'Oregonian' Tells Same-Sex Couples To Leave Well Enough Alone
We interrupt your nice, quiet election day to tear The Oregonian a new one. Continuing their ever-increasing slant towards reactionary illogic, today they offer an editorial (not posted online) on the landscape of same-sex marriage. in which they again urge gays and lesbians to calm down and accept their proper place as participants in nothing more than civil unions.
In fact, the subheadline of the editorial reads: "Gays and lesbians would be better off if Massachusetts were launching civil unions."
Now, we've expressed our feelings about the issue of civil unions versus actual marriage several times over. So this time around, we're simply going to take The Oregonian to task for supporting irrational and uneducated thought processes amongst its readers.
Why is it important to grant actual civil marriage? Not merely because of the social benefits that arise from the term "marriage" that don't also apply to civil unions. But because granting actual marriage would contravene the ways in which politicians and the media alike coddle the infirm minds of those who either cannot discern between secular and religious institutions, or who willfully demand that the latter inform the former.
That sort of either lazy (at best) or theocratic (at worst) "thinking" should not be defended by acceding to the cop-out of civil unions.
It's bad enough that here in Oregon we have judges who "wash their hands" of the matter by hastily cobbling together nonsensical court rulings that only further quagmire the issues involved.
No, on top of that, we have our very own major metropolitan newspaper supporting not only the idea in and of itself that gays and lesbians should "leave well enough alone" when it comes to their equal civil rights, but also that it's permissible for readers, Portlanders, Oregonians, and Americans as a whole to not think and behave like rational people.
All of which is all the more frustrating given that the nation only just two days ago celebrated the 50th anniversary of the monumental Supreme Court decision which declared "separate but equal" to be a contradiction in terms.
May 18, 2004 at 08:26 PM
Here's a very different view, Mr. b!X. You should at least avail yourself of the read.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03202004.html
And unmarried peoples (such as vous & moi) might want also to avail themselves of a reach for tax parity.
May 18, 2004 at 08:44 PM
Actually, if you do some research here, you'll find that the "civil unions for all" solution is actually the one I favor, in a perfect world.
May 19, 2004 at 08:35 AM
In a perfect world everyone would have a civil union recognized by the 'state'. And churchs could decide their own thing.
May 19, 2004 at 08:42 AM
No, in a perfect world there wouldn't be special government-sanctioned privileges given to EITHER same-sex OR different-sex couples.
Single people shouldn't have to subsidize either group.
May 19, 2004 at 09:43 AM
Exactly, John. I'd willingly support same-sex unions or marriage for parity on that horizon if they would willingly support tax and economic parity on mine.
It won't happen.
And it's too bad that even the calls for it are so rarely and so distantly heard.
June 13, 2004 at 04:53 PM
To read the editorial, type in your Multnomah County Library card number here, click "America's Newspapers," check the box marked "Oregonian," and search for "giddiness."