(Updated) Anti-Marriage Ballot Measure Was An Inevitability
The Red Herring Of 'Incremental' Change
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Click To Enlarge
Various bits of recent discussion here and elsewhere has focused on the apparent premise that the actions of four Multnomah County Commissioners regarding same-sex marriage are the direct cause of an initiative to be on the ballot in November, and that if they hadn't acted the way they did, Oregon would not be facing the prospect of both the ballot measure itself and the potential for large-scale pro-Bush turnout at the election that may accompany it.
We, on the other hand, have argued that no matter what path we followed locally, the anti-marriage ballot initiative would still be before us come November.
To help illustrate our argument, we've prepared a simple flowchart. A couple of points to understand the chart: Divergent lines out of any given cell represent different possible results of the action represented by that cell, while parallel lines out of any given cell represent concurrent results of the action represented by that cell.
One other related point on this issue. It's been suggested that the better path would have been to relax and work for "incremental" change, perhaps by simply proposing the non-equality of civil unions. Perhaps "incremental" change works, for example, when the social pressures of actions such as civil disobedience are an option, but that dynamic doesn't apply here.
If the law restricts your right to sit at the front of the bus, you can nonetheless choose to do so anyway. If the law restricts your right to sit at the lunch counter, you can nonetheless choose to do so anyway. But if the law restricts your right to marry, you cannot choose to do so anyway -- at least not without an explicit state action on your behalf.
If you piece together all the renewed arguments against Multnomah County, the only logical conclusion they form is that we never should have even been discussing same-sex equality to begin with.
In reality (we argue), civil unions are a canard and a cop-out, and incremental change does not work in a context where only state action can enable you to claim your rights.
Update
An addendum of sorts to address the "realpolitik" argument. It's been asserted that the County should have taken into consideration the potential real-world effects of instituting same-sex marriage, meaning the blowback which would be whipped up by the right-wing. We've disagreed with the elements of this opinion before, so that's not what we want to address here.
Rather, we won't to point out how the realpolitik argument is considered to be a "for thee but not for me" by those who espouse it.
If one was truly concerned with so-called "practical politics," one would understand that it's nature is such that at any given moment, one deals with the existing situation practically. And so if one was truly concerned with the realpolitik approach, one would not have gone hogwild over what we've termed the "process distraction," since that only helped feed into the frenzy being whipped up by the right-wing opponents of same-sex marriage.
But the critics of the process don't appear interested in taking their own advice when it comes to their own feelings on the situation. Practical politics, it seems, does not apply to them. In the end, the realpolitk analysis -- if considered in full rather than just selectively -- would mean that if the County and its supporters were responsible for contributing to the backlash by not acting more slowly, so too would the process opponents be responsible for contributing to the backlash by not acting more quietly.
July 03, 2004 at 03:55 PM
There's an error in the chart as originally uploaded. That first divergent path out of "National" should instead me two parallel and concurrent paths. I'll fix it later.
July 03, 2004 at 03:57 PM
Or, I'll fix it now, which I just did.
July 03, 2004 at 04:40 PM
Thanks b!X, great analysis.
Here’s another piece of the puzzle: The debate here and at other blogs is at best incomplete if we limit ourselves to comparing the merits of (1) pushing now for same sex marriage, vs. (2) incremental change. This assumes that we all share the belief that same sex marriage is the end goal; and that our frame of reference is measured in years.
Another view, and the one that best fits my reality, is that (1) equal rights instead is the goal, with access to marriage for same sex couples being one of the many possible (and maybe not the best) indicators of progress; and (2) the frame of reference is measured at least in generations.
Thinking this way says to me that working for marriage equality today IS incremental change. I’ve been involved in activism RE: equal rights for gays and lesbians for over 35 years, and it seems to me that what Oregon is grappling with today is just another of our many steps in a hundred year journey to equality. I sense that we are roughly halfway there… maybe slightly further. Anyone who thinks that we should choose smaller increments (civil unions or some other smoke & mirrors approach) so as not to be permanently defeated by a constitutional amendment, doesn’t see that however things goes this year, there are decades of other increments ahead. There is simply no question as to the final outcome; it’s just frustrating that it may take 40 years or more.
As you’ve laid out so well, the response of the far right was inevitable; so I say, let’s get it over with so we can get on to the next step/increment where we may fare better.
July 03, 2004 at 05:03 PM
You're almost assuredly right that defense of marriage types would have brought the measure to ballot this November. What the MultCo commissioners and activists did helped energize more support for the measure...from people who didn't want to amend the constitution with such an issue, folks who were offended by a small group of people trying to change the law behind closed doors, etc. It hardened some of the opposition and pushed others over the fence.
You seem to be fine with that, but again you ignore some of the implications, like for instance for the majority of gays who are in the closet. The heightened emotions make it harder for them to come out--make them more fearful of the potential for ugly repercussions.
Militance is counterproductive when it comes to social acceptance of homosexuality, though certainly sometimes it's effective when it comes to attaining full equality. You're exactly right that militance is in the eye of the beholder. However, militance impacts more than just those who are beheld as militant by the majority of folks...that's why it's worth at least considering the repercussions.
By the way b!X, it was rather a cheap shot of you to cut just a portion of my post in a way that implied I was personally advocating those views. I was specifically reflecting the views of folks I see and talk to...whether you or I like them or not. Many folks with those views are trying to be supportive of gay equal rights. How is your militance helping?
July 03, 2004 at 05:10 PM
What you call militance on the part of the County, I call the only available option for civil disobedience on this matter. As I tried to describe above, other civil rights fights have included the option of choosing to take one's rights on one's own (even though you'd just be arrested for doing so), but in this fight, same-sex couples can't just get married on their own -- it requires overt state action to make it happen.
As for the clipping, that wasn't my intention. I suppose my reading of what you posted wasn't as clear as you itended it to be to me, and so it seemed to me that you were concurring with the position.
July 03, 2004 at 05:17 PM
What the MultCo commissioners and activists did helped energize more support for the measure.
Process critics helped to do this also, for whatever it's worth.
July 04, 2004 at 01:48 PM
The County Commissioners, most of them, showed great courage. They did the right thing, regardless of what they surely knew would be a shrieking backlash aimed directly at them.
As for the contention that without this action there would be no anti-gay initiative process now - good grief, surely we all know your local history a bit better than that? This state has been plagued by one Mabonist scourge after another for years now.
As for all those who have now woken up to find the head on the bed next to them is the Christian Coalition - get outa there fast, before you find yourself in a very nasty, if legal, marriage that you'll regret for a long long time.
There is nothing new in the virulence, hatred, or fondness for the initiative these types evidence today. They weren't going to change if we just "gave them time" They would not have accepted civil unions any more than marriage.
Me, when I chose to marry my love four years ago I had some things to consider - I had been married before, with poor results and certainly no track record indicating I could do this successfully. I had children. I had a house and pets that my prospective husband was allergic to. All of these were issues I had to contend with, decide about, chose solutions, or best efforts, to. But, **I** and my love and my children, made these choices and decisions for ourselves, as I never for a moment had to consider that we had not the right to do so.
I cannot imagine having to consider whether I'd be "allowed" to marry, at all. The thought is beyond insulting. We were both adults, beyond the age of consent. So, no one could make that decision for us.
So, I refuse to support visiting such on other loving adults, who also only want for themselves what I want for myself. Two people, choosing to join their lives in a legal union. To love and support each other in the joys and struggles they will face - to undertake the responsibilities, and gain the rights, inherent in this important legal/social construct.
As for all those who would like to do the right thing, but are feeling "uncomfortable."Write a novel. Call it "guess who's coming to dinner?"
Then, get over it.
Sometimes the only way to get used to something, is to live with it for a while.
July 04, 2004 at 04:01 PM
(applause) Right on, Anne!
July 04, 2004 at 05:19 PM
Here's a (not likely going to happen in our lifetime) way to get around this whole deal that I think would make everyone/no one happy.
1) Remove all legal classifications of gender from the books.
This would allow people to identify as any gender they please and not have to have an "M" or "F" staring back at them from their driver's license that doesn't fit them. Racial markers once graced our official IDs and are now gone, so why do we have to have gender?
2) Get the government out of the business of "marriage" altogether.
Government bodies, county/state/federal, would recognize civil unions (or whatever) between any two consenting adults of legal age that would provide all the 1000+ financial and other benefits that only "married" people get now. The "m-word" would only be used by churches, who would be free to marry or not whomever they chose to. This would reduce some of the passion on the parts of the anti-ssm folks since the "sanctity" of marriage isn't now being "defiled."
Personally, I don't like being required by the government to claim a gender. But that's just me. Maybe I'm silly to think a binary gender system doesn't fit everyone...
July 04, 2004 at 05:32 PM
Get the government out of the business of "marriage" altogether.
It's remarkable how many people (myself included) have spoken in favor of this option, which really is, ultimately, the most rational solution.
July 04, 2004 at 11:05 PM
There is no decent reason for government to be in the business of civil unions either. To allow the government to do so helps it to unnecessarily discriminate in numerous areas.
The federal government actually forced me to marry my wife or leave her for good.
July 05, 2004 at 12:56 AM
A brief addendum to my earlier comment...
As a single person in a committed long-term relationship who plans on never getting married, or having biological offspring, I definitely think that it's unfair for "married" couples to get benefits that single people don't get. That's why civil unions would be nice because then someone can inherit my property when I die, or visit me and make decisions for my well-being if I'm incapacitated without me having to celebrate the institution of marriage which is a ridiculous enshrinement of gender slavery.
Do we not remember why the father walks the bride down the isle? This "innocuous tradition" celebrates the time when the bride formally passed from being the PROPERTY of her father to being the property of her new hubby.
What a great institution!
This same-sex marriage issue has made me an uncomfortable defender of marriage. Discrimination is wrong. Period. If "the heteros" are allowed to get married, then everyone should be able to. There's no room in civil law, civil marriage, for religious bigotry and discrimination. (sorry for the "naive" rant... I'm just a big believer in the separation of church and state...)
July 05, 2004 at 07:40 AM
Maybe we "process critics" should vote yes on this measure after all, as a way to answer attacks like this one.
July 05, 2004 at 09:33 AM
Nice illustration of my "for thee but not for me" point. Critics of the County apparently are allowed to call supporters of the County "the new Naders," but when supporters of the County point out some obvious inconsistencies in the way critics of County have been arguing their point, it gets called an "attack."
July 05, 2004 at 04:47 PM
It fascinates me that the process critics have consistently railed on how the Commissioners’ process was wrong; but have never once, ever, proposed what process should have taken place. I suppose that it’s because the options aren’t so pretty.
For example the Commissioners could — after having received one concurring legal opinion after another saying that County procedures daily violated the state constitution — have held a public hearing to seek advice on choosing among their then options:
(1) simply continue the constitutional violations in the face of inevitable lawsuits, and in violation of their oath of office; or
(2) reject the opinions of the County Attorney (and an outside constitutional scholar who provided a second opinion, and the Chief Legislative Counsel for the state, and the Attorney General, and almost anyone else who could breathe) and go shopping for still more opinions in hopes of somewhere, anywhere, finding dissent; or
(3) stop violating the constitution by ceasing to issue ANY marriage licenses (the solution Benton County Commissioners came up with); or
(4) stop violating the constitution by beginning to issue licenses to all couples that would pay the $60.
(5) resign from office and let someone else handle it, because upholding the constitution will not be seen universally as courageous.
Looking over those options, it strikes me that this hearing wouldn’t have provided much meaningful guidance for the Commissioners.
This is especially true given that the real issue for most (not all) of those opposing marriage equality is that they just can't stomach those vile, revolting queers. So maybe the Commissioners should have just cut to the chase and held a hearing to ask “what do you think of gay people?” That’s really the main issue that we are dressing up in a wedding gown.
July 05, 2004 at 08:55 PM
What the MCBoC could have done was follow the unambiguous marriage statutes rather than try to predict how the Oregon Supreme Court would rule and piss everyone off.
If BRO had then followed through with their lawsuit threat (not assured btw, activist groups bluff with lawsuits all the time to get their way) it would still be tied up in the courts.
The DoMC would not have had near enough fuel to gather signatures by the July 2nd deadline without the public spectacle of all the lawless SSM's on CNN.
DoMC says it spent $300-400k to gather their signatures. This is incredibly low amount for 244k signatures. They didn't even have paid gatherers on the street (like all the other initiative drives.) They got this on the ballot because of all the free publicity connected to the REALITY of SSM's taking place. They probably got enough signatures to qualify through the mail alone! This sort of response only occurs when people are really outraged (see BM 30).
If the MCBoC had not actively participated in the BRO agenda, this issue would not have had the legs to make the November ballot. The DoMC would have needed a LOT more money to qualify in 6 weeks without the legions of volunteer circulators and free publicity boosting their mail returns.
Contrary to B!x's post hoc rationalizations, it was not inevitable that this would be on the November ballot.
July 05, 2004 at 09:02 PM
Well, we'll never know either way. All we have our my theory and yours -- neither one of which can be proven, obviously.
July 05, 2004 at 10:04 PM
I again reiterate that anti-SSM initiaves were being shopped _before_ MultCo announced they would issue gay marriages.
California was happening, and Mass. was on the horizon.
Look at all the states that are NOT CA, OR, or MA that now have new anti-SSM laws, referendums, or initiatives.
- Bob
July 06, 2004 at 09:45 AM
What the MCBoC could have done was follow the unambiguous marriage statutes rather than try to predict how the Oregon Supreme Court would rule and piss everyone off.
What PanchoPDX fails to mention in his suggested process is the step where we tell the people who have had their constitutional rights witheld for decades "wait a little longer, until it's a bit more politically convenient for us." It's amazing how frequently people of priviledge seem to think this is a great approach for others.
And it didn't piss everybody off. It's amazing how frequently people of priviledge seem to ignore the existence of the underclass.
July 07, 2004 at 08:39 AM
One of the factors that led to the BOCC acting the way it did --I think --was the idea that once there are living, breathing people who are in same-sex marriages, it will make it harder to take their rights away. So none of the other approaches mentioned gets to that point. (Even the Benton County version, which I generally respect.)
To the person who called the current marriage statutes "unambiguous," you're conveniently forgetting about the state and federal constitutions, which --even in this day and age --still trump state statutes. A statute can appear unambiguous on its face, but when it grants rights to some citizens and not to others, conscientious officials are bound by their oaths to refuse enforcing it.
The anti gay marriage people would like to simply ignore this side of the issue, and they're wrong, legally and morally.