Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Dominate Meeting Room

Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

This evening, Gary Walker, adminstrative assistant to County Commissioner Lonnie Roberts lobbied the Charter Review Committee to consider Roberts' proposal to amend the County Charter to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Earlier this week, supporters of the proposal were told to assemble half an hour before the 7:00 PM meeting of the Committee. Despite that call, opponents far outnumbered supporters, as a standing-room-only crowd crammed into the meeting room at the Brentwood-Darlington Community Center in southeast Portland.

Most of the supporters of Roberts' proposal arrived late, leading us to wonder whether they had never received the new location information and arrived originally at the Multnomah Building only to find that the meeting was elsewhere.

Since Roberts' amendment was not on the agenda for the meeting itself, and would have to be discussed during the time for public comment on non-agenda items, the Committee limited testimony to three people from each side of the debate.

But the discussion was opened by Commissioner Lisa Naito. After recapping the situation as unfolded, Naito closed with the most relevant and damning point:

Because this is a matter about rights and privileges as granted by the Oregon Constitution, it is my firm belief that even if the amendment proposed this evening somehow gains approval from this Committee, makes it on the November ballot, and is approved by voters, it would be worthless. That's right: worthless. The State Constitution trumps any County Charter amendment. If opponents of same sex marriage want to discriminate and not extend privileges equally to all Oregonians, they will have to change the State Constitution.

(Don't worry about that last part serving to encourage same-sex marriage opponents to do just that, since it's already underway, and is really just a statement of the likely facts.)

Gary Walker then had the opportunity to present Roberts' proposal and its rationale. We were unable to obtain a copy of his remarks, so we'll assemble what we can from our notes. Opening by calling this matter "of concern not only to people here, but to all of Multnomah County," Walker proceeded to extensively quote today's Steve Duin column:

Public debate about same-sex marriage was unnecessary and counter-productive, they argued. Civil rights don't require a vote. Notifying -- much less seeking the advice of -- the state's attorney general, or opening the process to those bothersome "bigots," serves no purpose. Some of the best governing is best done in the dark.

...

Diane Linn, Lisa Naito, Maria Rojo de Steffey and Serena Cruz didn't show courage last week. They ducked all the tough questions and the open forums. They conspired with one of their fan clubs, Basic Rights Oregon, to deliver a fait accompli.

"I'm not an attorney," Walker said at this last phrase, "so I can't interpret that for you." For what it's worth, it means "an irreversible accomplishment" and it's not restricted to being some sort of obscure legal term of art, but is a not altogether uncommon Latin phrase used frequently in a variety of circles.

Saying that the four Commissioners displayed a "blatant disregard" for the public, Walker suggested that they should have turned to Attorney General Hardy Myers for an opinion. Walker added that Roberts believes we should rely upon Myers -- we'll see if he holds to that in the event Myers' analysis concurs with that of the County.

"Either way," Walker said, "we would welcome to have the courts have this matter and let the chips fall where they may."

(In which case, where is the complaint, since the matter indeed is already in the hands of the court. All a Charter amendment would accomplish, if adopted, is an entirely different and additional court process.)

Walker also argued that "at first glance" this entire issue should be a state concern, and not a matter for the Charter Review Committee, but that the actions of the four Commissioners turned it into a County issue -- which meant it was "incumbent upon the Committee to refer this matter to the people of Multnomah County."

In order to create a balance of proposals, County Attorney Agnes Sowle was invited to present an altnerative proposal geared towards bringing (in the words of the Committee) "the County's actions into line with the Charter."

Sowle's proposed language echoes (in fact, is clearly modeled after) the constitutional prohibition against discriminitory granting of privilege contained in Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. But she had another suggestion for lining up the County's actions with its Charter:

"Take no action whatsoever," she said, "and that would leave it as it is right now."

Public testimony began with that of Mary Li, half of one of the first two same-sex couples to be married in Multnomah County last week. Saying that she was testifying "not only for myself and my family but all of the other families," Li expressed her "sense of relief and gratitude" at having access to the rights under the law that come with marriage.

She spoke of wanting to watch her children and her grandchildren grow up, as do all other families, calling such things "basic desires" of all couples "regardless of the gender of their mate."

In the end, Li slammed the argument that "civil rights should be granted to those deemed worther, and not granted to those deemed unworthy because of who they are."

Next, Donna Zenobia Saffir -- the mother of both a gay child and a straight child, and member of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays -- spoke in opposition to the proposed Charter amendment.

"To deny or revoke rights that have already been granted," Saffir said, "is unprecedented and shameful."

Calling her own marriage the most important thing in the world to her and her husband (who also briefly testified), Saffir said she wants the same joy for both her sons. "We want the same joy for every son and daughter in Oregon and the rest of the country."

Last up for the opponents of Roberts' proposed Charter amendment was Kelly Burke, who also recently wed under the County's new policy.

"I don't believe the Charter should be used ... to discriminate," Burke said. She added: "Marriage for us means that we will no longer be treated as strangers under the law."

Sloppily enough, I only have the first names of the three people who rose to testify in favor of the amendment.

Gordon spoke "against a pernicious idea" -- which be ascribed to both sides of the debate -- "that the democratic process is to let the courts decide." He called the constitutional issue a "specious claim" and said that same-sex marriage supporters were a "vocal minority" who were "shamefully impatient" with public process. He also called upon the Commissioners who backed Chair Linn's decision to apologize.

Next, Matt ("a member of the Mormon faith") opened by apologizing to Commissioner Naito for the threatening calls some opponents of same-sex marriage have been making to her and the other Commissioners involved.

He also wanted homosexuals to know that just because he and others oppose same-sex marriage and object to homosexuality, it did not mean "we love them any less."

(Note to Matt: Your live is nice and all, but what they want are the rights due to them.)

Incidentally, Matt took a page from the playbook of attorney Kelly Clark and other same-sex marriage opponents, and spoke only of what Oregon statute says about the definition of marriage, refusing to ever mention the constitutional conflict.

Last up for the amendment backers was Steve S. Stephen Zwirner -- self-professed "former homosexual" who said that he had been "changed by the power of God through Jesus Christ."

"I hope the County Commissioners," he said, "will look at this from the standpoint of what is good for our culture." He went on to make it clear that he was referring to Judeo-Christian culture and the fact that it is also the basis for our system of laws.

(I am beginning to feel sorry for the opponents of same-sex marriage. They don't seem to be very capable of finding representatives who can usefully and productivel yadvance their cause. On the other hand, every time someone makes an appearance who blatantly makes the case that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in religious extremism only helps, one hopes, the supporters of same-sex marriage.)

After some rather confusing and mildly-contentious back-and-forth between the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee, it was decided to send the matter to a sub-committee, which would have the responsibility to gather information about the issue and bring that back to the Committee as a whooe, so its members can decide whether to pursue the proposed amendment.

Ultimately, said the Chair, the question is "do we want to look at this, and if we do what do we want to do with it."

This entry was posted by The One True b!X on March 9th, 2004, at 9:55 PM and is filed under Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics, Same-Sex Marriage. There are three comments (most recently on March 10th, 2004, at 11:33 AM) and .