Anti-Marriage Petitioner Kelly Boggs' New Weblog
Remember we mentioned that Kelly Boggs, one of the three chief petitioners behind the four initiative proposals against same-sex marriage in Oregon, happened to have a weblog?
Well, it turns out that he now has a new one, running Movable Type. Alas, he does not appear to have Trackback enabled, but his new site does have reader comments turned on.
We get to have this battle right here in the local Portland-area world of weblog writers. But let's do this right. We don't need to abuse him. Our side in this fight is in the right, and the force of our ability to rationally explain what we believe is strong enough on its own. Abusing him will only backfire.
So saddle up. Let's do this thing. We'll start, by responding to this bit from his first post (oh, how we wished he had Trackbacks enabled) on the initiatives:
What is wrong with allowing the citizens of Oregon the opportunity to vote on whether or not marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman? If an initiative makes the ballot, I will abide the will of the people. However, I don't think Massachusetts should be setting matrimonial standards for Oregon.
You might recall that we previously mentioned how clear it already had become that proponents of the initiatives are mischaracterizing their content and their intent. The above merely is another example.
To wit, the Defense of Marriage Amendment (pdf) reads as follows:
The Oregon Constitution is amended by the addition of the following provision:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of a marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.
When it comes to the two constitutional initiatives (of which the above is one), Boggs' proposals not only define marriage as being between one man and one woman, but bans civil unions as well -- regardless of the sex of those involved.
Since he does not have Trackback enabled, we'll see what happens when I post a comment to his site directing him to this item. Stay tuned.
February 23, 2004 at 06:40 AM
Walter Cronkite has an excellent article about the issue here: http://www.staugustine.com/stories/022204/opi_2139503.shtml
February 23, 2004 at 11:10 AM
You said: "Our side in this fight is in the right, and the force of our ability to rationally explain what we believe is strong enough on its own."
I'll bet that they say EXACTLY the same things to themselves including my comment: "If rational thought was part of their equation, we wouldn't need to have this discussion!"
Making rational arguments against irrational concepts only lends them credibility they don't deserve. Let them have their initiative the go exercise your duty to vote and simply send them back to the land of Lon Mabon.
February 23, 2004 at 11:43 AM
I left perfectly civil comments using his own words against him.. let's see if they last.
February 23, 2004 at 02:25 PM
Making rational arguments against irrational concepts only lends them credibility they don't deserve.
Nonsense. The fact is that people are going to listen to what Boggs and others have to say about this. We can either let it all go unchallenged, or we can respond. Letting it go unchallenged makes little sense, even if many of those who would listen to what Boggs has to say would never change their minds. They should at least be required, by us, to have to be exposed to the other side.
But if we choose to respond, doing so rationally is as much for our own benefit as for the benefit of anyone else, because responding, if we choose to respond, through abuse only makes us look stupid and unconfident.
February 24, 2004 at 03:10 AM
I don't know if you knew this or not, but many of the people behind the anti-homosexual measures and the present measure are associated with the racist, homophobic Christian Identity and Sovereign Citizen movements. Check out the following between the stars **********
******************
An overflow crowd of supporters were kept in the hallway, as a packed courtroom watched Cinniger and Mabons discuss the challenges before the court. The following is from personal notes taken at the trial today.
The thirteen or more media representatives were seated in the jury box in the crowded courtroom. In the crowd were Lons father Myron Mabon, supporters Lou Beres, with the Oregon Christian Coalition; Bob Eckstrom, director of the Constitution Party of Oregon; Paul DeParrie,long time advocate and Right to Life spokesman; Milt Mitcheck, Constitutional Researcher and Court Advocate; William Mayhar, Constitutional Scholar and advocate; Roger Weidner, Republican Governor candidate, Republican Party; Jesse Lott, political advocate and courtwatcher; Michael Marsh, Salem TV producer; Yvonne Heinrichs, peoples rights advocate, and many more.
*********************
Roger Weidner, Bill Mayhar, both of whom have done some time in the Oregon State Hospitals Criminally Insane program, along with Milt Milcheck are considered some of the leaders in the Christian Identity and Sovereign Citizens movements in Oregon. Many of their compatriots are currently doing time in federal prison. Jesse Lott and Weidner go back for years, as does their association with the Mabons. The Constitution Party is just a front for the Christian Identity and Sovereign Citizen movements.
February 24, 2004 at 11:55 AM
In the interest of brevity I guess I didn't make my point entirely clear. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an intelligent discourse on the issues however just like the use of the word "rational", "intelligent" alludes to an attribute significantly absent among those groups. Educating the open-minded and mobilizing supporters to actually get out and vote rather than engaging in inflammatory rhetoric (their specialty and where they inevitably tend to lead any discussion) is the key to success with goups so anally engorged.