July 02, 2004
(Updated) Will Multnomah County Commission Give Oregon To Bush?
Local Weblogs Seem To Think So
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
That's the buzz late this week amongst several local weblogs, beginning yesterday afternoon with Jack Bogdanski, who cites an earlier Worldwide Pablo item on the anti-marriage consistution amendment sure to come before voters this November. From that latter WWP item:
WWP said from the start that religious conservatives would not simply ignore the Multnomah County Commission's unwanted backroom decision to expand marriage rights to gays, even if the commissioners were well intentioned. Politically, there were probably a thousand ways to arrive at the same result, but few of those, of course, could ever result in the ACLU love fests, flattering New York Times profiles and fawning tributes from all the usual suspects here in the People's Republic of Portland. No, we had to do it the hard way, in fact, perhaps the one and only way certain to awaken pent-up religious zeal and whip it into a furor that will likely doom same-sex marriage for the rest of our natural lives.
To which Jack asks, "Wouldn't it be something if the electoral vote was close as a razor again, and Bush was re-elected because he narrowly won Oregon?" And the responsibilty for this potentiality he places firmly on the shoulders of the four Multnomah County commissioners who supported the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples earlier this year.
WWP himself agrees with the assessment, spinning the tale of a dream of election night, and further narrowing assignment of the blame to County Chair Diane Linn. Today, Isaac Laquedem summarizes the premise, while Tammy thanks God for the inevitable ballot measure.
While it remains to be seen whether or not the right-wing goes to the polls in sufficient numbers to carry Bush back into office on the coattails of this pballot measure, a commenter on Jack's site makes a valid point:
If an anti-gay-marriage initiative can't bring out the *liberals* in droves, they deserve to lose the state. Don't thank the commissioners, thank the hundreds of thousands of people too apathetic to get their asses to the polls, even when they know the vote is: a) important, and b) close.
The scenario being posited by various local weblogs this week is also an outgrowth of a more general opposition to the County having issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples without going through what certain parties consider to be the proper process. Of course, that point still ignores the fact that if the County had gone through some sort of public process beforehand, they either would not have made the decision at all, or they would have done so anyway and we'd still be where we are today with the ballot initiative.
Since a decision to grant same-sex marriage licenses would have resulted in a ballot initiative backlash no matter when it occured or what process was used leading up to it, the only way to have avoided the ballot initiative backlash would have been to decide not to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples rather than take a stand in favor of equitable granting of a civil privilege currently granted discriminatorily to opposite-sex couples. In other words, to decide to continue enforcement of bias against same-sex couples.
If the choice was between continuing to enforce a discriminatory law in order to avoid an inevitable right-wing backlash we're afraid liberals can't stand up to come November, or attempting to grant proper civil equality (with or without the legally-unrequired "public process"), we still have little problem supporting the latter.
Update
There's more of this nonsense over at RoguePundit. But here's a sampling ot the more repugnant bits:
If the defense of marriage measure in Oregon passes, and odds are it will, many homosexuals will take that as a personal slap in the face, a rejection of their sexuality and way of life. Obviously from some voters it will be. But from others, the vote will be a message to the activists and politicians...treat us as you wish to be treated. If you earn our trust, ask us for gay equality and we'll give it. But, marriage is a bridge too far at this point.
As we've similarly stated before, that piece towards the end -- "If you earn our trust, ask us for gay equality and we'll give it." -- represents an utterly reprehensible and morally repugnant mindset. Patronizing. Almost monarchical, as if rights were something to be bestowed upon others by those in power only if and when those others treat us properly.
Comments (17)
sarah gilbert on 02 Jul 2004
I'm firmly on your side of the issue, b!X - and I'm going to do everything in my limited power to get out the vote against the ballot measure. Let's stop pointing fingers of blame and take responsibility for defeating something that none of the open-minded bloggers want. Let's make it happen, our way.
oh and p.s. - I love Diane Linn! I think it's great - an elected politician who ignores politics completely in her quest to do what she thinks is right. You go girl.
Tim on 02 Jul 2004
Many "liberals" I know who are appethetic to politics and voting generally feel the importance of voting against Bush. One of my "your vote doesn't matter" friends has actually been trying to get others to vote while promising to vote himself. I think it remains to be seen whether Bush's arrogant and foolish policies have awoken the massive numbers of young, appathetic (typcially liberal) voters in inner cities such as Portland. Bush has pissed a wide ranging group of people off. I am not yet convinced that the same sex marriage ballot measure will "give Oregon to Bush." Bush's own actions have rallied liberals against him. At the least, shouldn't we withhold blame until the event several months in the future actually does or does not happen? It seems premature to even be discussing this right now.
Jack Bog on 02 Jul 2004
To the description of the "attempting to grant" option, I would add, "without properly assessing whether said attempt had any chance of success, and without appreciating the potential harm that could be done to the 'movement.'"
You want to tilt at windmills? Go for it. But as I said, that makes you this year's Naders.
Worldwide Pablo on 02 Jul 2004
Ditto on Jack, and WWP adds this:
b!X, you never fully engage the idea that the county might have rejected same-sex marriage, thus setting up a legal challenge. This, as we know, would take time to unfold, but WWP thinks that is the very point: Folks don't change their minds over the headline of the moment, but will do so instead over the long range, having opportunity to explore the issues. On gay marriage, we never had that chance. Diane and friends failed to grasp the essential idea of inevitabililty. That is, given enough time, and the right cause, you can bring people to your cause.
Diane never got it. And we all pay the price for that error. [For about the next 100 years, one might surmise.]
Today, on the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, we might ponder once again the virtue of doing the right thing, but rightly timed so that it will have the maximum effect.
[Or in the pitiful Diane Linn's case, ANY effect.]
The One True b!X on 02 Jul 2004
b!X, you never fully engage the idea that the county might have rejected same-sex marriage, thus setting up a legal challenge.
Ok: In this event, opponents of same-sex marriage would have responded to a lawsuit that might lead to protection of same-sex marriage with... a ballot initiative making same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
And so, we'd still be right where we are today heading into November.
The One True b!X on 02 Jul 2004
In other words, the only way to have avoided the situation we're in was to not discuss the issue of same-sex marriage licenses at all.
Isaac Laquedem on 03 Jul 2004
No -- the county commission and Chairwoman Linn chose to use huggery-muggery to legitimize same-sex marriage, and created a groundswell of outrage at the process. Had they let the battle stretch over a year or two in the courts, the same-sex marriage initiative would not be on the ballot this year with the Bush re-election campaign.
The One True b!X on 03 Jul 2004
Hogwash. If the County had gone through a public discussion and then decided to not issue same-sex marriage licenses, and same-sex couples then sued the County, the threat that such a lawsuit might legalize same-sex marriage in Oregon would have prompted the same ballot initiative we're faced with now.
Gordie on 03 Jul 2004
Or of course the MultCo Commissioners could have taken an incremental approach by proposing civil unions. Those bring with them plenty of rights and are more palatable to the general public. Instead we have the inevitable reaction to overreach. Gee, how predictable.
The One True b!X on 03 Jul 2004
Or of course the MultCo Commissioners could have taken an incremental approach by proposing civil unions. Those bring with them plenty of rights and are more palatable to the general public.
Well, see, here we're just simply going to part ways. What kind of nonsense is "those bring with them plenty of rights"? Do you seriously think it's morally okay to turn to a group of people doing no one any harm and say "because granting fewer rights than other people will be more popular, that's what we'll give you"?
I always have, and always will, find that premise to be entirely repugnant.
Gordie on 03 Jul 2004
I call the incremental approach progress...slow and imperfect, but progress. Imagine the progress that wouldn't have been made over the last decades if folks had embraced an all-or-nothing approach. Keep taking the small victories, repugnant though the process may be to you...slow but steady is thawing the divide that will result in eventual victory for gay equality.
Gays may someday win an all-or-nothing battle for legal equality, but it's impossible to take such a victory for social acceptance. If you want to sharpen that divide with militance, you become hateful like those who oppose you. Hate is repugnant...there is no moral superiority in such a response.
The One True b!X on 03 Jul 2004
Militance is in the eye of the beholder.
Bob R. on 03 Jul 2004
Timelines are important:
There were people preparing and pushing for an anti-marriage initiative BEFORE multnomah county became the center of the controversy.
The initiative was in response to marriages performed elsewhere: California had already started, and MA was on the horizon.
We'd be voting on this in November even if the subject never, ever came up in Multnomah County.
I return to an earlier, somewhat tired analogy:
What if city officials had said to Rosa Parks: "Wow, now that we look at this, you should be able to sit wherever on the bus you want, starting today."
Of course there would be local revolt, and the politicians would be recalled (or worse). But _THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT_. History would have remembered them for doing the right thing in the face of open hostility and the sacrifice of their careers.
There's a lot to dislike about Diane Linn's term in office, but the marriage issue is actually the one thing that was handled basically correctly, in the scope of history.
- Bob
ron on 03 Jul 2004
I do not think human kind can be purged of the evils of discrimination. That is, both democratic and non-democratic governments will occasionally vent anger at one group or another. Here the venting is against gays. The remaining usefulness of Lawrence is to place outer limits on the power of the majority to heap negativity upon a class. The role of the judiciary, in a democratic system, is to limit such attacks and assumes that the majority will inherently always have more votes and will always be motivated to incessantly attack. Judicial protection from the attack, against the vigorous will of the majority, is a radically different concept than a trying to manufacture a new will of the majority through tactical political procedures or through the courts. The issue is not defining what is the majority will but what are the limits of the attacks. Denial of a marriage benefit bestowed upon a class at the behest of religious zealots and moderates alike is hard to view as an attack on gays. The Benton County solution remains the most intriguing and corresponds to the remedy reserved in State v. Clark of judicial removal of the privileged benefit to the class to which it was granted. The Multnomah County judge should have done no more than declare the marriage statute unconstitutional and not retained any further jurisdiction by way of threat to extend the privilege. It is the judiciary that stuck its’ nose out too far and made the constitutional amendment the only tactical solution available to the anti-gay majority. This will tie the hands of both the legislature and the judiciary in the future. I am sure that the anti-gay folks will try to leverage the constitutional amendment to extend their reach to then deny civil union benefits as well, as they are synonymous with the elemental benefits of marriage in almost every respect except name and description of marital relations that consummate a marriage. The net effect of the MC4 is negative, not progress. This was a classical Pyrrhic victory that revealed the superficiality of both the legal and political skill of the MC4.
sennoma on 03 Jul 2004
that makes you this year's Naders.
Is this the same Jack who whined plaintively when it was pointed out to him that his vehement anti-Linn et al. rhetoric was welcome grist to the anti-gay mill?
The One True b!X on 03 Jul 2004
Interestingly, those of us who supported the County action are supposed to have considered the "real world implications to the cause" of vocally and publicly backing them. But those who opposed the County action apparently were not supposed to have considered the "real world implications to the cause" of vocally and publicly chastizing them.
GA - Keith on 04 Jul 2004
The desire for same-sex couples (fellow Oregonians!) to have their relationships afforded the same protections as other couples, shouldn't really have been a surprise to anyone. The struggle goes back as far as the early 1970s. And if tactical or strategic detractors had not wanted to have this come up in an election year, where were you all before now? If you had thought that civil unions were the way to go, why don't we have our "plenty of rights" already?
Mark Twain used to say that if you remained silent in the face of an injustice, it was 'timid and shabby'. I wonder what he would have said about arguing over the timing of correcting one?