February 24, 2004
(Updated) Oregon's Gay Rights Divisions (And The Threat To The Social Fabric)
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
A couple of related items (in the sense that one draws upon the other) regarding Oregon and "gay rights" have cropped up today, in the wake of recently-proposed ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage and/or civil union of any kind.
An article from the Associated Press posted this afternoon says that the initiatives "are rekindling an emotional issue" that previously has caused divisions in Oregon:
Among Oregon cities, Ashland, Eugene and Multnomah County recognize same-sex "domestic partnerships," and courts and voters have seemed cautiously like-minded in recent years.
In 2000, voters defeated Measure 9, which would have banned homosexuality from being presented in schools in a positive light. The measure was defeated by about 52 percent to 48 percent, the third anti-gay rights measure voted down in the state in eight years.
The courts and lawmakers have taken a similar tone. In 1998 the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Oregon Health & Sciences University to deny spousal benefits to gay couples.
In 1992, it ruled unconstitutional a measure approved by voters in 1988 that would have made it legally permissible for state agencies to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
In 1999, a bill that would have banned same-sex marriage passed the Oregon House, but was weakened then defeated in the Senate.
The article reports that Senator Gordon Smith supports "contractual rights, civil unions and financial benefits" for gay couples, but also backs President Bush's proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.
It also has a bit from Kevin Mannix (chair of the Oregon Republic Party), but we'll skip that in favor of a choice quote from Congressman Earl Blumenauer instead:
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., called Bush's backing of a constitutional ban a distraction ploy. "At a time when we have the spectacle of Britney Spears' drunken midnight marriage in Las Vegas, the President sees fit to attack gays and lesbians who are interested in a committed relationship. This seems bizarre," he said.
Meanwhile, a KGW story reports on the position of Basic Rights Oregon (whose website still hasn't weighed in on the ballot initiatives):
"Our No. 1 concern is making sure the initiatives that were filed last week don't go anywhere," [Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon] said. "We want to make sure that those initiatives don't divide the people of Oregon. That is our No. 1 priority."
...
"We have a fundamental disagreement with the philosophy that civil rights should be put up to a popular vote," Thorpe said.
Returning to the AP story before we close this out, we're pleased to point out that it concludes with mentioning previous Oregon attempts to restrict marriage. To wit: An 1862 ban on "marriage between whites and anyone more than one-quarter black," and an 1866 extension to include "anyone a quarter or more Chinese or Hawaiian or half or more Indian."
Which is really what goes to the heart of the matter, if we can weigh in on the wider issue rather than simply the Oregon ballot initiatives.
The same arguments made today against same-sex marriage -- which boil down to something about a threat to the social fabric -- are merely echoes of the arguments which supported the idea that blacks were not quite human and could be owned as property, the idea that women should not be allowed to cast votes at the ballot box, and the above idea that whites should not marry people of other races.
Thing is, they're right. Same-sex marriage indeed is a threat to the social fabric, just as were the ideas of free blacks, voting women, and interracial marriages. But when the social fabric clearly is worn, tattered, and only protects the privileged few, it deserves to be threatened.
Update
Meanwhile, as pointed out on Worldwide Pablo (although we know of one of them already), there's a KATU poll (which appears to be mysteriously missing at the moment) and a KGW poll on gay marriage.
For the Hell of it, there's also a Basic Rights Oregon poll on the same question. Not too difficult to know which way that one is going to swing.
Update
As of approximately 10:00 PM, the KATU poll continues to be MIA; the KGW poll stands at 51% in favor of a constitutional amendment, 48% against, and 1% unsure; the KPTV poll stands at 54% believing gay marriage should be unconstitutional, 43% believing it should not, and 3% not sure; and the Basic Rights Oregon poll stands at 4% supporting an amendment banning gay marriage rights, 84% not supporting an amendment, and 12% unsure.
Update
What follows is apparently making the rounds via email:
As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on biblical principles. After all, God wouldn't want us to pick and choose which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:
Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:
* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)
* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)
I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.
We've yet to determine if it's new, or if it's the resurrection of an old email that might have been passed around during previous times when constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage have been discussed.
Posted at 08:11 PM | PermalinkComments (4) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Same-Sex Marriage, State of Oregon
Trackbacks (1)
-
add your pebbles to the avalanche on 27 Feb 2004
Tolerance.org has been following the gay marriage debate, and links (scroll down) to further coverage and activism by the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD. HRC offers excellent background on the issue, the arguments and the politics, including a clickab...
Comments (4)
Gary Marschke on 25 Feb 2004
At least in my dictionary, “civil” is defined as “Of or pertaining to citizens…to general public life.” and civil rights as “”Private, non-political rights of citizens, as those established by the 13th & 14th amendments.”
When Mr. Thorpe says things like: "We want to make sure that those initiatives don’t divide the people of Oregon. That is our No. 1 priority." and "We have a fundamental disagreement with the philosophy that civil rights should be put up to a popular vote," I have to wonder whom he’s really trying to protect and what his organization is really afraid of. We are all “citizens”, divided or not, and we should all have the right to discuss, disagree and especially vote on those issues that affect all of us. Would BR feel the same if the either the proposed amendment or initiative permitted gay marriages?
I also have to wonder if, in spite of their political leanings, there is really a difference between “W’s” rationalizations and those of Basic Rights? One doesn’t want an issue to create a division and the other doesn’t want an issue to create a breakdown both apparently under the guise of protecting us (presumably from ourselves). Stop already!
The One True b!X on 25 Feb 2004
I was hoping someone would comment on BRO's statement. Thing is, this issue does, in fact, divide the people of Oregon. That why this is part of the ongoing culture war. Division is difficult, to be sure. But I'll never understand people's reticence to saddle up and tackle divisions head on.
Gary Marschke on 25 Feb 2004
Amen!
Ajai Tripathi on 01 Jul 2004
I am troubled by the recruitment of black ministers to distance this issue from the Civil Rights movement. Despite the obvious fact that a marriage is a 'civil' institution, it seems to follow the basic 'divide and conquer' strategy. I think it is because they know that if minority groups united, we would cease to be the minority.