AMENDING AMYNDING THE STATE CONSTITUTION… WITH MISANDRY!

THE FEMINISTS WANT THE OREGON STATE CONSTITUTION TO GUARANTEE EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL SEXES, BUT THAT MEANS FEWER RIGHTS FOR MEN.
BY JESS E. HADDEN – PUBLISHED: 10/31/2014 – SECTION: LOCAL
This entry is part 5 of 6 in the series Fall 2014 Voter’s How-To Guide

Fall 2014 Voter’s How-To Guide
The OFFICIAL Fall 2014 Oregon Electioneering Edition (vol. 1)

PORTLAND, OR — Welcome back to The Portland Intelligencer’s OFFICIAL Fall 2014 Electioneering tips & strategies guide. In this article, we continue with our step-by-step walkthrough of the state measures section of your ballot.

Gentlemen, don your fedoras, and don’t forget not to shave your necks! The feminazis are poised to strike against the very heart of our civilization — and with barely a peep from the mainstream media. How typical of the feminist industrial propaganda complex to conveniently ignore yet another all-out legislative assault on men’s rights!

It’s time to make a stand. Measure 89 is on the first page of the ballot, in the right-hand column.

At stake is a constitutional amendment which prohibits the unequal recognition of rights & privileges based on sex at all levels of local government. This endorsement article will be short because, quite frankly, it’s hard to come up with any reason to oppose this ballot measure — even satirically. Even the Oregonian editorial board itself appeared to have a hard time believing their own endorsement against measure 89, wherein they argued that protections for equal rights are already secretly encoded into the text of the constitution. The trick, they say, is not to amend the constitution; but rather, to rely on the courts to uncover the arcane mysteries of equality locked deep within the document.

Many Republicans are in vocal agreement with the Oregonian editorial, which has thankfully provided them with a somewhat more eloquent (and socially-palatable) argument than simply ranting about how much they hate insubordinate women. That hasn’t stopped state Senator Doug Whitsett, however, from speaking out against the possibility that women might be able to get lots more abortions if this thing passes. Regardless, the Grand Ol’ Party itself has made no official endorsement one way or the other on measure 89.

Getty “My co-worker turns down my advances every single day. The only thing that keeps me going is knowing that I make more money than her. Soon the feminists will take that away from me, too.”
Believe it or not, the ACLU of Oregon has actually gone further in their opposition to measure 89 than the Republicans, by openly endorsing that you vote “no.” But their so-called reasoning is the exact opposite of what the Republicans are thinking. While they admit that we do need sweeping recognition of civil rights on the federal level, they also say that Oregonians have it pretty good as it is & should be happy.

They further argue that we shouldn’t be approaching civil rights in a piecemeal fashion. The ACLU of Oregon believes that until we come up with a draft that addresses everybody’s rights, on the federal level, that nobody should be getting any special treatment.

Yes, that’s right. The state-level organization for civil rights wants to leave the state constitution alone, so that the national-level organization can “better address” the matter.
What a bunch of assholes.

It’s curious how easily that those who argue against measure 89 are able to divine that the amendment is intended to safeguard the rights of women, considering that the text of the measure doesn’t mention women specifically. One might even say that this speaks to a certain telling level of denial. The measure itself, after all, merely prohibits unequal legal treatment “on account of sex.”

It would be one thing to react to such verbiage by denying that “the sexes” are treated unequally in the eyes of the law.

It’s another thing entirely to react to such verbiage by denying that women are treated unequally in the eyes of the law.
If there is one valid criticism that holds up on measure 89, it is that the text of the measure seems to conflate sex and gender, in a way that reinforces a gender-binary view of humanity. That hints at a deeper conversation that our society needs to have, regarding rights & recognition — and the use of language.

Still, don’t be an asshole. Vote “yes” for this constitutional amendment. But if you aren’t going to vote “yes,” then the least that you can do is refrain from voting “no.”

The Portland Intelligencer endorses that you vote YES on measure 89.
http://pdxintelligencer.com/amending-the-state-constitution-with-misandry/

Measure 89 Would Provide Momentum for Federal ERA: Guest opinion

By Guest Columnist
Follow on Twitter
on October 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, updated October 18, 2014 at 1:48 PM

In this March 2013 photo, Leanne Littrell DiLorenzo, founder of VoteERA.org and chief petitioner for Oregon's Measure 89, discusses her proposal to add the equal-rights amendment to the Oregon constitution as Reps. Julie Parrish, R-West Linn, and Wally Hicks, R-Grants Pass, listen during a news conference at the state Capitol in Salem. (AP Photo/Jonathan J. Cooper)

In this March 2013 photo, Leanne Littrell DiLorenzo, founder of VoteERA.org and chief petitioner for Oregon’s Measure 89, discusses her proposal to add the equal-rights amendment to the Oregon constitution as Reps. Julie Parrish, R-West Linn, and Wally Hicks, R-Grants Pass, listen during a news conference at the state Capitol in Salem. (AP Photo/Jonathan J. Cooper)

By Leanne Littrell DiLorenzo

Why is it important to vote yes on Measure 89?

(1) Women are not equal in the Oregon Constitution.

(2) Women are not equal in Oregon case law, as there is an exception for “biological differences.” Current case law exempts discriminatory laws that are “justified” by specific “biological differences” between men and women, and Measure 89 would remove that exemption.

(3) Women are not equal in the United States Constitution.

Measure 89 will establish state policy banning discrimination based on sex.  The language of Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution, written in 1857, has not changed.  Under it women could not vote, could not serve on juries, most could not own property, and women still do not have equal pay for equal work.

Measure 89 will provide momentum for women’s equality in the U.S. Constitution by engaging all those who are still working on the federal ERA to follow Oregon’s lead.  After 91 years the federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has still not been added to the U.S. Constitution, even though it has been introduced in Congress every single year since 1923.  It passed in Congress once in the ’70s but fell three states short of the deadline for ratification.

The U.S. Constitution still does not adequately protect women.   “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t,” said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2011.

Four former Oregon Supreme Court justices took the extraordinary step of writing an open letter in favor of Measure 89 to debunk several arguments made by detractors. Their June 2014 letter is signed by former justices Paul De Muniz, W. Michael Gillette, Richard William Riggs and George Van Hoomissen. It made clear that women do not have the strongest protection in the Oregon Constitution. They said “… no current provision in the Constitution expressly provides those protections … Instead, the protections available to women are present as a result of case law … Measure 89 would remove the biological differences exception.”  This is why women would ultimately have full equality.

One opposition group says others’ rights could be affected by passage of an Oregon ERA. The justices stated: “The text of the ERA itself provides that nothing in it will diminish the rights of any group under any provision of the Oregon Constitution. …Oregon’s Office of Legislative Counsel has also issued opinions further supporting that nothing in ERA proposal will diminish the rights of any other group. At least 22 states have adopted equal rights amendments in their constitutions. Not one of the ‘concerns’ voiced by [detractors] has ever come to pass in those states.”

The Justices concluded with another reference to the detractors of the measure: “They are mistaken to oppose passage of the Oregon ERA. We believe that passage of the Oregon ERA will acknowledge the contributions and importance of more than 50% of our citizens by finally providing women express recognition in our state’s most important document, its constitution.”

The women who sought the right to vote needed to resort to the initiative just as we have. On five separate occasions, Oregonian editor Harvey Scott was against women gaining the right to vote even though his sister was Abigail Scott Duniway, the leader of the suffragist movement of the Pacific Northwest and the first woman to vote in Oregon in 1912.  But the women prevailed.

Measure 89 has broad bipartisan support.  In addition to the four former Oregon Supreme Court justices, supporters include former Court of Appeals Judge David Schuman, former Oregon Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer and Oregon Women Lawyers.  Supporters come from a long list of organizations, elected officials, community leaders and Oregonians from all over the state, including U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, former Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, former state Sen. Margaret Carter, YWCA, NAACP of Eugene, Oregon Business Association, League of Women Voters, Democratic Party of Oregon, Clackamas County Republican Party, AFSCME and many more.

Please join me in voting “yes” on Measure 89.

Leanne Littrell DiLorenzo is chief petitioner for Measure 89 and founder and president of VoteERA.org.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/10/measure_89_would_provide_momen.html#comments

Women Deserve YES on Measure 89

By David Schuman

OCT. 16, 2014

Opponents of Measure 89, which would add to the Oregon Constitution an amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, argue that our constitution already prohibits such discrimination. They also note that our state constitution — the longest in the nation — already is cluttered with unnecessary provisions, and an Equal Rights Amendment would just make things worse.

I agree with those arguments. I’m going to vote for Measure 89 anyway. Here’s why.

Article I, Section 20, of the Oregon Constitution provides that when state or local governments provide individuals or classes of individuals “privileges or immunities,” those benefits must be made available “on the same terms,” equally, to all citizens. When first enacted along with the rest of the Oregon Constitution in 1859, the Privileges and Immunities Clause was not intended to prohibit discrimination against minority groups; we know that, because the voters who ratified it also voted to prohibit African-Americans from living in Oregon, and statutes (fortunately never enforced) called for whipping those who refused to leave.

The clause probably was designed to prohibit the Legislature from granting special economic favors to insiders or cronies.

However, for at least the past 33 years, the Oregon Supreme Court has held that Article I, Section 20, is this state’s version of the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting invidious discrimination based on race, religion, gender and other traits unrelated to merit. In fact, the court has held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause provides even stronger protections against gender discrimination than its federal counterpart.

That is why I agree that Measure 89 would duplicate existing state constitutional bans on gender discrimination.

However, what the Oregon Supreme Court gives, it can also take away. There is no guarantee that future Supreme Court justices will refrain from reinterpreting Article I, Section 20, in such a way as to diminish protections against gender discrimination.

The possibility of reinterpretation is not limited to some doomsday takeover by partisan fanatics. The current court — all of whose members, I hasten to add, are my friends in whose fairness, intelligence and freedom from bias I have complete confidence — has, nonetheless, shown a conspicuous willingness to overrule precedent, particularly when doing so is, in their eyes, compelled by “original intent” and “plain text” — both of which could excuse rolling back the protections against invidious discrimination that for decades have inhered in Article I, Section 20.

In most of the cases where the court has overruled precedent, it has been urged to do so by lawyers for the Oregon Department of Justice. That is so because the cases usually involve the enforcement of criminal laws; the person claiming that law enforcement violated his or her constitutional rights is usually a criminal defendant seeking the suppression of unconstitutionally seized evidence or the invalidation of an allegedly discriminatory statute.

Ominously, for purposes of gender equality, the Department of Justice recently submitted a brief to the court urging it to disavow the long-standing interpretation of Article I, Section 20, and to hold instead that the Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits only what it was intended to prohibit 155 years ago, when slavery was still flourishing in much of the country and women couldn’t hold property, enter into contracts or vote.

The court rejected that argument — for now. I hope and believe that current and future lawyers in the Department of Justice will avoid such arguments, which may serve legitimate purposes in individual criminal cases but poorly serve the majority of citizens who are not involved in crime. If such arguments are advanced, I hope that future Supreme Courts will continue to reject them.

If they don’t, one might ask, wouldn’t women still have the protection against invidious discrimination afforded by the Equal Protection Clause? The answer is that they will — but that such protection is weaker than what’s currently available under Article I, Section 20, and the current United States Supreme Court has not been, to put it mildly, friendly to gender equality claims. In other words, if in the future Department of Justice lawyers continue to urge the court to reinterpret Article I, Section 20, and the court ultimately complies, women’s claims for equal treatment will be substantially weakened.

I hope that doesn’t happen. But women in this state deserve more than hopes. They deserve Measure 89.

“David Schuman taught federal and Oregon constitutional law at the University of Oregon School of Law from 1987 through 1996, and will rejoin its faculty in 2015. He was the Oregon deputy attorney general from 1997 through 2000, and served as a judge of the Oregon Court of Appeals from 2001 until his retirement.”

http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/32284333-78/women-deserve-yes-on-measure-89.html.csp

Vote YES on Ballot Measure 89 – the Oregon Equal Rights Amendment

By Monica Kirk, Attorney

Study the past, protect the future.

I agree with RetiredJudge. The Oregonian Editorial Board is wrong to oppose Ballot Measure 89.

As a retired attorney who practiced law for 32 years, I absolutely agree that any amendment to the Constitution should not be taken lightly.  Yet I support Ballot Measure 89.

I feel like I am in good company.  Retired Oregon Supreme Court Judges W. Michael Gillette (1986-2010), George A. Van Hoomissen (1988-2001), Richard William Riggs (1998-2006) and Paul J. De Muniz (2006-2013) all SUPPORT Ballot Measure 89 that would amend the Oregon Constitution to explicitly prohibit gender discrimination.

These four retired Supreme Court justices, all of whom also served on the Oregon Court of Appeals, are legal scholars. They have practiced law for decades in Oregon, and have heard the arguments interpreting article 1, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution. They know far better than I (or the Oregonian and the ACLU) that Oregon’s women need the ERA. (See their letter at www.voteera.org.)

The list of Oregon ERA supporters at www.voteera.org is a veritable “Who’s Who” of the major legal and policy leaders of our State, including Governor John Kitzhaber. As the Oregonian points out, the Governor is on record as opposing, on the basis of policy, constitutional amendments in during the 2000 elections when 21 amendments were proposed. Although not a lawyer, the Governor understands the legal basis for this anti-discrimination amendment. The ERA is different.

The Oregon Supreme Court in Hewitt v. Saif, 294 Or 33 (1982), the case cited by the ACLU as the basis its belief that the ERA is unnecessary, acknowledged that “(T)he Oregon (Constitution) has no equal rights provision related specifically to gender .…” Oregon was not among the 16 states providing a constitutional prohibition of gender discrimination cited in footnote 9 of theHewitt opinion. The Oregonian Editorial Board’s statement that “Oregon Supreme Court left no doubt that gender belongs beneath the Constitution’s equal-treatment umbrella” is misleading. In my opinion, the women of Oregon dodged a bullet in Hewitt.

Nobody can predict who our Supreme Court justices will be in the future. Without equality for women explicitly written into the Oregon Constitution, Oregon women and girls will always be at risk of losing the gains they have made. The Hewitt opinion provides excellent precedent, but it does not assure full equality based on sex in the Oregon Constitution; only a constitutional amendment can do that. On this point of law, our four former Supreme Court Justices (with a total of 79 years on the Oregon bench between them), the NAACP, the Urban League, the Oregon League of Women Voters, and 55+ other well-known supporters of Ballot Measure 89 agree.

Why would Oregonians want women and girls to be vulnerable to interpretations by different judges over time for their foundational equality in our Oregon Constitution?

Study the past and protect the future. Vote YES on Ballot Measure 89 in November.

Study the past, protect the future.

I agree with RetiredJudge. The Oregonian Editorial Board is wrong to oppose Ballot Measure 89.

As a retired attorney who practiced law for 32 years, I absolutely agree that any amendment to the Constitution should not be taken lightly.  Yet I support Ballot Measure 89.

I feel like I am in good company.  Retired Oregon Supreme Court Judges W. Michael Gillette (1986-2010), George A. Van Hoomissen (1988-2001), Richard William Riggs (1998-2006) and Paul J. De Muniz (2006-2013) all SUPPORT Ballot Measure 89 that would amend the Oregon Constitution to explicitly prohibit gender discrimination.

These four retired Supreme Court justices, all of whom also served on the Oregon Court of Appeals, are legal scholars. They have practiced law for decades in Oregon, and have heard the arguments interpreting article 1, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution. They know far better than I (or the Oregonian and the ACLU) that Oregon’s women need the ERA. (See their letter at www.voteera.org.)

The list of Oregon ERA supporters at www.voteera.org is a veritable “Who’s Who” of the major legal and policy leaders of our State, including Governor John Kitzhaber. As the Oregonian points out, the Governor is on record as opposing, on the basis of policy, constitutional amendments in during the 2000 elections when 21 amendments were proposed. Although not a lawyer, the Governor understands the legal basis for this anti-discrimination amendment. The ERA is different.

The Oregon Supreme Court in Hewitt v. Saif, 294 Or 33 (1982), the case cited by the ACLU as the basis its belief that the ERA is unnecessary, acknowledged that “(T)he Oregon (Constitution) has no equal rights provision related specifically to gender .…” Oregon was not among the 16 states providing a constitutional prohibition of gender discrimination cited in footnote 9 of theHewitt opinion. The Oregonian Editorial Board’s statement that “Oregon Supreme Court left no doubt that gender belongs beneath the Constitution’s equal-treatment umbrella” is misleading. In my opinion, the women of Oregon dodged a bullet in Hewitt.

Nobody can predict who our Supreme Court justices will be in the future. Without equality for women explicitly written into the Oregon Constitution, Oregon women and girls will always be at risk of losing the gains they have made. The Hewitt opinion provides excellent precedent, but it does not assure full equality based on sex in the Oregon Constitution; only a constitutional amendment can do that. On this point of law, our four former Supreme Court Justices (with a total of 79 years on the Oregon bench between them), the NAACP, the Urban League, the Oregon League of Women Voters, and 55+ other well-known supporters of Ballot Measure 89 agree.

Why would Oregonians want women and girls to be vulnerable to interpretations by different judges over time for their foundational equality in our Oregon Constitution?

Study the past and protect the future. Vote YES on Ballot Measure 89 in November.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/09/measure_89_is_well-intended_bu.html