Washington isn’t the only state where Republican lawmakers are playing politics with the civil rights of the gay community. As Carla reports on Preemptive Karma, Oregon House Speaker Karen Minnis has gutted a civil union bill, effectively killing it for the current session.
The problem isn’t really that Minnis thinks civil unions are too much like marriage. The problem is that Minnis is hungering for higher office. Achieving higher office in Oregon requires getting through a primary. Republican primaries have lately been won by ultra conservatives…who find themselves on the losing end of a moderate to liberal Democrat.
The moral to this story? Don’t rely on Karen Minnis if you’re looking for good public policy in the State of Oregon. However if you’re looking for an individual willing to sell Oregonians down the river in an attempt to get to a higher office, Minnis is your girl.
Civil union is not marriage… it merely extends to committed, unmarried couples (gay or straight) some of the same legal rights and benefits taken for granted by married couples. It is a legal contract, nothing more, that deals with everyday issues like child custody, medical visitation and decisions, inheritance and more. It doesn’t “sanctify” anything.
And if it were not for Minnis’ cynical parliamentary maneuvers, it would likely pass the Oregon legislature. There is no sound public policy rationale for denying couples these basic legal rights… that the Oregon speaker would scuttle this bill so as to curry favor with a gay-bashing minority in her own party, is both disappointing and disgusting. And as Carla suggests, it will only hurt Republicans in the long run.
Goldy! Thank goodness, I was worried about ya!
Regarding the blog post: When gay people are dinied civil unions, only criminal unions will have civil gay people.
— I got nothing.
Thanks to Goldy for highlighting this.
There are politicos on both sides of the aisle that are ambitious and want to get to higher office. The problem with Minnis is…she’s only in step with the microcosm of lunatics who think that civil marriage is armageddon (Jeff Kruse-Roseburg,) and the path to an epidemic of fatherless children (Charles Starr, Hillsboro).
Washington is set up for a similar fate. As long as the extreme right wing has a foothold in leadership of the Republican Party, they’ll do anything they can to stop equal rights for everyone.
I hear reasonable Reps every day declaring that they are sick and tired of the direction their party has taken. One instance, just yesterday, of a Rep lawyer who is dismayed that his own party is cutting veterans benefits. Dismayed is too weak a word. Actually, he’s livid with rage at his own party.
Bill like this dont need to be decided by representatives, but by a vote.
Bill like this dont need to be decided by representatives, but by a vote.
If we settled every social issue that way, we’d still be living on a plantation with the wimmin-folk in the kitchen and the darkies chained in shed out back.
Bill like this dont need to be decided by representatives, but by a vote.
Hey Chuck, the next time your spouse in in the hospital and the administration won’t let you visit them because they disapprove of your relationship, why don’t you run down to the public square and rally up a majority vote?
Jeff @ 6:
That’s a freaking myth. Not one of my gay friends has ever been denied visitation or the power to help their partner while hospitalized. And that is true just about everywhere. Troubles like that are a super minority of issues and usually resolved quickly when they happen. Wow sounds like I might actually have a family member that works in the health industry huh? A hospital even?
There’s a thing called “the law of un-intended consequences.” By granting a group of people privelages above and beyond that of anybody else you are inviting other groups to ask/demand the same. Already there is a lawsuit from a Polygamist asking that he be allowed to marry whoever and however many people he sees fit too. What happens when a son wants to marry his ailing mother to help provide benefits and make legal transition easier? Brother and sister? A man and many spouses? Don’t you get it? The argument here is, and I quote many sources/friends, “We love each other and want the same benefits and privelages as a man and woman that are married. We are willing to make the same commitment.”
Do you all not see how weak of an argument that is. I have many gay friends and couples. Some (most) are for gay marriage, and some are not. None of them has been able to say what will happen if and when gay marriage is adopted. The funny thing (maybe even hypocrytical) is when asked about family members marrying or what to do with polygamy their answer is usually, “We’ll have to make a law about that.” A law to “discriminate?”
I have yet to hear an intelligent response to that concern. Usually I hear hatred spewed at me for asking that simple “what if” question. And normally I hear “well that’s not the same thing.” But of course it is the same thing you all (liberals) just choose to frame the argument how it best suits you and ignore what doesn’t.
I love the debate …. sswanny@gmail.com
The whole civil union/gay marriage debate would end if 1) people owned their social security accounts, and 2) health care was controlled by individuals and not corporations.
If your social security was a private account, you could decide how to spend it, and who to leave it to upon your demise. Can’t do that now. The govt owns it.
If health care was truly privitized, not only would you get to decide who you covered, but you would get to decide just what coverage you would want. If you want premium coverage and no waiting, great – but you pay for it in higher premiums. If you want to cover your aunt’s sister-in-law, fine – it is your coverage.
But this won’t happen. People around here want someone else to take care of them, and make these decisions for them. This isn’t national defense, or a highway system. This is individual care, and shouldn’t be the responsibility of the govt or your employer.
It’s not a question of who “owns” your social security account, but who controls it.
“I don’t want to own anything. I just want to control it.”
John D. Rockefeller
Janet S@8
Outstanding and correct!
Chuck and Janet S(Frick and Frack): re 8 and 10—: It is only outstanding and correct if you have the mind-set and are working with the facts as they are understood by a sixth grader. If you truly want to privatize social security then withhold NO money and let people spend or save it as they wish. That is real freedom. No…. Thte agenda here is for “private” concerns to get their hands on a huge pile of public money to do with as THEY wish—not the purported owners of the private social security accounts. You are either morons or paid shills for Corporate Amerika.
Captain Pike@11
Comments like that show why you are no longer in command. Having ownership doesnt mean the ability to do anything you want with it.
Pike @ 9: “‘I don’t want to own anything. I just want to control it.’ — John D. Rockefeller”
The mantra of the Democratic Party!
That’s a freaking myth.
Well, I’ve got experiences that say otherwise and if your gay “friends” have never had to deal with a State that refuses to recognize the existence of their relationships, then I guess they’re pretty damn lucky.
re 12: That is as nit-picking a statement as I’ve ever seen and runs counter to your own beliefs. But, does it really? Reps and conservatives in general are interested in curtailing individual freedom unless the individual under question is a “corporation” —-of which Reps have more love and regard of than real people.
Do you have something against ending SS withholding entirely? If it is ended then there is no question as to who owns and controls the money.I would love to know what you think of union members having their “private” SS accounts managed by their unions and that money could then be invested only with companies that are worker friendly. Wouldn’t that be the REAL free market in action — with both sides using their capital to effect the changes they want? Or, once again, do you prefer for the capital to be confiscated from individuals and invested by faceless little Eichmanns for the benefit of the uber rich?
As a Christian and Royal Ranger commander of a outpost at a Assembly of God Church, I disagree that the gay should get married at all. I believe only Woman and Men should get married only.
GBU and may Jesus bless u.
scott @ 7–your point only makes it clear why civil unions are necessary. Things like visitation are proposed in the weak ‘reciprocal benefits bill.’ But the truth is there are literally hundreds of benefits currently denied to men and women in Oregon who have no cause to be denied them.
I can tell you what will happen if it’s adopted–nothing. That’s what’s happened in MA, CT and VT so far. Nothing.
14 & 17:
It has been my experience and especially lately that Dr.s and caregivers are so worried about being sued for not being PC that they defacto grant privelages to gay couples that have been previously only recognized in a marriage situation.
My arguing for the limitation of marriage is straight from common sense and the current ACLU lawsuit on behalf of a polygamist. What makes his marriage to multiple women any less valuable than a same sex marriage?
18
How about a brother and sister or a Aunt and a nephew. Society dont allow them to get married. Isnt that discrimination?
It is legal for 1st cousins to marry. That ususally strengthens the line. Check out the Rothschilds. Those old biblical fairy tales you live your life by are , well, antiquated.
Yeah but you still havent answered the question. Why not a brother and sister? Any brave donks want to answer.
Both partys are of the age of consent. I dont want this to be a moral struggle for you donks.
How about a father and a son? How about a mother and a son? How about a Father and two daughters?
Because with a brother and a sister or any other pair of close relatives the negative traits of the line would predominate. Any 10 year old that goes to public school and gets a real education knows that. There is an equal possibility that the strong traits will predominate,or, God could get angry and strike us all dead.
You donks support abortion. So what if there is a high probablity for the baby to come out deformed. Just kill it while it is coming out. By the tenth try they could have normal one. What is the problem. Are you starting to read your bible Dr Q….you bible thumper you.
Come on Dr Q cant answer it. I want to hear some sound donk logic on why we cant have a brother and a sister marry.
You see any donk who allows gay mariage on the basis of equal rights but doesnt allow any other consenting adult to marry is full of shit. Plain and simple. If you donks would come out and say that anybody can get married over the age of 18 I could probably respect your position a little more.
Hey all the donks that teach in the public school would have a lot more special days to honor the different type of families. After I have two moms day we could have a “my dad is also my grandpa” day. How about this “I am another from my mothers brother” day.
Reply to 8
Maybe in your fantasy world, Janet; but in the real world that I live in, the individual has no bargaining power (and therefore no say) when pitted against a large pension fund or insurance company.
Social Security is the most successful government program in the history of the world. It drastically reduced poverty among the elderly, increased average life spans, and for 3/4 of a century has paid every penny of promised benefits.
Now let’s look at the “ownership sector” (i.e., private sector) of the pension world. Nearly all large employers deliberately underfund their pensions. Government regulators allow them to use accounting practices that pretend their pension promises don’t exist. Big corporations are lining up in bankruptcy court to welsh on their contractual obligations to retirees. And guess who the retirees turn to when the pensions they “own” on paper turn out to be worthless? A government program called the Pension Guaranty Corporation, that’s who.
Janet, someday you’ll be too old to work (or get hired). When that day comes, are you willing to stake your roof and food on Bush’s “ownership society” concept? Go right ahead — but don’t ask me as a taxpayer to bail you out when it turns to shit on you. Me, I don’t trust the private sector any farther than I can spit. Too many crooks out there, and too many politicians who are too eager to let them steal everything you have.
The one thing they haven’t figured out how to steal yet is your Social Security. The “ownership society” gang are working on it, and if you go along with your bullshit, you’ll have no one to blame but yourself when you find yourself old, sick, and living like a beggar in Bangladesh — because that’s exactly what they’re going to do to you. All they want is whatever money you have, and they don’t care what they have to do to get it, or how much suffering they inflict on those they take it from.
So you can take Bush’s “ownership society” and shove it up your ass. What you do to yourself is your business, but what you and the lying politicians you so glibly support on this blog do to me is my business — and I’ll do something about it.
sorry, meant to say “their bullshit,” not “your bullshit,” although if you buy into their crap then it’s your bullshit too
Now I just know someone from The Earth Is Flat Party will jump all over my SS post … let me just say this. No matter how hard you gravity-defying liars try to convince me that 2 + 2 = 10, I won’t believe you … so don’t even try.
P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Well, I have news for you trolls, I’m not one of them.
It’s a mathematical fact that under any set of economic assumptions that would make Bush’s Social Security proposal work, Social Security will run surpluses into infinity. Bush is gaming the numbers. If NOTHING is done to Social Security, the purchasing power of benefits received by retirees in 2075 will be greater than the purchasing power of benefits received by today’s retirees.
Cheesy Chuckie @ 10
I wish you happiness living on your United Airlines pension, Chuckie. Or your Enron pension … or your WorldCom pension … or your General Motors pension ….
No rabbit no one is telling you that 2 = 2 = 10.. of course if you work at KCRE it probably could.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Just noticed I’ve been signing my posts as “Robert Rabbit” tonite — that’s a typo, not a name change. The cute fluffy little bunny just returned home from Green Lake Park, and is plumb tuckered out from fucking 146 cute little female cottontails today.
33
Bullshit. That’s exactly what Bush is telling us. The asshole extrapolated numbers into eternity, then told us Social Security is going broke. Using the Liar-in-Chief’s own numbers, the earth will be swallowed by the sun first.
Maybe RUFUS can explain how Bush can shift $10 trillion from the Social Security revenue stream to private accounts and still pay Social Security benefits without raising taxes? The answer, of course, is that he doesn’t plan to pay the Social Security benefits — he intends to welsh on them, just like private corporations are welshing on their pension promises. He wants to turn Uncle Sam into a United Airlines. Why? Because he hates Social Security, and profoundly hates anyone who isn’t wealthy.
As Bush has been in office for 4 1/2 years now, and we have a track record to go by, I’ll show you how 2 + 2 = 10 in the GOP Fantasy World. What he did was cut tax revenues by $2.4 trillion, spend $300 billion on a war, increase the growth rate in federal spending from 4% to 12% a year, and finance all of this by turning a $200 billion a year surplus into a $540 billion a year deficit.*
If you believe Bush’s something-for-nothing bullshit, you’re worse than a fool, because you’re dragging the rest of us down with you.
(* Assumes a nominal deficit of $400 billion a year + $140 billion a year Social Security surplus; under the “unified budget” accounting scheme used by Congress the actual deficit is higher than the administration’s stated figures by an amount equal to the Social Security surplus, 100% of which is borrowed by Congress for operating budget expenses.)
RUFUS
First you have men and women marrying each other…so next thing you know gays want to marry, and then brothers and sisters, and barnyard animals. Clearly what you are arguing is that nobody should be able to get married. If the straights hadn’t started this whole thing, then gay people wouldn’t be trying to get married.
DISCLAIMER: The person posting as “mark” here and elsewhere is not me. And unless “marks” (another poster of renown) has been intimate with 146 fluffy bunnies like ol’ Roger/Robert @ 34, I don’t think he’d forget to append an “s” to his name.
mark @ 37
Don’t brothers and sisters already marry each other in West Virginia and other “red” states? Seriously, that’s an asinine post, mark. Your argument goes like this: Gays marry THEREFORE siblings marry THEREFORE people marry barnyard animals. That’s quite a leap of logic, friend — in fact, you managed to make TWO giant leaps of logic in one sentence! Sort of like the giant leaps of faith you guys make when you talk about “supply side economics” or Social Security. You are helping to prove that wingnuts are illogical and have their heads stuck in dark places — keep up your good work!
No I am talking humans only and they have to be the age of consent. No animals. If a man can fall in love with another man and have the right to marry why not a sister and a brother? Dont tell me you donks are starting to make judgements now.
Hell we can even make it legal to marry a dead people. I am willing to be consistent here. Who am I to stand in the way of a donk and their beloved dead voters…or I mean beloved dead ones.
Hell we can even make it legal to marry a dead people.
Explain to us how you’re going to get them to consent…
42
W
The same way the donks get the dead to vote for them would be a good start.