Oregon has nation's 1st lesbian legislative leader

Nov 15, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: SanLuisObispo.com

Tina Kotek of Portland to be the next speaker. The decision must be formally ratified in January.

Comments
1 - 15 of 15 Comments Last updated Nov 18, 2012

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Nov 16, 2012
Congratulations, Speaker Kotek.

Now get to work.

(Anyone else find a lesbian named "Kotek" to at least a little funny?)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2 Nov 16, 2012
The Speaker-elect has stated the legislature won't be referring a constitutional referendum to the the voters to overturn Oregon's marriage ban. The referendum will have to come from the people. We're going to have to do the groundwork to get the signatures and educate the public on why marriage matters to same-sex couples.

Hopefully they consider waiting until the 2016 election due to the demographics of the typical mid-term election.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#3 Nov 16, 2012
snyper wrote:
Congratulations, Speaker Kotek.
Now get to work.
(Anyone else find a lesbian named "Kotek" to at least a little funny?)
I didn't even think about it till I read your post, but yeah, now that you mention it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Nov 16, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The Speaker-elect has stated the legislature won't be referring a constitutional referendum to the the voters to overturn Oregon's marriage ban. The referendum will have to come from the people. We're going to have to do the groundwork to get the signatures and educate the public on why marriage matters to same-sex couples.
Hopefully they consider waiting until the 2016 election due to the demographics of the typical mid-term election.
She REALLY doesn't think that it is something that should be voted on by the people. We need to contact her office to determine what SHE thinks the next step should be.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Nov 16, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
She REALLY doesn't think that it is something that should be voted on by the people. We need to contact her office to determine what SHE thinks the next step should be.
Yes, she's made it clear it should be up to the people to repeal their constitutional amendment. She opposes having the legislature voting to refer it to the people for a vote.

Her logic is that going through the groundwork of gathering petition signatures over the next year makes it more likley the necessary conversations will take place in order for the ballot measure to pass.

Looking at the 2004 vote, they've got their work cut out for them. Their ban passed OVERWHELMINGLY everywhere except the Portland & Eugene metro areas. The rest of the state passed it by a 70-30 margin or worse.

That's why I think they need to wait till 2016 when turnout of pro-equality voters will be the highest.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Nov 16, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
She REALLY doesn't think that it is something that should be voted on by the people. We need to contact her office to determine what SHE thinks the next step should be.
To be clear, I don't know what she thinks about voting to repeal the amendment versus the courts overturning it.

Her comments were about how a repeal of Oregon's amendment should procede.

The only other option is to wait for the SCOTUS to overturn the state amendments, which could easily be another decade or more.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Nov 16, 2012
On a similar note, the Senate leader in California says he's willing to send a referendum to the people if necessary to repeal Prop8- in case the SCOTUS overturns the lower court ruling.

It's always good to have a plan b......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Nov 16, 2012
I have a feeling this is going to be a MUCH longer battle than most think. We need to be prepared to fight this state-by-state for the next decade. If we don't plan NOW for that fight, it could end up taking even LONGER.

We simply can't afford to pretend the SCOTUS is going to rush in and come to our rescue and overturn all these state constitutional bans.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#9 Nov 16, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, she's made it clear it should be up to the people to repeal their constitutional amendment. She opposes having the legislature voting to refer it to the people for a vote.
Her logic is that going through the groundwork of gathering petition signatures over the next year makes it more likley the necessary conversations will take place in order for the ballot measure to pass.
Looking at the 2004 vote, they've got their work cut out for them. Their ban passed OVERWHELMINGLY everywhere except the Portland & Eugene metro areas. The rest of the state passed it by a 70-30 margin or worse.
That's why I think they need to wait till 2016 when turnout of pro-equality voters will be the highest.
Yeah. I did have that kind of wrong, didn't I.

I still think that there's more to it. Perhaps she wants to lock in the State Legislature. The electorate can be so reactionary, and is right now. Possible trying to forestall teabagger-esque candidates gaining the ascendency in rural precincts.

So much work needs to be done and so many irrational forces at play Murphying up the efforts.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Nov 16, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
On a similar note, the Senate leader in California says he's willing to send a referendum to the people if necessary to repeal Prop8- in case the SCOTUS overturns the lower court ruling.
It's always good to have a plan b......
and C and D.

That Senator is ill-advised.

We really need to conserve our assets in preparation for the big battle on the horizon, or be bled dry.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Nov 17, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
and C and D.
That Senator is ill-advised.
We really need to conserve our assets in preparation for the big battle on the horizon, or be bled dry.
But IF the SCOTUS should go against all conventional wisdom and overturn the lower court and allow Prop 8 to stand, what other option do we have in California besides another referendum vote?

He's just saying that with the supermajorities the Dems now have in the California legislature they would send a referendum to the ballot IF NECESSARY.

It's either that or wait another decade (or more) for a new SCOTUS to act.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Nov 17, 2012
Pew Research has regional polling data out which shows that while we hold nearly a 2-1 advantage in the Northeast (and yet marriage equality only passed by a 53-47 margin in Maine), we are down nearly 2-1 in the entire south.

We have a good shot at winning a referendum vote in Oregon & California (if necessary), but the rest of the country is going to be a LONG hard slog to overturn marriage amendments.

NOM is already fundraising for those battles, saying the only reason they lost in Maine, Maryland, & Washington was because they were outspent 3-1.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Nov 17, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
But IF the SCOTUS should go against all conventional wisdom and overturn the lower court and allow Prop 8 to stand, what other option do we have in California besides another referendum vote?
He's just saying that with the supermajorities the Dems now have in the California legislature they would send a referendum to the ballot IF NECESSARY.
It's either that or wait another decade (or more) for a new SCOTUS to act.
It's not whether. Just when.

Our well is very close to dry.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Nov 17, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not whether. Just when.
Our well is very close to dry.
So you're saying we wait for the SCOTUS from now on?

That "when" could be as much as a decade or two away yet.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15 Nov 18, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying we wait for the SCOTUS from now on?
That "when" could be as much as a decade or two away yet.
I thought we were talking about California.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 min RevKen 24,868
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 1 min Frankie Rizzo 67,956
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 6 min EdmondWA 524
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 6 min Dimitri100 898
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 9 min PEE PEE PETE 200,581
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 19 min DebraE 54,846
Legislature Says No to "Gay Panic" Defense 20 min nhjeff 91
Gay Marriage Vs. the First Amendment 38 min DNF 392
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 47 min Terra Firma 2,995
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••