The Oregon house has approved two gay-rights bills: domestic partnerships and anti-discrimination

SALEM, Ore. - Oregon's gays and lesbians would win the benefits of marriage and protections against discrimination under landmark bills approved Tuesday by the Oregon House.

The two measures go to the Senate, where they are expected to win approval and be forwarded to Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a strong supporter who plans to sign both. Kulongoski called House passage of the bills "a great day for Oregon."

***

One would enable same-sex couples to enter into contractual relationships that grant them the same benefits offered to married couples under state law. The bill refers to the relationships as "domestic partnerships."

The other bill would ban discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people in employment, housing and access to public accommodations.

Washington state senators passed a limited domestic partnership bill on or about April 10, by a tally of 63-35, that gives gay couples, and hetero couples where at least one person is at least 62, some of the rights associated with marriage.  Among the guarantees are hospital visitation and inheritance rights, as well as some other end of life decisions involving burials.

The bill previously passed the House and next goes to Gov. Christine Gregoire (D), who has promised to sign it.

The link above is to the bill that actually passed.  It is interesting because it recognizes that some older hetero couples live together and do not get married for various reasons (such as loss of pensions).  The law allows both them and same sex couples to register their domestic partnerships.

The law also provides for study of certain insurance issues, perhaps with an eye towards future legislation.

"It is not helpful for a 'liberal' or revisionist case, since the whole point of Paul's rhetorical gambit is that everyone in his imagined readership agrees in thinking the same sex relations of the culture around them to be as obviously immoral as idol-worship or disobedience to parents. It is not very helpful to the conervative either, though, because Paul insists on shifting the focus away from the objects of moral disapprobation in chapter 1 to the reading / hearing subject who has at this point been happily identifying with Paul's castigation of someone else ... Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law- abiding. "

Now the problem is coming up with a way to persuade in a tolerant manner those who oppose homosexuality. I have had interesting conversations with some conservative Christians, stressing tolerance,  but I have never been able to successfully persuade them... yet :)

Not having a scientific background, I'd hazard a guess that it's such a hot button issue because of the way we're physically/chemically wired as human beings -- wired to reproduce.  Science and medicine are still in very primitive stages understanding mine/body reactions.  I don't know when scientists first started establishing, e.g., relationships between danger and the physical fear response, to mention just one accepted physiological response.  We know a little about the effect of medicines on mental states -- and we have some wonder drugs -- but that science is still in its infancy.

Maybe now that some researchers are actually working on the issue of sexual orientation and genetics (a taboo subject for many years) we'll get some answers.  (Funny -- one of the big researchers in this area has the last name "Breedlove.")  The birth order/sexual orientation statistical evidence seemed silly when I first heard it, but then I read that the statistics keep coming out that way (and depending on whether you're right handed or not! LOL).  But if one thinks that the birth mother's body chemistry changes as she gives birth to more children -- there may be a plausible connection. 

After reading a lot of theology and science, I find the Sneetches story by Seuss fills the bill for me.  http://en.wikipedia....
 

I then tell them how the issue is to treat homosexuals fairly without discriminating against them.

Many Christians who believe that homosexualy is a sin are torn on this issue. On the one hand, they do not want to give tacit approval to what they see as a sin. At the same time, they have the troubling commands and examples of Jesus, who stressed that we should be tolerant and forgiving to others.

And it is the forgiving and tolerant Jesus that most Christians like. So I am hopeful that with enough reminders, they can become respectful towards homosexuals, at the very least. After all, that is how God made them, and God wouldn't make mistakes, would he? :)

Here's an example.  I thought voting for Bush the second time was a serious moral issue.  By then, it was clear what he stood for.  I was very disturbed that people I knew were able to slough off what I thought were grave sins and errors.  And I thought Bush's actions, on a moral scale, were far more significant than some sexual sin.  (Let's add the Clinton escapade in here for partisan balance.) If my analysis is correct, Bush at the very least led us negligently into a murderous war.  How do you balance someone causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives against, I'm sorry, some allegedly deviant sex act?  (Let me be clear I do not classify homosexuality as deviant; I believe every major medical group has he same analysis.)  I am just gobsmacked by the idea that there is a large group of people who think what we've done in Iraq has no moral consequences, but the idea that someone gets sexual pleasure in a manner differently from them is important.

So if I were still a communicant, I would have no problems kneeling next to a homosexual (to me, that's no issue at all), someone who was pro-life or pro-choice, someone who had stolen large sums of money through white collar crime, even someone who rooted for the Yankees (which, after all, I did when I was young).  Really, that's between them and God.

Seriously, how does anyone think it is important morally what method one uses to obtain sexual pleasure as long as consenting adults are involved?  If people who are serious about homosexuality would just stand back and think about the things that they prefer in an amorous way -- some of them are pretty humorous when looked at objectively. 

Think about being an alien and coming down to view earthly sex habits.  "EEORG23X, some of the males seem to salivate when seeing women with large fatty protuberances on the front of the torso.  A few like to have their females walk around in shoes with very high platforms, and sometimes have them put on fake hairpieces of a different color.  The women seem to apply strange colors to their faces -- colors that are not found in nature at all."  You can just go on and on -- you know, people licking shoes, etc.  Tattoos.  Piercings.  Now, I think all this diversity in the human animal is wonderful, and great fun.  Why one particular act stands out for approbation --- go figure.  (And, no, the level of approbation against gay sex has not been consistent throughout history, or across civilizations.  But that's a whole other topic.)

I wonder if people who are so anti-gay actually know gay people well? Until I came to "the big city" I only knew what I had read about in books and seen in the media.  This was in 1967.  The stereotypes portrayed were not pretty.  They still are not, much of the time, and they bear little relationship to reality.

Hugo, you always get me thinking.

The issues of gay rights and treatment of gay people in society first and foremost need to focus on the fact that GLBT people are not just sexually attracted to the same sex, but have deep love for one another, commit to one another, and have families together.  The discrimination is much easier to ignore if one only thinks about the sex.

God did create us, and no I don't think he screws around.  But don't forget, this is about our ability to live our lives fully 100% expressed as God created us, and also fully human in our relationships.  Of course sex is a part of that like it is in every relationship, but please don't stress the sex in arguments about tolerance and discrimination--it's not the what makes society so unfair to us so much of our lives---it's our love that matters.

  We're all still learning, and I think open communication is key.  I was educated more myself when I read John Aravosis' description of the arguments used in Germany against the Jews and how the words parallel what some anti-gay people say in the U.S.  Gays are not some special demographic.  They don't just live in big cities, etc.  (I was pleasantly surprised to discover in the last few months that in the small Pa. coal town I grew up in there's a gay bar in town -- and it's been one since forever.) 

I did not mean to offend in any way.  It's just that the anti-gays seem to focus on a physical act that they find "unnatural" and which I see as typical of the human animal.

On to good news.  The New Hampshire governor, who had been on the fence, has decided to sign New Hampshire's civil union law.http://www.boston.co...  The article points out that

New Hampshire thus will become the fourth state to adopt civil unions and the first to do so without first having a court fight over denying gays the right to marry.
***

The one state law on abortion -- a parental notification law -- is expected to be repealed this year.

The Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, testified for the bill as did state Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley, who also is openly gay.

Civil union opponents -- largely Republicans -- have warned that voters will punish Democrats at the polls for supporting the bill.

My wife has New Hampshire on her short list for a place for us to retire.

It's time that Christians speak about and demonstrate the compassion that Christ showed towards  all that are "different from me" and that we may not understand. Just read the Sermon on the Mount...

PM you are a compassionate soul and I read all your posts!

A professor from college, 30-something years ago, lectured that he believed life's "meaning" was to attempt to find the highest truths

I think that search for truth is a basic human urge similar to procreation, self-protection, etc.

And though I sometimes pop-off (a big fault of mine) I learn things from posters who disagree with me and I hope all who respond to these posts can continue communicating

Pam Spalding relates the story of a former American Family Association columnist and attorney, Joe Murray, who has changed his position on gays.  This is Murray speaking:

That being said, the issue of gay rights has been weighing heavy on my mind for quite some time. The gay issue is a human issue, and thus I strongly believe that it must be approached with concern and compassion. Furthermore, the individuals engaging in the debate must recognized that behind the theories there are real life human beings that are made in the image of the Creator.

While it is true that I have written some inflammatory pieces (which I will explain in the next question), I must say I never really gave them much thought, for I was attracted to the American Family Association (AFA) because of the pro-life issue. To me, that is the number issue facing our civilization today . . .* * *

After adopting the AFA party line for some time, something in the back of my head kept tearing away at my conscience. How could AFA, an earthly organization, declare the divine intention of the God and condemn the souls of homosexuals? How was it that men could make the declaration of who was getting into Heaven and who was getting the one-way ticket to Hades?

There's much more to this very long interview; I recommend reading it.  Spalding's questions are very thoughtful.