April 02, 2004
Voting Down Fear And Loathing In Multnomah County, Part I
Commissioners Hear Further Testimony
After conducting a series of four public hearings, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners early Thursday afternoon formally approved a resolution in support of Chair Diane Linn's decision to order County officials to issue marriage licenses without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
While much of the testimony at the first of Wednesday night's hearings (we missed the second) focused upon supporters of same-sex marriage continuing to humanize the issue through stories of long-term relationships and childrearing, Thursday morning's featured a strong appearance by opponents who stressed their twin arguments of the historical definition of marriage and the Judeo-Christian basis of the United States.
Wednesday's hearing began for us with Mayoral candidate Tom Potter asking where the sign-up sheets were.
Well, no, it began for us by having to walk through a security checkpoint where people entering the boardroom were checked for weapons -- a procedure that had not been in place for the previous hearing (nor would it be for Thursday's). While there had been no speific threats, apparently someone deemed it a reasonable feature to add to the evening's event.
Early in the testimony, Commissioner Lisa Naito's mother commended the Commission and Chair Diane Linn, and called it "discriminatory, unfair, undemocratic, and un-Christian" to deny equal rights.
One lesbian mother with a son said, "My primary concern is how I'm going to protect him from those people who have testified that his family is not valid." One man refrained from trying to explain what it was like to grow up with homosexual parents, because "everyone here knows exactly what it's like" -- in other words: no different than growing up with two heterosexual parents.
A minister from a Unitarian church in Gersham said he had performed "well over 100 unions" for same-sex couples in his time, including one recent pair of gay man who, he joked, "made their own decision" when it came to selecting who was the groom and who was the bride on their marriage license.
Local lawyer Tiffany Harris (who has been mentioned here before, after her earlier testimony before the Citizen Involvement Committee) countered the criticisms of the process: "I have never felt more engaged by or involved by the structures of government." She also stressed that marriage had "two parallel" tracks -- one civil and one religious -- and that it was crucial to distinguish between them.
A recently-married (to her partner of seventeen years) County employee said, "Being married has made me feel a part of society instead of apart from society." She also joked: "It makes me want to go home and calculate my County tax."
Tom Potter explained that both his daughter and her new spouse are police officers, responsible for protecting others. "Thank you," he said, "for protecting them."
An advoate for children's issues said that there is "no more important" thing to do for children then "to end discrimination."
One Christian man expressed his "grief that some of our fellow Christians have stood up here" and demonstrated prejudice, often making use of the Bible to do so. "My personal testimony," he said, "is I have felt the movign of God's spirit in the events in Multnomah County this month."
A protestor against the County's decision made it clear that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and then offered the dictionary definition of "man" and "woman."
"Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry," said one woman.
A pastor expressed his opposition both to same-sex marriage and to those who would oppose it using hate. He gave as the main reason for his opposition: "County authority is derivative from the laws of nature and nature's God."
One woman said, "I too am a Christian, and I believe the teaching of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin." She added: "I'll be honest with you. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't believe marriage is it."
One man called the County's action a violation of "the Judeo-Christian basis of the country," and said it also went against "tradition" and "evident" reason. "Reveleation and reason," he said, "come together to teach us what is right." He added: "When a country abandons God, it opens the door to tyranny."
A housewife and mother of three said, "My personal opinion on same-sex marriage is not the issue." Rather, she said, the issue was that we were "a country founded on the Judeo-Christian value system." Her finale, meant for same-sex couples and their supporters: "You need to go buy an island and band together and go live as you see fit."
One man pointed out (referencing the desire of many to put such issues to a popular vote): "America is a democracy, but it is also a constitutional democracy." Turning the opposition's occasisonal cries of "tyranny" against them, he warned against the "tyranny of the majority."
A Korean-born mother of seven children said of homosexuality: "I don't condem it, but that doesn't mean I'm for it." She also drew a distinction: "I am a minority, but not by choice." She also expressed concern that her children be able to walk down the street without being "harassed" by (the mere existence of, presumably) same-sex couples.
In one of our favorite pieces of testimony, a cryptographer referenced Alan Turing -- the man who helped crack the Enigma machine used by Germany during World War II to encode messages, and therefore a hero of that war. Turing was also a homosexual, and the societal pressures of that fact contributed to his suicide after the war. "The virtue I know was a cryptographer," this particular cryptographer said, "is consistency." Not granting marriage licenses on an equal basis, in essence, is inconsistent. "My mathematicl soul," he added, "is offended by that at least." He also expressed scorn for the apparent attitude of many in the opposition, who seemed to feel that "if one gay person would get married, the hand of God himself would strike this Coutny down."
Another man labelled as "fearmongering" the accusations that children are harmed by being raised by homosexual parents.
A local pastor called the County's process a "travesty of law" and said that the people "have a right to speak on moral issues."
A representative of the American Psychological Association said: "Part of our ethical commitment is to end discrimination."
One woman who said she felt "blessed" to live in America, the "land of democracy," lamented the "terrible experience of our democratic rights being taken away" and the fact that on March 3 she had awakened "to find that the basic institution [of marriage] had changed overnight." She questioned how anyone could expect "our youth to obey the law and grow up to be trustworthy citizens." She also told the story about a fox with no tail, which somehow was meant to illustrate her point, but seemed to us to be arguing that homosexuals were trying to make her a homosexual.
One man suggested that "marriage" be retained by the state, but that religions adopt instead something they could call "Holy Moley Matrimony," a term they could copyright and therefore grant its use only to those couples of which they approved.
A very religious man who spoke as if he believed he were a prophet extolled the virtues of "the Judeo-Christian foundations of this nation."
A woman involved in a nine-year homosexual relationship revealed that she had picked up a marriage license on Monday -- something she had not told anyone until that moment.
"I have never witnessed," said one man, "a more haughty, pretentious, and conniving effort at changing policy."
Another speaker explained that there is a line from democracy to dictatorship, and that the County had moved "considerably over the [line] from democracy."
One woman reminded people that "the Constitution trumps," and that it was therefore "ridiculous to claim [the County] broke the law." She also reminded people that "state-sanctioned marriage is a legal issue" not a religious one. "I have yet to hear even one reasoned message," she added, "as to why the state should ... prohibit same-sex marriage."
One man said that marriage "required the diversity of man and woman together" and that this "diversity is needed to raise the next generation, and that "children have a right to a mother and a father."
Another man said the issue is "the fundamental question of whether or not the Bible is true" and that his personal research has led him to conclude that it is.
Yet another opponent spoke to "the gay and lesbian community as a citizen and a Christian" and told them: "We don't hate you. I don't hate you." Nonetheless, he also said: "It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible."
And that was just some of the first of Wednesday night's hearings. We missed the second, but we were back in the boardroom Thursday morning for another round, to be seen in part two.
Comments (4)
The One True b!X on 02 Apr 2004
Interestingly, most of what appears here seems to be the opposition, when Wednesday's hearing was more balanced than that. But whatever.
The One True b!X on 02 Apr 2004
Actually, re-reading it just now, I guess this post is more balanced between the two than I thought when posting the previous comment. Nevermind. My mind is very bleary-eyed today.
myrln on 02 Apr 2004
Impossible to govern the world without god and a bible? George Bush was at the meeting? The expressed viewpoint is precisely why today's US is in the fix in which it finds itself in the world.
Keith on 03 Apr 2004
On the issue of having a public discourse over a civil rights issue, I think Tim Nashif, political director of Oregon Family Council, Defense of Marriage Coalition, and Chairman of the Republican Party of Oregon, says it best: "We have formed this organization [Defense of Marriage Coalition] to assure that the public has the opportunity to full engage in this debate and confirm that marriage has been and should always be defined in no other way than between one man and one woman."
Get it? Have an opportunity to engage in a debate, in order to confirm that same-sex marriage will never be allowed.
I think that is what is at the crux of this story. They will never be satisfied with any process that leads to anything other than marriage the way they see it. Had there been a county commission that had Lonnie Roberts in the majority, you can be assured that marriage equality never would have been up for a public discussion.