Measure 36

Argument in Opposition

Marriage saved my spouse's life

Two months after my husband David and I wed this Spring, David suffered a devastating stroke.

When I was notified at my office of David's condition, I rushed to be with him, not stopping to contact my lawyer for a copy of our power of attorney. When I arrived at the hospital, I was told that his particular condition required a quick decision from next of kin in order to approve a course of treatment that had to be administered within three hours of the stroke.

Medical personnel needed a family member to authorize his medical treatment. Waiting for his mother, who lives two hours away, to reach the hospital would have wasted valuable time. When the doctor asked who could sign the forms, for the first time, I was able to say "I am his husband." Those four words allowed me to sign the necessary paperwork, authorize medical treatment and stay by David's side.

With that move, according to my doctor, I may have become the first person in Oregon to sign a consent form for a same-sex spouse. David is now well on his way to a full recovery because I was able to authorize treatment so quickly.

David and I are both private people who have never played such a public role in a campaign. But knowing that our marriage saved David's life motivated us to step forward and speak out against Constitutional Amendment 36.

If this amendment passes, countless Oregonians will be denied the right to make life-saving medical decisions for their loved ones. That's not healthy for families and it's not right for Oregon.

Reasonable people may disagree about social issues such as marriage, but amending unequal treatment into our constitution – and hurting families – goes too far.

We urge you to Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36

Chris B. and David B., Portland

(This information furnished by Rebecca Lee, No on Constitutional Amendment 36.)


Argument in Opposition

VOTE NO ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 36

Putting Unequal Treatment In Our Constitution
Will Hurt Thousands Of Oregonians.

Our Constitution is for protecting our most basic and important rights. It should never be used to settle partisan, religious or ideological disputes. And it should never be changed in a way that will hurt many of our fellow Oregonians.

Constitutional Amendment 36 may seem that it simply defines marriage. But its impact goes far beyond gay marriage. Constitutional Amendment 36 will hurt thousands of our fellow Oregonians: gays and lesbians, certainly. It will also hurt their families, their children and our communities.

Constitutional Amendment 36 will

These aren't theoretical problems. They are real problems. They hurt real people. Constitutional Amendment 36 would put those hurts in our Constitution – permanently.

Please read the next several pages of this Voters' Pamphlet
to see many specific facts and examples.

We Can Disagree About Gay Marriage
Without Putting It In the Constitution

We can disagree about gay marriage. Many people do. But we should never use the constitution to settle this kind of disagreement. Putting unequal treatment in our Constitution – and hurting people – goes too far.

Marriage is about so much more than who gets married: It's about love and commitment. Respect and responsibility. Benefits and protections. All people share these needs and emotions, including gays and lesbians. It is just wrong to use our Constitution as a weapon against them.

Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36
Because our Constitution is designed to protect people.
Not hurt them.

(This information furnished by Rebecca Lee, No on Constitutional Amendment 36.)


Argument in Opposition

Oregon Parents urge you to vote no on
constitutional amendment 36

We are each the parents of two adult children – one who is straight and one who is gay or lesbian.

Like all parents, we have dreamed that one day each of our children would know the joy of marriage. Like all parents, we have dreamed that one day each of our children would know the joy of parenthood.

Like all parents, we have worried about the challenges their lives would bring.

Unlike many parents, though, we have also worried that one of our children would be singled out for unequal treatment and that one of our children would have opportunities and rights from which our other child would be excluded.

Each of our children should be allowed to protect their loved ones in times of medical emergency, each of our children should be able to provide health insurance coverage for their spouse and their children, each of our children should know that if their spouse dies, they will not lose their nest egg or the family home.

But if this Constitutional Amendment passes, those things may be forever denied to our gay and lesbian children.

If this amendment passes, it will deny many Oregon families and children - like ours - health care, inheritance rights and the ability to make life-saving medical decisions.

We don't think this is fair. We don't believe unequal treatment belongs in our Constitution. We urge you, on behalf of all of our children, to please vote no on Constitutional Amendment 36.

Jim & Elise Self, Eugene
On behalf of their children

Linda & Brian Stahl, The Dalles
On behalf of their children

Russell & Eleanor Cannon, Bend
On behalf of their children

(This information furnished by Brian R. Stahl.)


Argument in Opposition

AFSC on Equal Civil Marriage Rights

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) supports equal civil marriage rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people equal to those for heterosexuals. We are aware that many are calling for civil unions for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and some people wish to reserve civil marriage for heterosexual couples alone. It is our belief that government sanction should be applied equally. All couples should be granted civil union licenses or all should be granted marriage licenses.

In doing so, we are careful to distinguish between civil law, in which no single religious view should predominate, and the right of various faith traditions, denominations, and congregations to decide for themselves whether they will perform, support, or recognize the marriages of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. Similarly, we wish to distinguish between the necessity for equality in the matter of civil law and coercive governmental "marriage promotion" policies that seek to enforce only one standard of worthiness for people who receive government assistance. We uphold equality in civil law and the principle of free choice in the matter of marriage while rejecting the idea that the worthiness of persons and families is determined by marital status.

Vote NO on constitutional amendment 36!

(This information furnished by Dan Stutesman, American Friends Service Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

The YWCA of Greater Portland strives to eliminate
racism and discrimination in all its forms and provides
growth, education and leadership opportunities
for women and families.

The YWCA works towards diversity and non-discrimination. Measure 36 will put unequal treatment based on sexual orientation into the Oregon constitution. The Oregon Bill of Rights provides: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." We can disagree about social issues, but disagreements should not be resolved in the constitution. Amending the constitution transforms one group's current views into a principle that binds us indefinitely.

The constitution should give equal protection under the law. Measure 36 specifies different rights for Oregonians, forever. Victims of this amendment would be children and families. Many families would be denied health care, inheritance rights and the ability to make decisions about their life. The amendment could restrict adoption policies, and could put children in jeopardy if a parent were to die.

In 1946 Esther E. Skelton, president of the Portland YWCA Board of Directors wrote to the membership with a resolution "…in harmony with the policy of the YWCA and steps that we have taken against discrimination." She was addressing the posting of the discriminatory signs "we cater to white trade only." She asked every member to "combat this vicious practice, and help implement our fundamental belief in the democratic way of life and in the worth and dignity of human personality." Removing the signs did not eradicate racism. It did make it possible to advance the social discourse about racism and grant basic rights to those who previously were denied them.

Voting against Ballot Measure 36 is a step we can take in 2004 to continue to fight discrimination.

Board of Directors of the YWCA of Greater Portland, 1111 SW 10th Avenue, Portland, OR 97205

(This information furnished by Adella Macdonald, Executive Director, Board of Directors, YWCA of Greater Portland.)


Argument in Opposition

Dear Oregon Voter,

My name is Pete Sorenson, an elected Lane County Commissioner. My life and work are rooted in Oregon. I grew up in Coos County, graduated from the University of Oregon, ran a private law firm, raised two children, and served as an elected member of the Oregon State Senate. I've been a licensed Oregon attorney for 22 years. As a former member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee that considers the impact of voter approved Constitutional amendments that I want to share my perspective with you.

I firmly oppose Constitutional amendment 36. Oregon's Constitution should not be amended to deny rights that citizens currently enjoy under that very document.

Although this measure does not affect me personally, it affects many people that I know. I believe that Marriage is both a religious and civil act. Our religious beliefs should be private. We must keep the legal aspects separate from the religious aspects. Oregon's constitution is a legal document designed to expand and protect the rights of Oregonians. The Constitution was not written to deny specific rights and freedoms that are enjoyed by the rest of Oregonians.

This measure will deny REAL OREGONIANS some of the most basic rights that we take for granted. Some of the basic rights include denying partners the right to make hospital visits and medical decisions, blocking inheritance rights, and denying people social security benefits after the death of loved ones.

I truly believe that women and men are created equal.

Oregon's constitution should not be amended to deny Oregonians basic rights. Please join me in voting NO on Constitutional amendment 36.

Thank you,

Pete Sorenson

P.S. - If you have any questions about the seriousness of this measure and why I oppose it, please contact me at PO Box 10836, Eugene, Oregon 97440 or by calling me at (541) 485-6726 or by sending me an email at sorenson2004@juno.com.

(This information furnished by Peter Sorenson.)


Argument in Opposition

Unsure how to vote on Constitutional Amendment 36?

Ask yourself:

Do you want unequal treatment for gays and lesbians in our Constitution?

Do you want to take away health care coverage from Oregon families and children?

Do you want to prevent people from making critical life-saving medical decisions for their loved ones?

Do you want to prevent thousands of Oregonians from fair inheritance rights when their loved one dies, even if it meant they could lose their family home?

Do you want to change our Oregon Constitution in a way that hurts real people in very real ways?

If your answer to any of these questions is "no" then your
answer to Constitutional Amendment 36 MUST be "NO"

(This information furnished by Ellen Lowe, No on Constitutional Amendment 36.)


Argument in Opposition

One Guy's View:
HERE'S ANOTHER REASON TO VOTE NO ON 36

There are a lot of clear reasons to vote against changing the Oregon Constitution to exclude gay and lesbians from civil marriage.

I'm a 19-year old single straight guy. Two people of the same gender getting married certainly doesn't hurt me, now or if and when I get married.

What gets me is that we have to vote on this at all.

When I look at my life and my future, here's what I'm worried about:

And I'm not even going to start on what's going on overseas.

And that brings me to the other reason to vote no on Constitutional Amendment 36.

There are a lot of politicians who are psyched to see this on the ballot because it is a big, fat distraction. They would much prefer voters be thinking about gay marriage than about what a lousy job they are doing on the stuff that actually has an impact on our lives.

Vote NO because unequal treatment is wrong.

But also vote NO to send a message:

STOP WASTING OUR TIME
AND GET TO WORK ON OUR REAL PROBLEMS!

(This information furnished by Ernie Pearmine, Gervais.)


Argument in Opposition

The Community of Welcoming Congregations strongly opposes Constitutional Amendment 36. We are an interfaith association of over 50 communities of faith who each have purposefully and theologically made commitments to welcoming all. We support the gay and lesbian families in our midst and recognize that changing the Constitution in this manner would have a negative impact on their lives.

While the criteria for marriage is a civil matter, we believe that equitable treatment of all people is a matter of faith. As people of faith, we believe that God has created all of us in the divine image. We hereby assert that equality in marriage is a justice issue and strongly encourage equity that crosses all barriers.

The Constitution provides protections and individual freedoms and should not be used to formally sanction different treatment for gay and lesbian families. As clergy leaders and communities of faith, we support civil marriage equality and encourage religious communities to celebrate the marriages of gay and lesbian couples and their families. The proposed Constitutional Amendment would harm gay and lesbian families by denying health benefits and other financial protections that keep families safe.

While we come from different theological perspectives regarding marriage, we agree that passing this Amendment would create unequal treatment for gay and lesbian families. Therefore, we oppose amending the Constitution in this way. We urge Oregonians to vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36.

(This information furnished by The Rev. Tara L. Wilkins, Director, The Community of Welcoming Congregations.)


Argument in Opposition

Constitutional Amendment 36: Not as simple as it seems.

Putting unequal treatment in our Constitution to ban gay marriage impacts more than you might think. Here are 100 of the rights, responsibilities and protections that would be denied to Oregon families.

Which would you want to be denied?

1. No automatic right to make health care decisions for partner

2. No automatic right to visit partner in the hospital

3. No right to sue for wrongful death if partner negligently killed

4. No right to consent or refuse consent to an autopsy of partner's body

5. No vested right to be buried in cemetery plot with partner

6. No automatic right to inherit cemetery plot

7. No automatic right to make arrangements for funeral or dispose of deceased partner's body

8. No right to donate partner's body or organs after death

9. No automatic right to inherit deceased partner's estate

10. Required to comply with childcare facility regulations when caring only for partner's children

11. Required to comply with childcare facility regulations when caring only for partner's children

12. A prior will is not automatically revoked when the relationship ends

13. No right to be notified in a public notice before partner's will is destroyed by an attorney

14. No preference to be appointed personal representative of deceased partner's estate

15. No right to continue to live in the deceased partner's home for one year after partner's death

16. No automatic right to notice in matters involving deceased partner's estate

17. No right to support from deceased partner's estate

18. No right to demand one-quarter share of partner's estate if will leaves less than that

19. No automatic right to notice that a conservatorship or guardianship is being filed against partner unless currently living together

20. May not get highest preference by court to be appointed as guardian or conservator for incapacitated partner

Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36.

(This information furnished by Ellen Lowe, No on Constitutional Amendment 36.)


Argument in Opposition

Constitutional Amendment 36: Not as simple as it seems.

Putting unequal treatment in our Constitution to ban gay marriage impacts more than you might think. Here are 100 of the rights, responsibilities and protections that would be denied to Oregon families.

Which would you want to be denied?

21 No right to obtain life insurance on partner

22 No uninsured motorist insurance coverage for partner

23 No right to spousal cash surrender valuation of term life insurance on partner

24 No right to coverage under deceased partner's group health insurance plan.

25 No protection for partner's home in bankruptcy

26 Private conversations with partner are not protected in court

27 Conversations with a marriage counselor are not protected in court

28 No automatic education on fetal alcohol syndrome

29 No court-ordered counseling upon divorce

30 No right to crisis counseling through state crime victims' compensation fund if partner is a victim of international terrorism

31 Partner not responsible for family expenses

32 No automatic paternity for children

33 Must testify against partner in a court case

34 Must surrender home to satisfy lien for partner's unpaid medical treatment in long-term care facility

35 No right to sue long-term care facility that fails to discharge lien in a timely manner once overdue charges for partner are paid

36 No right to sell property qualified for farm use assessment to partner without disqualification

37 No right to avoid court appointment of a property manager during foreclosure of partner's home

38 No right to maintain a dwelling on EFU (exclusive farm use) property even if occupied by farm operator's partner

39 No right to maintain a dwelling in a farm or forest zone even if lawfully created or acquired by the owner's partner

40 No right as a partner to a landowner to obtain a "landowner preference tag" for hunting from the Fish & Wildlife Commission

Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36

(This information furnished by Ellen Lowe, No on Constitutional Amendment 36.)


Argument in Opposition

Constitutional Amendment 36: Not as simple as it seems.

Putting unequal treatment in our Constitution to ban gay marriage impacts more than you might think. Here are 100 of the rights, responsibilities and protections that would be denied to Oregon families.

Which would you want to be denied?

41 No right to private visits in long-term care facility

42 No right to receive personal effects from deceased partner's body

43 No access to partner's death record

44 No automatic right of survivorship for jointly owned real property

45 No right to loss of support payments from the state crime victims' compensation fund if partner killed in a crime

46 No right to family therapy from state crime victims' compensation fund in case of child sexual abuse

47 No right to crisis counseling through state crime victims' compensation fund if partner is a victim of international terrorism

48 No right to exclude capital gain on principal residence based on partner's ownership

49 No court-ordered life insurance upon divorce

50 No right to deduct partner's medical expenses on income tax return

51 No right to receive deceased partner's wages

52 No right to deceased partner's wage claim against non-paying employer

53 No right to work on partner's farm for less than minimum wage

54 No eligibility for scholarship if partner is disabled or killed on the job

55 No right to sue for partner's death that was a result of an unsafe workplace

56 No right to workers' compensation benefits if partner disabled or killed on the job

57 No right to opt out of workers' compensation insurance as a family business

58 No right to sue non-employer for negligently killing partner on the job

59 No right to continue workers' compensation benefits until remarriage if partner is killed or disabled on the job

60 No right to examine or get copy of autopsy report of deceased partner

Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36.

(This information furnished by Ellen Lowe, No on Constitutional Amendment 36.)


Argument in Opposition

Constitutional Amendment 36: Not as simple as it seems.

Putting unequal treatment in our Constitution to ban gay marriage impacts more than you might think. Here are 100 of the rights, responsibilities and protections that would be denied to Oregon families.

Which would you want to be denied?

61. No right to receive personal effects from deceased partner's body

62. No access to partner's death record

63. No automatic right of survivorship for jointly owned real property

64. No right to sell property qualified for farm use assessment to partner without disqualification

65. No right to loss of support payments from the state crime victims' compensation fund if partner killed in a crime

66. No right to family therapy from state crime victims' compensation fund in case of child sexual abuse

67. Must pay taxes on employer health insurance benefits for partner

68. No right to exclude capital gain on principal residence based on partner's ownership

69. Must pay taxes on employer health insurance benefits for partner

70. No right to deduct partner's medical expenses on income tax return

71. No right to receive deceased partner's wages

72. No right to deceased partner's wage claim against non-paying employer

73. No right to work on partner's farm for less than minimum wage

74. No eligibility for scholarship if partner is disabled or killed on the job

75. No right to sue for partner's death that was a result of an unsafe workplace

76. No right to workers' compensation benefits if partner disabled or killed on the job

77. No right to opt out of workers' compensation insurance as a family business

78. No right to sue non-employer for negligently killing partner on the job

79. No right to continue workers' compensation benefits until remarriage if partner is killed or disabled on the job

80. A prior will is not automatically revoked when entering a new relationship

Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36

(This information furnished by Ellen Lowe, No on Constitutional Amendment 36.)


Argument in Opposition

Constitutional Amendment 36: Not as simple as it seems.

Putting unequal treatment in our Constitution to ban gay marriage impacts more than you might think. Here are 100 of the rights, responsibilities and protections that would be denied to Oregon families.

Which would you want to be denied?

81. No automatic right to special retirement benefit after death of partner who was a police officer or a firefighter

82. No right as unmarried couple with children to be treated as married for workers' compensation rights and benefits

83. No automatic right to partner's group insurance provided by public retirement system.

84. No right to opt out of unemployment insurance as a family business

85. No right to receive deceased partner's unemployment benefits

86. Required to comply with farm labor contractor regulations when working only with partner

87. Subjected to employment discrimination laws when hiring partner in family business

88. Employer can refuse to hire or discharge employee because it employs or has employed partner

89. No protection through emergency court orders in case of divorce

90. No tax exemption for dividing property upon divorce

91. No dividing retirement plans upon divorce

92. No automatic right to receive partner's judicial retirement pension

93. No automatic right to make retirement selection from deceased partner's public employee retirement benefit

94. No automatic right to partner's pre-Medicare insurance benefit provided by public retirement system

95. No automatic right to partner's Medicare supplemental insurance paid for by public retirement system

96. No automatic right to approve partner's public employee retirement choices

97. No automatic right to special pre-retirement public employee retirement benefit after death of partner who was a judge

98. No right for partner of disabled or killed public safety officer to Public Safety Memorial Fund benefits

99. No automatic right to receive partner's public employment benefits

100. No right to retired partner's health insurance offered by local government employers

Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36

(This information furnished by Ellen Lowe, No on Constitutional Amendment 36.)


Argument in Opposition

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon
Oppose Constitutional Amendment 36:

PLANNED PARENTHOOD SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT

For more than 40 years, Planned Parenthood has been a name you can trust in Oregon to provide you with medically-accurate information, education and counseling. We oppose Constitutional Amendment 36 and here's why:

MYTH: Those behind this measure are making false claims, such as, "Sex-education classes will be forced to teach homosexuality as a legitimate option." They claim that this will lead to more people being gay and therefore more people dying early from AIDS.

FACT: Constitutional Amendment 36 has nothing to do with Oregon's sex education law. ORS 336.455 requires "Promote abstinence for school age youth and mutually monogamous relationships with an uninfected partner for adults as the safest and most responsible sexual behavior. However, abstinence shall not be taught to the exclusion of other material and instruction on contraceptive and disease reduction measures."

REALITY: Planned Parenthood knows that Constitutional Amendment 36 is has nothing whatsoever to do with Oregon's sex ed classes.

MYTH: Supporters of Constitutional Amendment 36 are making false claims, such as, "Public Schools will be forced to teach that 'gay' marriage is equal to traditional marriage… beginning in kindergarten…".

FACT: Constitutional Amendment 36 has no requirements related to family life education. Using phrases like "beginning in kindergarten" is the worst kind of fear-based tactic designed to scare and mislead parents. In reality, Oregon law requires basic information we all agree on, such as, "Teach that no form of sexual expression is acceptable when it physically or emotionally harms oneself or others and teach pupils not to make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances…"

REALITY: Planned Parenthood knows that Constitutional Amendment 36 is completely unnecessary when it comes to getting good information to our kids.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD URGES YOU TO VOTE "NO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 36, IT'S UNNECESSARY.

Bill Sheppard
President/CEO
Planned Parenthood
Southwestern Oregon

Planned Parenthood of the Columbia Willamette

(This information furnished by Becca Uherbelau, Planned Parenthood Columbia/Willamette, Planned Parenthood Southwestern Oregon.)


Argument in Opposition

The Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ opposes Constitutional Amendment 36. We affirm that marriage's purpose and focus need always be love, wholeness, justice and equality. The right to marry is a matter of loving our neighbors and seeking justice for them. As a civil rights issue, marriage should be accessible to all Oregonians in committed, loving relationships. All couples should have access to the 1,000 plus rights and responsibilities that come with marriage.

"What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:8
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart… Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Mark 12:30-31

The Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ is committed to a society where love and justice abound for all people. The Oregon Constitution should not restrict civil rights and allow unfair treatment of our citizens. The amendment process should not be used to solve divisive issues of the moment. Amendment 36 dignifies unfair treatment and undermines religious liberty.

Thoughtful people of faith can and do disagree on the issue of marriage. We respect the right of each religious group to decide whether or not to sanctify any marriage. Our state Constitution should not endorse one religious definition of marriage over another. Clergy have never been forced to perform any marriages not recognized by their particular beliefs. Our Federal Constitution expressly forbids this under the First Amendment's establishment clause and its guarantee of the right to the free exercise of religion.

Respect the rights of all religions. Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36.

The Central Pacific Conference is composed of 40 worship communities in Oregon, with additional churches in Washington and Idaho.

(This information furnished by Joyce Liljeholm, Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ.)


Argument in Opposition

A Public School Teacher Urges a No Vote on
Constitutional Amendment 36

I'm very proud to have served as a public school teacher in Oregon for twenty-two years – in Coos Bay, Albany and St. Helens – and over the years, I've really seen a lot.

There are all kinds of reasons students succeed or fail at learning in our public schools. One of the most telling signs of whether students benefit from school and gain new and improved life skills is how they are treated – by their peers, by teachers, by parents and by school leaders. Students who are treated well, and not differently than others, are more likely to succeed. Students who are deficit, even in an area that's not their fault, have a much more difficult time, because they are also treated differently by fellow students, educators and the entire school community.

Constitution Amendment 36 would put unequal treatment for kids and their families into our state Constitution. It would mean some kids cannot receive health insurance coverage, just because they have lesbian or gay parents. It will mean that some children wouldn't be able to visit one of their gay or lesbian parents in the hospital. It means that some children's legal custody could be in question should something happen to one of their gay or lesbian parents.

Oregonians should not be fooled. There are a lot of protections that kids get from married parents that other kids cannot enjoy simply because they may have lesbian or gay parents.

Please join me in opposing Constitution Amendment 36. We shouldn't handicap any Oregon child with something they carry around each and every day, by allowing unequal treatment of their parents.

Elaine Mariman, Columbia City, OR

(This information furnished by Elaine Mariman, Columbia City, OR.)


Argument in Opposition

One thing Americans agree on is that what makes our nation great is our religious freedom and religious diversity. Many of our countries founders fled Europe because they were persecuted for their religious practices. They founded a new nation with a Bill of Rights that guarantees religious freedom and protects the right of everyone to freely practice their religion (or not to practice at all).

Constitutional Amendment 36 seeks to take away that religious freedom. Churches, synagogues, and other religious organizations have different opinions about same-sex marriage. Many rabbis, ministers, priests, and their congregants, believe that their religious traditions support and honor the sanctity of marriage for all couples, including same-sex couples. We, the Religious Response Network, are a group of clergy and people of faith of many religions who share this conviction.

If Constitutional Amendment 36 passes, then the religious beliefs of those who support it will be forced upon everyone. People of faith who believe in the sanctity of same-sex marriage will have their religious convictions pushed aside by the State. That kind of government interference is un-American to the core.

Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The same principle at the very core of our democracy is at stake here.

We urge all Oregon voters, no matter what their personal beliefs on marriage, to be patriotic and support the genius of our nation – religious freedom. We ask those of you who personally oppose same-sex marriage to stand up for the rights of your neighbors and vote no. The same principle that protects your right to practice your religion as you wish should protect the rights of your neighbors who practice their religion differently. Please stand up for your rights and those of your fellow Americans, and keep the state from taking sides in a private, religious debate on marriage. Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36.

(This information furnished by Rabbi Maurice Harris, Religious Response Network.)


Argument in Opposition

PFLAG Oregon State Council
(Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)

Urges "NO" Vote on Constitutional Amendment 36!

PFLAG Oregon State Council represents hundreds of parents, families and friends of lesbians and gays around the state. From Ontario to Coos Bay and from Forest Grove to Klamath Falls, we are your neighbors, your friends, and coworkers who love our children, gay and straight. We strive to create a society that is healthy and respectful of human diversity and inclusive of our gay and lesbian children. Oregon's constitution is sacred to the protection of our families.

Constitutional Amendment 36 will HURT our families:

All of our children should be allowed to protect their spouses and children in times of medical emergency.

All of our children should be able to provide health care coverage for their spouses and children.

Don't deny Oregon families and children - like ours - health care, inheritance rights and the ability to make life-saving medical decisions.

VOTE NO!!

Please Protect our Gay and Lesbian Children
and Their Families

PFLAG Oregon State Council
Asks You to Vote "NO" on
Constitutional Amendment 36

Patricia Keeney, President, PFLAG Oregon State Council (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)
Elise Self, Co-Chair, PFLAG Eugene/Springfield Chapter
PFLAG Mid-Columbia Chapter
PFLAG Portland Chapter
Mark Hammer, Coordinator, PFLAG Clackamas County Chapter
PFLAG Grants Pass Chapter
Bill Hayden, PFLAG Salem Chapter
PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians & Gays), Corvallis/Albany Chapter
Dorothy Leman, Co-President, PFLAG Central Oregon Chapter
PFLAG South Coast Chapter
PFLAG Ashland/Rogue Valley Chapter
PFLAG Forest Grove Chapter

(This information furnished by Patricia Keeney, President, PFLAG Oregon State Council (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).)


Argument in Opposition

The National Organization for Women,
Corvallis Chapter

Advocates a "NO" Vote on Constitutional Amendment 36

NOW is the National Organization for Women. We are dedicated to making legal, political, social and economic change in our society in order to achieve our goal, of eliminating sexism and ending oppression. NOW has more than half a million members with 550 chapters around the country, including Corvallis, Oregon.

Mission: The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.

Why Should Oregon Voters Say "NO" to
Constitutional Amendment 36?

Constitutional Amendment 36 would hurt Oregonians and their families in very real ways:

Why Should Oregon Voters Say "NO" to
Constitutional Amendment 36?

The Oregon Constitution is designed to protect, not hurt Oregonians.

For 38 years,
the National Organization for Women
has been dedicated to bringing
an end to unequal treatment.

Please Vote "NO" on Constitutional Amendment 36.

(This information furnished by Tina C. Empol, President, The National Organization for Women, Corvallis Chapter.)


Argument in Opposition

National Association of Social Workers
Oregon Chapter

Urges "NO" Vote on Constitutional Amendment 36!

Reject Constitutional Amendment 36:

Constitutional Amendment 36 would deny many Oregon families and children basic needs like:

Reject Constitutional Amendment 36:

Oregon does not need Constitutional Amendment 36. Like many measures we have seen before, it has unintended consequences. We should not put amendments like this in the Oregon Constitution.

Reject Constitutional Amendment 36:

As social workers, daily we see the real threats to marriage:

Constitutional Amendment 36 doesn't do one thing to address the true threats to marriage or to families. This Amendment won't save one marriage. It will only hurt real families by permanently denying them everyday legal protections we all take for granted.

Reject Constitutional Amendment 36:

Social workers know that families these days come in all shapes and sizes. What's most important is that every child in Oregon, regardless of who their parents are, has the same safeguards under the law. Constitutional Amendment 36 puts kids at risk and would deny them basic legal protections.

Voting "NO" on Constitutional Amendment 36 protects Oregon families from hurtful and unexpected impacts.

Please Protect Oregon Families…

Oregon Social Workers
Ask You to Vote "NO"
on Constitutional Amendment 36.

(This information furnished by Scott Manchester, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers, Oregon Chapter.)


Argument in Opposition

Former Bar Presidents Say:
Unequal Treatment Does Not Belong in Our Constitution

Constitutions outline the basic principles under which governments are organized, and Oregon's Constitution clearly states that equal treatment is one of those basic principles. Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution requires government to treat us all equally. It states that all privileges and immunities provided by Oregon must be granted equally to all citizens. This statement of equal protection means that Oregonians share in equal measure all of the benefits and all of the burdens of citizenship. Marriage and its benefits are among the privileges and immunities our government must provide equally.

Constitutional Amendment 36 would be a direct violation of the spirit of our Constitution:

Vote No on Measure 36.
Unequal treatment does not belong in our Constitution.

Kevin K. Strever
Judy Henry
Edwin A. Harnden
Bernard Jolles
Charles R. Williamson
Angel Lopez
Mark Johnson
Robert H. Fraser
Thomas C. Howser
Dennis C. Karnopp
Lawrence B. Rew

(This information furnished by Mark Johnson.)


Argument in Opposition

In accordance with the historical testimonies of The Religious Society of Friends on equality and marriage, the North Pacific Yearly Meeting (NPYM) opposes all attempts to deny legal recognition of marriage of same sex couples.

This statement was agreed to in unity at the 2004 NPYM meeting representing over 50 congregations of one branch of Friends (Quakers) from the five Northwestern States. Quaker meetings in Bend, Corvallis, Eugene, Portland, Salem, and the Rogue Valley also have public statements supporting marriage equality.

Since 1989 Oregon Quakers have performed marriages of same-sex couples; a practice deeply considered from religious, moral, and personal perspectives. We believe such marriages are good and right in the eyes of God. We urge you to respect our religious freedoms and beliefs and vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36 which would limit marriage.

Why are Quakers taking a stand contrary to social traditions? Quakers have opposed many unjust traditions, such as slavery and denying women the right to vote. Laws that enshrine unequal treatment of people are wrong. Such laws follow the worst traditions of discrimination. They are at odds with traditions of equality.

We support the tradition that marriage vows are a public statement of love and commitment between two people. Our State laws should support all marriages equally.

It is not fair that 5% of committed Oregonian couples, including those married by Quaker meetings, are excluded from the hundreds of legal benefits of marriage

Quakers are not trying to tell anyone what to believe. Similarly, the State Constitution shouldn't be rewritten making our belief in marriage equality illegal. Although religions have different views on marriage, our laws should provide equal benefits to all.

Churches aren't required to sanction marriages contrary to their beliefs. Equally, churches opposing marriage equality should not impose laws which prohibit us from celebrating marriages according to our beliefs.

Support religious freedom. Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36.

(This information furnished by Bonnie Tinker, North Pacific Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).)


Argument in Opposition

On July 12, 2004, the following resolution was passed unanimously by the Administrative Council of University Park United Methodist Church. Subsequently, the entire congregation voted unanimously to submit it to the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet.

RESOLUTION
ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL OF
UNIVERSITY PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
JULY 12, 2004

We are United Methodists who believe that our Christian faith demands social justice and equality. We oppose any state or federal constitutional amendments or laws defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Such amendments treat same gender couples as less than equal, denying them equal protection under the law. This discrimination violates God's command that we love our neighbors as ourselves and denies our convictions that all humanity, including gay men and lesbians, are created in God's image. We urge the defeat of these constitutional amendments or laws at the state and federal level.

(This information furnished by Rev. Dr. Jeanne G. Knepper, Rev. Marcia J. Hauer, co-pastors; University Park United Methodist Church.)


Argument in Opposition

Working Families Oppose Unequal Treatment and urge you to
VOTE NO ON Constitutional Amendment 36

The language in this amendment is deceptively simple, but will have serious negative consequences for Oregon, for families and for business and labor.

Constitutional Amendment 36 is wrong for Oregon:

Constitutional Amendment 36 is wrong for families:

Constitutional Amendment 36 is wrong for business and labor:

We urge you to vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36
Service Employees International Union Local 503, OPEU

(This information furnished by Arthur Towers, Service Employees International Union Local 503, OPEU.)


Argument in Opposition

These are just a few of the groups and individuals
from across Oregon

Who urge you to VOTE no on Constitutional Amendment 36:

CAUSA, Immigrant Rights Coalition of Oregon
Oregon Education Association
The Fair Housing Council of Oregon
Columbia County Citizens for Human Dignity
Rural Organizing Project
YWCA of Greater Portland
Klamath County Coalition for Human Dignity
The Women's Resource Center of Central Oregon, Bend
Columbia Pacific Alliance for Social Justice, Astoria
Benton County Board of Commissioners
Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon
Oregon Safe Schools and Communities Coalition
National Association of Social Workers, Oregon Chapter
Corvallis NOW
Kitty Piercy, Eugene
Bradley-Angle House, Portland
Harry and Merry Demarest, Corvallis
Wasco County Citizens for Human Dignity
Wallowa County Peace and Justice Network
Tillamook County Citizens for Human Dignity
Bruce Abernathy, Bend City Councilor
Linda S. Johnson, Bend City Councilor
John Hummel, Bend City Councilor
Elder Resource Alliance, Portland Metro Area
Outright Libertarians
Governor Ted Kulongoski, and Mary Oberst, First Lady of Oregon, Salem
SEIU Local 49 and SEIU Local 503
Richard Matson, Philomath City Councilor
Human Dignity Coalition, Bend
State Rep. Kelley Wirth, Corvallis
Richard P. Burke, Commissioner, Tualatin Valley Water District
State Senator Vicki L. Walker, Eugene
State Rep. Carolyn Tomei, Milwaukie
Cliff Trow, Former State Senator, Corvallis
ILWU Local 5
Deschutes County Democratic Central Committee
Dan Saltzman, Portland City Commissioner
Kathleen D. Saadat, Portland
State Senator Kate Brown, Portland
State Senator Charlie Ringo, Beaverton
Portland Women's Crisis Line
State Rep. RP Joe Smith, Portland
National Council of Jewish Women, Portland Section
James Maguire, Chairman, Beaverton Human Rights Advisory Commission
OnwardOregon.org
Peace and Justice Committee, Salem First Congregational United Church of Christ, Salem
Benton County Democrats
Wasco County Democratic Central Committee
Westside National Organization for Women, Portland
State Rep. Mitch Greenlick, NW Portland and Beaverton

For a full list of endorsers, go to www.noon36.com

(This information furnished by Ellen Lowe, No on Constitutional Amendment 36.)


Argument in Opposition

One Oregon Family Speaks Out on
Constitutional Amendment 36

Family has always been very important to my wife, our children and me. Joanne and I are third generation Oregonians and have been married 48 years. We both have grandfathers who were ministers and missionaries. We raised our children in conservative Christian churches. Among other things, my two brothers, my sister and I have had breakfast together every Tuesday for over 30 years.

Joanne and I have three wonderful children – two girls and one boy – and are a very close family. Fifteen years ago, our son told us he was gay and I had to address my personal attitude about homosexuality.

I finally realized that although my feelings were strong, they were based on misunderstanding and poor advice. By reading, learning and listening to my son, I realized that gay people have the same desires in life as everyone else. It especially touched me when my son explained that he wanted to find someone to share his life with just like Joanne and I have shared ours. His commitment was just as strong as ours.

Why should my son not receive society's respect and support just as much as his sisters? We should be encouraging stable, committed relationships for solid families even if they are different from our own. Constitutional Amendment 36 would do the opposite.

On behalf of my family, I urge you to look in your hearts and see that this amendment would hurt families, not protect them.

Please vote NO ON Constitutional Amendment 36

Donald and Joanne L. Ross, Troutdale

(This information furnished by Donald Ross.)


Argument in Opposition

OREGON CLERGY URGE
A NO VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 36

As clergy and as people of faith we urge our fellow Oregonians to reject Constitutional Amendment 36. We have several deep concerns about this unnecessary and divisive measure.

Putting Unequal Treatment for Gays and Lesbians
in Oregon's Constitution Will Not "Protect" Marriage

We perform weddings and counsel with couples before they are wed, and afterwards. We see everyday the true threats to marriage: abuse, alcoholism, poverty, infidelity and, ultimately, divorce. This measure does nothing to address these problems. Marriage needs no protection from people who wish to enter into it in good faith to pledge their love and lifetime commitment.

A No Vote on Constitutional Amendment 36 Will Not
Force Any Church or Any Person to Act Against Their Faith

This measure deals only with civil marriage – a government function. There is no threat to any religious tradition. Religious institutions cannot be told who they must or must not marry.

Our Constitution Must Not Be Used
to Settle Theological Differences.

Just as Oregonians may disagree over marriage, so do different religious traditions. Some accept same-sex unions, some do not. It is a very dangerous step to have our Constitution dictate theological "winners" and "losers." When the government begins to turn one particular religious school of thought into the fundamental law of the land, every religion is at risk. The very fact that there is disagreement on this issue is an important reason not to put this into our Constitution

Please Protect the Human Dignity of All People
and Protect Our Freedom of Religious Expression

VOTE NO ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 36

Rev. Barbara Campbell, St. Mark Presbyterian Church, Portland
Rabbi Maurice Harris, Temple Beth Israel, Eugene
Rev. J. Todd Smiedendorf
Rev. John T. Schwiebert, Metanoia Peace Community
United Methodist Church

(This information furnished by Rev. Tara Wilkins.)


Argument in Opposition

The Following Central and Southern Oregon Clergy and Congregations Urge you to vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36.

Catholic Loretto Women's Network, Eugene
Temple Beth Israel, Eugene
Springfield Church of the Brethren, Springfield
Rev. Marsha Dempsey, Pastor, MCC Two-Rivers
Faith In Action
Morningside United Methodist Church
Lucy McIver, Eugene Friends Meeting (Quaker)
Rev. Ann Bowersox, Presbyterian Campus Pastor, University of Oregon
Rev. Jan Fairchild, Pastor-Springfield Church of the Brethren
Marion Malcom, Community Alliance of Lane County (CALC)
Beth Weldy, Board President, Springfield Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Rabbi Maurice Harris, Temple Beth Israel, Eugene
Irwin H. Noparstak, MD, Jewish
Rev. Jeremy D. Hajdu-Paulen
Rabbi Yitzhak Husbands-Hankin, Temple Beth Israel, Eugene
Rev. Ryan J. Lambert
Gordie Albi, Catholic Loretto Women's Network
Springfield Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Rev. Elizabeth N. Oettinger
Rev. Beth Crawford
Religious Response Network, Eugene
Rev. Christine Riley, Unitarian Universalist minister
First Congregational United Church of Christ, Corvallis
Freedom Friends Church, Salem
Rev. Heather Lynn Hanson
Rev. Peggy Senger Parsons, Pastor, Freedom Friends Church
Rev. Karen E. Crooch, Morningside United Methodist Church
Jan Nelson, Morningside United Methodist Church
Rev. Richard R. Davis, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Salem
Renee Cornwell, United Methodist Church
Rev. C. Warren Hovland, First Congregational United Church of Christ, Corvallis
Dr. Milo L. Thornberry, Pastor, United Methodist Church
Rev. Dr. Karen A. McClintock, United Methodist clergy, clinical psychologist
Peace and Justice Committee of First Congregational Church, UCC, Salem
Rev. Michael Powell
Arlene August, music minister, Congregational United Church of Christ, Klamath Falls
Susan Alberty
David Hedelman, minister, Congregational United Church of Christ, Klamath Falls
Rev. Leila A. Shepherd, United Church of Christ
Pastor Gail McDougle, Salem
Pastor Stephen Haddan, Salem
Rev. Caroline Zaworski, First Congregational United Church of Christ, Corvallis

(This information furnished by Rev. Tara Wilkins.)


Argument in Opposition

The following Communities of Faith and Clergy urge you to
vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36.

St. Mark Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)
Koinonia Catholic Community
Rev. Susan Princehouse, Minister, United Church of Christ
Rev. Mary Anthony
St. James Lutheran Church
Rev. Mary Sue Evers
Havurah Shalom, Portland
Rev. Barbara J. Campbell
Rev. Emily A. Champagne, Unitarian Universalist
Rev. David C. Dornack
Metropolitan Community Church of Portland
Rev. Lynne Smouse López, Ainsworth United Church of Christ
Rev. Timothy Winslea, PC(USA)
Rev. Berdell Moffett-Chaney
Cascade Chapter of More Light Presbyterians
Rev. Casey Moffett-Chaney, Portland Center for Spiritual Growth
Rev. Cort D. Brumfield
Rev. Peg Pfab
First Unitarian Church Board of Trustees
Rev. Glenna T. Shepherd, Metropolitan Community Church of Portland
Rev. Judith Youngman
Rev. Cecil Charles Prescod
Rev. J. Todd Smiedendorf, Forest Grove United Church of Christ
AFFIRMATION - GLBT Mormons
Rev. Diane Dulin
Rev. Gary L. Davis, Lake Oswego United Church of Christ
Bridgeport United Church of Christ
Rev. Marcia J. Hauer
Rev. Joan L. Beck
Zion United Church of Christ
Rev. Elizabeth Winslea, PC(USA)
Rev. Sylvia J. Eagan
Rev. David Maynard, Eastrose Fellowship Unitarian Universalist
Dan Stutesman, American Friends Service Committee
Rev. Dr. Patricia S. Ross
Rabbi Daniel J. Isaak
Rev. D. Steven Witte, Oregon Farm Workers Ministry
Rev. Susan Leo, pastor, Bridgeport United Church of Christ
Rabbi Emanuel Rose
Rabbi Kim L. Rosen
Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell
Rabbi Joseph Wolf, Havurah Shalom
Rev. Dana Worsnop, Atkinson Memorial Church
Rev. W. J. Mark Knutson, Augustana Lutheran Church
Rev. Thomas Disrud, First Unitarian Church of Portland
Keshet Coalition
Rev. Richard F. Burdon, United Methodist Church
Eunice Schroeder, Director of Sacred Journey Ministries
Rev. Denise Andersen
The Session of Southminster Presbyterian Church
Peace Church of the Brethren
Rev. David Siegel, American Baptist
Rev. Ellen L. Green, United Church of Christ
Rev. Catherine Tinker, United Church of Christ
Rev. James O. Bradford, Disciples of Christ
Rabbi David Kominsky
Rev. Robert Schaibly
Rev. Katherine Hellier
Rev. Barbara Bellus, Epworth United Methodist Church

(This information furnished by Rev. Tara Wilkins.)


Argument in Opposition

The Oregon Business Community
Opposes Constitutional Amendment 36

Oregon's businesses should oppose Constitutional Amendment because it hurts Oregon families and it hurts Oregon businesses.

Constitutional Amendment 36 is bad for businesses:

The following businesses and business leaders urge to Vote "NO" on Constitutional Amendment 36:

Harold Pollin
Paloma Clothing, Mike Roach and Kim Osgood
Powell's Books
Sho Dozono
Kalberer Company
Peter Bragdon
Joe D'Alessandro

For a full list of businesses supporting
No on Constitutional Amendment 36,
please go to www.noon36.com

(This information furnished by Joe D'Alessandro.)


Argument in Opposition

Our family urges you to protect Oregon children.

All parents have the same worries about what will happen if their child is injured in an accident: Will he be OK? Can we get to the hospital in time? How can I comfort him?

These were just a few of the questions we asked ourselves when our son Carter, who was five at the time, fell while playing in our family home. His head met the sharp corner of a coffee table, causing a gash that required a frantic trip to the emergency room of our local hospital.

We arrived at the emergency room worried about our son and anxious for the doctors to attend to Carter. When the time came for him to receive treatment, we were told only one of us—"the parent"—could enter the room with him.

Quickly, we explained that we were both his parents. "One of you needs to stay in the waiting room," we were told again.

Not wanting to delay our son's treatment, we chose not to argue. But while waiting for him to receive stitches, a look around the waiting room made it clear that no other parents were being asked to wait outside for their child. The hospital policy to allow only one parent in the room while a child received treatment only applied to our family – all the other injured or sick children were able to have both of their parents comfort and reassure them as they received treatment.

Our son should be able to have both of his parents by his side when he is injured and frightened. Our child deserves the same protections as every other child. But if Constitutional Amendment 36 passes, it will cause unequal treatment for thousands of Oregon families and their children.

Protect Oregon children. Protect Oregon Families.
Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36.

Nancy and Peggy Frantz-Geddes, Salem

(This information furnished by Nancy and Peggy Frantz-Geddes, Salem.)


Argument in Opposition

As nurses, we urge you to Vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36!

As nurses, we know Constitutional Amendment 36 will jeopardize the health of gay and lesbian couples and their families:

Constitutional Amendment 36 will force nurses to be gatekeepers instead of caregivers:

As nurses, we believe in fairness and equality.
On behalf of nurses and health care providers, we urge you
to VOTE NO on Constitutional Amendment 36

Kathleen Sheridan, R.N.
Dana Welty, R.N.
Ursula White, R.N.
Zannah Martell, R.N.
Mary Beth Yosses, R.N.
Carolyn A. Lynnes, R.N.
William D. Reinhardt, R.N.
Madelon Lewis, R.N.

(This information furnished by Kathleen Sheridan, R.N.)


Argument in Opposition

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OREGON SAYS
VOTE NO ON MEASURE 36

"Churches, not the government, should control the
marriage sacrament"

When a couple commits their lives to each other, government has a legitimate role in establishing their legal rights and obligations. But government has no business meddling in the institution of marriage, which most Oregonians believe to be a holy institution ordained by God.

Libertarians believe the institution of marriage should be controlled entirely by our churches and other social institutions, not by government. That is why we oppose Measure 36 - it asks the wrong question, sets people of differing faiths against each other and sets the dangerous precedent of letting government define and control associations among people.

Instead of asking who should be able to marry, we should ask if government should be involved in marriage at all. Government should provide a legal structure, available to any couple, which would establish legal rights and obligations. Couples could then go to the church of their choice to be "married." Individual churches would decide who they will agree to marry or not marry.

If you are a conservative supporting this measure, consider this: if Measure 36 sets the precedent of allowing government to define associations between people, the day will come when liberals will use the same tactic against you.

Scratch the surface and you will see that Measure 36 is not about marriage, it is about freedom. If Measure 36 passes, government will effectively co-opt marriage, depriving churches of the freedom to control their marriage sacrament. Individuals will lose the freedom to make important decisions in their lives. Measure 36 will set the stage for more government intrusions into our private associations.

Let's scrap Measure 36 and start over. Let's pass a measure that respects the rights of all individuals and ensures that government can no longer intrude into matters of faith.

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 36
1-800-829-1992
www.lporegon.org

(This information furnished by Dan Fitzgerald, Libertarian Party of Oregon.)


Argument in Opposition

I'm Just a Kid. Don't Hurt Me

Vote "No" on Constitutional Amendment 36

I like dancing, reading and hanging out with my friends in my neighborhood. I have two Moms that love me and want the best for me

But they are afraid, because Constitutional Amendment 36 would leave me without protections they say are important:

I'm just a kid and I just want the same protections that any other kid needs. Please don't do something that will hurt my family and me.

Don't Leave Kids Like Me Without Protections

Vote "No" on Constitutional Amendment 36

Henry P. Age 14

(This information furnished by Sue Kaufman & Laura Schulz, Henry's moms.)


Argument in Opposition

"All forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere… I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

~ Coretta Scott King
at the 13th annual Creating Change conference
Reuters, 3/31/98

Putting Unequal Treatment into Our Constitution
Would Be a Giant Step Backwards for Civil Rights

Our nation was founded on high ideals of liberty, equality, and the basic rights due to all people. While we have always lived up to those ideals, we must always strive to move forward and not backwards.

Civil rights is not always a comfortable subject. And marriage is often the place where that discomfort is first felt. Until the 1960's, the idea of interracial marriage was as controversial among Americans as same-sex marriage is today.

Many states passed constitutional amendments to prevent people of different races from marrying to "protect the integrity of marriage." When the Supreme Court overturned those amendments, it declared that the "freedom to marry" is a basic right.

Whenever we allow the rights of a minority to be put to a vote of the majority, we take a giant step backwards in the struggle for equality of all people.

Many of us may be uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, but we must not allow that discomfort to be used to place unequal treatment in our Constitution. We must not use our Constitution to deny rights to our gay and lesbian neighbors, family and friends.

Please say NO to Unequal Treatment.
Please say NO to Constitutional Amendment 36

Sen. Avel Louise Gordly

Ramon Ramirez

Jo Ann Bowman
Vice-Chair African American Chamber of Commerce

Kathleen Saadat
Community Activist

Rev. John W. Garlington, III

Rev. Dr. Hector E. Lopez
Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ

(This information furnished by Rev. Dr. Hector E. Lopez, Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ.)


Argument in Opposition

From the Heart of Grandparents:
Vote "No" on Constitutional Amendment 36

This year we celebrated our 55th wedding anniversary. Over the years, we've been through some wonderful times and some pretty tough times, too.

One thing we know for sure, being married isn't simple. After the wedding ceremony was over, we found out just how much we rely on each other and how much marriage protected us in times of need. Certainly we counted on each other for love and understanding, but it was the things we took for granted that mattered so much: the fact that there would always be someone who could make decisions if either one was taken to the hospital, or knowing that if one of us dies the other will keep the house and our nest-egg – no questions asked.

We've raised three daughters and have four grandchildren – that's a lot of birthdays and scraped knees. Marriage has been a blessing we hoped each of our children and grandchildren would know, because we can't imagine our lives without each other, protected by our marriage.

But Constitutional Amendment 36 would deny many of those protections – big and little things we take for granted – to two of our grandchildren. Because they have two mothers, our grandkids can't count on the protections marriage brings to a family. They can't count on both their parents being able to make immediate medical decisions on their behalf, or being able to stay with one parent if the other dies.

Constitutional Amendment 36 would not only put unequal treatment of lesbians and gays into our Constitution, it would put unequal treatment of their families - including our grandchildren – into our Constitution.

Unequal treatment doesn't reflect the Oregon values that we raised our family with and it doesn't belong in our Constitution.

Please vote "No" on Constitutional Amendment 36.

Alea and John deJung, Eugene

(This information furnished by Alea and John deJung, Eugene.)