April 03, 2004

Voting Down Fear And Loathing In Multnomah County, Part II

Public Testimony Completed, Commissioners Re-Affirm Decision

We're going to weigh in a little later on (in this post) yesterday's Oregonian article on yesterday's hearing and vote (because they have some things, well, if not wrong then a little skewed), but first let's continue with our own coverage.

In our previous item on these hearings, we took a tour through one of Wedneday's hearings before the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners.

Here, we will do the same for Thursday's hearing, which preceded the Board's 4-1 vote to confirm their support for Chair Diane Linn's original executive decision to abide by the County Attorney's constitutional smackdown of Oregon's statutory definition of marriage.

We arrived a bit late for Thursday's final hearing. The first person we heard testify -- an opponent -- made this point: "If same-sex marriage is an unalienable right, we must be able to find it somewhere."

One man commended Chair Linn's "administrative decision."

An opponent rattled off a series of statistics he said proved that homosexual marriage doesn't work. (He didn't address any statistics that show the problems in the heterosexual marriage world.)

A supporter spoke of two sets of friends in long-term same-sex relationships -- one for twenty years, the other for forty.

One woman said that while the Pledge of Allegiance speaks of "liberty and justice for all ... the reality is often different."

"What part of 'equal' don't we understand?" another testified, and explained the "self-evident" rights, in the end, has had an evolving definition despite the term.

An opponent chided, "I'm angry that the Chair thinks we elected her to a judicial position."

Another opponent, an African-American, said he as "outraged that the homosexual community would compare their plight" to that of African-Americans.

"I am passionate against same-sex marriage," said one woman, who also said she loved her lesbian sister, and her sister's partner. But, she said, she was concerned about a slippery slope. "Where does it end?"

Another opponent said he "deplored the way this Commission has acted." And to the homosexual community, he asked: "We have to rape our constitution, we have to rape our procedure, just to get what you want?"

This brought conflicting choruses of applause, cheers, and jeers from the audience, possibly the loudest reaction of the day from each side.

One man said simply: "I want to thank you for interpreting the law."

Another said, "What you've done has been declared illegal by the Attorney General."

(A rare interjection here: Untrue. While Myers' opinion indeed said statutory law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, he had no authority to "declare" anything, except in the sense of interpreting the law in order to provide guidance to state employees as to how to discharge their duties. Which is precisely what the County Attorney's opinion did for County employees.)

One supporter of same-sex marriage said, "I am still bothered by the process." But, she added of the opponents: "I am most perplexed." She suggested that there perhaps might be less confusion "if church and state roles were separated from the outset," and suggested that religious figures no longer be inluded on the list of people who can perform civil marriage ceremonies.

A representative of a local AFSCME union pointed out that they were "one of the first unions to bargain for equality in contracts."

A representative of the Mutlnomah County Democratic Party mentioned that they recently voted unanimously to support the County's position.

One woman testified that there was once a time when she "had lesbian tendencies" but was rescued by God. "What concerns me is that we've redefined marriage."

An opponent said that what is important is "what is good for our culture ... what is good for our community" and asked: "Isn't it appropriate to guard our community?" He also said that "homosexuality is inherently dangerous" and that recent events "may signal the beginning of the end of Western Civilization." He concluded: "When God's revealed truth is disdained by a nation and it's leaders, that nation dies."

One man who's father died of AIDS said: "I am a Christian and I believe the Bible prohibits homosexual marriage." He was concerned about gays raising children, and said that fatherlessness was a "predictor" of bad things to come. Then he claimed economic reasons to oppose same-sex marriag: "You are financially rewarding a group that is already wealthier than society at large. ... You are robbing from the poor to give to the rich."

(Interjecting again: We had to walked out more than several times during Thursday's hearing. Our increasing anger at many opponents were being transferred into a desire to laugh extraordinarily disruptively. At this particular person's comment, we seethed, since it was as if he was using an old handbook on how to be anti-Semitic and putting its arguments to use against homosexuals. We live in a County with a remarkable number of people who apparently survive on gray matter left over from the Middle Ages. Strangely, though, by the end of Thursday's hearing, we felt sorry for them more than anything else. Their world is so ugly, and so narrow, that we cannot even begin to fathom what it must be like to live in it.)

Another opponent returned to an all-too-common theme: "It appears to be expedient for some to move away from our Judeo-Christian roots." He added: "Show me one country in history that has prospered when homosexuals received power."

A supporter rose to offer this: "My civil rights do not require someone's vote."

An opponent said that she had "high respect for the monogamous hetrosexual marriage covenant" and pointed out that children are meant to be had naturally. She also claimed: "I don't care what someone's sexual agenda is."

"Marriage is not a right," one supproter said, "but a privilege." After conceding the differences between prejudice against homosexuals and prejudice against African-Americans -- he pointed out that he has never been forced to be a slave for a heterosexual, nor had the onstitution claim he was only 3/5 of a person -- he nonetheless ended with this barb: "But what are civil unions in relation to marriage? Three-fifths you think?"

Responding to earlier testimony, one man said: "I'm really confused. I didn't know I was rich."

A reverend said that the County was "removing the stumbling blocks imposed by a civil society."

An opponent said that "no sensible person wants to take away rights" but that it was "against nature" for people to "take the reproductive system and confuse it with the digestive system." He also pointed out that "thieves and felons" are denied equal rights, demonstrating that we don't inherently support equal rights in all instances. When he came out even against civil unions, his fellow opponents in the audience erupted in applause.

(That last bit about the applause important, in case anyone out there is still unclear on the fact that this is about simple bigotry. Around about this point, we began to wonder about something. If indeed God created both man and woman in His image, then why is it considered to be against God for men to be with men or women with women?)

Another opponent: "I find that I am moved by both sides because we are all human." He then said that the message he wanted to convey about about Jesus Christ, which prompted many revival-like murmur-cries of "yes" from the audience. Then he added: "The next people that will want equality are the incest and the pedophiles."

"Thank you, finally someone in government gets it, said a columnist for streetroots. "I think all you ladies deserve a standing ovation," he said, turning to the audience. "How about giving them a standing ovation?" His fellow supporters did so.

One opponent wondered why, if the right to same-sex marriage is so "self-evident," did it have to be protected "in an illegal way," and argued that there was texation without representation happening. He added: "You did this when the Governor told you not to."

(Okay, well... no. First of all, the fact that a decision doesn't go your way does not mean you are suffering under a scheme of taxation without representation. Second of all, the Governor did not tell the County not to do what it is doing -- he merely expressed his wish that it would stop doing what it is doing. But by now we should all be quite familiar with the inability or unwillingness of the opposition to traffic in what, as inconvenient as this may be, we shall call "facts." For what it's worth, it was at about this point in the hearing that he scribbled a note to include the phrase "fear and loathing in Multnomah" as part of the headline when we got around to writing these things up.)

"I thought I was sick when I came down here," testified another opponent, who went on to say that "they're infiltrating." He continued: "I see men kissing on TV. That's going to put a picture in my head." And more: "What they need is not a marriage license. They need to see a psychologist." Then he asked, "Where's that petition to sign to get her out of here?" To which Chair Linn interjected, "You're welcome to do that."

(Interestingly, most of this man's fellow opponents did not applaud him when he was through. We're not entirely sure why, except that his manner was so visibly offended, so clearly disgusted with homosexuals, that we figured the other opponents were worried that applauding him would too obviously reveal their own ignorance bigotry, even further than they had already done themselves.)

In a combined psychological/legal analysis, another opponent said that "gender-based neuroses" do not create a "suspect class."

(Hang in there. We're almost done with the testimony.)

A supporter summed up what perhaps many were thinking: "I had no idea there was much bigotry and intolerance in our County."

An opponent said, "I love Jesus" and declared that "the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin."

A supporter argued this was all about "civil rights and social justice."

One woman began by saying, "Strong women in leadership are often accused of being conniving and manipulating." And then she pulled the switcheroo: "Your actions are an embarassment, [and] I hope you are replaced with people more mature than the average teenager." Shouts of "amen" erupted from the audience.

"I believe marriage is the deepest expression of intimacy between two people," one woman said. "I'm passionate for the One who created it."

A supporter testified, but the only note we have is that he called himself an "atheist and a humanist."

Another supporter expressed her "gratitude to the four of you," and said that "Benton County shows why it was necessary to make same-sex marriages actually happen."

One more supporter expressed what many in the audience must have felt: "I sometimes wonder if I'm at a County meeting or a church revival." Looking to the future, he said; "People will look back on this and scoff at all the fuss." And he turned to the lone dissenting Commissioner: "I ask you, Lonnie: How will you go down in history? Will you stand for equality and justice, or will you be an embarassment?

A representative of Love Makes A Family passed along a letter thanking the Commissioners for holding public meetings. "Love is gentle and love is blind," she said. "But love is also courageous and bold." She asked for a round of applause to show appreciation for the opportunity for public comment. Only supporters of same-sex marriage applauded.

With the final public comment of the four public hearings completed, the Board proceeded towards a vote on the resolution re-affirming support for Chair Linn's administrative decision to grant marriage licenses on a non-discriminatory basis.

Chair Linn said her rough count indicated that around 225 people had testified, and that there had been "very thoughtful conversations."

Commissioner Lisa Naito thanked Linn for her leadership, and thanked Commissioner Roberts for bringing forward a resolution so that the Board could hold public hearings. She also thanked the public for their testimony and for their respect for others.

(Clearly, Naito had it in her to be far more diplomatic than many of the people who testified deserved.)

Naito said that as a government official she was "sworn to uphold the constitution," and therefore the separation of church and state. She added: "I would not presume to tell a church or synagogue or mosque or temple who can or cannot marry under their roof." She also pointed out that the testimony during these hearings proves that "religious organizations ... are divided on the issue." And she reminded opponents that Multnomah County marriage licenses are civil, not religious, in nature.

On the matter of process, Naito argued that the dismissal of the lawsuits against Multnomah County "affirms Chair Linn’s executive authority to make the decision she did."

(Strictly speaking, as we understand it, this is not quite the case, since these cases were dismissed "without prejudice" as part of the agreement to let the ACLU of Oregon sue the state. They can be re-filed by the plaintiffs if they so choose, and there has been no judicial determination as to the nature of Chair Linn's decision on same-sex marriage licenses.)

Saying that the matter was "about human rights and civil rights guaranteed by the Oregon Constitution," Naito said the County was "obligated to act in accordance with the Constitution."

"I remain firm in my belief that Chair Linn’s decision regarding marriage licenses was fair and proper," she said. "Basic civil rights were being violated; it’s as simple as that."

Commissioner Maria Rojo de Steffey said: "I appreciate the civil manner in which everyone has conducted themselves."

(We suppose this is a matter of which part of the hearings one examines. There certainly were no direct or troubling confrontations between the opposing sides. That's certainly true. But we'd hardly call clearly-expressed bigotry and intolerance "civil" in any meaning of the word.)

"I really don't believe this is about the process," she said, explaining that Benton County went through a public process, but officials there nonetheless are also being subjeted to a recall campaign. "So what is that about?" she asked. "Is it about prejudice? Is it about hate? Is it about fear?"

Commissioner Serna Cruz echoed the belief that the County's actions were "the right and legal thing to do." She expressed appreciation for the hundreds of people who testified, called, and emailed. "I thank you for taking the time to make your voice heard."

"The Chair used her authority ... to implement the County Attorney's advice," she said, calling it the "responsible path to ending the County's violation of ... civil rights." Cruz pointed out that at least three other legal experts had agreed that the County was "violating the law by denying equal rights."

Cruz then turned her attention to Commissioner Roberts, saying she regretted his being left out of the loop altogether. "Commissioner Roberts deserved to hear about this action from one of us," she said. "For my part, I am sorry."

(Here's where we have to point out a complete error in the previously-linked Oregonian story, which claims that Cruz' public apology to Roberts was a "surprise." Unfortunately for The Oregonian, Cruz made a similar remark in the first few days after the County's original March 3 announcement. In fact, it may very well have been on March 3 itself. Sorry, Oregonian, but Cruz' apology to Roberts was the furthest thing from a surprise. You got this one very wrong.)

Cruz went on to tell "three human stories" relevant to the matter at hand (including attending the same-sex marriage of friends), and said (in direct challenge to those who feel marriage is being threatened by all of this) that the experience has made her "feel more renewed in my vows to my husband."

Challenging the claims of others on the Board as to the civility of the hearings, she added: "I don't think everyone has been respectful. ... I think some of them intended to be hurtful."

"It is not okay," she stated, "to make people around us feel like they are less than full human beings."

Commissioner Lonnie Roberts, who had originally brought forward a resolution in order to have public hearings and make the Board hold an official vote on the issue, made no remarks whatsoever.

(Until afterwards, when he had all manner of things to say to the large surrounding cocoon of reporters, cameras, and microphones. But to the assembled crowd in the boardroom, many of whom were in essence his allies, he had nothing whatsoever to say. For all of his talk about public process and public debate, we find it ironic that he refused to make any comment at all for the County record. How convenient for him. Perhaps he thought that holding after-the-fact hearings would prove to be some sort of embarassment to his fellow commissioners. In the end, it was clear that it was his fellow opponents to same-sex marriage who proved to be the embarassment. Now that we think about it, maybe we would not have said anything that would become part of the official County record either.)

Chair Diane Linn thanked "everyone who came to testify," saying she appreciated their "candidness" and that "it took a lot of courage for you to come forward."

(Whether this refers to many of the same-sex couples and their supporters, simply because they had to speak in front of people who despised them, or if it refers to opponents, who we suppose must have some sort of courage to stand up in public and reveal themselves to be as hateful and ignorant as they are... well, we're not sure. Perhaps some combination of both.)

Linn asserted that "no amount of public discussion has been as compelling" as what she listened to during these particular hearings. She said she "listened very, very hard" and was going to try to find "common ground issues" in what had been said.

(Yeah, good luck with that, Chair Linn. While you're at it, perhaps you can look into having a KKK/NAACP dinner party, too.)

She said that the "most compelling message" she heard in testimony was that same-sex couples now felt "welcome in our community." And that, she said of the Commissioners, is "what our jobs are about."

Linn added: "I do want to honor and support Commissioner Roberts' role in this entire process." And she said that there will be further disussion -- about process, about the decision's impact, and about constitutional issues.

And at 12:29 PM on Thursday, April 1, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners unsurprisingly voted 4-1 to adopt the resolution re-affirming support for Chair Diane Linn's executive decision to remove discrimination against same-sex couples from the County's marriage license policies.

(For what it's worth, this vote may very well also have negated all legal arguments regaridng the state's public meetings law. That law includes a remedy built-in to its language whereby any decision in violation of the public meetings law can be re-done in compliance with the public meetings law, at which point the decision is valid all the way back to its original inception. Now, we continue to believe that the original decision never was in violation of the public meetings law to begin with. But for those of you with that legal beef -- as opposed to the political one -- about the process, you now may be out of luck.)

Posted at 11:39 PM | PermalinkComments (7) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics, Same-Sex Marriage

« Previous Next »