believe in Hell, but if you do, I'm pretty sure you're going there. Your inhumanity to your fellow man is your guaranteed express ticket, first class.

Today is another victory for love, peace, fraternity, freedom, and the true Light which is the basis of all religions and ethical systems.

A "Christianity" of hate, contempt, or judgmentalism is no Christianity at all.
20
I'm loving how quickly the Wikipedia map gets updated every time one of these happens. To eyeball it, look for the dark blue (legal) and yellow stripes (legalized but stayed pending appeal).

File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samese…
21
Sorry it took us so long : /
22
Okay, that was weird. Just look up same sex marriage on Wikipedia.
23
Hooray for Oregon! We're so gay.
24
@ 21, you're sorry? Where the hell is the Colorado lawsuit already?

Congratulations Oregon!
25
@7: As memory serves--and mine can be faulty--The Oregon Citizen's Alliance was the original group. After a charter member (Scott Lively, I think) assaulted a photographer, he and the OCA were found legally liable for the woman's medical bills, &etc. Lively apologized, and paid up. Mabon got hit with the crazy stick, and refused.

He created a new group, probably the Oregon Christian Alliance, and emptied all funds from the original group. Shady, but legal. Then when they received donation checks for the Oregon Citizens' Alliance, the Mabons would return them to the donor--instead of depositing them, where the money would then be forced to be paid to the photog. She has kept up the pressure on them for years--YEARS. Last I heard, the Mabons were held in contempt of court for the above practice, and also for insisting that the court has no jurisdiction, because the judicial oath of office has changed in wording over the years. Or some wharblegarble like that.
26
Congratulations Oregon! 18 and counting. Instead of a reality show about how many babies a woman can produce, we should have a reality show about each state's journey into equality!

I wonder if SeattleBlues has the blues? Oh, yeah. I guess he does.
27
@26: and entertainingly, 26 once all these court cases go through their stays (or 50). I still have a wager with one of my bosses that we will have nationwide equality by Dec 31, 2015.
28
Whatever happened to Lon Mabon? Everyone forgot him because no one cares what he has to say. Seattleblues, this is your future.
29
I like SeattleBlues because she reminds me of how obsessed with sex homophobes are. Never mind the loving committed relationship - they're having sex in ways she finds unappealing!!!

You're a dirty little pervert, SeattleBlues.
30
I am going down to the Eugene courthouse on my break. From all the photos, it looks like utter chaos! And we're three of the top ten trending hashtags on Twitter: #GayMarriageOR #Oregon, & OR4M.
32
#OR4M
33
I went to Portland State in the early 90's and spent so much time hating Lon Mabon. Springfield is right next to Eugene and features a center of right wing thoughts. Nasty stuff. Hear hear for Oregon!
34
@24: Matt, the Colorado legislature approved civil unions here last spring, as you know, and what I'm wondering is, is if a citizens-initiative marriage-equality amendment to the Colorado state constitution could pass here (thereby repealing our current citizens-initiative marriage-inequality constitutional amendment.) The polling on the issue looks pretty good. (Or, as Seattleblues would put it, Colorado currently polls as a majority pro-pervert or at least pervert-neutral state.) A bunch of our rural and suburban Republicans are actually old-school western-state libertarians, not real Seattleblues-style Republicans, and if the amendment were to pass, it would inoculate Colorado against the possibility that Kennedy will get cold feet, when this issue hits the US Supreme Court. You get the process going and I'll collect a few hundred signatures for you.
35
Finally glad to see my home state joining the ranks of "people who live in the 21st Century"!
36
You're right, @33! Was it Mabon himself who, while living in Springfield, sued a neighbor because their cat got into his car through an open window and he drove away in it -- the cat freaked out, he freaked out, lawsuit!
37
From the decision's conclusion:
"I am aware that a large number of Oregonians, perhaps even a majority, have religious or moral objections to expanding the definition of civil marriage (and thereby expanding the benefits and rights that accompany marriage) to gay and lesbian families. It was' these same objections that led to the passage of Measure 36 in 2004. Generations of Americans, my own included, were raised in a world in which homosexuality was believed to be a moral perversion, a mental disorder, or a mortal sin. I remember that one of the more popular playground games of my childhood was called "smear the queer" and it was played with great zeal and without a moment's thought to today' s political correctness. On a darker level, that same worldview led to an environment of cruelty, violence, and self-loathing. It was but when the United States Supreme Court justified, on the basis of a "millennia of moral teaching," the imprisonment of gay men and lesbian women who engaged in consensual sexual acts. Even today I am reminded of the legacy that we have bequeathed today' s generation when my son looks dismissively at the sweater I bought him for Christmas and, with a roll of his eyes, says "dad ... that is so gay."

It is not surprising then that many of us raised with such a world view would wish to protect our beliefs and our families by turning to the ballot box to enshrine in law those traditions we have come to value. But just as the Constitution protects the expression of these moral viewpoints, it equally protects the minority from being diminished by them.

It is at times difficult to see past the shrillness of the debate. Accusations of religious bigotry and banners reading "God Hates Fags" make for a messy democracy and, at times, test the First Amendment resolve of both sides. At the core of the Equal Protection Clause, however, there exists a foundational belief that certain rights should be shielded from the barking crowds; that certain rights are subject to ownership by all and not the stake hold of popular trend or shifting majorities.

My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families. Families who we would expect our Constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure. With discernment we see not shadows lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather, we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and service to the greater community.

Where will this all lead? I know that many suggest we are going down a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other... and rise."
38
Thanks for that Hanoumatoi. A little more personal than I would expect, but good reading.
39
Sweet 18! Sorry it took so long, but sorrier for the abomination that was written into our constitution. Glad this dark age is coming to an end, the arc of justice does indeed bend!
40
@39: ::waves at Kim::
We miss you!
41
No, the arc of justice isn't an arc, nor does it bend. There are right and wrong, justice and injustice whatever the whims of the moment might be. And now in America justice is broken.

Now a tiny self selected minority of deviants have forced on decent people their evil definition of marriage and family, entirely for their own personal self justification.

Now merely expressing rational dissent is bigotry and hate speech.

Worse, a cadre of activist judges rule from the bench against family and marriage- for perversion and depravity.

And yes, I do believe in hell, Brooklyn faux Christian. And the torments that await vile depraved trash like Savage and the rest of the rabble at war with family, integrity and marriage would give them pause were they not so wholly evil.
42
I remember the Oregon Citizens Alliance. They were a horrible, hateful group. One of my only good memories of living in Salem was watching a group of law students from Willamette University invade and essentially derail an OCA meeting - some constitutional amendment they were proposing - and those idiots were left speechless and sputtering. It was classic.
Congrats, OR!
43
@41: Any god who would condemn people for sins committed in ignorance and on this world to an eternity of unending torment is so much more evil than any person on this earth has ever been that it is completely nonsensical to compare. An infinity of punishment for a finite set of sins is the definition of punishment not meeting the crime. If you really think that such a system could be called "moral", I know where your major dysfunction is.
44
What a joyous day! The only things that comes close to the joy of our victory today is the schadenfreude I'm feeling for Seattleblues' loss. Tee hee hee!
45
I remember Mr Mabon and all the trouble he caused in Oregon from the other end of the country. It's a shame that several people with whom I discussed him couldn't live to see this day, but perhaps their spirits will be present at celebrations.
46
The party in Eugene is at Davis Restaurant & Bar, 94 West Broadway. Ministers are standing by! My friend and I witnessed two marriages on our afternoon break and had some cake! It's a love-drenched, festive atmosphere so head on down if you're in town or can get here.
47
I do remember Lon Mabon! I arrived at college in PDX just as, what was it, Prop 9? was being discussed. I remember being surprised that Portland had room for the tree huggers, lesbians, freaks, druggies, hippies and liberals as well as a seriously uptight group of nasty judgmental right wing kooks. I stayed for about a decade. The lefties won, and keep on winning. Portland is great.
48
And yay! Our favorite repressed self loathing fool SeattleBlueballs is back! I missed that poor dumb ignorant illogical ballsack.
49
@1 go back to Oklahoma you hick
50
@41: You'll pardon us if we take Martin Luther King's word for it over some one who doesn't even understand how the branches of government work.
Better get to higher ground SB. The tide is rising.
51
I love the taste of Seattlebigot's bitter tears.
52
To be fair, Gou, the Oregon Citizen's Alliance was headquartered in Wilsonville, not Portland proper.
53
Thank you, SB, for seasoning my joy with a sprinkle of schadenfreude.

And Congratulations to OR!
54
Seattleblues, I hear the WBC has a job opening.
55
@41 - You may feel strongly in the existence of an objective right and wrong, but you cannot illustrate or demonstrate the existence of such. Your absolute right to live and raise your children according to whatever subjectively derived moral framework to which you willingly and consciously acquiesce is only possible where moral self-determination and freedom of association are held sacrosanct within a body of secular laws limited in scope and structure to matters of materially demonstrable civic harm (that harm to non-consenting participants in any act may be prevented) or civic utility (that the freedoms of individuals may be enhanced without a measurable, material impact on the freedoms of others).

What's more, as was point out in @6, many of these changes in marital law that so incense you were carried out by majorities of regional voters, not by fiat on the part of a "tiny, self-selecting minority."

Finally, you'd never know whether "rational dissent" would be labeled bigotry, as you've never offered rational support for your position or cogent rebuttals to your challengers or detractors.
56
@ 40 Hi Lissa! ::waves back:: Miss you all too.
57
@41: There's nothing "rational" about homophobia. You keep claiming your opinions to be "rational" or "logical" when your arguments are something out of a college math textbook. Specifically, "the proof is trivial and is left to the reader". You keep banging on and on about "natural law" when what you consider "natural" is entirely a product of your upbringing and opinions.

You're a dangerously uneducated man who doesn't have the decency to consider that he's not an expert on everything.
I readily admit to ignorance in many regards; I am relatively unversed in the niceties of art, do not have a particularly broad knowledge of history, and only dabble slightly in literature. I speak no languages other than English and Spanish besides a smattering of Hebrew and a few words of Japanese. While I have a decent understanding of the legal framework of this country, I am unversed in the particulars of our codes of law. My understanding of mathematics goes no further than multivariable calculus and linear algebra over the reals, I am only moderately proficient in chemistry, I do not understand physics particularly well, and I'm nervous and confused in my dealings with people.
However, I AM highly educated in biology (specifically evolutionary, molecular, ecology and genetics) and geology (sedimentary mostly). On those topics I am better-educated than perhaps 90% of Americans, if not more. And yet you, with your lack of any college education (please correct me if you have attended an institution of higher learning) or any practical experience in the field, insist that you know better than I how the human body functions and how its mental faculties come to be.
I don't presume to tell you how to lay a foundation, or how to shingle a roof, or how to interview candidates for construction work. Why do you somehow think you know better than I do in the field to which I have devoted myself to study?
58
Mabon was riding high in the Oregon Republican Party until 2000, when he picked a fight over the GOP Chairman position and lost. After that he became a pariah even among the GOP. Lively move on from the state, and the last time I heard Mabon went back to his pre-OCA occupation: running a nursing home in Southern Oregon. (shudder)
59
@41 is thoroughly delusional if he/she/it thinks its wholly synthetic chauvinistic and xenophobic "religion" gives it any moral or theological authority to criticize anybody's spiritual or ethical standing. There is nothing in SB's language or opinions that Jesus (should he happen to show up) would ever recognize as being one of His followers.

Love thy neighbor as thyself. If you can't do that, you're certainly not any kind of actual Christian.

60
Oh Seattleblahs. He's so old-timey. But there's nothing wrong with him that a high colonic and a good, toe-curling orgasm wouldn't fix.

Maybe we could get together and get him a gift card to the Tummy Temple and a session with a sex worker? Who's with me?
61
I recall Lon Mabon and the OCA, but only through an offshoot group in Idaho in the early '90s called--somewhat unimaginatively--the Idaho Citizens Alliance. They tried to pass a law banning "special rights" for gay people, but it failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Propo…
62
i DO remember dan's christmas show at tugs capitol hill! "It's a charlie brown christmas carol, lon mabon!", written by the mysterious Keenan Hollahan. it was fabulous, and everybody did the charlie brown dance about halfway through. please, dan, it's time for a revival of this yuletide classic.
63
I grew up in Oregon and recall the OCA measures quite well (I think the last one was on the ballot in the first election I voted in -- I'll be 34 this year). I'm pretty sure Lon Mabon went to prison for tax evasion. Don't know what happened to the rest of the group.
64
Guess you got what you wanted Subhumanblues, a good caning. Trust your enjoying punishment wank. In the future please just higher a sex worker and leave the rest of us out of it.
65
@1 , I get really confused how it's any of your ( and other homophobic people's) business, how other people express themselves sexually, who they love. Do you ever stop and ask yourself why you think it's ok, to freak out about others choices? Find someone to love, someone to have sex with- enjoy your life.
66
@41, again with the ignorance. "Family", as defined by who? This is a big world, lots of different cultures.. There is no universal definition of family/ so that's such a lame and stupid point of debate.
You probably have/ had homosexual feelings in your life. It's the only explanation for the rage, that you seem to carry.
67
@41 again, so these feelings, these homosexual feelings- if you could just allow yourself your own erotic truth/ there would be no need to push them away/ rage at those who are homosexual.
68
@homophobia

No such thing exists. You're free to use propaganda, of course. You can't use reason or reality or decency or integrity, so I suppose propaganda and lies are all that's left. Using terms like bigot and homophobe to demonize those with whom you disagree, while childish and inaccurate, is your prerogative. Expecting rational people to accede to your propaganda? Yeah, that's not your right.
69
@65

Where did I express any interest in the sexual relationships of other adults?

All I reject is the right of deviants and perverts to destroy marriage for their convenience. Otherwise, sleep with one person you "love" or a dozen strangers of either gender and it isn't my business or anyone else.
70
@68 & 69: Oh my god. Those two posts. I mean, ALL the LOLs!
"Using terms like bigot and homophobe to demonization those with whom you disagree"......!!
From the man who in this very thread has used the following to describe those with whom he disagrees:
Evil
Vile
Depraved
Trash
Deviant
Pervert

You are priceless. You wouldn't know decency or integrity if it bit you in the ass.
71
@69: If it is not your business who people sleep with, why did you (in your fantasy) kick those two (nonexistant) lesbians out of your (fake) rental property?

So are you a liar or a criminal? Has to be at least one of the two.
72
Interesting umm question Ted Go Wrath.

Oh wait, all it was was a set of accusations. Never mind.

But you and Lissa miss the point. Right up to the point where fags and dukes make war on decent society, their depravity isn't my business. After that things like Danny Boy the Savage especially, with the Christian education to know better, can only be called evil, vile or depraved. Those words exist for the kind of trash who hate good and war upon it.
73
@72: You're welcome to oppose the inclusion of dukes in American society; being a duke goes against Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. But fags? They're perfectly welcome in society, and attempting to exclude them violates the 14th Amendment of the above.

You did indeed admit to refusing to renew the lease of a tenant because the tenant was a lesbian. You have many times claimed to reside in the State of Washington, which prohibits discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity (in addition to several protected classes under federal law). Therefore, by your own admission, you are a criminal guilty of violating the civil rights of others. Do you have any contention against this accusation?
74
@72 - How is wanting access to the economic benefits of a secular contract, and winning that access through popular vote, "mak[ing] war on decent society"? Please be specific.

Who determines what functional definition of "decent" we're even using? In the past, you always suggested that the majority had the right to set moral terms. I have never agreed with that, and made detailed arguments--still unchallenged by you on any rational basis--that law should be constrained to matters of utility. Nonetheless, in this case, the majority has decided that, whether or not voters by and large find homosexuality to be morally defensible, that the committed cohabitation of same-sex couples is "decent" enough to be worthy of access to this secular contract. So if you're not satisfied that the majority reached a "decent" conclusion, then who is to dictate the terms of public decency, and how? Please be specific.

It seems to me that when the majority agreed with you, you could always fall back on your old argument--that you didn't have to explain your feelings about marriage and morality, since they were already codified in law and supported by the majority. Now that the majority no longer appears to agree with you, you're frustrated and angry that you have to build a supporting argument for truisms taken for granted. Rather than either learning a more sophisticated apologetic position for your own views, rethinking those views, or, realizing that you're unwilling or unable to to either, removing yourself politely from the public discussion, you're getting a rather impressive amount of mileage throwing a public tantrum. It would be great performance art, if you had any artistry. But maybe I'm misunderstanding. Maybe you can clear up your intent for those of us who don't see anything but a cranky child who's soiled his socio-philosophical diaper and can't figure out what to do next. So show me where I'm wrong. And, as always, please be specific.
75
Seattleblues continues to assert that it's only a small cadre of "activist judges" imposing their will on the people.

* Ignoring the fact that in three states, including Seattleblues' own state, the voters enacted same-sex marriage

* Ignoring the fact that Legislatures (not judges) in 9 states plus DC enacted same-sex marriage, including one state where the voters first expressly rejected a same-sex marriage ban

* Ignoring the fact that since the Supreme Court's Windsor decision last summer, every single court that has ruled on this case -- including conservative Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 judicial appointees -- have overturned same-sex marriage bans. Since last June, not a single court has upheld such bans.

Also, regarding the dumb "homophobia doesn't exist" argument, colloquial usage of phobia commonly refers to not only "fear of..." but also "hatred of..." You may claim to not hate, Seattleblues, but your words speak otherwise.
76
Poor SB wait till he learns a Bush appointed judge just cleared the way for Pennsylvania .
77
@76: A Santorum approved Bush appointee to boot!
It's just toooooo delish!
78
@73

Sexual orientations and gender identity don't exist. There are choices to behavior people make. But I no more need observe a law protecting imaginary people than I do one prohibiting bothering a dragons nest. If Washington chooses to make nonsense laws I'll politely ignore them as nonsense.
79
@78 - Doesn't your particular brand of prescriptive fiction counsel obedience to secular law? Just curious.

Also, do you have any evidence showing that sexual orientation and gender identity don't exist? Because many far more knowledgeable than I in scientific matters have posted links in previous arguments with you indicating that they do.

I'm actually not a lot more convinced than you that such things exist, but then, I also don't think that objective morality, "natural rights," anthropomorphic deities, or self-evident truths exist. Everything, but everything, by which humanity regulates itself is a fully fabricated construct designed around our reptilian needs and appetites; we demand broadest obedience to those principles which serve utility for the broadest possible range of subjective interests, and do our best to allow people to pick and choose from among the principles that remain. In that sense, your turning your attraction to the opposite sex into the basis to make womb-rats and form a household is as arbitrary as any same-sex couple's to consolidate resources and form a household; both of these are, in turn, as arbitrary as any and all human pursuits (professions, arts, philosophy), any of which could be said to serve either to give value to lives or to preserve the material integrity of lives that, in and of themselves, without the assignation and imposition of value by observing or participating minds, have no intrinsic value separating them from the rest of the vapors of the cosmos.

And until and unless you can either illustrate otherwise or forfeit, in a rare fit of good judgment, your perfectly valid right to spew on in the face of your demonstrated ignorance, your rantings will remain mere trollery, and every attempt, no matter how noble or polite, to enlighten you just allows you to make yourself look more and more foolish to anyone who hasn't already drunk your particular brand of Kool-Aid(tm).
80
@78: There your uneducated self goes again telling someone with a biology degree how the human brain does or doesn't work. Do I tell you how to shingle a roof? Or install plumbing? Or install home wiring? No.

Research confirms over and over again that there are physical differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals; specifically, the parts of the brain associated with sexual arousal and romantic attraction in homosexuals are more like heterosexuals of the opposite sex. (A few sources: http://www.trinity.edu/tmurphy/trinity/3… http://www.sciencemag.org/content/253/50…)
Do you have any comeback to that? Evidence trumps your ignorant opinions, you lying scum.

Regardless of whether or not you believe homosexuals exist, you admitted to denying a lease renewal to your tenants BECAUSE of your animus against lesbians. They need not actually be lesbians, as it is the motivation that counts; an assault perpetrated against a Sikh by assailants targeting Muslims is an anti-Muslim hate crime.
What you did was against state law, and you are guilty of a crime as such, by your own admission. You don't get to ignore laws just because you don't believe in them. Just flat-out ignoring laws will get you a fine or possibly a jail sentence.
If you're so eager to flout those laws, why not admit to the whole denying-tenants-a-lease-based-on-homophobic-animus dealie and attach your real name to it?
81
@68: As a rational person to a rational person, I have a few questions for you:

What is the evidence which persuaded you that there is no such thing as sexual orientation, only personal choices?

What evidence have you seen which goes against this understanding, and how have you countered it?

What possible evidence would change your mind on these issues?
82
@78 -

"Sexual orientations and gender identity don't exist."

cool. so you believe we are all poly sexual, poly gendered and can fuck anything, anytime, anywhere.

given your belief system it's weird that you decry homosexual relations, since you stated quite clearly that they are a-ok. (no sexual orientation = a-ok on fucking who ever you please)

personally i'm not wired like that, my wife and are fine with one another, but since you believe in poly sexual, poly gender relations - i say get to it, get out there, fuck who you want!

you go seattle blue balls!
83
@78: Well you go ahead and try and use that "reasoning" when the law finally catches up to you for evicting those women from your rental unit for being something that doesn't exist.

84
Since my mom took me to a No on 9 rally in a barn in Bend in 1992, I've been involved in all the No campaigns against OCA measures.

Outside the urban hubs, Oregon has been and in some ways still is a pretty scary place to be an out sexual minority or supporter. Strangely, all of Lon's measures lost in the 90's, while Measure 36, the marriage ban and the first discrimination measure I was old enough to vote against, won. I guess those were ala mode then and we all had the Bush and Baghdad blues. Multnomah county issued same-sex marriage licenses for a few months in 2004, then those couples were stripped of their brief security by the Ban.

It's a shameful history for such a progressive state, but there has always been a fighting contingent and Monday was an amazing thing to be a part of.

I have also heard that Mabon is busy avoiding jail and fomenting homocidal violence towards gay people in Uganda. No rest for the modern-day Klansman.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.