This morning Jack Brown and Richard Hake, of the Constitution Party, were joined by Robert Sweat, a republican, to file paper work in hopes of referring HB 2007 and SB 2 to the ballot. Brown describes the move as “kind of a bipartisan effort,” and says he sees no problem in gathering the 55,000+ votes needed to but the bills on the ballot.

I was able to get Brown on the phone today as he searched for a parking spot outside of a grocery store in Grants Pass.

Unpaid Intern: What are your reasons for referring the two recently adopted gay-rights laws?
Brown: “Two reasons particularly on House Bill 2007. The impression and perception that people had when the voted on Measure 36 back in 2006 [The Mercury’s very own, very smart, Scott Moore, was quick to point out the bill was voted on in 2004] was that it prevented what the legislature did with this bill. So the people really ought to get a chance to vote on this because it really seems to contradict all the people that I know, that voted for measure 36, thought it would stop what this bill did. So unless there’s been a change on the part of the people, I don’t expect this to pass on the referral. So that’s one reason, so the voters have the ultimate say on something where they seemed to have already spoken and its been ignored.”

So what’s the second reason?
“Second reason is, that even though it’s titled “Family Fairness Act,” it’s not fair. It only grants a limited group of people a bunch of privileges that normally were obtained by marriage and ignores other people also that are just as deserving. One of the strange things about the House Bill 2007 is that it does not allow a domestic partnership unless, it’s between people of the same sex that are not closely related by blood. The whole purpose of restricting marriage by those closely related by blood is to prevent genetic defects from cropping up. Well, two men or two women are not going to produce offspring and therefore they’re not going to pollute the gene pool by anything that they might do. So why is that limitation there? Where, say two sisters that never married, they live in the old family house, they would like to have the same rights and privileges in terms medical directives etcetera. They would not be able to avail themselves what two lesbians, that are not closely related, would be able to do under the terms of this bill.
Those are the two reasons, it’s not fair, and it is doing what the voter’s thought they were saying don’t do.”

Anything else you’d like to add?
“I’m just thinking about what else I’ve got to get inside the store.”