August 01, 2004
Lies About Measure 36 And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them
Anti-Gay Forces Unable To Conceal True Motives
We don't normally focus on material from a single publication, but there are some statements from the Special Rights for Heterosexuals Coalition people in recent editions of The Oregonian to which we need to make at least a brief response.
Yesterday, the paper reported on how the fight over Measure 36 is taking shape. Measure 36, of course, is the effort at placing a definition of marriage into the Oregon Constitution to prevent same-sex marriages from any legal recognition in the State of Oregon. What we're concerning ourselves with here are the statements of the measure's backers:
The Defense of Marriage Coalition wants to focus the campaign debate on marriage rather than gay rights, said Tim Nashif, political director.
"This is not about gays," he said. "This is about the definition of marriage, the importance to all of us of holding a standard that is best for society, best for children."
...
The Defense of Marriage Coalition sent out fund-raising letters this week, although Nashif declined to say how many. The letter warns that legalizing same-sex marriages will undermine marriage and hurt children.
"Public schools will be forced to teach that gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage," says the letter, signed by Nashif, Georgene Rice, communications director, and Michael White, executive director. "More children will be denied a traditional family. It's a proven fact that children do best when raised with both a mother and a father. . . ."
This bigoted rhetoric is repeated in today's paper. In its overview of forthcoming ballot measures, it passes along the following as the arguments in favor of the measure as concevied by its supporters:
Supporters say they are defending the definition and purpose of marriage as outlined in religious tradition and historical and legal practice. They see marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of the stable family and necessary to procreation and rearing of children.
Efforts to redefine marriage, supporters of the measure maintain, could destroy marriage as an institution and harm society.
Well, so one of two things is happening here. Either Nasif himself somehow believes that rhetoric about how same-sex couples would be a disaster for children and society is not actually anti-gay, or he and his cohorts simply believe that Oregonians are stupid enough to believe that rhetoric about how same-sex couples would be a disaster for children and society is not actually anti-gay.
Take your pick, because it's one or the other -- and either option tells us a considerable amount about the mentality of the people organizing the support for this regressive and narrow-minded ballot measure. Obviously, we hope it's the former, and that Oregonians in fact are smart enough to see through the poorly-executed attempt to obscure the barely-hidden prejudices and ugly intentions of Nasif and his compatriots in the drive to enshrine the immorality of discrimination into Oregon's Constitution.
Comments (19)
Stash on 02 Aug 2004
The tradition of marriage is that it is a sacrament sealing a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God and a community. States should have never been given the power to perform the rite. States should stick to "that which is Cesar’s" and codify only a Civil Union between two parties no matter their sex.
Mark on 02 Aug 2004
It's so Orwellian that the pro-measure 36 group calls itself the "Defense of Marriage" coalition. If they indeed are NOT solely anti-gay in their purpose, then where are their other non-same-sex marriage related efforts to defend marriage? Are they working on other fronts to outlaw divorce, or ban commonlaw marriage or to achieve ANY OTHER purpose than to keep same-sex couples from marrying?
Scott Jensen on 02 Aug 2004
I agree with Stash! And thanks Christopher, you have been steadfast and true to this cause!
It's guys like you who help make Oregon a wonderful place to live.
ron on 02 Aug 2004
Anti-Gay . . . Huh?
The religious folks believe that condoms are bad. The religious folks believe that extramarital sex is a sin that prevents ascension to some eternal happy after life. Fornication equates to, or is at least strongly linked to, prostitution. These are things that transcend just gay this or gay that. Do not think myopically that it is only about gays or you will miss the larger issue of the religious folk’s ability to dominate all things sexual via overwhelming the secular state with their band of fire and brimstone.
There was time in the long distant past when disease, particularly sexually transmitted disease, had no other explanation than the work of god. Well, . . . today we know that mother nature is somewhat less of a mystery and thus we need to rely less on superstition to explain what we do not know. At one time, in the past, it was both rational and reasonable to discourage sex for sport because of the risk of death from god’s wrath, or mother nature (your pick), and it was undeniably useful to limit disease via the tool of sexual taboos. Modern drugs and knowledge let us view mental illness as something other than being possessed by the devil. The role of religion in regulating sexual conduct to save folks from disease, particularly sexually transmitted disease, is about as correlated today as the link between the devil and mental illness.
I do not want irrational religious dogma to perpetuate the notion some children borne to a happy cohabitating opposite gender couple as less legitimate than a child borne within wedlock. The religious folks are fully aware that their claim to fame in disease prevention is waning and so too their grip on the notion that religion is uniquely valuable to society. The doctors and modern medicine pose one of the biggest threats to religion. Stick to the fundamentals rather than call everyone who disagrees a bigot. There are lots of people who get sick to their stomach in the face of gays but who could nevertheless oppose the ballot measure.
pdxkona on 02 Aug 2004
Ron, a question for you-
If you dislike so much the generalized term "anti-gay", why do you include term "the religous folks" multiple times in your post? That seems pretty generalized a term to me, as there are many different kind and variations of "religous folk".
The One True b!X on 02 Aug 2004
Stick to the fundamentals rather than call everyone who disagrees a bigot.
Reading comprehension time. I called the backers of the measure bigots, not everyone.
PanchoPdx on 02 Aug 2004
Disclaimer: I am an atheist, and do not support the idea of government defining marriage for anyone beyond a civil contract.
That said, I must report that many of the "religious folks" that I encounter who support Measure 36 are not (what I would call) anti-gay.
They have a live and let live attitude for the most part. Nearly all know someone who is gay, many have gay friends and family members. Some may judge them quietly, while others just leave the question for a "Higher Power" to sort out.
What bothers a lot of them is the idea that the government is placing the approval of society on homosexual unions by recognizing them as "marriages". Like sex education in elementary school, they are worried that the government will begin undermining the values they want to promote to their children. They look as "gay marriage" as leftist "newspeak".
They don't think of themselves as bigots, and labelling them such only firms their resolve to vote yes on this measure. Further, it alienates the mainstreamers who would otherwise support civil unions.
Even though I will vote against the Measure, I find the BRO position more hypocritical than DMC.
The BRO position is that civil rights are too important to vote upon.
This is just rationalization. If the shoe were on the other foot (e.g., polls said 55% of Oregonians supported gay marriage AND the constitution was not construed so as to require it) there is no question that BRO would be pushing a ballot measure to establish the right to marry.
Further, this position calls into question all the civil rights that were secured by a public vote in Oregon: women's suffrage (5 years earlier than the 19th Amendment), right to end your life when terminally ill, the right for adoptees to know who their natural parent are, etc.
BRO's strategy was shortsighted and they continue to justify it a way that undermines their position.
Secondly, too much name calling (e.g., bigots, discrimination, anti-gay). Bad mistake, too many mainstream shades of gray to paint this issue as black or white.
IMHO, this should be the anti-36 message:
"When consenting adults marry, it is really nobody's business but their own. If the government wants to get involved, then it shouldn't play favorites."
They should make government the "bad guy" for sticking its nose in marriage at all.
The One True b!X on 02 Aug 2004
Once again, this item does not call every single person who supports the measure a bigot, it calls the backers of the measure bigots -- which they most assuredly are.
I may think that anyone who supports the measure is woefully misguided and self-centered, but that doesn't make them explicitly bigoted.
In essence, my question to those who support the measure whose reasons they do not consider to be, and may not be, overtly bigoted is this: Do you really want to give credence to the very obviously anti-gay rhetoric of the people responsible for this measure in the first place? Do you really want them to be empowered by the success of this measure? Is that the company you want to keep?
PanchoPdx on 02 Aug 2004
Ah, but that is just the rub.
Many peole who don't want to validate the bigoted beliefs of SOME of the DoMC folks also loathe the idea of validating the actions of BRO/Sisters of Hawthorne/PC lefty elitists.
It is a "pick your poison" kind of thing. So far, the DoMC has demonstrated political savvy in their public statements. This has frustrated reporters at the big O so much that they are now combing through DoMC fundraising letters in search of bigoted or controversial statements. You could almost smell the desperation in that article.
Deep down Nashif may be the "bigot" that B!x labels him, but so far he has been fairly adept at framing his position to mainstream voters.
The One True b!X on 02 Aug 2004
This has frustrated reporters at the big O so much that they are now combing through DoMC fundraising letters in search of bigoted or controversial statements. You could almost smell the desperation in that article.
That's not desperation, it's proper journalism.
Deep down Nashif may be the "bigot" that B!x labels him, but so far he has been fairly adept at framing his position to mainstream voters.
Which is precisely why it's incumbent upon the rest of us to point out what Nasif and his compatriots really are.
Colin on 02 Aug 2004
I have a different viewpoint...
It is a "pick your poison" kind of thing. So far, the DoMC has demonstrated political savvy in their public statements. This has frustrated reporters at the big O so much that they are now combing through DoMC fundraising letters in search of bigoted or controversial statements. You could almost smell the desperation in that article.
Well Pancho, the ballot summary worked for me as a "bigoted statement," not to mention the name of the sponsoring group.
Deep down Nashif may be the "bigot" that B!x labels him, but so far he has been fairly adept at framing his position to mainstream voters.
Simple explanation. It's unfortunate, but true, that society at large, including these so called "mainstream voters," seems to be homophobic. I'd love it if Oregon voters prove me wrong.
PanchoPdx on 02 Aug 2004
B!x wrote:
"Which is precisely why it's incumbent upon the rest of us to point out what Nasif and his compatriots really are."
Hmmm. How would you know what Nashif and his compatriots really are?
Have you ever interviewed him? Had a conversation with him?
Or have you decided that because of his political position he MUST be a bigot?
The ONLY chance you have in this election is to deal with the issue itself. Unless somebody uncovers DNA evidence connecting Nashif to Matthew Shepard's murder, the attempt to demonize him (a la Mabon, Sizemore) will fall flat on its face.
What you fail to acknowledge is that this measure enjoys enormous grassroots support. Nobody has ever gathered a quarter million signatures in Oregon on any issue, much less in 5 weeks.
You can blame Nashif all you want, but he had forty thousand volunteers gathering signatures on the issue.
Want to expose them all as homophobic bigots too?
The One True b!X on 02 Aug 2004
Hmmm. How would you know what Nashif and his compatriots really are?
Because his rhetoric is transparent. Blabbering about a threat to families and children is thinly-disguised bigotry against gays and lesbians. Period. You'd know that was my position if you had either (1) read the item or (2) not pretended to ignore what I said in it.
You can blame Nashif all you want, but he had forty thousand volunteers gathering signatures on the issue.
Want to expose them all as homophobic bigots too?
Are you reading my replies, or just covering your eyes the umpteen million times I've disputed this? I have no idea if they are bigots, because they aren't running around issuing transparently-prejudiced statements the way Nashif and his crew are doing.
Now, I might think they're letting the Coalition et al turn them into dupes, but I have no way of knowing if they are bigots.
ron on 03 Aug 2004
The religious folks do not speak with one voice. The issue that they share is that any consensus that they reach upon religious grounds be reflected in the secular government as something they find acceptable.
The reference to bigots was precisely worded so as to avoid the notion that the only bigots that exist are supporters of Measure 36. Certainly not all supporters of Measure 36 are bigots. Certainly not all opponents of Measure 36 are not bigots. Support for, or opposition to, Measure 36 is far too incomplete a dividing line. Politically, it is the gay rights folks who will lose if the only weapon is to attack ones character. No matter how much I may disagree on an issue I must retain the belief that an opponent has what they believe to be the public interest at heart. One lesson from basic interpersonal communications is not to expect a positive response to a personal attack on someone’s character.
If one religion believes that marriage by definition creates the exclusive institution where sexual interaction and lust is allowed then a group that proclaims gay marriage as acceptable cannot exist in parallel to the other but is in direct conflict; yet both are hostile to sexual contact outside of marriage (or civil union for that matter). Gay marriage is no less bigoted to mere atheist cohabitators because it remains a religious definition of allowed (and disallowed) sex.
No one, including Bob Dole and his Viagra, has a civil right to compel another at the point of a gun to give them dollars for sexual enjoyment. You have a civil right to tell others to get lost when they come knocking on your door demanding to know whether god (as they view it and as they may or may not have passed a government law pertaining to the same) approves of the private consensual conduct therein. There is a world of difference between the two concepts.
The long term overlap of positions, ultimate equilibrium, remains getting the government out of the business of both marriages and civil unions alike. The gay marriage push misses the mark, from a rationality perspective, as much as the Measure 36 nonsense. Measure 36 does not mandate that the state of Oregon is compelled to recognize marriages at all. It is, in essence, as between civil union and marriage, nothing more than an effort to proclaim Oregon’s dictionary definition of religious marriage – which is the equivalent to ordering that opposing dictionary’s be ceremoniously burned. Religious bigots, be they gay or not, are reaching a new low in non-recognition that religion does not mix with secular government.
Simple equal protection argument: I do not think that one committed cohabitator should be compelled to testify in court against their partner solely because they have not solemnized their relationship with the religious imprimatur of marriage. Just because the opportunity may or may not exist for solemnation should not defeat the right to equal protection because marriage is a religious institution and the state cannot establish religion, even if it is a blended religion.
The gay push for state recognition of “marriages” actually supports the intrusion of government into people’s private consensual lives, which is the height of irrationality in the face of Lawrence. I oppose the gay marriage push for exactly the same reason I support Lawrence. And yes, this implies opposition to Measure 36. The religious supporters of Measure 36 fear something bigger than gays, it is the loss of the grip they hold on government to dictate morality to everyone on all things sex related. The rational supporters of gay marriage know they will not gain the right to marry but are just using the push to highlight the excesses of the religious righteous right. It is nothing more than an opportunity to debate and should not be squandered by simply attacking the character of the opponents of Lawrence.
The debate is all about Blaspheme in the classical religious context regardless of the illusionary trappings of a purely secular equal protection cover. To me I see it as equally Blasphemous to the notion of the separation of church and state. With this view then the marriage bigots include all the folks advancing state marriage of any form, and by definition disfavoring all non-married relationships. Go read Lawrence then tell me why you think it was wrongly decided.
PanchoPdx on 03 Aug 2004
Ron,
Amen Brother.
PDXWen on 25 Aug 2004
Anytime a society denies a people basic rights because they don't "Fit in" is just flat out wrong! It reveals a society that still lives in fear. As a society, we need to embrace our Gay/Lesbian and Bi brothers and Sisters. Afterall, our constitution states"...All men are created equal..." This includes our gay/lesbian and Bi brothers and sisters. Why deny them love and happiness? Why deny them a loving relationship? We need to look at them with acceptance and not distain or hate. They are our sisters,brothers our friends, co workers, family members,Our teachers, Our sons and daughters... It floors me to see such hate in our society and espically in a wonderful state like Oregon!!! The state I'm proud of and proud to live in.
Michael on 08 Sep 2004
There have been considerable claims by proponents of this measure that children benefit from one man, one woman family. As a psychologist, the literature I have reviewed suggests that as long as a child has one consistent, firm, fair, loving caretaker, they will do quite well. I wonder if proponents making this claim can produce relevant, valid, and reliable research that supports this traditional notion?
I work with families who hold strong to this traditional notion and definition of family, and it is absolutley toxic for children to live in some of these enviornments. I would gladly have these kids in a loving relationship regardless of thier gender. I wish that people could really consider thier own bias and fear that might be a factor in their decision. I only hope to suggest that the world could be a more loving and beautiful place if we could accept that others are different and that is OK. By the way, I am married to a woman with two happy and well adjusted children, and I fully disagree with Measure 36.
jake on 20 Sep 2004
Spain is about to pass a law recognizing gay marriage. It's said that approx. 70 percent of the population is in support of the new law. Considering the massive quantity of Catholics in Spain...
Just an observation that makes the pro-36 argument not hold up so well.
Melanie on 13 Oct 2004
Why vote yes on measure 36? I see no reason to. If you truly think that marrige should only be between a man and a woman because you don't understand it from a gay or lesbian person's point of veiw, or because you think it goes against your religion, you better re-think your veiws. One of my best friends is gay, and he can't help it. Many people stuggle with the complications of being gay or lesbian every day due to the way other people will think of them. The way I see it is... if a gay or lesbian couple is open enough to ask to be married, people like Stash should not be the ones to stand in their way. They are normal every day humans like you or me, and that's the way they want to be seen, dispite their sexuality.