May 30, 2004
(Updated) David Reinhard Is A Little Confused
But Then So Is Tim Nashif
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Once again it appears that OregonLive is behind the curve on getting content from The Oregonian posted online, so we can't point readers directly to the latest from David Reinhard which appeared in today's edition.
In a column entitled, "Five weeks to beat back gay marriage," Reinhard makes some fairly awkward and entirely wrongheaded remarks about the debate over same-sex marriage here in Oregon as compared to how that same debate has been playing out elsewhere, such as in Massachusetts.
[Judge Frank] Bearden did say something refreshing in this day of judicial lawmaking and constitution amending. "Neither the decision of this court nor of the Supreme Court," he wrote, "will quell the controversy and debate, no should it."
And the Oregon Supreme Court implicitly agreed. It has given the Defense of Marriage Coalition a chance to qualify a traditional-marriage constitutional amendment for this November's election. ...
If they succeed, Oregon voters can debate and settle the same-sex marriage controversy at the polls. It won't be decided by a handful of individuals in our courts. The people in Massachusetts and Vermont should have been so lucky; gay activists who want this issue decided by an elite few were the lucky ones there.
Notice what Reinhard does here. He takes the Oregon Supreme Court's approval of a ballot title for an initiative, which is a purely technical decision regarding whether or not the ballot title meets the requirements under Oregon law for ballot titles, and mutates it into a greater (although "implicit") indication from the Court as to its views on how the overall issue of same-sex marriage should be settled.
Here's what Reinhard is neglecting to tell you (because it would ruin his assertion to admit it): It's not the Oregon Supreme Court's job to quash a ballot initiative based upon the merit of the underlying issues the initiative raises, or the lack of such merit. It's the Court's job to judge whether or not the form of the ballot title is technically correct, and that's about it.
But now Reinhard wants to take that purely technical decision and turn it into something else. Inevitably, he's not the only one, as Reinhard himself naturally reports:
"We're grateful," says the coalition's Tim Nasif. "At least the Oregon Supreme Court sees the value of giving Oregonians a voice in this issue."
The problem here is that neither Reinhard nor Nasif nor ourselves nor anyone else knows what the Oregon Supreme Court would have done had things in Oregon played out as they had in Massachusetts -- in other words, if we had actually seen our Court weigh the issue of same-sex marriage itself.
For all anyone knows, they would have made the same decision as did the court in Massachusetts and ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages, period. In other words, it's possible that Oregon would have dismissed the idea of voting on equal rights, and simply declared equality through an "activist" judicial ruling. Who knows?
This, amongst many other reasons, is why we find opponents of same-sex marriage so exasperating. They simply don't operate from the basis of fact. You would think that if they truly are as confident of having support as they claim to be, they would have neither need nor compulsion to invent it.
Update
In related political news, the Multnomah County recall petitions against Chair Diane Linn and Commissioner Lisa Naito are due on Tuesday.
When last we checked the progress report, petitioners were very close to the number of needed signatures, but less close to their goal (such efforts normally attempt to obtain more signatures than needed, in case any of the signatures gathered are deemed invalid). Unfortunately, that progress report site now appears to have gone offline.
Update
There is a mistake above. Those recall petitions are not due in to the Elections Division until June 7, not June 1 (which is today).
Comments (5)
PanchoPdx on 31 May 2004
Actually the Oregon Supreme Court may have done them a favor by expediting the ballot title process.
Historically, it has been tough to predict how quickly they will dispense with a ballot title ruling. Some challenges are tied up for six months before they can circulate. This one got a fairly quick turnaround (about 10-11 weeks).
This might have been because Hinckle's challenge was a baseless stalling tactic, but I would guess that the OSC is interested in avoiding this issue if at all possible.
At the very least, they don't want to be perceived as any more obstructionist toward the initiative process(considering all the ballot measures they throw out).
Jeff on 31 May 2004
As a known Reinhard-basher, I have no credibility on this issue--which nevertheless doesn't stop me from offering the opinion that he's one of the most incompetent editorialists working in the nation today. Honestly, if I were a right-winger, I'd be appalled by the level of his arguments.
Bob R. on 01 Jun 2004
I found David Reinhard's editorial quite revealing: Basically, he opens up by arguing that indeed, the Oregon Constitution does allow gay marriages unless we do something to stop it.
Excuse me - doesn't this mean that the Multnomah County Commissioner's interpretation of the Oregon Constitution was correct? Didn't this guy just call for their execution - er, um - recall?
- Bob
PanchoPdx on 01 Jun 2004
Reinhard is a former Democrat, supposedly converted by Reagan. He is a social conservative, but has provided consistently anemic defenses of fiscally conservative policies.
I've always thought that the Oregonian keeps him on board because this is the brand of conservatism they want everyone to see. He argues the morally divisive issues with too much gusto and softpedals fiscal responsibility issues.
He is a big government social conservative. The Oregonian keeps him around because he makes Sarasohn's arguments look stronger.
On Hannity & Combs, Combs plays a (small-ish government) liberal and is set up for a nightly trouncing from Hannity by the Fox producers. The Oregonian has been using Reinhard in this same role for years, setting him up as the stooge on the right.
Yet one more reason why conservatives disdain the big O. Their opinion staff stinks.
If they added a Greenie and a Libertarian to the op-ed staff the dialogue would improve, but the folks at the top would have trouble controlling their "message".
steve on 02 Jun 2004
What more can one say about Reinhard...ditto?
I think he has a career in right wing talk radio.
I had a guy call me at library reference looking for citations to back up their argument against Reinhard's, who tried to argue that Colin Powell personally supported invading Iraq.