Two Republican Lawmakers Attempt to Derail Oregon Equality Act

"If you walk around talking about what you do in the bedroom, you should be on the pervert channel." - Oregon Senator Gary George

(McMINNVILLE, Ore.) - A statewide ballot initiative is in the works that would repeal Oregon's landmark gay rights law passed by the 2007 Legislature. The measure prohibits discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation.

The lawmakers who want to reverse the protection and allow discrimination against gay people are Senator Gary George and State Representative Kim Thatcher, both of Newberg.

Although he told the AP that his remark was taken out of context, George compared homosexuality to perversion during an interview with Just Out, Oregon's biggest gay newspaper.

"As an employer, I don't wanna hear about it," George told magazine Just Out. "This workplace is for work purposes. My advice to the gay community is shut up, just don't talk about it. If you walk around talking about what you do in the bedroom, you should be on the pervert channel."

The words came during George's first media interview since coming forward as co-sponsor of the initiative to repeal the recently enacted Oregon Equality Act.

According to Just Out, "George railed against gay activists and affirmative action, and warned that if gays continued to be 'oppressive toward straights,' they were in danger of 'violent backlash.'"

Basic Rights Oregon officials told reporters that the proposed initiative was expected, but they criticized the two Republican lawmakers for their role.

George's exchanges with Oregon's gay community are not likely to end any time soon, as the article from Just Out has only been offered in excerpts so far, and the magazine with the full article is due out March 21st 2008.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Joe April 7, 2008 4:03 pm (Pacific time)

If they are successful in overturning this legislation then it would be conceivable that gay owned companies could fire heterosexual employees just for being straight. Think about it. The law does not say "no discrimination because you are gay" it says "sexual orientation" that means both gay and straight. I see no "special rights" here for either side. The law applies to ALL.

JM March 20, 2008 10:15 pm (Pacific time)

The Oregon voter's will overturn the legislation. Deal with it!

Anonymous March 19, 2008 6:30 pm (Pacific time)

Senator George and Representative Thatcher are amazingly ignorant. Gay people have no interest in hearing about what straight people do in the bedroom either, yet these two law makers have no issues here. The point here is NO DISCRIMINATION FOR ANYONE. Why is this a difficult concept? It doesn't matter if you have issues with being gay....that is your own problem. DISCRIMINATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR ANY PERSON whether gay, straight, white, African-American, tall, short, blond, blue-eyed, etc. Get it together, swallow your insecurities, and make this country better for all human beings.

Frugal March 19, 2008 12:59 pm (Pacific time)

I just had someone call to see if I would sign a petition regarding this matter. Oregon's initiative process is a double-edged sword, and no doubt there will be issues in the future that people will want to vote on when they have been unhappy with the legislative process. I would prefer to keep this process so if one has a policy they want passed or reviewed, then the voter can become the final arbitrator.

JM March 18, 2008 7:53 am (Pacific time)

There sure have been some politicans I would like removed for not what only they have said but what behavior they have been involved in. I guess it's "in the eye of the beholder", in terms of who upsets who. We are such a divided country. When did it begin to get so divisive? Back in the 1960's? Before? After?

Henry Ruark March 17, 2008 6:19 pm (Pacific time)

Spock et al: My last Comment was directed to what I thought was your response to mine at 12:42, to Joe.
Re comment you quoted see upcoming Op Ed which will cite this example and discuss what, how, when and why, from past experience in city environment making it extremely painful then, and highly reminiscent of this one, now.
DO appreciate your tone this time, friend, and hope we can continue in same altered vein and with somewhat more understandings...

Spock March 17, 2008 6:00 pm (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark my comment was based on your below comment in quotes. Again, I say that would be a dark path to go down. If I misread your below quote, then maybe you can be more clear as to your meaning, that being any offical must be removed from office based on what sir? Some subjective opinion? That is why I suggested having ground rules, but I believe the 1st Amendment does a fine job in that department and the voter does the removing. Is that what you meant? "ANY official, elected or appointed, making such strong and fear-generating statement should be removed from office by whatever non-violent process is possible, NOW. For those who have had the fearsome experience of coping with the kind of antisocial mob rule that such perverted posturing sometimes sets off, the time to act is before that kind of violence can even ever start."

Henry Clay March 17, 2008 3:08 pm (Pacific time)

Spock et al: You deliberately misreading me, sir ? My tone should show clearly, for those who pay attention at least, that I am decrying both the attitude-described and the actions it covers up often...and current politics provides every day more examples. Honest, open dialog, as in Federalist Papers, can help repair and remedy both, as in this S-N channel, when those participating operatin in full good faith and demonstration.

Spock March 17, 2008 12:48 pm (Pacific time)

Seems if we start kicking people out of office for what they say we should develop some ground rules. Do we have a trial? Is hearsay admissible? Sounds like a dark path to start heading down Henry Ruark.

Henry Ruark March 17, 2008 12:42 pm (Pacific time)

Joe et al: One usually-present and then overriding attitude among all too many religiously-inclined "conservatives" is to believe they have the Word right from God, and MUST under all circumstances and in every situation make damned sure that all others are brought to full comformity.

Cody March 17, 2008 11:41 am (Pacific time)

Yes...they have gone a few steps too far--and by a few steps, I mean a few hundred miles. Hopefully Oregonians won't be blinded by this madness, and will seek to remove both of them from office. It is the only real answer to the hatefilled ideas coming from those two. As to Today's Prayer: That is highly creative, and sad but true. I guess we will see how the next week goes eh?

Joe March 17, 2008 8:47 am (Pacific time)

I have never in my life heard a gay person talk about what they do in their bedrooms at work. This just shows Senator George's ignorance. Why does he want to take rights away from a group of people that he clearly knows nothing about.

Kevin March 16, 2008 11:45 am (Pacific time)

Cody, Rep. Thatcher lives in the Keizer area not Newberg. I wonder if they will get enough signatures?

Today's Prayer March 16, 2008 10:53 am (Pacific time)

Dear Lord, please save us from your followers.

Tom March 16, 2008 6:11 am (Pacific time)

Make discrimination legal?: That's what the nazis did in 1930s Germany.

Henry Ruark March 15, 2008 6:48 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Key phrase in Cody's strong story is: "...they were in danger of "violent backlash." No matter how now-repainted, that is flat-out fear-making threat, entirely irresponsible and unrational in the current social/cultural context in Oregon and this democratic nation. ANY official, elected or appointed, making such strong and fear-generating statement should be removed from office by whatever non-violent process is possible, NOW. For those who have had the fearsome experience of coping with the kind of antisocial mob rule that such perverted posturing sometimes sets off, the time to act is before that kind of violence can even ever start. Thank you, Cody, for telling it straight and true. For any others so-minded, feel free to make sure these blabbermouths hear your voices in return, loud and clear and continuing.

[Return to Top]