Gay rights is an old issue in Oregon, a state where many people pride themselves for being free-thinking and socially progressive.
Many Oregonians have long had a soft spot for personal freedom and are leery of state interference with how they live their lives. Medically assisted suicide, medical marijuana, refusal to require parental notification for teens seking abortions are just a few examples of areas in which voters in this state would prefer to be left alone.
Oregonians also, as a whole, tend to support the downtrodden. Immigrants who aren’t supposed to be here get benefits because we are concerned about innocent children’s health and education and that concern somehow has morphed into more than what a lot of people bargained for.
It’s that concern that has led to where we are now in this gay rights issue.
Two bills currently moving through the state Legislature aim to level the playing field for homosexuals on two fronts – spousal benefits and discrimination against gays. The first, House Bill 2007, would grant gay and lesbian couples the right to civil unions, which would bring some of the benefits reserved to married couples.
The second, Senate Bill 2, would provide protection for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people from discrimination in employment, housing, access to public places and other areas. The bill was passed in the state Senate and, last week the measure was approved by the House Rules Committee. It is now moving on to the full House, which, supporters predict, will approve it, as will the Senate.
What the bill proposes to do is add homosexuals as a protected civil rights group in the state of Oregon.
Applied in the extreme, it would curtail your freedom of speech in regards to what you can say about homosexuality and those who practice it, require that public schools teach that homosexual and bisexual behavior is an acceptable lifestyle, restrict the rights of business owners who might not be comfortable with the practice of homosexuality, and give judges authority to decide what is a “bona fide church” and what the “primary purposes” of a church are in cases involving decisions not to hire someone who is a homosexual.
Visit http://www.leg.state.or.us for a look at the complete text of the law in its most recent form as it moves through the Legislature.
The homosexual agenda has progressed incredibly since the time of the Stonewall Inn riot back in the 1960s. Gay people and their supporters have cobbled together a terrific public relations campaign, one of the most successful in the history of mankind, to legitimize their behavior and raise their status in society. (Forty years ago, to most people the word “gay” meant “happy,” which is one example of what we’re talking about here.)
Behavior that was once viewed with repugnance by society has been legitimized by its acceptance by mental health professional organizations as “normal,” by its increasing presence in the mass media, by aggressive tactics against churches and other elements of society, such as the Boy Scouts, who have refused to accept it.
In the minds of many Americans today, homosexuality has become simply another “lifestyle choice” that should be validated. Homosexuals have become “victims,” distinguished by their sexual conduct and arguing that their behavior should merit civil rights, human rights that have never applied to people simply because of their behavior choices.
Our society has bought this argument. Our propensity to look out for the little guy has taken us to the point that we think the fact that someone who pursues patterns of sexual behavior that are often dangerous and promiscuous deserves “tolerance,” which in many cases has come to mean that anyone who questions the homosexual community’s choices of sexual behavior is labeled as homophobic or some kind of wild-eyed fundamentalist bigot. We don’t want to be intolerant, so we’ve bought this argument that special rights is what the gay community deserves.
Washington state recently passed a measure outlawing discrimination against gays, the 17th state to do so. Oregon would be the 18th.
It’s true that some homosexuals have been unfairly treated after their sexual orientation has become known. But the fact that they practice sex in a particular fashion should not qualify them as a protected “minority.” Think about it. Do these people deserve unusual protections only because they have a preference for intimate relations with others that is different from the heterosexual mainstream? We say no.
Oregonians need to wake up. We have enough issues to deal with, ranging from illegal immigration to lost forest dollars to the fact that we don’t have enough police officers. Patrolling society on behalf of people who prefer relations with their own sex should not be our government’s responsibility.