February 28, 2004
(Updated) Kelly Boggs Profiled In 'News-Register'
Chief Petitioner Disavows Two Initiatives To Ban Civil Unions
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Thanks to one of the Google news alerts to which we've subscribed, we managed to catch a profile of Kelly Boggs published in today's News-Register out of McMinnville. Boggs is one of the three chief petitioners for the four proposed state ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage.
This profile starts out with an interesting revelation about Boggs' position regarding the initiatives to which he has lent his name;
The Rev. Kelly Boggs of McMinnville has joined with two Portland-area ministers as chief petitioners of the "Affirmation of Marriage" and "Defense of Marriage" initiatives.
The former defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The latter, which Boggs does not support, goes on to deny any legal status to co-habiting couples, regardless of gender.
After providing some background on Boggs, the article elaborates on the above, after reporting his assertion that he is not anti-gay:
Nor is he against civil unions that don't involve legal marriage. In fact, he said, he favors only the "Affirmation of Marriage" statement, which does not mention unmarried couples.
If his two co-petitioners decide to gather signatures to place the "Defense of Marriage" statement on the ballot, Boggs said, he probably will drop out.
Also in the article is some information on how Boggs became involved with the initiatives, and says that he is not linked to the Oregon Citizens' Alliance, nor did he even know who Lon Mabon was when Boggs spoke out in favor of Measure 9 (an "effort to ban what the OCA considered promotion of homosexuality in schools") several years ago.
It also mentions The Boggs' Blog and the conversations into which he's gotten through it and via his Sentinel Institute website.
We feel compelled to note that while we (and likely many of our readers) still disagree with Boggs' positions, his lack of support for banning civil unions -- and the reports we've received from at least one reader here who has been conversing with Boggs -- if nothing else demonstrates at least partially the sageness of my advice not to storm him with abuse.
We do find ourselves wondering, however, why Boggs signed onto the initiatives which would ban civil unions if he doesn't actually support banning civil unions.
Update
Speaking of supporters of these initiatives, read this item and then keep an eye on that site.
Comments (5)
Marie on 26 Mar 2004
Here again, I find myself reading about my pastor on your web pages. I think if you really wanted to know more about this person Kelly Boggs, you should come to a Sunday Morning service, respectfully sit and listen, maybe have lunch with him after, to see who he is and what he is about? Here the thing though that bothers me, you write
"If nothing else demonstrates at least partially the sageness of my advice not to storm him with abuse."
My question to you, why storm anyone with abuse? Is this a web page that would suggest that people storm others with abuse? I hope not, I hope I was just reading that sentence wrongly. It seems you would ask others to tolerate what you believe, but you are not willing to do like wise in return?
The One True b!X on 26 Mar 2004
My question to you, why storm anyone with abuse? Is this a web page that would suggest that people storm others with abuse? I hope not, I hope I was just reading that sentence wrongly. It seems you would ask others to tolerate what you believe, but you are not willing to do like wise in return?
This is, indeed, poor reading comprehension. What did I write? I wrote: "If nothing else demonstrates at least partially the sageness of my advice not to storm him with abuse." Meaning that Boggs, as profiled in the newspaper, comes across as someone that should not simply be berated by those who disagree with him. The point, you might notice if you read this post again, is to warn people against simply going on a ranting tirade against him instead of trying to engage him in conversation.
Marie on 28 Mar 2004
I didn't need to read it again. I understand that you posted "Not" to abuse Kelly. The point I was making is, why write "Don't Abuse" unless, in the past you have suggested to your readers that they should abuse someone. Abuse is wrong, no matter the reason. I suppose you know your readers well enough that you might assume that they would feel the need to abuse someone, for their stand on a matter. Well done, in stating Not to. I hope you never abuse anyone for any reason.
The One True b!X on 28 Mar 2004
It has nothing to do with anything I've told readers to do, or anything readers have done on their own. It has to do with the fact that some people find it amusing, in an adolescent sense, to berate someone just so that they can crow about it and feel like they've done something productive. It was cautionary word in case any of those people happen ed to visit Boggs' weblog through my links to it. It also insulated me against any accusations of inciting such abuse in the event any such abuse occurred.
Sorry, you'll have to try to make some other insinuated accuation against me and my readers, because this won't won't wash.
The One True b!X on 28 Mar 2004
An addendum: I find it rather revealing that even when this site specifically goes out of its way to avoid any appearance of attacking an opponent of same-sex marriage, someone shows up and tries to acuse us of being unfair. Is the opposition so weak in the confidence of its positions that it has to attack even people who don't attack them?