September 09, 2004
(Updated) City Council To Consider Resolution Opposing Measure 36
And Other Items From The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Just in over the wire is an announcement from the office of Commissioner Randy Leonard that he has filed a resolution to be considered by City Council which would urge Oregonians to vote down Measure 36, the Consititutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
In the news release, saying the amendment would put "unequal treatment" into the Oregon Constitution, Leonard frames his opposition thusly: "Marriage provides essential protections and responsibilities that all Oregon families need and deserve. Constitutional Amendment 36 would deny thousands of Oregon families health care access, inheritance rights and the ability to make life-saving medical decisions for their loved ones."
Back in March, as Multnomah County announced it would begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Leonard was the first elected City official from whom we heard a response. "I am deeply disappointed at those who have targeted the gay community as a vulnerable minority that they can exploit for their political gain," he wrote at the time. "I hope the majority of Americans see through this veiled political opportunism."
Filed today, Leonard's resolution (pdf) calls upon the spirit of a 2001 determination by City Council to eliminate discrimination based upon sexual orientation, declares that the Constitutional amendment "hurts real Oregonians," and states firmly that "disagreements [over marriage] do not belong in our Constitution."
Meanwhile, the previously-mentioned public opinion poll (pdf) from which we took the Mayoral numbers also asked voters about Measure 36. Specifically, pollsters asked the following question(s): "Ballot Measure 36 reads: 'Amends constitution: Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid of legally recognized as marriage.' Will you vote Yes or No on this measure? (If Necessary) Will you most likely vote Yes or No?" (That last, of course, is meant for respondants who initially said they did not know how they were going to vote.)
Out of the 507 respondants, 289 people (57%) said they would vote to adopt Measure 36 and 18 (4%) said they would likely do so, while 161 people (32%) said they would vote to defeat Measure 36 and 12 people (2%) said they would likely do so. Another 27 people (5%) said they were undecided.
But in a bit of pre-emption, the campaign against Measure 36 provided some helpful information regarding this poll prior to its release. In a newsletter sent out yesterday, they write:
A poll will be released this week saying that our campaign is down 61% to 34%. Don't be fooled. The poll in question over-sampled older Oregonians. The poll's sample was 38% voters 65 and older and 15% voters under 35. In reality, only about 19% of registered voters in Oregon are over 65 and over 25% are under 35. This error greatly skews the results because we have found that the single greatest determining factor of whether you are for or against this amendment is age.
Continuing along. Earlier this week, The Register-Guard examined Oregon's fight in the context of outside money pouring into the state from groups who feel the best chance to defeat the many such measures around the country is here in this state. Also earlier this week, a second court in the state of Washington ruled its ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and Oregon's labor commissioner warned of the ramifications should Measure 36 pass.
Finally, a couple of notes to counter the continuing conflation of religious and civil marriage by proponents of writing special rights for heterosexuals into the constitutions of Oregon, others states, and nationally as well.
In today's Oregonian story on the Oregon Catholic Conference declaring its support for Measure 36, they include the following:
Archbishop John Vlazny of the Archdiocese of Portland was not available for comment, but he has written columns in the Catholic Sentinel this year describing his views on marriage. On April 15, he wrote that marriage is a sacrament sanctified by God through Jesus Christ.
"Their union no longer involves two persons, but three, husband, wife and the Lord," he wrote. "In a sacramental marriage, our God is very much a partner in that union and for that reason the church has very strict rules regarding separation, divorce and remarriage.
"There simply is no sacramental marriage without a man and a woman."
This entire line of "reasoning" of course is entirely besides the point. If the civil marriage of same-sex couples were legal in Oregon, not a single church in the state would be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Archbishop Vlazny and everyone else stuck in this gear, please repeat after us: Religion has nothing to do with civil marriage.
If it did, no one would be able to have their ceremony performed by a judge, with explicit instructions to leave God out of it altogether. There is no religious test required for marriage.
Repeat that after us, as well: There is no religious test for marriage.
And the last bit we have on all of this before we move on to something else. In the event anyone out there is forgetting just what sorts of people are spearheading the drive to write overt discrimination into the nation's constitutions, we need to pass along something from a news release out of the righteous-wing Alliance Defense Fund which came in today. While it's focused on a development in the state of California, it's important that we understand how the special rights for heterosexuals crowd actually thinks, and what they actually believe:
A California Superior Court judge ruled yesterday that a state law granting the "same rights, protections, and benefits" of marriage to "registered domestic partners" is constitutional despite Proposition 22, California's law limiting marriage to one man and one woman, which was passed by an overwhelming number of the state's voters.
...
[Robert Tyler, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney] contends that conclusion misses the point. "Proposition 22 was not simply intended to place a copyright on the word 'marriage'; it was intended to protect the institution of marriage, including all rights, benefits, and duties of marriage," he said. "The domestic partnership law is a thumb in the eye of the people of California. We will use every means to ensure that marriage is protected."
So once again, to all of those who are allowing themselves to be duped by the forces of the righteous wing in this country, we say this: If you throw your support to any of these measures, you in reality and in effect are lending your support to their broader agenda of pushing gays and lesbians back into the social, cultural, and legal ghetto.
Once and for all, ask yourselves: Is that the sort of movement with which you want your votes associated?
Update
Within the half-hour, we decided to take a look at what might be happening over at the Special Rights for Heterosexuals Coalition these days, only to discover that they've transmogrified themselves into the "Yes on 36" campaign. We were going to try to sit down and analyze their Q&A and perhaps even their 7 reasons to put discrimination into the Oregon Constitution, but we found something else more interesting.
Up above you'll see that we noted a comment from the No on 36 campaign saying that "the single greatest determining factor of whether you are for or against this amendment is age." Well, scroll down on the Yes on 26 page and you'll see a graphic link which asks if you are 18-29 years old, and if so, to click.
If you do so, you will be taken to the placeholder page for I Won't Be Redefined, a site registered to the City Bible Church in NE Portland that will launch on September 13.
In other words, the pro-discrimination forces are about to take direct aim at the age issue, and presumably will be parading around young people who oppose same-sex marriage. Also in other words: This means the No on 36 people might want to get moving to visibly and publicly mobilize their own young supporters.
Posted at 04:42 PM | PermalinkComments (12) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics, Same-Sex Marriage
Trackbacks (1)
-
At least we know that Randy Leonard has balls of his own and isn't afraid to say so. Wanna show us yours, Jim? on 11 Sep 2004
As usual, b!X has a terrific piece on Portland Communique about Measure 36, the recent polling (and why you should or shouldn't believe it), and where this thing is headed. More importantly, we see that Randy Leonard, not exactly the darling of the...
Comments (12)
Jerry on 09 Sep 2004
Bravo to Commissioner Leonard and hopefully the rest of the Council will get onboard.
Once more, it's up to Oregonians to do the 'Right Thing'.
Lea on 09 Sep 2004
Hear, hear! Bravo!
tomhiggins on 10 Sep 2004
Nice words Commissioner!
Lets just hope the majority of voters here can pull themselves out of the Dark Ages and follow suit.
ron on 10 Sep 2004
The Defense of Marriage web site contains words to the effect that sexual relations, should not occur outside of marriage. This is a gender neutral and sexual orientation neutral phraseology; at least as to the their perception of marriage. They must look upon marriage as a license to have sex in much the same way that the right to drive has been characterized as a privilege and not a right.
Can you imagine a judge, today or in the future, resorting to referencing the legislative history (in this case the initiative proponents words) in order to clarify just what is meant by the word marriage? Imagine a set of legislators drafting legislation that pushes the boundary of the possibilities of accommodating the definition applied by the proponents. A state court judge would be powerless to overturn such sexual adventurism. We would thus have to rely exclusively upon the Lawrence decision as the sole protection of privacy rights.
From a straight guy who thinks that the marriage label is silly and all about public money rather than anything else this would be preposterously weak protection of privacy rights.
I do not know why gay folks would want to join hands with the Defense of Marriage folks to reinforce the notion that a person needs a state license to have sex.
I oppose Measure 36 not because I think gays should marry but because I do not think anyone needs a license to have sex.
A poll question that more accurately reflects the full scope of the constitutional amendment, and not the present anticipated legislative action, should read:
"Should the legislature be authorized to prohibit all extra-marital sexual relations?"
Your comment that "Religion has nothing to do with civil marriage[]" is flat wrong from their perspective. And from their perspective religion and marriage has everything to do with sex and nothing to do with state money for sex. The gear that they are stuck in is a difference in perspective.
The next time you hear a person in their mid twenties proclaim that they are a virgin and proud of it and that they are saving their virginity for some theoretical and mystical future benefit that accompanies copulation (but only if married) you will see a sick twisted and confused sole. This group of folks, if they become legislators, will invariably craft sex regulation legislation to get others to be like them. Sick and twisted.
Please do not isolate myopically on the affect of the amendment upon only the gay community. Broaden your analytical horizon. It clearly has implications beyond the gay folks. The gay folks who feel they need a license to have sex are a product of the sick and twisted confusion that results from exposure to religion. Put yourself in their shoes.
PFO Blogger on 10 Sep 2004
First, though I often bristle at some of Leonard's positions, I'm thrilled he's taken this position on 36. Bravo.
Second - Ron raises some interesting points...but from my perspective, highlighting the sexual aspect of marriage - or even sex in general - is a sure way to see the measure enacted with double digit majority. The "ick factor" about sex - gay sex in particular - is precisely what triggers most people's anxiety over the issue - not equal protection, which is really what this is about.
EAC on 10 Sep 2004
I sure hope that Ron doesn’t influence anyone’s vote with his flawed reasoning. The issue is not about marriage’s condoning of sex, and it’s not about whether marriage itself is worthwhile; the issue is equality. Even if you think marriage is a mistake (which for many it might be, although I’m sure glad to be married) you should be willing to let all people make that mistake. If Measure 36 prohibited miscegenation, would Ron still use the same argument? People, please ignore him and vote no on 36.
Scott Jensen on 10 Sep 2004
Commissioner Randy Leonard has outdone himself this time. I intend to write all the commissioners asking for them to support Leonards Resolution!
Thanks Randy!
ron on 11 Sep 2004
EAC -- Did you read my point as supporting 36? Hum. Go read my original point again.
The issue is indeed equality. People who call their relationship a marriage (or civil union) should be equally denied public pay for sex.
I am not motivated by the whining of folks who want money for sex, regardless of their declared gender preference. I do not oppose 36 because I want gays to get money. I oppose 36 because I do not want anyone to get paid public money for sex.
I believe that the religious folks, including the religious gay marriage folks, are extracting a tribute from the public at large, which is enforceable at the point of a government gun, for public display of sexual preference. This applies also to civil unions. The government gun issue goes away if there is a mere public registry for a private contract (largely of a financial nature) between contracting parties.
This mere registry option though would not allow the dominant religious groups to meddle in people’s private sexual lives. Protecting individual liberty sometimes involves denying someone their tribute money. Individual liberty would be better advanced, here, in my opinion, by removing the tributes for calling a relationship either a marriage or a civil union.
I can only concur with Randy but for difference reasons.
Elaine of Kalilily on 11 Sep 2004
It sounds to me as though Ron's argument is the ultimate Libertarian's cry to keep government out of our lives. It's just one piece of a greater perspective that relieves the larger society of the responsibiity to protect the rights of minority and other selected (by them) individuals. From that perspective, eventually we wind up eliminating Social Security, Medicare, SSI etc. etc. He calls it "tribute." I call it democratic social and moral responsibility. And one can avoid and ignore religious rules about sex or anything else. That has nothing to do with equal access to rights under a democratic law. It's scary to me how much people like Ron are mixing up god and Caesar these days.
ron on 11 Sep 2004
Elaine – you miss one important distinction. There are limits to the use of secularism; here secular sounding arguments have religious stuff at their core. The ultimate secular (though wholly religious) argument is that which is now contemplated by the American Bar Association. The ABA wants to prohibit any judge from having membership in organizations that discriminate against gays. This is not just for their work on the job where their role is to be secular and fair regardless of the outside private views. It could mean, for example, that a judge could not be a member of the Catholic Church. Is this an attack that is squarely pointed at a group or is it an attack on individually held views of members of the group?
The church could put forward a public pretense of fairness while its members could remain as homophobic as before; each member would have to contain outward expression of any view that is contrary to the ABA’s view. It would push homophobes into underground discussion. It likewise changes the dynamics of public discussion on the formation of community standards pertaining to sexual relations to make one groups’ views, by definition, pure hate while the other (the gay parade) one that is, by definition, pure love. It is an attack on the speaker as much as it is an attack on the words of the speaker; which is really only a slightly attenuated attack on their thoughts.
The tactic of attack may only be that of mirroring the attack by the religious right. The simple expression “two wrongs doesn’t make a right” seems to apply here. Stop the cycle by not escalating it.
I do not believe that it is, by definition, evil to think gay sex is icky. That would make me evil. One elementary notion in criminal law as that the state cannot prosecute someone for their thoughts, only their deeds.
The ABA is mixing up god and secular stuff. Do not look to whether one organization self-proclaims themselves as religious or secular. Look to their actions and then work backwards to determine whether the organization is religious or secular. The ABA (when acting on sexual morality issues) and the Gay Marriage Rights movement are religious because at their sole is the issue of sex in society. This myopic focus is usually associated with institutions that are self-declared as religious.
Your argument about social security and stuff can be, and has been, addressed through non-sexual-orientation factors such as age.
It is not my moral responsibility to pay gays for public display of sexual orientation. Do not confuse that so as to mean that I am immoral and evil because somehow that means that I now hate old people. That is an analytical leap that defies logic. If a gay person wants to get an extra helping of funds intended for the old, thereby reducing the available resources for other old people, by announcing that they are a union of two gay people then this is a tribute that comes at the expense of another old person. Same applies for straight marriage.
My cry is not so much to keep government out of my life but to keep religious dominated government out of my life. This is more protective of gay freedoms than the current gay marriage movement ever hopes to achieve. And, by the way, is fully consistent with the Lawrence decision. Go read Lawrence then we can talk about who has a better argument about protecting the liberty interests of gays and religions alike. It will come from a damn Atheist that is straight.
I do have a moral obligation to protect minorities and to protect people who have varying ideas about private sexual activity. It is impossible for me to simultaneously adopt all the varying ideas about sexual preferences at one time. It is preposterous to think that the government can and should impose the impossible upon us all. Must I be fearful of saying that gay sex is icky in the same way that I must be fearful of saying that there is no super being, just so as to appease some political group?
All this tripwire mental stuff goes away if the government ends tributes for public display of sexual preference.
Elaine of Kalilily on 11 Sep 2004
Well, Ron, from one straight atheist to another, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You are welcome to feel that gay sex is icky, and I am welcome to feel that "tribute" and equal right under the law are not the same thing. And, while it wouldn't be easy for an ethical judge to uphold a law that was in opposition to his/her religious beliefs, I don't think it's impossible -- certainly not impossible if he/she really believes in the separation of church and state. And if he/she doesn't, he/she shouldn't be a judge. Or a president, for that matter.
ron on 11 Sep 2004
Equal right to tribute.
The "equal" part is the standard applied to the tributes. The "equal" thing is not a benefit in and of itself in academic isolation. Otherwise one could demand some "equal," to which someone would have to ask "equal what?"
The standard for a judge and a politician, like a president, are quite different. Bush can whine and moan all he wants while a judge should easily set aside personal opinion and follow the law.
The law, incidentally, in Oregon when encountering a statutory law that is unconstitutional is to simply declare the statutory provision void. I would have simply declared the marriage statute void as unconstitutional in violation of the equal privileges clause (setting aside the flaws on standing). The pro marriage folks would have had to call a special session to try to draft an acceptable replacement. The judge, for whatever political reason, did not follow the normal routine when selecting a remedy. He overstepped his authority by presuming that he could judicially redraft the statute to his liking via a prospective order that is not yet written. If a judge can redraft laws then we really do not need a legislature at all – which is the effect of the chosen remedy carried to the logical extreme.
The judge in the Multnomah County case pleased neither side and in the end left and opinion that was not a “final” appealable decision except for the narrow aspect of state registration. Had he done more then it would have suffered fatally, on appeal, on standing grounds.
The odd ruling, whether you know it or not, tends to support preservation of tributes for sex to straight folks. It was a remarkably secular sounding appeasement of gays while yielding to the political power of the dominant religious folks that hate gay sex and gay marriage and all things gay. It was governed by religion, not secularism or law.
Just think, we could have a new statute today from the legislature that did not mention man or woman. They (the legislators) would have had to look to specific factors other than sexual orientation to support the nonsexual law; but without tribute for public display of sexual orientation they would have been forced to strip down those tributes. The strip down process would have resulted in confining tributes to the existence and support of kids, not sex. But this could only have happened successfully, through to the Oregon Supreme Court, if Diane Linn had said no to the gay demand for marriage licenses. The lawyers for Basic Rights simply dropped the ball, tactically.
Hint. Look for allies rather than enemies and you might find them; unless, of course, you want me to support tributes for sex for the sake of sex. If civil union equals gay and marriage equals straight then I would find that choice of nomenclature invalid too, even if Measure 36 passes.