News :: GLBT
Anti-Gay Organizers File Suit Over Ore. Civil Unions Lawby Kilian MelloyFriday Dec 28, 2007 Opponents to marriage equality saw to it that the Oregon state constitution was amended to exclude gay and lesbian families in 2004. Now, with a law to permit civil unions poised to come into effect on January 1, 2008, anti-gay activists are targeting the state with a federal lawsuit, alleging that signatures were illegally declared invalid on a petition to require that the civil unions law be subject to a vote during next year’s election, rather than passed by state legislators and signed into law by the governor.
An article posted Dec. 26 by 365Gay.com (www.365gay.com/Newscon07/12/122607couples.htm) reports that the law will provide protections for gay and lesbian families, as well as heterosexual couples.
Health insurance, hospital visitation rights, and other family protections will be among the benefits the law will provide gay families.
The provision came about following voter approval of the anti-gay amendment to the state’s constitution. The amendment, in turn, arose in part following a short period in March of 2004 when one Oregon county permitted about 3,000 gay and lesbian couples to obtain marriage licenses.
365Gay.com also reported that a non-discrimination law also will come into effect on Jan. 1.
The Oregonian (www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1196906109106980.xml&coll=7) covered the story of the failed petition in greater detail, specifying that the plaintiffs claim that officials declared signatures to be invalid that belonged to registered voters, and furthermore, the plaintiffs’ suit claims, officials did not use a month-long period allowed by law for follow-up investigation into dubious signatures. The tally of valid signatures by officials showed that the petition was 116 signatures short of the required 55,179 signatures.
The suit does not address the similar failure of a companion petition drive intended to subject the new anti-discrimination law to a referendum vote. That petition fell short by well over a thousand signatures.
In a burst of concern for the rights of the incarcerated, World News Daily posted a story on Dec. 27 (www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59384) claiming that Oregon officials were planning to allow gay prisoners who registered for civil unions to enjoy rights that heterosexuals in prison would be denied.
The article said that the director of the state’s Department of Corrections, Max Williams, had circulated an email notifying corrections workers that in compliance with the new law, incarcerated individuals who had "entered into a [civil union] will be allowed to live in the same facility and unit, subject to the needs of orderly operation, safety and security of the facility."
The World Daily News cited an unnamed corrections worker who, according to the site, said, "The problem I have with this is that the department will not allow heterosexual inmates who are married to live together in the same institution or on the same housing unit."
The article quoted the anonymous worker further: "In Oregon, if you’re a homosexual inmate, only then will you be allowed to live with your partner."
The article acknowledges, however, that according to Williams’ note, gay prisoners who have entered into a civil union will not be permitted to share the same cell.
WND said that a Dept. of Corrections spokesperson told the site that heterosexual inmates would not be allowed the same option for the simple reason that correctional facilities blocks do not house mixed-gender populations.
Though the WND article appeared to condemn the idea of same-sex incarcerated persons living in the same housing unit, no mention was made in the article of the far more prevalent practice of inmates in the same block or the same cell entering a sexual relationship, often through the use of force on the part of one sexual partner.
Oregon Department of Justice spokesperson Stephanie Soden was quoted in The Oregonian article as saying, "We are confident that Oregon’s election procedures fully satisfy federal constitutional requirements."
Kilian Melloy reviews media, conducts interviews, and writes commentary for EDGEBoston, where he also serves as Assistant Arts Editor.
|
|
|
Email
Print
Share