Meet the OUTLAWS

On Wednesday, the first day the new policy was in effect, 422 licenses were granted to gay and lesbian couples. Barring a court injunction, that number is expected to grow significantly over the next few days.

The articles in this week's edition of Willamette Week were all written and sent to the press before the details of the county's plans were known, but all were informed by the knowledge that something like this was in the works. We hope they provide some insight into a dramatic historic event that is still unfolding.

Last week, for the second time in 12 months, George Bush unilaterally launched a pre-emptive first strike. This time, it wasn't the weapons hidden by a madman in Iraq that he was protecting us from, but the rulings of "activist judges" here at home who threaten the sacred institution of heterosexual marriage.

On one level, it's easy to dismiss the president's calculated call for a constitutional ban on gay unions. Unlike his plans for Iraq, he doesn't expect to win this fight. In fact, he's endorsed a battle plan that may never even be launched. He doesn't have the votes in Congress to pass such a measure. (It's not even clear he has the backing of Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian and working for the Bush re-election campaign.)

For Bush, however, that is beside the point. His statement was pure political calculus, aimed at assuring conservative voters that he's still on the side of God, apple pie, NASCAR and the missionary position.

That may explain why Bush's surprise announcement, unlike Michael Jackson's arrest, fell off the front pages of The Oregonian and most other major daily newspapers after just one day.

But just because the call for a constitutional amendment will probably go unheeded does not mean it should be ignored. President Bush has radically sped up the timeline of a debate that was already moving forward faster than many gays and lesbians expected--or even wanted.

No one can re-cork the genie that was released in Massachusetts, where judges have ruled that it's illegal to deny one group of people a right that's granted to others. And, despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's protests in California, local officials in San Francisco continue to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

While reaction in Oregon has been muted so far, that could change soon. A series of anti-gay ballot measures in the late '80s and early '90s mobilized activists on both sides of the issues, and the Oregon Citizens Alliance is trying to get another measure (preventing schools from condoning homosexuality) on this year's November ballot.

More important, Oregon is one of only 12 states in the country which doesn't specifically ban recognition of same-sex unions granted elsewhere, and its own state constitution is vague when it comes to who can and can't get married within our borders.

Over the past several days, gay and lesbian activists in Portland have been plotting a test of the state's marriage laws--a move that could bring the national spotlight once again to the state (see "Portland on the Bay," page 14).

Like it or not, Bush has ensured that the push for gay marriage will be the nation's next great civil-rights battle. Some, including many homosexuals, think it's a mistake. Others enter the fray warily, worrying that it's too much, too soon.

For our part, after watching the parade of smiling faces come out of the county building in San Francisco, as well as those on our cover couple (facing page), we can't help but turn to our president and say, "Bring it on."

Mark & Ray: A trip to Canada leaves a Portland couple in legal limbo.

Mark and Ray were comfortable. After 13 years together, they basically considered themselves married--they'd even exchanged rings. But when they adopted their daughter, Ceriwen, last summer, they decided it was time to plot a new future for the Friedmann-Tesauros.

The two men, who first hooked up in George W.'s old stomping grounds of Austin, Texas, coveted the legal protections of marriage. They wanted Ray, who'd long planned to be a stay-at-home dad, to get on Mark's health-care package. And they had another reason, one the staunchest family-values type would recognize.

"We decided our daughter would be better off with parents who were married," says Mark, who works in high tech. "The irony is, that's exactly what some people who would oppose same-sex marriage would say they're motivated by."

After tying the knot in an old Victorian house in Vancouver, B.C.--both say the ceremony's emotion and meaning caught them by surprise--the Friedmann-Tesauros find themselves in a postmodern marital gray area. Mark is still negotiating with his employer for health-care coverage; the firm's insurance provider won't cover same-sex marriages. As far as Canada is concerned, they're man and man. U.S. federal law rules out same-sex marriages, but Oregon law does not (see "Whose Law Is It, Anyway?" page 14).

"We assume that as far as Oregon is concerned, our marriage is as valid as any Canadian marriage," Mark says.

That presents a number of conundrums, like how they should file state income-tax returns. And then there's the issue of how Ceriwen will one day view her trailblazing dads. "I think that when she's older, she'll look at this issue like we look at laws against interracial marriage now," says Mark. "She'll be like, 'What was the big deal?'" --Zach Dundas

Whose Law Is It, Anyway? The legal side of gay marriage in Oregon.

With all of the hemming and hawing about gay marriage from politicians and pundits, it's tough to keep track of what's actually going on. Just try to remember: One day our grandchildren will look back on this, throw an arm around their multisexual robot concubines, and laugh.

But for now, you must have plenty of questions about how the legal issues surrounding gay marriage will play out here in Oregon. Ask away.

Let's start at the beginning. If I'm gay and living in Portland right now, what happens if my partner and I try to get legally married?

Just like the 3,300 other couples who marry in Multnomah County every year, you would take a trip to the county marriage-license office on Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard and get an application. Anyone can pick one up. You and your partner would fill out the required forms in black ink, cut a check for $60, and turn it in. The application would then wend its way to the team of county employees who approve marriage licenses. While checking the forms, a county employee would notice that both applicants had checked "M" or "F" in the "Sex" field, choke on his or her coffee, and forward it to a higher authority.

Then what?

Hard to say. According to county records manager Kathy Tuneberg, no same-sex couple has ever applied for a license in the county. Tuneberg says the application would go to the county attorney, Agnes Sowle, who would advise the elected county commissioners on how to proceed. (Sowle told WW Monday that she hasn't yet researched the issue, so she has no idea what she'd recommend.) The commissioners would then vote on whether to approve the license.

What if they vote to deny it?

You and your partner could ask a state court to review the decision, claiming your civil rights are being violated.

And if the commissioners approve it, what happens next?

Everyone freaks out.

Beyond that.

A favorable decision would probably end up in court, as well. The federal government grants each state the right to decide what constitutes a legal marriage, so the county's policy decision would have to line up in state court with the language about marriages in Oregon's statutes. The responsibility for enforcing state law falls first to Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, who would review the county's decision to see if it clashes with Oregon's constitution and statutes. If he decides it does, he takes the county to state court to reverse the policy.

What if he decides gay marriage is OK in Oregon?

The marriage would stand--unless a citizen found a way to bring a suit and prove otherwise.

Would a gay marriage hold up in state court?

Maybe, thanks to a little vagueness in the Oregon constitution. It says "marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age." Notice the nonspecific plurals; it doesn't explicitly say "one male" and "one female," just "males" and "females." Oregon's constitution framers obviously didn't intend that two 17-year-old women could get hitched, though, so this argument might not hold. What's more probable is that gay-marriage advocates would use the state constitution's "equal protection" clause--which says, "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges...which...shall not equally belong to all citizens"--to show that gays deserve every right offered to heterosexuals.

Would other states have to recognize same-sex marriages from Oregon?

Technically, no. In 1996, Congress passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which decreed that no state has to recognize another state's same-sex unions, and went on to define marriage under federal law as a union between a man and a woman. Since the law's passage, 38 states have voted to refuse to recognize same-sex unions from other states.

Is Oregon one of them?

No. State lawmakers have tried several times to pass bills preventing Oregon from recognizing other states' civil unions, most recently in 1999, but have always failed.

Isn't the proposed federal ban on same-sex marriages a failure to separate church and state?

Nice try, but since the amendment would become a part of the Constitution itself, it is already implicitly constitutional and trumps all other parts of the document dealing with establishment of religion. In addition, though marriage has religious roots, it's a civil contract in the eyes of the government; legal marriage documents make no reference to God at all. Nobody's forcing people to observe certain religious practices or prohibiting them from celebrating unofficial same-sex marriages within whatever religion they choose--the government just wouldn't rubber-stamp them. -- Taylor Clark

PORTLAND BY THE BAY?

For several weeks, local gay activists and progressive political observers have been wondering, "Why should San Francisco have all the fun?" Portland's elected officials are just as gay-friendly as San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, and yet they've said nary a peep about President Bush's proposed marriage ban. Our state constitution doesn't explicitly ban same-sex unions, and yet no gay couple has demanded to be wed.

That could change soon.

Details are sketchy, but several sources told WW that sometime this month at least one gay couple will try to get married in Portland. It's not clear whether they will simply hold a public ceremony or push the issue toward a legal challenge by submitting an application for a marriage license with the county. But word is that some top elected officials will be on hand to offer at least moral support.--John Schrag

QUEER WINDOW: My Velvet Revolution

Last Tuesday, when I heard the president declare war on my people, I was shocked--both by Bush's proclamation, and by how mad it made me feel.

It's weird. Even though I predicted the ever-increasing visibility of queers among the mainstream would piss off uptight conservatives (see "The Gay Generation," Queer Window, WW, Aug. 13, 2003), I never thought they'd sink so low so fast. I figured they'd fight efforts to legalize gay marriage, but I never dreamed the president would propose a constitutional amendment to prevent states from even considering the option.

Nor could I have predicted how upset it would make me. After all, I have a relationship, a house and pets. What do I need marriage for? It's not like it'd give me any more reason to love my partner. And winning the right to sign a document that says I now get to live by the rules of a government that, until recently, considered what I do in the bedroom abhorrent--well, that sounds about as fun as going to the dentist. And I hate going to the dentist.

As a middle-class, white, gay American male working at a place where being gay is OK, I have an easy life. I was happy enough editing special sections (like this week's fashion guide) and writing this column, which normally appears in the culture section of this publication, where I talk about Will & Grace, Ellen and transgendered cops. But this week, my editors wanted me up in the News section--and, for the first time in my professional life, I wanted to be here, too.

That's because, at least at this time in our history, news and culture are hitched to the same star. Sure, I'm much more comfortable telling you what your favorite porn actor is up to or what I think of the new Kylie Minogue CD. But, for this week at least, I have more important things to think about.

And, guess what? I have George Bush to thank for this change of heart. Who knew that our so-called president, whom we didn't even elect, would force me to do the one thing I promised I would never do: grow up.

That's right. Until now, I have gladly sat on the sidelines of queer politics. All those ballot measures Lon Mabon tried to shove down Oregon's throat? Well, truth is, I didn't spend that much time fighting them, unless there was a good potluck or a dance party involved.

And this column? Well, I never wanted Queer Window to be about politics--mainly because talk of politics always seems so boring.

But now I have no other choice. My gut tells me that this is going to be the big fight. I can either sit it out in fear of what might happen--like I've done ever since my first junior-high dodgeball game--or I can buck up and become a loud, proud, outrageously pissed-off gay man.

I didn't sign up to fight in a culture war, but if George Bush can exploit the democratic process for his own political gain--to suck up to the bullies in the church pulpits--then why the hell can't I use my own bully pulpit?

George Bush has proposed that we use the federal Constitution to take rights away from a group of Americans. Think about that. Lon and his boys wanted to mess with the state constitution to equate people like me with pedophiles. Bush wants to go further. Last I looked, there's no law preventing pedophiles from getting married--as long as they're heterosexual.

That's why I am asking you brothers and sisters--queer and straight--to join me in this fight. Not only do we need to make sure George Bush doesn't get re-elected in November, but we also need to tell his right-wing supporters to suck our Florida.

I'm ready to hit the streets. Are you? -- Byron Beck

Kathleen Saadat: Experiencing domestic shock and awe.

Kathleen Saadat has fought this political battle before. She worked to defeat Measures 9 and 13, and in early 1992 she took on Oregon Citizens Alliance founder Lon Mabon in a debate broadcast on KBOO and local cable. The issue, she says, was "family structure, not family values."

Saadat says she's tired--and angry--to still be fighting to protect basic rights for gays and lesbians like her. The right of same-sex couples to be married, she believes, is as fundamental as the constitutional guarantee of civil rights for people of all skin colors.

But a more urgent issue, she says, is why more people aren't questioning the flawed nature of the institution of marriage. "Why support it?" asks Saadat, 63, who is self-employed as a consultant. "[African Americans] have the highest divorce rate--and 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. That's not because of gay people. Straights have even outgrown this model."

While legal gay marriages may not be on the immediate horizon in this country, Saadat believes moral outrage is. "We are experiencing domestic shock and awe" is the catchy way the activist summarizes an offensive that has caught old-school liberals off-guard. "Bush is sending us issues just under the speed of light--cultural issues to divide and deflect from the substantive issues."

She predicts the president's politically calculated gamble will fail; instead, she hopes it will spark alliances between local African Americans and gay activists, most of whom are white.

"The right to marry isn't the only thing that is being taken away--it's the right to be a human being," she says.

With passion, she adds: "It's like being put into slavery. We are losing our country right out from under us. It's time to come back out." --Byron Beck

A Sudden Shyness: Oregon's congressional delegation turns queasy over queer questions.

The most contentious question of one year ago--whether to invade--was easy compared with today's hot topic, gay marriage.

Or so it appears from checking with Oregon's congressional delegation. In March 2003, WW sent a questionnaire to Oregon's two senators and five representatives in Congress regarding the imminent invasion of Iraq. Each dutifully responded.

On the issue of gay marriage, however, it was a different story. Last Wednesday afternoon, WW sent out a four-question query (below) to the offices of all seven members of the delegation. Only one--Portland Democrat Earl Blumenauer--answered all four questions.

The lack of response we received didn't surprise local political consultants.

Strategist Mark Wiener noted that gay marriage wasn't such a hot issue until very recently. "They're trying to feel their way through a room that's pretty dark, with furniture that they don't recognize," he says. "I would imagine that if you sent out a questionnaire about interracial marriage in the '50s you might have gotten a very similar response."

Pollster Bob Moore says the politicians' confusion matches that of the public. "I think you have a very divided electorate on this issue," he says. "Maybe this congressional delegation is a sign of [where] the public [stands]--they haven't figured things out, either."

Pollster Tim Hibbits, meanwhile, notes that Democrats Darlene Hooley, Peter DeFazio and David Wu could yet face serious challengers in their reelection bids. "I assume it's something a lot of folks on both sides would prefer not to have to deal with," Hibbits says. "Let somebody else make the decision."

All of the Democrats opposed President Bush's proposal to amend the Constitution and agreed that the matter should be left for states to decide. But only Blumenauer would divulge his personal views toward gay marriage.

"As someone who recently married, I feel no threat to my relationship because others may want to pursue a lifelong and legal commitment to their partner," Blumenauer wrote.

Rep. Darlene Hooley issued a more vague statement: "I believe in the sanctity of marriage."

Of the two Republicans, only Sen. Gordon Smith responded, saying that although he supports a constitutional amendment banning gay "marriage," "I support a variety of increased rights and privileges that could be afforded by civil unions or domestic partner arrangements."

The congressional delegation's less-than-responsive responses were in contrast to those of Portland's leading mayoral candidates, all of whom opposed a constitutional amendment.

There were minor differences: Jim Francesconi said it should be left to states whether they can ban gay marriages, while Tom Potter, Phil Busse and James Posey said states should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual preference.

As for personal convictions, Francesconi expressed his preference for granting gays some status less than "marriage," but with the same rights. Posey said he personally was not wild about the idea of gay marriage, but everyone should have equal rights to be "married."

Potter and Busse said nothing short of full marriage status was acceptable in their view, with the former police chief, whose daughter is gay, the most eloquent.

"My daughter is a wonderful human being, a loving partner in a committed relationship, a great parent to her two children, a good citizen who gives back to the community, and a model police officer.... Do I support giving my daughter...the right to marry? What father wouldn't?" -- Nick Budnick

For a more detailed account of the officials' and candidates' responses, see wweek.com.

THE QUESTIONS:

1. Do you support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

2. Do you support a city or state's right to ban or legalize gay marriage?

3. If not gay "marriage," do you support legalizing some other sort of union that has the same legal and workplace rights?

4. Setting aside politics, do you personally support banning or legalizing gay marriage?

Web Exclusive: Politicos weigh in on gay marriage

OREGON CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION

REP. EARL BLUMENAUER (D-3rd District)

1) Do you support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages?

It is inappropriate and offensive for Congress to amend the Constitution, a document that protects basic rights for all Americans, to become a tool for discrimination. Oregonians should see Bush's move for what it is: an effort to distract us from the real problems facing this country.

2) Do you support a city or state having the right to ban or legalize same-sex marriages?

It is appropriate to deal with this at the state level. States will work out the issue of how to acknowledge same-sex relationships in due time.

3) Whether you support banning or legalizing a same-sex "marriage," do you support legalizing any type of same-sex union that does not use the term "marriage," extending it the same legal and benefit-type rights that the institution of marriage is currently granted?

I support same-sex couples having this right, the same as any couple.

4) On a personal level, as opposed to on a legislative level, do you support legalizing or banning same-sex marriages?

As someone who recently married, I feel no threat to my relationship because others may want to pursue a lifelong and legal commitment to their partner. I support same-sex couples having this right, the same as any couple.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4th District)

If I was responsible for creating the largest job loss since the Great Depression, building the largest deficits in the nation's history and expanding a trade policy that exports U.S. jobs and undermines the nation's industrial base and long-term economic viability, I would change the subject too. I would like to see the Administration focus its resources on putting the 131,820 unemployed Oregonians and 8.2 million unemployed Americans back to work. The regulation of marriage has been reserved to the states since the founding of the Republic. I see no reason to amend the U.S. Constitution to change that.

Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-5th District)

While I believe in the sanctity of marriage, I also hold sacred the U.S. Constitution, and efforts to amend it should rarely be undertaken. Marriages and civil unions have historically been matters regulated by the states, and that is where I believe they are best determined.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-2nd District)

(No response)

Rep. David Wu (D-1st District)

The President's proposal is an unwarranted federal intrusion into personal lives. For over 200 years the constitution has expanded our personal freedoms, and I will oppose any amendment to the Constitution which reverses that course.

Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon)

I support a variety of increased rights and privileges that could be afforded by civil unions or domestic-partner arrangements. For instance, I was the first in the U.S. Senate to introduce legislation which would provide equal tax treatment for domestic-partner health-care benefits. While I would support an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, there are many other such areas that we as a nation could move forward on to provide increased benefits to gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

I was one of 14 senators who voted against the so-called 'Defense of Marriage Act' because I stand for equal rights and oppose the expansion of federal power into a matter traditionally reserved to the states. Now the President has asked Congress and the states to spend months, if not years, debating a constitutional amendment on gay marriage at a time when Oregon has 7.7 percent unemployment, our soldiers are shot at daily in Iraq, and more children are being left behind in our schools with each passing day.

Clearly, federal, state and local officials have far more important issues to which they should devote their time. In my role as a U.S. senator, I will continue to oppose a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and other assaults on equal rights while resisting political efforts to distract this nation from the urgent, critical challenges we face.

SELECTED MAYORAL CANDIDATES

PHIL BUSSE:

1) Do you support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages?

Of course not. I truly believe that such an amendment is an affront to civil rights. I also believe that in the hindsight of history that this will be a viewed as a disgraceful and bigoted action.

2) Do you support a city or state having the right to ban or legalize same-sex marriages?

I believe that a state has the right to legalize same-sex marriages. I believe that banning same-sex violates states' constitutional equal-protection clauses (although, I admit that is more a moral rather than legal conviction, unfortunately).

3) Whether you support banning or legalizing a same-sex "marriage," do you support legalizing any type of same-sex union that does not use the term "marriage," extending it the same legal and benefit-type rights that the institution of marriage is currently granted?

Yes, I support a legal definition that would allow the extension of legal and benefit-type rights to a same-sex partner. But I also believe that anything short of "marriage" is not enough respect and equality for same-sex partnerships.

4) On a personal level, as opposed to on a legislative level, do you support legalizing or banning same-sex marriages?

Without any pause, I whole-heartedly support same-sex marriages.

JIM FRANCESCONI:

1) Do you support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages?

No. Such decisions should be left to the states.

2) Do you support a city or state having the right to ban or legalize same-sex marriages?

Yes. The state Legislature is the appropriate forum for debate on this issue. The state establishes the policy, and, in Oregon, the counties have responsibility for administering the laws related to marriage.

3) Whether you support banning or legalizing a same-sex "marriage," do you support legalizing any type of same-sex union that does not use the term "marriage," extending it the same legal and benefit-type rights that the institution of marriage is currently granted?

Yes.

4) On a personal level, as opposed to on a legislative level, do you support legalizing or banning same-sex marriages?

I support recognition of civil unions that provide equal protection, including legal, emotional and benefit rights to same-sex couples.

TOM POTTER:

1) Do you support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages?

I strongly oppose an amendment and will do everything possible as mayor to see it doesn't succeed in Oregon. We have fought this fight before with groups like the OCA. The lessons we learned will be applied to this issue if it comes before Oregon voters. The Constitution has always been the guardian of liberties, but down through our history, people have tried to use or interpret the law to reinforce their own prejudices. The questions we must ask every Oregonian is, "Do we want the constitution of the United States to discriminate against any citizen?" If we allow the Constitution to be turned on its head in order to discriminate against gays and lesbians, who will be next?

2) Do you support a city or state having the right to ban or legalize same-sex marriages?

I do not support cities or states having the power to discriminate against its citizens. I do favor cities and states eliminating civil-rights barriers or any group of citizens, including our GLBTQ citizens. It takes me back 50 years to when cities and states thought it was necessary and appropriate to ban African-Americans from eating at "Whites Only" lunch counters, or requiring them to sit at the back of buses. When will we "get it" that civil liberties apply to every person, not just those the majority approve of?

3) Whether you support banning or legalizing a same-sex "marriage," do you support legalizing any type of same-sex union that does not use the term "marriage," extending it the same legal and benefit-type rights that the institution of marriage is currently granted?

This question reminds me of when our Supreme Court, in the 19th century, created the "separate but equal" doctrine, which allowed institutional discrimination to become the rule of the land. It was legal to require African-Americans to attend separate schools, where they would receive "separate but equal" education. I would like to think we have learned some important lessons since then about the role of government in preventing discrimination. Who is qualified to be married should not be an issue for government to decide, and same-sex partners should enjoy all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Yet, it seems in today's society, some people want to legally discriminate-and will use the law to impose their personal or religious views on others.

4) On a personal level, as opposed to on a legislative level, do you support legalizing or banning same-sex marriages?

I have four children. Only one of the four is not allowed the choice to marry or not. My daughter is a wonderful human being, a loving partner in a committed relationship, a great parent to her two children, a good citizen who gives back to the community, and a model police officer. I see her and her partner struggle with the everyday things other couples do. I see parents who are unmatched in their love for their children. They are good neighbors and caring adults. Yet, they are discriminated against, called ugly names, and endure the stares and whispers of people who hate them for no other reason than they are people who love each other. You can multiply this story by the thousands of GLBTQ people in Portland whose only "crime" is to love someone of the same sex. Do I support giving my daughter, and every GLBTQ person, the right to marry? What father wouldn't?

JAMES POSEY:

1) Do you support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages?

NO. If gay people want to get married, then that's their business. I think they ought to have the same eligibility as anyone else.

2) Do you support a city or state having the right to ban or legalize same-sex marriages?

No. I don't think it's any of the state's business. I take a libertarian view on that stuff. The bottom line is gays should have the same rights as anyone in America.

3) Whether you support banning or legalizing a same-sex "marriage," do you support legalizing any type of same-sex union that does not use the term "marriage," extending it the same legal and benefit-type rights that the institution of marriage is currently granted?

YES. Most of the people who are gay that I've dealt with are more "married" than most heterosexuals. I bet if someone did a study of the elements of marriage commitment, loving, all that other stuff, you would have a higher percentage of gay people fitting that category than you would heterosexuals."

4) On a personal level, as opposed to on a legislative level, do you support legalizing or banning same-sex marriages?

I'm not a person that necessarily believes in gay marriage from a traditional standpoint, but I wouldn't allow my personal views to get in the way of any person who is a human being with all the rights of privileges of all the rest of us. I would supersede anything I got personally in order to give everybody equal rights. As a black man in America, I would never get in the way of someone having the same rights as I have."

Bill Dickey:The payoff of gay marriage isn't worth the fight.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Bill Dickey owned and managed clubs--like the Virginia Cafe and the now-defunct Dakota Cafe--that proved gay and straight Portlanders could party together. At age 47, it might seem that the former party boy has settled down, thanks to a decade-long partnership with David Wagner.

Dickey is a longtime liberal gay activist who contributes to Oregon Public Broadcasting, Cascade AIDS Project and NARAL Pro-Choice America and runs a printing business that specializes in direct-mail pieces for politicians. ("I don't normally sell to Republicans," he says, "unless it's a nonpartisan race.") He doesn't think the concept of marriage is important enough to spark a fight about gay rights with the country's conservative faction.

"It's their word," he says, "let them have it. We had a lot more fun. Hell, we had the bathhouse. The stuff you should give a shit about is civil unions."

Being involved in a committed relationship but not bound by a marriage certificate helped his relationship survive, Dickey says. When he and Wagner hit rocky patches, they worked through their problems without the help of lawyers. "If we were married, we'd be divorced by now," he says. "The breakup of a marriage is a bloodbath. It's all about money."

And even if same-sex marriages become legal, Dickey argues that an institutional change won't alter public opinion. "People aren't going to sanctify [our relationships]," he says. "They can't make us feel better about ourselves. It doesn't matter."

It's the timing of this cultural firestorm that's particularly troubling to Dickey, because of its potential to hurt Democratic candidates in the November election. "Why start a culture war?" Dickey asks. "Why give them this issue?" --Byron Beck

Businesses' Partners: Many top employers already extend benefits to unmarried couples.

While most of the arguments against same-sex marriage can be distilled down to some variation of "Well, it's just, like, wrong!," there are those who put forward a less emotional objection. Allow same-sex couples to get hitched, they say, and many employers would have to extend costly health-care benefits.

Oregon's experience, however, indicates that some large employers don't think it's a big deal.

Thanks to a state appeals-court ruling, public agencies in the state have had to provide health benefits to employees' gay partners since 1998 (a practice in place in Multnomah County since 1993).

The state, which added 800 domestic partners (both gay and straight) to its employee health and dental plans during the first year, estimated that the move boosted the government's health-care cost roughly 1 percent. Officials for the City of Portland, which is self-insured, haven't tracked the cost of adding 247 domestic partners to its plan, though they say it's negligible. (Both governments, as well as many private employers, have set up requirements for who qualifies as domestic partners.)

Even before the '98 court ruling, some of Oregon's largest private employers decided family health benefits shouldn't require a marriage license. A survey of 13 top employers in the metro area found that eight extend benefits to unmarried partners. Of those, three restrict the practice to same-sex couples (following the logic that they can't legally get married).

"We've made a commitment that we want to be a company that is inclusive," says Jill Zanger, a spokeswoman at Nike, which in 1994 became one of the first major private employers in Oregon to extend domestic-partner benefits. "And that means providing for all our employees."

Company officials at Nike and other companies declined to provide a breakdown of how much it cost them to extend benefits beyond married couples.

The Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies estimates that a company's health-care costs increase 1 percent if benefits are extended to same-sex couples and 2 percent if opposite-sex partners are covered.

"It's virtually nothing," says Marv Holmes, a Kaiser Permanente spokesman, who says about 400 employees at the health-care company have added unmarried partners to their plans. "We have 7,000 benefited employees--400 out of that pool has no effect on cost." -- Mark Baylis

Editor's Note: Providence Health System (the area's third-largest private employer) and Meier & Frank (eighth-largest) would not say whether they cover unmarried partners.

Lee Coleman: Fighting the party from within.

"These are revolutionary times," says Lee Coleman. "I think of it as being a continuation of our first revolution." Not words one would expect a Republican to use in describing the sudden push for gay marriage. But Lee Coleman isn't your average Republican. The 73-year-old retired lawyer is the only openly gay member of the Oregon Republican Party's policy board.

Coleman was active in politics when the Oregon Citizens Alliance ramped up its attacks on gay rights in the early 1990s. In 1993 he declared his sexual orientation and helped found the Oregon chapter of Log Cabin Republicans, a national group of gay party activists.

Though OCA-sponsored measures narrowly lost at the polls, the newly energized fundamentalist camp made inroads into Oregon's Republican base, reducing the big-tent party of Mark Hatfields and Tom McCalls into an Elmer Gantry revival show of Bill Witts and Lou Bereses. Now, Coleman finds himself having to support a party platform that boldly states that homosexuality is "morally wrong."

"Christian fundamentalism has taken over my party and is dragging us away from our principles," Coleman declares. "It's the fundamentalists who insist on modifying the traditional Republican view of government by insisting on an intrusive government if it forces compliance with their narrow views."

While Coleman supports gay marriage, he's willing to meet the anti-gay forces of his party halfway. "Fairness to religious communities obligates me to let them have the concept of man-woman marriage," he says. "But their obligation would then be to treat gays fairly within the constitutional context and grant civil unions/domestic partnerships with certain rights and privileges equivalent to those granted to married people."

Coleman is in a unique position to pursue his goal. He co-chairs the Oregon Republican Party's policy board with Lou Beres of the Christian Coalition, which gives him access to the most influential party members in the state.

This Saturday at the Oregon Republican Party's annual Dorchester Conference he plans to take his protest directly to Sen. Gordon Smith. Smith's 2002 re-election was endorsed by Judy Shepard, whose gay son, Matthew Shepard, was murdered in Laramie, Wyo., in 1998.

And, Coleman says, he has the ear of state GOP chairman Kevin Mannix. "Kevin has been in contact with me about this issue," he says, "and we've had some honest discussions." -- Steffen Silvis

Thou Shalt Not Amend

Much of the fierce opposition to gay marriage in America draws inspiration from a short passage in the Bible, buried in the 18th chapter of Leviticus: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womenkind: it is abomination."

But if we're enshrining passages from the Bible into the Constitution, why are we half-assing it? Don't forget that Lev. 20:13 goes on to order death to all gays. Let's add in these other important biblical mandates:

Wardrobe: Metrosexuals shall be henceforth prohibited from crossdressing (Deuteronomy 22:5). Also, spandex and other clothing made from more than one kind of fabric are hereby banned (Leviticus 19:19).

NFL scheduling: Working on Sunday shall be punishable by death (Exodus 35:2).

Rhythm method: Men and women who lie together during the woman's "unclean" state (menstruation) shall be banished (Lev. 20:18).

Clean-air regulations: Once the "uncleanness" has ended, the woman shall deposit two (2)
turtles or pigeons at the nearest church, one of which shall
be burned as an offering (Lev. 15: 29-30).

Mortgage rates: Charging or paying interest on monetary loans is forbidden forthwith (Psalms 15:1-5).

Education: Women shall not be allowed to teach (1 Timothy 2:12). Rebellious kids are to be stoned to death (Deut. 21:18-21).

Agriculture: Farmers who plant two kinds of crops in the same field will be killed (Lev. 19:19).

Atkins Diet: Sorry, no more pork, shrimp or rabbit (Lev. 11: 6-10). --Taylor Clark

Gwenn Baldwin: The perfect storm of political opportunity.

Situation: Your country sits on the verge of a culture war.

Solution: Find an insightful political pro to instruct you on the first stages of the battle.

Your first call? How about Gwenn Baldwin?

Baldwin, a 43-year-old political insider and out lesbian, has worked for big political names: Gary Hart, Ron Wyden, Barbara Roberts. In 2002, she founded Baldwin Consulting, where she helps develop strategic plans for companies like the Tonkin Group and developers like the Singer Brothers.

Although President Bush's proposed gay-marriage ban is, in Baldwin's words, "religious warfare," so far Portland's gay activists have been mostly quiet. They're commuting to Canada or San Francisco to perform the kind of political protest that's not about rallies or strikes.

Where's the local outrage? On the back burner, according to Baldwin, behind boiling pots filled with economic worries. "The average Oregonian--regardless of their sexual orientation--cares about pocketbook issues right now," she says.

One of the factors that led to San Francisco's "perfect storm" of gay rights was the city's newly elected, straight mayor, Gavin Newsom, who defied political advisors and allowed same-sex couples to marry. "It's like the kid that walks up to the emperor and says, 'You have no clothes on,'" Baldwin says.

While Newsom's actions might not appear to have been particularly well thought-out, the strategist thinks it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Oregon activists should consider the current climate--in which the right of gays to marry has spread with lightning speed from Massachusetts to San Francisco--as an opportunity for liberals. "I remember being asked if queer people were going to be able to get married, and I said, 'In my lifetime, absolutely. You know, it might take 25 years,'" Baldwin says. "The speed surprises me."

Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples seems inevitable to Baldwin, who believes that a younger generation of voters--those under 30--doesn't understand why this is even an issue to their elders.

"Of course politics is gonna get wrapped up in it," Baldwin says. "But I can't help but see the glass as half-full." --Byron Beck

TOP PRIVATE EMPLOYERS' HEALTH-COVERAGE POLICY (ranked by total employees)

NEW: View mayoral candidate Tom Potters video of him answering WW's questions on Gay Marraige at www.tomformayor.org

WHAT'S INSIDE:

In-laws & Outlaws: Gay Portlanders have a range of views about gay marriage.

Church & State: Why are we even talking about this? Answers to common questions about the constitution, marriage laws and God.

Queer Window: WW columnist Byron Beck decides it's finally time for him to grow up and get political.

Political Squirming: While members of Oregon's congressional delegation try to duck the gay-marriage issue, most mayoral candidates give straight answers to the queer questions.

The Cost of Equality: Critics say allowing gays to marry would be expensive, but leading private employers have done it anyway.

Why Stop with Homos? If we're going to base our laws on the Bible, there are plenty of other restrictions we can impose.

Web Exclusive: Politicos weigh in on gay marriage.

WWeek 2015