September 19, 2004

Comments (20)

1. The One True b!X on 19 Sep 2004

   One of my favorite moments: Ellen Lowe, giving the on-target sound-bite for the civil unions issue, asking heterosexuals to ask themselves whether they would be satisfied with only getting to have a civil union and not a marriage.

2. The One True b!X on 19 Sep 2004

   Somewhere out there must be a reader who works for KATU or who was at that Town Hall. So tell me something, please.

   At the very end, Steve Dunn asked an undecided voter (named, it sounds like, Karen Schieferstein) if the conversation had led them to a decision. She said it had, but he opted not to have her reveal to the viewers what that decision was.

   Someone out there has to know what she decided. I'd like to know.

3. GA-Keith on 19 Sep 2004

   Bummed. I was out of town for this, I hope to hear some about it here soon. The reminder was much appreciated, thanks.

4. Scott Jensen on 19 Sep 2004

   I watched it.
   I'm not real sure how the evening turned into a debate about children. The real issue shouldn't be about children but about civil rights and equality under the law.

5. The One True b!X on 19 Sep 2004

   If there are locals who missed this but do want to see how it went down, I have it on tape. It would be better (if the interest indeed is there) if we could just arrange to gather several at once to watch it, rather than me having to keep lending it out and not have it on hand for myself. Or that'd be my preference anyway.

6. Scott-in-Japan on 20 Sep 2004

   I missed Town Hall (I thought it died years ago).

   But here we go, let's review:
   - Gay people can receive all the legal protections of 'marriage' through contracts outside of the 'marriage' process.
   - There is no tax advantage to being married (or not).
   - Folks who easily accept gays don't care about the marriage amendment, and largely want the headache to go away.
   - The only folks opposed to the Marriage Amendment strongly are the folks who will never accept it.

   In other words, the amendment only causes friction between gays and those strongly opposed. It doesn't bring any more acceptance than it would if the amendment never existed. And it's annoying folks who previously didn't care much either way.
   

7. M on 20 Sep 2004

   "Gay people can receive all the legal protections of 'marriage' through contracts outside of the 'marriage' process."

   That's like taxing gay people thousands of dollars in legal fees to form a patchwork of contracts that still won't come close to all the protections and benefits of marriage. Legal marriage status cannot be replicated by contracts.

8. hilsy on 20 Sep 2004

   Someone please explain to me how a contract, outside of the frameowrk of marriage, would allow a gay "partner" to make life-or-death decisions in an emergency situation.

   Also, I disagree on the tax issues because medical benefits from work are taxed for gay (or unmarried heterosexual) couples while those same benefits are not taxed for married couples.
   

9. The Prof on 20 Sep 2004

   My impression after being at the town meeting was actually frustration at the modern "objective" media. The "yes" side made a repeated set of misstatements and distortions, yet "balance" meant that Dunn just turned to the other side and said "now how do you respond." There was little effort to say "Well is that factually true?"

   Examples:

   - The claim by the yes lawyer that judges have to track public opinion when interpreting the constitution (Brown v. Board of Ed?) and that only the people can legitimately alter constitutional interpretations (Hello? Look up the definition of judicial review).

   - The repeated claim by "yes" that measure 36 does not change the constitution, only leaves things the way they were six months ago. At the same time, the group asserted that a "no" vote on 36 would require the state to legalize polygamy and incest. Huh??? You can't both say 36 does not change the law and 36 does change the law.

   - Children children children. A theme of the "yes" crowd was that a man/woman married couple is the best environment to raise children. Even if true SO WHAT? As pointed out by the Willamette Law prof, 36 has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN!! Measure 36 does not ban adoptions by gay couples or artificial insemination.
   If you are in favor of children you should be in favor of 36 since it provides legal protections to children of gay couples analogous to that of married couples.

   Very frustrating forum to attend. A credentialed university professor review a series of peer reviewed research results, and KATU's "yes" rejoinder is a guy from Lake Oswego who googled a single study in Australia. Another individual's expertise on child rearing by gay couples is based on the fact that he has 10 kids.
   

10. doretta on 20 Sep 2004

    Scott-in-Japan:

    1. It is not true that you can use contracts to come anywhere near the benefits of marriage. No contract can make my child eligible for my spouse's medical insurance. No contract can make me eligible for my spouse's pension. Either of those seem like minor quibbles to you? I could list dozens more of similar import.

    2. You said, "In other words, the amendment only causes friction between gays and those strongly opposed. It doesn't bring any more acceptance than it would if the amendment never existed." You seem to be confused about what this amemdment is. This is not an amendment being promoted by gay people looking for "acceptance." Exactly the opposite, it is being promoted by people who are afraid gay people will be accepted if they are allowed to live, dare I say it, "normally."
    

11. Pliny on 20 Sep 2004

    The Prof:

    That's pretty much how "Town Hall" works. I did a few of them way back when Jeff Gianola hosted the show, and had much the same experience. They're less interested in talking about an issue than they are about getting passionate soundbites.

12. Referee on 30 Sep 2004

    Doretta:

    1) "No contract can make my child eligible for my spouse's medical insurance." - Ridiculous. Your "spouse's medical insurance" is itself a contract. Renegotiate that contract.

    2) "No contract can make me eligible for my spouse's pension." - Again, patently false. Your "spouse's pension" is covered in a contract with an employer. Renegotiate that contract.

    3) "Either of those seem like minor quibbles to you?" - No. You are concerned about these issues and your concerns are valid. They are merely out of place in a discussion about marriage.

    4) "I could list dozens more of similar import." - Perhaps you should, since so far all you are doing is reinforcing the notion that your concerns are not related to marriage.

    5) "This is not an amendment being promoted by gay people looking for 'acceptance.'" - Quite true. Those advocating same-sex marriage have not put anything on any ballot in any state, nor have any plans been announced to do so. They have entered into back room deals with corrupt politicians in New York, San Francisco, and here in Multnomah County. So far, all efforts seem aimed at using government to force a position on the people, rather than engage in the democratic process. It is difficult to say how these widely discredited tactics will establish any kind of "acceptance." Perhaps that is not the intent.
    6) "...it is being promoted by people who are afraid gay people will be accepted..." - Completely unfounded. Measure 36 does not prohibit homosexuality or anyone's impression of it. Nor does it try and use government for the illegitimate purpose of establishing what is or is not "accepted" in society. You are imputing motives on people you have never met and know nothing about. This is a dishonest and partisan tactic, and an effort to poison the other side rather than contest what they have to say legitimately. It is the hallmark of closed-mindedness.

13. Referee on 30 Sep 2004

    hilsy -
    "Someone please explain to me how a contract, outside of the frameowrk of marriage, would allow a gay 'partner' to make life-or-death decisions in an emergency situation."

    With a living will you can specify any individual to make health care decisions on your behalf in the event you are unable to do so. Even better, you can specify alternates in case that person is likewise unable, for example, if you were both in the same car wreck. They are important for married and unmarried individuals alike.

14. The One True b!X on 30 Sep 2004

    The he or she who posts with an email address at "dodgeit.com" lives up to their domain. What they avoid is precisely what the raised in the Town Hall program: All of those things come as defaults when one is married. Why should same-sex couples have to jump through costly hoops that opposite-sex couples do not?

15. Referee on 30 Sep 2004

    The Prof

    1) "The claim by the yes lawyer that judges have to track public opinion when interpreting the constitution..." - I will assume you are merely constructing a straw-man here as I doubt that was the actual assertion. More likely it is rooted in this ruling by the US Supreme Court:

    "There are risks when the judicial branch gives enhanced protection to certain substantive liberties without the guidance of the more specific provisions of the Bill of Rights. As the history of the Lochner era demonstrates, there is reason for concern lest the only limits to such judicial intervention become the predilections of those who happen at the time to be Members of this Court."

    The court goes on to limit itself to recognizing unwritten liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." This is the only aproach consistent with an orderly society as only those "deeply rooted" and "traditional" liberties would have been understood by those who ratified the constitution or the ammendment in question. Shifting views are not the responsibility of the judiciary to incorporate into the Constitution, but rather the people. Same-sex marriage clearly does not qualify for judicial intervention under this limitation. Instead, this is a matter for the legislature and/or the voters.

    2) "only the people can legitimately alter constitutional interpretations (Hello? Look up the definition of judicial review)." - You are wrong, the "yes" lawyer is exactly right on this point. The Constitution should not be modified by any branch of government, including the judiciary. It is a document specified "by the people" and only they have the right to alter it. To say otherwise is to remove any reason to have a constitution.

    Since you brought up "judicial review," I thought you might appreciate the words of Thomas Jefferson on the subject, clearly echoed in the Supreme Court ruling, above:

    "The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

    3) "- The repeated claim by 'yes' that measure 36 does not change the constitution, only leaves things the way they were six months ago." - I agree the Constitution is going to be ammended, and that is a change. Given the above cited Supreme Court ruling, it would have been more accurate to refer to the interpretation of the Oregon Constitution as not changing. What the "yes" crowd is exhibiting is the same distrust of the courts to limit their own powers that the "no" crowd is attempting to exploit in asking the Oregon Supreme Court, and not the voters of this state, to ammend the constitution. At least the "yes" crowd is addressing their issue to the relevant party.

    4) "36 has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN!!" and "If you are in favor of children you should be in favor of 36..." - Please try to argue one point or the other. Contradicting yourself is neither persuasive nor does it lend credibility.

16. Referee on 30 Sep 2004

    bix:

    1) "The he or she who posts with an email address at 'dodgeit.com' lives up to their domain." - Tsk. Tsk. Leveling personal attacks at guests in your forum. This is the tactic of a closed-minded bigot. Not what I would have expected from you.

    2) "Why should same-sex couples have to jump through costly hoops that opposite-sex couples do not?" - Who says either that same-sex couples should or that opposite-sex couples do not? You should ask this of someone who has actually taken that position. I would also advise finding someone who has not "jump[ed] through costly [legal] hoops" themselves as it would make the claim that it was unnecessary more credible.

17. The One True b!X on 30 Sep 2004

    Tsk. Tsk. Leveling personal attacks at guests in your forum.

    That's not a personal attack. You dodged that aspect of the argument you were making. And you did it again.

18. Referee on 30 Sep 2004

    bix -

    "You dodged that aspect of the argument you were making. And you did it again."

    Interesting to say that I am arguing something while simultaneously dodging it. Not that you are self conflicting or anything, but perhaps you could show me where I argued that homosexuals should spend more on legal fees than heterosexuals. Otherwise, you are simply engaging in a dishonest diversion and I will not participate.

19. The One True b!X on 01 Oct 2004

    ... perhaps you could show me where I argued that homosexuals should spend more on legal fees than heterosexuals.

    You are sitting here explaining how same-sex couples could go through various legal hoops in order to obtain various legal rights. Unstated in that explanation, however, is that opposite-sex couples do not have to jump through these hoops because most of these various rights come with being married.

    Insinuated is that same-sex couples should stop claiming they can't get these rights because they can get these rights as long as they are willing to be a class of people who have to jump through legal hoops to get them, while another class of people simply receives them by default.
    

20. Referee on 01 Oct 2004

    "Insinuated is that same-sex couples should stop claiming they can't get these rights because they can get these rights as long as they are willing to be a class of people who have to jump through legal hoops to get them"

    Perhaps you should deal with the facts presented and not your pretended insinuations. Two posters in this forum claimed they could not get specific benefits. They did not claim it was hard or easy, rather that it was impossible. In both cases they were incorrect and I helped further the discussion by addressing the error. I did not see you correct their misinformation. Did you want the error to stand? Is ignorance of the facts important to accepting your point?

    Nevertheless, you seem determined to talk about degree of difficulty of legal procedures.

    1) You merely handwave at "legal hoops" without specifying any, which makes the topic difficult to discuss. Perhaps that is negligence on your part, or perhaps it is deliberate subterfuge. Either way, I have not seen anybody state that anything legal should be difficult. In fact, much effort goes into streamlining legal procedures all the time. I cannot imagine if you proposed a way to make your unspecified, imaginary "legal hoop" less arduous anyone would say, "No, this legal process should be arcane and expensive!"

    2) Your whole argument that whenever two people want to curtail legal paperwork they should, instead, marry is ludicrous on its face. Let's say person A wants person B to inherit his estate. It's not fair that whatever "class of people" person A and/or person B "is" should have to fill out a will, therefore persons A and B should get married. Surely you can see the absurdity in this line of reasoning.

    3) As the above example shows, a couple is not a "class of people," as you claim. If so, then which person, person A or person B, determines the "class of people" that make up the couple? Are you deliberately changing scope back and forth between couples and individuals to accomplish some trick or is your thinking really this muddled? Either way, from now on let's talk about "class of couple" when we are referring to couples, or "class of organization" when we are talking about groups larger than two.