March 05, 2004
(Updated) The Process Distraction, Part II
Or, Please Stop Doing The Work Of Same-Sex Marriage Opponents
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
The original version of this item actually is to be found in the excellent comments thread on a post at Jack Bogdanski's weblog, but we became so involved and worked up over it that we felt it was worth bringing my comments over here as well.
Let us first reiterate what we've said previously about some of the outcry over the process question: OPB News reported on February 25 that Multnomah County was examining the issue of same-sex marriage licenses, and no other news outlet bothered to pick it up and let their readers/viewers/listeners know about it.
For the media, at least, to be joining in on the process bashing now is at the very least rank hypocrisy and a pile of bull, and they should be ethically and professionally ashamed of themselves for it.
Now on to the rest of this.
In the comments to the above-linked post, Jack said:
And sneaking around on Lonnie Roberts was a particular abomination. What they did was totally violative of the spirit, if not the letter, of the public meetings law.
In which case (not that this is related to our main argument here), the Board regularly violates the spirit of that law, since it's already been pointed out that the Commissioners routinely work on various items only with those on the Board that support them. Roberts has done it too, so for him to be a cry-baby now... well, that's also rank hypocrisy.
Jack also said:
If they took the same steps and outlawed gay marriage, you'd be screaming about process until you burst a blood vessel.
Well, hold on a minute so we can get the facts straight first. The County in effect had already "outlawed" gay marriage by having a policy of refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
What happened here is that the County Attorney's legal opinion determined that the County was violating the Oregon Constitution by this policy, and so Chair Diane Linn -- heeding the analysis of the Attorney, and entirely within her administrative discretion -- told the Clerk to change the policy to comply with the Attorney's view of the constitutional issues.
Had the County Attorney instead determined that the existing policy of refusing same-sex marriage licenses was kosher, then the Board simply would have had to do nothing at all to "outlaw" gay marriage.
Elsewhere in the comments to the above-linked post, Commissioner Randy Leonard hits it precisely on the head:
This is not a time for those of us who believe that it is about damn time that gay marriages be allowed to distance ourselves from those on the County Commission who did the right thing....even though it may have hurt the feelings of some in the process. I believe we have a responsibility to speak out and defend those who stood up and were counted at a crucial juncture in our states history.
Hear, hear.
Frankly, we're a little bit ashamed of everyone who is unintentionally doing the work of the same-sex marriage opponents by joining them on the process direction.
Now, don't take that in an Attorney General Ashcroft "you're giving aid and comfort" sort of way. We're perfectly willing to have people make this process argument, and then have to rise to the occassion of refuting their argument. We're not saying no one should ever have brought it up or considered it. However, we may be saying that we wish they'd settle down now that we've had time to hash it out and show it up for what it really is -- which is what I'm about to do here.
But others have been saying (Paul of Worldwide Pablo for one) that they are concerned the process by which this was done will do more harm than good for gay marriage in Oregon. In reality, to our mind, it's actually the bogus fixation on the process question which gives energy to the opposition.
Commissioner Lonnie "Cry-baby" Roberts is a perfect example of why we're irked that so many supporters of same-sex marriage are jumping onto the process-bashing bandwagon.
In reality what Roberts is doing is cynically using people's mistrust of government in order to hammer away at the process issue, because he knows that he'll find more political support for his efforts on that than he would if he was trying to rally people to join him in his prejucides.
It's sickening. And it makes us ache that so many same-sex marriage supporters and helping him out.
This process question is a conscious and intentional tactical decision by same-sex marriage opponents beause they know they can stoke those flames and get support.
Or, if not support, at least get politically-cynical people to sit around publicly bemoaning alleged process irregularities, thereby helping to distract from the real mission of the Defense of Marriage Coalition and their medievally-minded ilk -- which is, of course, to deny homosexual couples their fundamental civil rights.
Update
Further comments on the original thread at Jack's weblog have prompted us to expand and explain part of what we wrote above:
In which case (not that this is related to our main argument here), the Board regularly violates the spirit of that law, since it's already been pointed out that the Commissioners routinely work on various items only with those on the Board that support them. Roberts has done it too, so for him to be a cry-baby now... well, that's also rank hypocrisy.
The point here is not to say that the reason why the process was excusable is because Roberts uses it, too. Nor to imply that we believe the process -- used here or at any other time -- is defenseless. We believe that the process, in fact, was legitimate on its own merits. Rather, the above was intended to argue that because Roberts himself uses this process -- frankly, regardless of whether or not anyone else supports the legitimacy of the process -- his criticism of that process because he dislikes its outcome is hypocritical.
Posted at 01:43 AM | PermalinkComments (25) | TrackBacks (4)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics, Same-Sex Marriage
Trackbacks (4)
-
We're in this together on 05 Mar 2004
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. (from the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey) There are great conversations and dialogues happening all over - I'm...
-
The lawsuit against Multnomah County concerning asame sex marriage on 07 Mar 2004
Man, the decision of some of the Multnomah County, Oregon commissioners to effect almost immediately the county counsel's opinion that not issuing licenses for same sex marriages is not a good thing under Oregon's constitution sure has upset some peopl...
-
Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage without Public Meetings in Oregon on 11 Mar 2004
There was some interesting debate about the process by which same-sex marriage was legalized here in Portland, Oregon. Jack Bog objected to the process, leading to an interesting debate in the comments (including some comments by local politico Randy L...
-
We're in this together on 10 Mar 2005
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. (from the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey) We've got great conversations happening all over Portland blogspace today. I'm...
Comments (25)
Jack Bog on 05 Mar 2004
I'm sure Lonnie Roberts follows OPB News religiously. 8c)
Chuck Currie on 05 Mar 2004
Excellent post. The "process question" is a waste of time. We owe the Mult BCC our thanks for a job well done.
Cat on 05 Mar 2004
>>I'm sure Lonnie Roberts follows OPB News religiously.
He needn't, but other news outlets certainly should.
Gary Marschke on 05 Mar 2004
I resent being told that I'm aiding and abetting the enemy by raising an issue that crosses the boundaries of both camps. The process IS an issue. Ignoring it because it seems to be the cornerstone of opposition arguments then characterizing those who dare to raise it as being easily influenced by cry-babies and hypocrites is...well, hypocritical.
And using the argument "Well, everyone's doing it!" is downright juvenile! Is "the end justifies the means" next?
Just as the issue of gay rights needed to be addressed, so does a process that allows such profound decisions to be made behind closed doors, regardless of who's making them and who they benefit.
sennoma on 05 Mar 2004
I resent being told that I'm aiding and abetting the enemy
Which specific charge b!X was at great pains NOT to make:
sennoma on 05 Mar 2004
First line of my comment above is quoted from Gary's comment; my italics tags died.
Torrid Joe on 05 Mar 2004
I sympathize with Gary's perspective--there is a fine line being treaded here, and one should be very careful not to impute motive from belief. It's certainly legitimate to posit that the effect of complaining on the basis of process will be to embolden gay marriage opponents. However, to de-legitimize any avenue of complaint in that vein on the basis of how others will perceive it, is also pretty unfair.
On the merits I have to agree with b!x that the argument of thwarted process is misdirected. The fact that it was essentially an executive decision not requiring voting action or debate, weakens the stance that something nefarious was done.
On the other hand, it surely _looks_ unseemly to skulk around, assiduously avoiding meeting requirements in order to stay legal. That this process has occured in the past does give context, but it doesn't really make it any less ethically suspect--especially since the fear of a granted injunction (the ostensible reason the MC4 felt it necessary to exclude Roberts) would appear by example elsewhere, to be unfounded.
To sum, I agree that it's a rather tangential and not particularly compelling argument to say "right decision, wrong process," but at the same time it's a perfectly legitimate point to raise. And in the end, what was done has indeed apparently turned off citizens who otherwise support the goals.
Thanks for the forum. It's surprising but great that Randy Leonard is taking the time to participate, not to mention my surprise at his position on the matter.
no one in particular on 05 Mar 2004
Bitch, please. Sure, legal opinions happen all the time, but how often do they happen with the most hotly contested issue in American politics at the moment? The whole "oh it was just a legal opinion. Does Lonnie want to know about every legal opinion we get? We'll, we're sooooooo sorry, we had no idea!" argument is so totally weak, and I feel like you're losing some credibility here by taking pains to defend it.
Why not just admit that they knew Lonnie would be pissed, and they didn't care, because they felt it was too important to get buried under arguments in the media. That's what Gary Newsom and Jason West are effectively doing.
Whatever. I'm just glad it happened. I'll shut up now.
Also, your comments thing is stripping HTML from posts. Which is sad.
Gary Marschke on 05 Mar 2004
When the sub-headline is "Please Stop Doing The Work Of Same-Sex Marriage Opponents", it seems pretty clear what the message is regardless of any back-pedaling done later. Can't have it both ways.
pdxkona on 05 Mar 2004
Here's the thing. Lisa Naito said that after San Fransisco brought the subject up, Multnomah lawyers reviewed Oregon laws and deemed that if they did not allow gay marraige right then and there the county was going to get their asses sued off.
Oregon law allows gay marriage (by the wording), and with the concept so fresh in peoples minds (via Canada and S.F.), Multnomah county was going to have to deal with a rash of lawsuits, all of which would probably win, if they didn't immediately follow the law.
I appreciate that the County Commissioners saw fit to save my taxpayer money and obey the law.
sennoma on 05 Mar 2004
Gary: Can't have it both ways.
Well, you have a point there.
Over on Jack's blog, I've tried to suggest a better way to approach the process debate. No action that could be taken as a result of finding that Linn et al. did wrong will alter the state law, the state constitution or the legal opinions that Linn et al. obtained. Those opinions will have to be challenged on their own merits and cannot be dismissed simply because of who requested them through what channels.
When opponents of glbt civil rights try to use the process debate to obstruct the civil rights debate -- as they will, as they already are -- I suggest politely declining to conflate the two separate issues. The process debate has merit and we should have it, fully and openly; but it has no bearing on whether or not we want glbt people to be second class citizens.
Two issues, two debates.
Gary Marschke on 05 Mar 2004
Sennoma:
I agree. The only real issue I have is when we support, defend or even just deflect criticism from an issue like this based solely on the outcome. Frustratingly enough, I would have done exactly what Linn et al did for much the same reasons. That doesn't mean the process is defensible, just expedient.
amediaguy on 05 Mar 2004
C'mon. So maybe the rest of the media should have picked up on the OPB thing. (OPB itself didn't seem to think it was that big a deal; they buried it at the bottom of a garden-variety amendment reax story) But they didn't. So how in the world does that disqualify the media from examining and commenting on the process this decision took? Like it or not, the process is a big story here. This is a historic decision and how we got here is important and deserves full and unblinking coverage. I submit to do any less would be the the ethically and professionally shameful thing.
Jeff on 05 Mar 2004
I have to check, but that may be the baby I just saw go out with the bathwater. What the commishes did was overtly political, and it's perfectly reasonable for them to be held to account for that. (Gay rights activists could reasonably be the most vocal critics.) But you're right in identifying the two themes--issue and process--and calling for clear separation between the two.
The One True b!X on 05 Mar 2004
And using the argument "Well, everyone's doing it!" is downright juvenile! Is "the end justifies the means" next?
Please read everything I said, and not pick and choose selectively. I specifically pointed out that the reason for mentioning that the Board uses this informal discussion process all the time was not to defend the process, but to point out that Lonnie's crybaby routine as hypocritical.
As for the process, in my analysis of the lawsuit, I just proved that the process was kosher.
The One True b!X on 05 Mar 2004
As for "aiding and abetting" and the subheadline here, I've already explained this in the post itelf. I have no qualms with the fact that people were concerned about the process. But since it became increasingly clear -- if one bothered to do the research, or read anyone who did it for you -- that the process was not, in fact, flawed, then continuing trashing of the Commissioners on the process question only served to fan the flames of ire against the County.
Raising the issue was sound, I agree. Keeping at it whenit became a distraction and was simply a mistaken argument -- that's what became flawed.
The One True b!X on 05 Mar 2004
C'mon. So maybe the rest of the media should have picked up on the OPB thing. (OPB itself didn't seem to think it was that big a deal; they buried it at the bottom of a garden-variety amendment reax story) But they didn't. So how in the world does that disqualify the media from examining and commenting on the process this decision took?
The media commentators are complaining that this happened in secret without anyone knowing. OPB knew a week before the decision happened. Meaning media commentators had a week to discuss both the issue and the process before anything actually happened.
But they didn't.
So all the crowing from the media commentators about how "in the shadows" the process was makes no sense at all. They had ample opportunity to bring this to the public's attention and they didn't.
amediaguy on 05 Mar 2004
The media commentators are complaining that this happened in secret without anyone knowing. OPB knew a week before the decision happened. Meaning media commentators had a week to discuss both the issue and the process before anything actually happened.
But they didn't.
So all the crowing from the media commentators about how "in the shadows" the process was makes no sense at all. They had ample opportunity to bring this to the public's attention and they didn't.
Well, no, they didn't have ample opportunity. The fact is this was done in the shadows. That was their goal; they didn't want an injunction to stop them. Look, it's fine to argue that this didn't need public involvement. And it's fine to note that the media ('cept your own bad self) failed to see that something was up. But one sentence at the end of a minor news story does not exactly equal flooding the issue with sunshine. And to brand commentators as somehow ethically shameful because they didn't notice said sentence is a bit disingenuous.
The One True b!X on 05 Mar 2004
But one sentence at the end of a minor news story does not exactly equal flooding the issue with sunshine. And to brand commentators as somehow ethically shameful because they didn't notice said sentence is a bit disingenuous.
I never claimed one sentence was flooding it with sunshine. The flood should have come from other outlets picking up on a sudden local angle to a prominent national debate.
To be fair, however, my intention had been to focus on the larger media outlets in general for not picking up on the story. Commentators mainly rely on what the news media bother to pick up to determine what to get worked up over. So my above comment especially, which directed the "why didn't they notice" really should not have been aimed at the commentators. Although one would think that at least one of them would have noticed, but that's neither here nor there.
The larger point, however, stands. It could not have been entirely secret and clandestine if OPB found out about it. Were the Commissioners keeping it quiet amongst themselves while awaiting the Attorney's decision? Apparently so. But it obviously leaked, and the chance was there for the media to do their jobs and report on the local angle to the national debate. They didn't.
The least people like Duin and the Oregonian's editorial board could do while they fume and rant is point out that the story was available at least a week in advance, rather than pretending that no one anywhere knew anything about it until late March 2.
sennoma on 05 Mar 2004
The fact is this was done in the shadows.
No it wasn't. Do you want your elected representatives to lick their fingers and test the fickle wind of public opinion every time they make a decision? See also: small-r republic, founding of; and majority, tyranny of.
I could see arguing that Roberts, prick or no, should have been included, but I can see no reason the Commissioners should have gone to the public. They might legitimately have done so, citing the likely controversial nature of the issue as reason; but that's not at all the same as saying that they should have. As b!X points out, the OPB story shows that no attempt was made to hide the deliberations.
amediaguy on 06 Mar 2004
The least people like Duin and the Oregonian's editorial board could do while they fume and rant is point out that the story was available at least a week in advance, rather than pretending that no one anywhere knew anything about it until late March 2.
You may be right. But it may be that they still don't even know that OPB had it. To my mind, the media that dropped the ball the worst is OPB. They apparently didn't even recognize what they had. They buried it in a snoozer of a story and never followed up.
The One True b!X on 06 Mar 2004
Point taken.
no one in particular on 06 Mar 2004
As b!X points out, the OPB story shows that no attempt was made to hide the deliberations.
While it is true that (at least) one news outlet found out, it's certainly still possible that they tried to hide it. Reading the article from OPB, it seems likely that Basic Rights Oregon were the ones who actually leaked the story.
Did they try to hide it? I don't know. But one leak from an apparently non-County source doesn't mean they didn't try.
But now I'm just being pedantic. Damn.
no one in particular on 06 Mar 2004
Oh, I see. <em> is allowed but not <i>
Anyway. That first line of my previous post was a quote:
As b!X points out, the OPB story shows that no attempt was made to hide the deliberations.
sennoma on 06 Mar 2004
it's certainly still possible that they tried to hide it
You're right, and that's not just pedantry, it's pertinent. I've been saying that keeping Lone Loon Lonnie in the dark was wrong, but not actively going to the public was not. If there was a deliberate effort to exclude the public, I think that was also wrong.
Not that I am comparing these wrongs to the much greater wrong of making a second, glbt, class of citizenship. My immediate practical concern is whether the process followed by Linn et al. might turn out to have been a tactical error. Right now, I don't think so: as I argued in Jack's thread, the civil rights argument that has ended up before the court is essentially the same one that would have come up if Linn & co had blocked gay marriage instead of enabling it. This is the argument that proponents of gay rights want to have, and there's no way for gay rights opponents to avoid it on the basis of the process issue.