August 05, 2004
(Updated) Further Reaction To Marriage Developments Elsewhere
And More Discussion On What It Means Here
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
As evident from previous references, other Oregon weblogs are also reacting to the news out of Missouri and/or Washington. There's a brief Alas, A Blog item on the Washington court ruling, to which we link primarily because of the very active discussion in the reader comments.
Over at WWP, a double-dare has been issued. In it, he restates his criticism of the Oregon approach as compared to the Washington approach, in response to which we can only reply with a reference to our inevitability argument, and the suggestion that to make the comparison in full, we need to wait and see if Washington voters move to try a Constitutional amendment in that state.
He also reasserts that the anti-amendment arguments here in Oregon will focus on constitutional terms to the exclusion of the personal angle. We can only offer the reminder that this is not yet evidenced in the campaign itself, and that it is too early to know for certain.
Meanwhile, RoguePundit deconstructs the Missouri results, and also casts a vote in favor of keeping a focus here in Oregon on the personal angle of "how the many (gay) folks who are our friends, neighbors, and co-workers are harmed by the lack of equal rights." Regardless of what one thinks about the anti-amendment campaign's likelihood of sticking to that approach, that makes at least three votes from Oregon weblogs (Worldwide Pablo, RoguePundit, and ourselves) in strong favor of doing so.
Elsewhere, there's an editorial from southern Oregon to which we also want to take a moment time to respond, since it also argues from the proposition that Oregon's approach has "create a total mess." Primarily, we want to reference this portion:
For those who have any comprehension of the history of the initiative process in Oregon...and this writer believes that elected officials cannot claim ignorance...it was obvious that Oregonians would decide this issue at the ballot box by voting on an initiative to constitutionally ban gay marriage in Oregon. For those political and judicial mechanics in county courthouses, there is no excuse for undercutting the power of the people by preemptively approving gay marriage at the county or city level in Oregon.
Whether the author intended it or not, the above actually backs our own argument of inevitability. As stated, "It was obvious that Oregonians would decide this issue at the ballot box by voting on an initiative to constitutionally ban gay marriage in Oregon." Our continued insistence, then, is that issuing 3,000-plus same-sex marriage licenses in advance of any such inevitable ballot measure can only reinforce the strategy of discussing the personal angle and real-world impacts upon gays and lesbians.
Unlike the events in Missouri or Washington, here in Oregon those personal discussions are one step further removed from the hypothetical. While the debate in any state can discuss the rights and responsibilities denied to same-sex couples under restrictive definitions of civil marriage, the debate here incorporates the premise (which we've raised previously) that approving Measure 36 in essence would be an act of marriage nullification.
Elsewhere, supporters of same-sex marriage have had to content themselves with arguing that voters should grant the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples -- while here, we have the opportunity to argue that voters should not revoke the rights and responsibilities of marriage already granted to 3,000-plus same-sex couples. And why do we have this opportunity?
Because here in Multnomah County, officials opted not to go the route of other states, which have left same-sex couples disenfranchised while the issue "progresses" in the courts and at the polls. And while we can admit to its risk, we continue to deem this the more courageous and the more moral approach.
Update
We've been reminded of something that is extraordinarily germaine to the discussion about inevitability.
Way back on February 20, it was reported (in fact, we mentioend it here) that four initiatives had been filed which proposed variations on a ban of same-sex marriage in Oregon -- two of which, in fact, were constitutional and not statutory.
This is important from the standpoint of the inevitabiltiy argument because Multnomah County did not begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until March 3 -- twelve days later.
Now, it's true that discussions on the issue at the Multnomah Coutny level reportedly began in late January, but there's no evidence that opponents of same-sex marriage had any inkling of this, so it can't be effectively argued that those opponents filed their original initiatives as a response to these discussions.
Had no same-sex marriage licenses been issued in Multnomah County at all, Oregon would still have faced the prospect of a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages -- which was the entire point of our inevitabiltiy argument to begin with.
Comments (1)
M on 05 Aug 2004
b!X: If you want to know more about the campaign's extensively-researched theme, why not attend one of the campaign's training sessions for speakers, where you can learn all about their message first-hand? The first one is this Saturday. Contact mel(NOSPAM)issa@noon9.com.