Multnomah County Holds First Public Hearing On Same-Sex Marriage
Opposition Shows Its True Colors
Thursday morning the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners held the first in a series of public hearings on a proposed resolution through which four of them will officially record their support for Chair Diane Linn's direction that County officials issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
After voting to fill District 43's vacancy in the House of Representatives, Linn stated that there was no more difficult job in politics right now than serving in the Oregon Legislature. Then she added a reference to what was to come: "That could be debatable as we sit here today."
Before public testimony began, the Board voted down the inclusion an amendment to the resolution, offered by Commissioner Lonnie Roberts, which would have included in its reference to the legal opinion of Attorney General Hardy Myers the state's recommendation that all state agencies follow the statutory definition of marriage.
In welcoming those assembled, Linn said that the purpose of this series of hearings was to bring the discussion that's been underway to the broader public. But she did defend the County's position.
"When we began to issue licenses," Linn said, "it was in direct response to the knowledge" that denying such licenses to same-sex couples was unconstitutional.
Over the course of nearly two hours of testimony which followed, only a comparative few focused on the question of process (although the subject did arise).
Instead, supporters of same-sex marriage mainly held to a message of personalizing the impact of the County's policy upon their lives, and framed the issue as a matter of civil rights. Opponents of the County non-discriminatory policy, on the other hand, mainly displayed the motivations behind their position: Pure, blind ignorance and prejudice -- most of it backed by their own perverted sense of religious belief.
Look, we udnerstand that we're somehow supposed to be treating all sides of this debate with at least a modicum of respect. But let's get real here.
Putting aside the supporters of same-sex marriage who criticize the process, if we focus on those present Thursday morning who oppose same-sex marriage it's inescapable that they deserve nothing even remotely resembling respect.
Hatred, perhaps even especially that wrapped in the banner of a supposedly-loving God, is not meant to be faced with respect. It's meant to be unmasked and exposed for what it is.
We don't want to give the impression that all religious opposition to same-sex marriage was bilious. But even those people whose testimony was religious in nature but respectful in tone had a message which boiled down to this: They offer homosexuals their love, but those homosexuals are not to be granted the same rights as heterosexuals.
As we've said before: That love is grand, we're sure. But what's being sought by same-sex couples here is not the love of religiously-based prejudice. What's being sought here is the equal protection under the law of fundamental human rights to self-determination.
On the matter of the testimony given, we likely will return to this item over the weekend and present some highlights as culled from our notes. For the moment, since we've already delayed on getting this item posted, we'll just do the pass-along-some-news-coverage thing.
First, here is Keith Daly's testimony about the "silent assertion lie" in full, as posted to his own weblog.
There's a OPB News report from Thursday "on the diverse testimonials" which gives a fairly representative glimpse at the hearing.
Thursday also had KGW's report which correctly states that "[m]uch of the debate Thursday centered over moral and civil rights issues surrounding same-sex marriages" but interestingly almost immediately goes to the Portland Oregon Visitors Assocation testimony on the economic benefits.
And the City's newspapers presented their articles today.
In The Oregonian, we get still more of a sense of the ways in which the opposing sides presented their views.
But in the Portland Tribune, they immediately zero in on the process question, despite the sheer emotional weight of most of the hearing being a combination of the humanization of same-sex marriage (on the one hand) and religious invective against homosexuals (on the other).
As we said, we are committed to reporting on some of what we have in our notes, but there's something about this particular ongoing story that (for us) depends upon a kind of momentum. Wait too long beyond an event itself, and it's difficult to recapture the energy. That said, check back with this post over the weekend for updates.