Another Door Opens

[Misty_Morning]

Hooray for the next mayor of Portland!

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/05/052108mayor.htm

 

[Anniejustagirl]

One step at a time. This is a powerful one. I especially appreciate that, from the article, his sexual orientation was never an issue... Yes, a powerful step!

Thanks for sharing, Misty....

Oh, and btw... miss you

 

[alaskabibear]

Thanks for the link. I also read a number of other interesting news articles on the site. IMO, this new sub-forum is already proving it's worth.

 

[sunandshadow]

I especially appreciate that, from the article, his sexual orientation was never an issue...

Well, aside from the fact that a GLBT organization funded his campaign. But it doesn't say how much they funded it, and whether his total funding was significantly more than his opponents.

 

[Etoile]

Great news! And I'm not at all surprised that it happened in Portland. Shame on him for forgetting Harvey Milk though - Adams said he is the first openly gay mayor of a major US city, but Milk beat him to it by nearly 30 years.

 

[ksmybuttons]

Hi. I was just perusing the main lit forums and saw this new one. Congratulations!

Living in Portland, many of us are thrilled to have Adams as our Mayor. One of things that makes our city great is that we like to have people with big ideas in the Mayor's office. We make mistakes at times, but, generally speaking, what the person stands for is important. Sam doesn't always get it right, but he always thinks creatively. I'm proud to have Sam as my next Mayor.

 

[Chicklet]

Huh...

I actually never heard anything about his sexuality, which is probably a great sign of how little it mattered in the campaign.

 

[infinity706]

Well, I still have to laugh about the part mentioning that a gay guy won an election at the same time that the people were voting against gays marrying. That certainly sounds funny.

 

[alaskabibear]

Well, I still have to laugh about the part mentioning that a gay guy won an election at the same time that the people were voting against gays marrying. That certainly sounds funny.

Yes it does seem ironic. But, it is these type of progressive steps forward that will eventually bring the general populace to a better understanding of the GLBT community (read less fearful of GLBT people and their "agenda"). I think it behooves us all to remember that old fears and beliefs die slowly. We can either hasten that along or impede it depending on how we each as individuals present GLBT people to the communities we live in. I wish him well and hope he will prove to be a shining light.

As to marriage, IMO all marriage is a combination of a civil legal contract (sometimes) augmented with a religious ceremony. I think the civil legal contract part should be open and available for all (and it inevitably will be). The religious part should be a totally separate issue and governed by the individuals and the religious organizations personal choices. (in other words, it is just as wrong for the GLBT community to try and force our beliefs onto religious organizations as it is for them to force theirs onto us.)

 

[Vail_Indigo]

Yes it does seem ironic. But, it is these type of progressive steps forward that will eventually bring the general populace to a better understanding of the GLBT community (read less fearful of GLBT people and their "agenda"). I think it behooves us all to remember that old fears and beliefs die slowly. We can either hasten that along or impede it depending on how we each as individuals present GLBT people to the communities we live in. I wish him well and hope he will prove to be a shining light.

As to marriage, IMO all marriage is a combination of a civil legal contract (sometimes) augmented with a religious ceremony. I think the civil legal contract part should be open and available for all (and it inevitably will be). The religious part should be a totally separate issue and governed by the individuals and the religious organizations personal choices. (in other words, it is just as wrong for the GLBT community to try and force our beliefs onto religious organizations as it is for them to force theirs onto us.)

I agree with your view on civil contracts.
My only addendum would be that all legal documents refer to civil unions or whatever they end up being called.
So long as the government recognizes marriages and civil unions as different entities, you have 'separate but equal' which is always separate but never equal.

 

[alaskabibear]

I agree with your view on civil contracts.
My only addendum would be that all legal documents refer to civil unions or whatever they end up being called.
So long as the government recognizes marriages and civil unions as different entities, you have 'separate but equal' which is always separate but never equal.

Good point. And I agree.

 

[Semler]

I live in Beaverton, so I wasn't able to vote in the Mayors race for Portland.
Gay or straight, it didn't matter, he was the better candidate.

 

[infinity706]

Yes it does seem ironic. But, it is these type of progressive steps forward that will eventually bring the general populace to a better understanding of the GLBT community (read less fearful of GLBT people and their "agenda"). I think it behooves us all to remember that old fears and beliefs die slowly. We can either hasten that along or impede it depending on how we each as individuals present GLBT people to the communities we live in. I wish him well and hope he will prove to be a shining light.

As to marriage, IMO all marriage is a combination of a civil legal contract (sometimes) augmented with a religious ceremony. I think the civil legal contract part should be open and available for all (and it inevitably will be). The religious part should be a totally separate issue and governed by the individuals and the religious organizations personal choices. (in other words, it is just as wrong for the GLBT community to try and force our beliefs onto religious organizations as it is for them to force theirs onto us.)

I think it has more to do with the congress sucks but incumbninents almost always win elections thing. "Gays" as a concept are scary for a lot of people, but it's different when you know or at least know of one. Yeah, I have a bit of a background in psychology.

I agree with your view on civil contracts.
My only addendum would be that all legal documents refer to civil unions or whatever they end up being called.
So long as the government recognizes marriages and civil unions as different entities, you have 'separate but equal' which is always separate but never equal.

I'm not sure how seperate but equal applies as much here, though. When it applied to schools, it was pretty fucking obvious that there was nothing equal about it. When one group's schools consistantly have better funding better trained staff, and higher achievement, there isn't even the real concept that they could possibly be equal. Civil union has all the same benefits. Whether it's equal to marriage or not, it at least looks a lot closer than the other case. Of course, I don't really like the idea of marriage anyway.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

I think it has more to do with the congress sucks but incumbninents almost always win elections thing. "Gays" as a concept are scary for a lot of people, but it's different when you know or at least know of one. Yeah, I have a bit of a background in psychology.
I'm not sure how seperate but equal applies as much here, though. When it applied to schools, it was pretty fucking obvious that there was nothing equal about it. When one group's schools consistantly have better funding better trained staff, and higher achievement, there isn't even the real concept that they could possibly be equal. Civil union has all the same benefits. Whether it's equal to marriage or not, it at least looks a lot closer than the other case. Of course, I don't really like the idea of marriage anyway.

well, lets put it this way.
Lets suppose I'm driving with my partner in a very conservative part of the country.
We get into an accident and I'm not hurt by my partner is and shes in the hospital.
If there are two different entities, marriage and civil union, then what is to keep the hospital staff, who may think our relationship is sick and fake, from at the very least delaying my getting access to my partner?
Or, say, having to make decisions for her?
Thats the thing.

(yes, I could then sue, no doubt, but thats sort of beside the point).
Every law, for every person, has to be written the same.

 

[emap]

Vail your right and actually does happen that way on occassion. There is a problem though, your talking about congress, state or national they are not going to do something that makes sense, they are not going to do the right thing, they are either going to do what the group that pays them the most says to do, or do what the majority of their mail says to do if no one pays them.

We are talking about politicians after all.

 

[infinity706]

I can sort of see your point, but most likely, if they were going to do that, they'd be doing it whether you were "married" or not. They'd still see your marriage as sick and fake, too.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

Vail your right and actually does happen that way on occassion. There is a problem though, your talking about congress, state or national they are not going to do something that makes sense, they are not going to do the right thing, they are either going to do what the group that pays them the most says to do, or do what the majority of their mail says to do if no one pays them.

We are talking about politicians after all.

will it happen today? nope. Tomorrow? nope.
But in my lifetime? probably.
Its all been downhill for bigots since they started letting those colored marry our white women!

seriously, though.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

I can sort of see your point, but most likely, if they were going to do that, they'd be doing it whether you were "married" or not. They'd still see your marriage as sick and fake, too.

possibly. but this removes yet another leg they have to stand on.

 

[Tymeless]

possibly. but this removes yet another leg they have to stand on.

I think your right on this one. As we kick out their legs they find it harder to defend their views but then they find someone new to pick on. If its not one thing its another with bigots.

 

[bailadora]

well, lets put it this way.
Lets suppose I'm driving with my partner in a very conservative part of the country.
We get into an accident and I'm not hurt by my partner is and shes in the hospital.
If there are two different entities, marriage and civil union, then what is to keep the hospital staff, who may think our relationship is sick and fake, from at the very least delaying my getting access to my partner?
Or, say, having to make decisions for her?
Thats the thing.

(yes, I could then sue, no doubt, but thats sort of beside the point).
Every law, for every person, has to be written the same.

Anyone mind if a straight person jumps in? I have discussed this topic with my cousin on several occasions and he has made me cognizant of a lot of things I was unaware of. We live in a VERY conservative area of the country, so besides the above scenario, he mentioned a couple of other issues that he and his partner have to deal with, that I (as a legal spouse) would not have to.

The first issue regards the right of survivorship. If my husband were to pass before I did - I, as his widow, would have unhampered access to all of his financial accounts and all of his property would automatically become legally mine, no questions asked. Not so with J and his partner. Unless they have ironclad wills, their funds and property go to next of kin. And even it there is a will, if either family wanted to be real shitheads, they could contest the will and tie it up in court for years.

The second issue regards health insurance. In my area of the country, companies are not going to offer health insurance benefits to a same sex spouse, because they are not considered legal dependents. If J and M wanted kids and one of them wanted to be a stay at home parent, then one of them is going to have to forfeit corporate subsidized health insurance. Sure they can pursue a private policy, but that's going to be significantly more expensive than insurance offered through the work place.

I totally agree with Val that the laws need to be written so that EVERY spouse has the same legal standing, regardless of the gender combination of the union.

 

[alaskabibear]

Anyone mind if a straight person jumps in? I have discussed this topic with my cousin on several occasions and he has made me cognizant of a lot of things I was unaware of. We live in a VERY conservative area of the country, so besides the above scenario, he mentioned a couple of other issues that he and his partner have to deal with, that I (as a legal spouse) would not have to.

The first issue regards the right of survivorship. If my husband were to pass before I did - I, as his widow, would have unhampered access to all of his financial accounts and all of his property would automatically become legally mine, no questions asked. Not so with J and his partner. Unless they have ironclad wills, their funds and property go to next of kin. And even it there is a will, if either family wanted to be real shitheads, they could contest the will and tie it up in court for years.

The second issue regards health insurance. In my area of the country, companies are not going to offer health insurance benefits to a same sex spouse, because they are not considered legal dependents. If J and M wanted kids and one of them wanted to be a stay at home parent, then one of them is going to have to forfeit corporate subsidized health insurance. Sure they can pursue a private policy, but that's going to be significantly more expensive than insurance offered through the work place.

I totally agree with Val that the laws need to be written so that EVERY spouse has the same legal standing, regardless of the gender combination of the union.

Of course no none minds if a "straight" person joins in! I think that was the hope when this sub-forum was started. It is people like you who will eventually bring about the change for people like your cousin. But I think it will take the passing of a generation of people who have encrusted opinions that they cannot let go of. These opinions and beliefs have formed their concept of who they are and how they are somehow "better" that all those "others" who are different. It is inbred ignorance. And I have found that you cannot force intelligence, enlightened thought or competent actions on any person - they must choose to learn and change. The rest of us will just have to wait until they mostly die off and go to their reward before we can be free of their bigotry.