October 18, 2004
(Updated) Fear And Prejudice In The State Of Oregon
Measure 36 Supporters Resort To Automated Push Poll
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
While in the recent past we engendered some controversy over our overly-broad use of the term "push polling" to describe the normal and more commonly-accepted practice of raising negatives inthe course of a normal poll, we feel confident that this time around, the term of art is properly applied.
In this case, the first report came into us via email from a reader shortly after 5:00 PM this afternoon. Their email included the notice on their caller ID, and then described the call as follows:
1. It identifies itself as a survey.
2. It asks if I plan on voting in the Nov 2 election. My answer: Yes.
3. It then asks if I plan on voting for Measure 36, and then gives a summary of the measure. (The summary sounded exactly like the short Voters' Pamphlet version, no pushing yet.)
4. It proceeds to tell me that in Massachusetts, lessons on homosexuality will be delivered to elementary schoolers, and that when parents objected, they were rebuffed and told that they had no choice because gay marriage was now legal in Massachusetts. It then went on to ask if I felt this might become a problem in Oregon.
Before we had a chance to get into research mode, the reader in question got the jumpstart on it. Based upon the caller ID information, the firm in question was identified as FEC Research. As you'll note if you click on that URL, visitors are taken to an umbrella firm called ccAdvertising.
Continuing their own research, this reader ran a relevant Google search, from which you can find any number of other negative, if not outright harsh, opinions and characterizations of previous "polls" conducted by FEC.
Less than an hour after this reader email, and still before we had gotten the chance to sit down and look into all of this, a second reader emailed us about the exact same poll. Within half an hour later, this second reader emailed us to say that a friend of theirs had received the exact same call within moments of the one they had received. Late this evening, we noticed this weblog post from yet another Oregonian who received the exact same call.
Now, traditionally, a push poll is considered not a survey of public opinion but a form of advertising, and its "sample" of respondents absurdly large compared to that of a normal poll. As such, we look at several factors -- the number of people just within two of three degrees of separation from us who received the call within a single hour, the history of FEC Research as given up by Google, and even the fact that the actual firm in question considers itself an advertising company -- and feel secure in making the charge that the supporters of Measure 36 have stooped to the level of an authentic, honest-to-goodness push poll.
Which means we have to take at least a cursory look at the content of the push poll. It ties firmly and directly into the new television ad from the Measure 36 people, which begins with a lone woman and ends with her standing amidst a crowd of people, who she identifies as teachers from across Oregon concerned about what Oregon's schoolchildren will be taught if Measure 36 fails. A clearly-coordinated echo of what is suggested by FEC's push poll.
At the risk of incurring further wrath from the tag-team waging a rhetorical war in the reader comments to our Measure 36 endorsement item, this one-two punch scare tactic is nothing but prejudice against homosexuals. It's nothing mroe than an attempt to inflame other people's prejudice against homosexuals. It is these things inherently, and it is also these thigns because of something helpfully pointed out in today's Oregonian.
How children fare with same-sex couples is not as important to supporters of Measure 36 as how same-sex marriage will affect other children, says Nashif of the Defense of Marriage Coalition. They worry legalizing same-sex marriage would require schools to rewrite their curriculums to portray gay parents in the same way as married mothers and fathers.
If same-sex marriage became legal in Oregon, it would be up to the state Department of Education to decide whether to include it as a topic in state content standards and up to local districts to decide whether they include it in their curriculums, says Salam Noor, assistant state superintendent overseeing curriculum. That would involve teachers, parents and public hearings, he says.
What the backers of Measure 36 are trying to insinuate through their television and push-poll advertisements is that Oregon's schoolchildren will be learning all manner of nasty of horrible things about homosexuality if Measure 36 were to fail. What they are trying to imply (whether or not they themselves even believe this to be true) -- and the fear upon which they are trying to prey -- is that Oregon's children will subject to in-depth descriptions of homosexual activity, in exacting detail, in an almost "how-to" manner.
That, of course, is nonsense, and even they probably know it. But really what they are doing is telling the voters of Oregon that if Measure 36, adults and children alike will have to live in a state where voters failed to condemn homosexuality, where voters in essence defended the rights of homosexuals to exist in society. It is that mere notion -- not some more devlish insinuated threat -- that backers of Measure 36 find nasty and horrible.
That, my friends, is prejudice. And even if you don't buy that the most directly responsible backers of Measure 36 are themselves bigots, their current advertising, both on the air and on the phone, is in many ways a sin even greater than their own simple prejudice, because it is intended to inflame and exploit the prejudices, be they latent or otherwise, of others.
Regardless of what you think of anything else, the tactics of the backers of Measure 36 clearly show them to be the manipulative, distorting, fear-mongering creatures that we keep saying they are. And we now leave you to the rabid wolves of denial and acrobatic argumentation who will swarm into the reader comments and tell you none of this is true.
Update
Yet another report. They ask for more informarion, so hopefully they will check back here.
Update
The campaign against Measure 36 is urging people to volunteer to go door-to-door or make telephone calls for them. They've asked for this all along of course, but they just put out a new call in light of the push poll being conducted.
Posted at 11:54 PM | PermalinkComments (65) | TrackBacks (2)
More In Same-Sex Marriage, State of Oregon
Trackbacks (2)
-
Those against marriage, resorting to dirty tricks on 19 Oct 2004
Those who favor Constitutional Amendment Measure 36 are doing wrong. The measure, which changes Oregon's constitution, stops the discussion among all Oregonians about marriage. Why don't they want us to all participate in the conversation?
-
Push-polling from Gaybashers on 19 Oct 2004
I just got a polling phone call. The "pollster" was a prerecorded voice controlled by a computer, which could recognize if I said "yes" or "no." This is a paraphrase, but I think I've got the gist of it. POLL:...
Comments (65)
pat hayes on 19 Oct 2004
Hi Folks...I cannot agree more with both the sentiment and the forcefulness of this article. We cannot allow M36 proponents the camouflage of reason and rationality. In my view the cultural radicals who wrote and funded this measure commit no less than treason against this nation and should be held to that charge!
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
hilsy on 19 Oct 2004
I got the same call last night. My frustration with the call was two-fold. First there was the whole "push" style that B!x explains above. But more frustrating for me was that I was not allowed answer anything but yes or no to their completely leading and irrelevant question. When I tried to answer "irrelevan," the computer replied that the call would be discontinued unless a yes or no answer was provided. So I yelled "irrelevant" louder even though I rationally understood I was just yelling at a computer.
Bob R. on 19 Oct 2004
My parent's house in Clackamas county received the call last night, too, so their poll definitely extends beyond Multnomah county.
- Bob R.
Lynn Siprelle on 19 Oct 2004
I got the call as well, and two other people I know did too in different parts of the county. I suspect this was a huge effort.
Lea on 19 Oct 2004
My husband received an identical call; we live in northern Clackamas county.
Damn it. The words to express my anger and frustration fail me. The proponents of theocracy, whatever they think of themselves as, will stop at nothing to push this bill. If they fail to see 1M1W as theocracy, it only highlights their ignorance of history.
Michael Moore on 19 Oct 2004
We received the call at about noon. We're in Elmira (Lane County) about 20 miles west of Eugene. Sickening.
Jonathan on 19 Oct 2004
I also received it last night. In hindsight, while there was a pause for answering "are you voting," I wonder if in fact, it's just a tape, which will play regardless of your answer. In that case (and I obviously don't know if it's true), it really is a misrepresentation to call it a "poll" at all, since it would never record responses!
Justin on 19 Oct 2004
What's so wrong with this? It just seems like another tactic to influence votes.
Bob R. on 19 Oct 2004
Justin -
If all immoral and misleading campaign behavior is reduce to "just another tactic", that is a slipperly slope indeed.
I would actually be quite OK (in an open govt. sort of way) with a recording that started off "This is a message from supporters of Measure 36... we think if it fails to pass that..." etc.
But it was not any such thing. It first identified itself as a "Poll", and for two questions acted as if it were a pure, neutral opinion poll, before delivering it's rhetorical payload.
- Bob R.
Portlander SE on 19 Oct 2004
I also received the call, and hung up as soon as they identified themselve as FEC.
Betsy on 19 Oct 2004
It's in my caller ID from yesterday; I don't answer calls from people I don't know.
Karen on 19 Oct 2004
We just got this call about half an hour ago, in Eugene. I'm very glad to see that others are talking about it, but my question is--what do we DO about it?
queenleslie on 19 Oct 2004
We just got the call. Since we couldn't find our extension phone, my husband and I both listened to it on speakerphone. I had to laugh (instead of cry)at the idea that schools would be 'teaching homeosexuality.' When was the last time school taught 'heterosexuality'?
Schools should teach what is reality - and the reality is there are all kinds of relationships among all kinds of people. Value judgements can be taught at home. That's what I find so reprehensible about this whole campaign--the cramming of someone else's value judgements down my throat.
The One True b!X on 19 Oct 2004
There isn't much to be done about it. The only real counter to a background ad campaign like this one is for the media to report on the distortion of what the calls assert, to coutner the ffect of the calls.
Lea on 19 Oct 2004
This is ludicrous. I just got the second call from these bozos in two days.
It's not just a tape - when I said nothing to see what it would do, it went on to deliver the rhetoric about MA without waiting for an answer.
circe on 19 Oct 2004
Sonofa! I just got this call tonight. Apparently they are being sued in North Dakota for violating a state law that prohibits prerecorded phone calls of any nature without intro by a live person. (see article)
Anne Dufay on 19 Oct 2004
I got it too. And, I agree with everything folks have said before me -- it was a nasty, and disturbing little bit of exposure.
But I would add, I think it's much much more than a push-poll. It's pure hate-propaganda, lies and ugly and no different, in substance, than a screed-wrapped rock tossed through a window.
Only the method of delivery was different...
On Lawn on 20 Oct 2004
You rang?
The main, and I do say *main* fault in the current rationalization of voting "no" 36 is the alteration from a referendum on marriage to a referendum on homosexuality (and make no mistake you are). There is no denying the ramifications such a political maneuver will have.
What do I mean about making 36 a referendum on homosexuality? I mean scaring people with misinformation that voting "yes" on 36 is a vote to hurt and demean homosexuals. And somehow "no" is a vote of recognition and tolerance of homosexuality. Speaking of Marriage Matters, you note how it says 36 is not about homosexuality? The direct quote on the upper right corner is, "The issue isn't whether you're straight or gay. The issue is whether you support marriage." Yet, every post on there is about the impact on homosexuality. Even when it discusses the impact on children, it is always focused narrowly on the impact of homosexuals trying to raise children. not children in general, not couples in general, just a lot of speculation that homosexuals will not get what they want if it passes.
That is the question they turn 36 into. And that turns it into a referendum on homosexuality in general. All other considerations, healthy marital relationships, responsible child parenting, values of common discression and demeanor are all just secondary if not throw under the bus of homosexual tolerance alltogether.
Steve Yuhas is a gay man living in San Diego, and he recently wrote a piece on just what mainstreaming homosexuality is. He's not speaking hypothetically, he is speaking about reality. And if this is the choice homosexuals are driving 36 into being, then lets not deny the impact, shall we?
Steve points out elsewhere that you can buy sex toys in a public part/tourist spot in San Diego because this is what is demanded by homosexuals as "tolerance". A pretty dumb move, and Steve is dead on the money. By the way, Steve is openly persecuted by the gay community. That article alone put him on numerous mailing lists encouraging a very rude and vitriolic response from people in the homosexual community who are the most active in demanding tolerance.
Another look a this "referendum" comes from Dennis Campbell, "Criticize 'Gays' and be Ready to Pay the Price"...
Indeed, its a reality folks. One thing they do have wrong though. Even if 36 passes look to see such vulgar displays of homosexual tolerance in a school near you.
And (you may ask again) why? Because this is what homosexual tolerance means to them, obviously. There does not seem to be any couth or demeanor restraining their judgement. Especially by trying to make 36 into a referendum on homosexuality.
A judicious person may even conclude (as I do) that a "yes" vote on 36 is just what the homosexual community needs to shape up and mature a little. The hope being that their newfound maturity, demeanor, and social understanding will translate to less explicit and vulgar presentations to the public and especially our school systems.
Actually that is a no brainer because that is what marriage represents. When we defend marriage we defend the best that society has to teach.
Bob R. on 20 Oct 2004
Nice of "on-lawn" to post misleading pro-36 spam to these comments. Note that he doesn't address the push polls at all. His spam reaches to San Diego to find examples - how about including some Oregon-specific rationales next time? (In addition to keeping it on topic).
- Bob R.
On Lawn on 20 Oct 2004
Note that he doesn't address the push polls at all.
Right, because the real evil is that you were disrupted from dinner by a survey with an agenda. Shame on me for addressing the issues in the call. And how dare I point to an opinion from someone in San Diego!
Heh, okay I can't keep a straight face. It makes me chuckle. This forum seems full of people looking for very silly justifications for their views. May I be the one to inform you that political thumb sucking will give you no nourishment.
Jasper on 20 Oct 2004
Like "On Lawn" and Steve Yuhas (though on the opposite side), I often find myself making a homogenizing fallacy with statements such as "These are the same people who..."
The truth is, the groups of people we discuss in this way are not homogeneous, so we err in presuming them so.
This is the fallacy in Steve Yuhas' article, quoted by On Lawn. He assumes that the GLBT community wants to appear to be "just like everyone else," which is true for many in the community, but definitely not for all -- and it is equally untrue that the majority in the community "conduct themselves in a way inconsistent with every public decency law on the books."
On Lawn's statement that Yuhas is "openly persecuted by the gay community" is another example of the same fallacy. That a few, perhaps several, members of the community were extremely angry and communicated their emotion unproductively and possibly childishly does not suggest that they represent the "gay community."
If you state publicly an opinion that strikes at the very lives that people live, many will strike back, and some of those won't do it constructively. That's the way of public discourse.
To gather the most unconstructive and immature responses as those that typify an entire community is fallacious, disingenuous, and, frankly, silly.
On Lawn on 20 Oct 2004
Jasper,
You have a marvelous point. Dead on, straight until morning, you've hit the nail on the head. I am against homogenizing groups of people by calling the same name.
Though the irony of claiming homogenious representation while quoting a homosexual with an opposing view is not lost on me, I admit it, I did it and it was wrong. Oversimplification and painting everyone with the same brush does stamp out diversity. Calling divergent people and interests the same name only produces misunderstanding.
Thank you for correcting me. You are 100% completely right in doing so.
There are two ramifications of this...
1) Where were you when b!x and others were painting (and still are painting) 36 as an issue of religious oppression? You can go back to the 36 endorsement thread and watch b!x say quite point blank how much he is judging the whole movement by his own prejudice against a certain few.
I would natrually anticipate your beliefs would be offended at such stereo-typing. I anticipate you would condemn such action.
2) As in that thread we can clearly distinguish two different points of view on marriage. One, and this is the one that endorses homosexual partnerships being called the same as heterosexual partnerships because as romantic relationships there probably is not any meaningful difference. If children are simply wards of the state only requiring two people's fostership to enhance their romance then even moreso the same.
But there is the other view, that parenting children means progeny and responsibility. That this places a burden and treasure to the selfless acts that two people naturally are inclined to do when they love each other.
Lets not "homogenize" those two camps under the same title. Give them distinction and diversity. And that means "yes" on 36.
Referee on 20 Oct 2004
Bix,
1) "At the risk of incurring further wrath from the tag-team waging a rhetorical war in the reader comments to our Measure 36 endorsement..."
You rang? Is the "rhetorical war" truly going so badly for you to make you flinch here?
You aren't doing anything to gain credibility here. Once you've written that you think government officials should ignore the law and operate secretly to take away our voting rights you pretty much give up the ability to feign indignance over a dinnertime phonecall.
2) "What the backers of Measure 36 are trying to insinuate...What they are trying to imply...
"And we now leave you to the rabid wolves of denial and acrobatic argumentation who will swarm into the reader comments and tell you none of this is true."
Why does anyone need to deny it? You already did. "Implied," "tried," are all admissions that something didn't happen. Nevertheless, just to tweak bix's fears, I will point out that bix never mentioned an example of the phonecalls saying anything about homosexuals at all. It didn't call homosexuals "bigots," "fear-mongering creatures," or "rabid wolves of denial" for example. That, my friends, would be prejudice.
bartajam on 21 Oct 2004
Do "on lawn" and "referee" get paid to do what they do? On almost board that doesn't follow right-wing Republican orthodoxy there are one or two people who seem to have all the time in the world to quote out of context or when necessary distort and evade the topic.
It’s obvious these two culprits don’t care to know any gay person. Like other communities, queers are quite diverse and most would love their lives peacefully with those they love.
That said, back on topic: has there been enough coverage in the local media of these push-polls (calls filled with lies and distortions) to create a backlash such to discourage groups in the future from doing a similar tactic?
a user on 21 Oct 2004
On Lawn,
What the hell do you expect when you, in a post ostensibly showing us the error of our ways, write about "vulgar displays of homosexual tolerance" at a school near you.
What is that supposed to mean? How can displays of "tolerance" be "vulgar"? Do you think that the typical displays of heterosexual behavior that we are bombarded with in everyday media are "vulgar"?
The truth is, your own posts demonstrate your fear and loathing of homosexuality. You cloak your homophobia behind claims to support children and child-rearing, or proper constitutional procedure.
As has been posted ad nauseum: Measure 36 does nothing about children and child-rearing. Much as you might deny it, Measure 36 *does* amend the Constitution. And heterosexual "immorality" is surely a far greater problem in today's society than the tiny percentage of homosexual "perversion."
Your rhetoric ultimately exposes you for the bigot that you are. And I'm glad that b!x and others are tearing off the cloak.
Anne Dufay on 21 Oct 2004
Anonymous Lawn and Referee are certainly someone's dogs, whether paid or just part of the pack probably doesn't matter. With all the courage of a man in a white sheet, they will not stop, nor will they participate in real discussions. I made the mistake of arguing with them - it's really a supreme waste of precious time. I suggest ignoring them. Not perfect, but in an open forum like this sometimes its best to to treat some posts as you would the same verbiage on a ratty zerox found on your front lawn (with a tip of the hat to you Beavertonians...)
As to the interesting question of whether the negative publicity will stop the fraudulent disseminators of hate speech -- I doubt it. Generally publicity has the opposite effect on these kinds of endeavors.
But, a good lawsuit, hum now -- that might have more of an effect. I don't know if it's possible, I'm not up on the law in this respect. But perhaps misrepresentation of their purpose as performing a "poll" might be an angle?
Referee on 21 Oct 2004
bartajam -
1) "Do 'on lawn' and 'referee' get paid to do what they do?"
Nope, and with nothing to add but a baseless conspiracy theory I don't anticipate anyone asking whether you're getting paid.
2) "It’s obvious these two culprits don’t care to know any gay person."
This is more a statement about how you prefer conspiracy theory to fact. I have said nothing about whether I "know any gay person," so stating that it is "obvious" is flatly wrong. For the record, I know several.
Perhaps you are referring to Mr. Yuhas's statement, above. Mr. Yuhas is a gay radio commentator in San Diego. I'm sure it's also "obvious" to you that he doesn't "care to know any gay person."
Referee on 21 Oct 2004
user -
1) "How can displays of 'tolerance' be 'vulgar'?"
Considering OnLawn's comment came after quoting Mr. Yuhas's description of vulgarity in the name of tolerance it really cannot be too much to ask of you to make that link.
2) "You cloak your homophobia...exposes you for the bigot..."
Yes, of course. Homophobe and bigot, the standard retreat from rational discourse. If OnLawn is a homophobe and bigot because he agrees with Mr. Yuhas's assessment, what does that make Mr. Yuhas? (Hint, since you missed the content of Mr. Yuhas's quote, you clearly missed his sexual orientation. You might want to look at that before you slander yourself further.) Better yet, if you actually dealt with the opposing arguments rather than the opposing arguers you'd have saved yourself all this embarrassment to begin with.
In the mean time, I'll chalk you up as one in favor of teaching homosexuality in the schools.
On Lawn on 21 Oct 2004
bartajam,
Do "on lawn" and "referee" get paid to do what they do?
If what I do means system administration, then yes I do get paid for it. The only thing I've earned posting here is the respect of respectful people, and the derision of derisive people. The implication that I am a party hack is flattering, however. Flattering but false. I suppose I must just be *that* good.
Oh and if I did get paid, do you really think that anyone here but me would know about that? Why the third person appeal? I'm right here and have given an honest answer. Don't believe me? Wow I must be *that* good at this.
On almost board that doesn't follow right-wing Republican orthodoxy
Sorry that doesn't parse. And there are litterally thousands of boards out there. I frequently post on about four, and two of them are non-political. It is funny how you talk about orthodoxy though because vocal dissent is generally considered a good way to find converts. Marriage Matters seems to think that enforcing orthodoxy means quelching dissent. You'll notice that they don't allow posting any more.
It’s obvious these two culprits don’t care to know any gay person.
"The truth is" you say? So what happens when I prove you wrong? Does that shoot a big gaping whole in your strawman? Does it finger you as the desperate dissiminator of derision and deceit?
Why yes, it would. So how can I resist? Though I would hardly find it couth to catalogue all my homosexual friends and family members I can assure you that not only do I know them but we have very cordial relationships. From many holiday meals (where I married into their family) to birthday parties to paling around and playing video games, the fact of their sexual preference has not really mattered.
But note that I strongly object to the implication that you presume some litmus test of homosexual tolerance to have a legitimate oppinion about anything. These are not token relationships I keep around like garlic to ward off your blood-sucking insinuations. These are real frienships and relationships that should not be drug into such impolite discussion.
That said, back on topic:
Now that is fun for everyone isn't it. You spend 3/4ths of your post in off-topic accusations about *me* being off topic and then say this. Well if you didn't I would have (and am for as far as that goes). Seriously complaining and cursing at my name and presense here may console you, but it is nothing but off topic and (in this case) patently false. And at that I'll add your 'token' topical question gave me the giggles.
user,
What the hell do you expect when you, in a post ostensibly showing us the error of our ways, write about "vulgar displays of homosexual tolerance" at a school near you.
I'm always offended when people ask for the mainstreaming of such behaviour demanded as tolerance of them personally. I expect people to understand that. It seeds distrust in me. I expect people to understand that too.
your own posts demonstrate your fear and loathing of homosexuality.
I'm sure you'll get around to showing just my posts accomplish that feat. I'll wait patiently until you do.
You cloak your homophobia
Yes, the great homophobia myth that people are just scared of homosexuals. And that fright turns them to hating. A maneuver that all to conveniently removes the actions that cause distrust (mentioned in the post you are responding to) and replaces them with simply a state of being. Well I'll tell you if your state of being is such irreprehensible public display, I won't like that either --gay or straight.
But just look at you. Even after I mention how ugly things get when you make any discussion on homosexual behaviour and politicing into a referendum of tolerance of their personal lives. You just can't break from that rut, and that rut is going to get you know where in understanding the issues at stake. Not the least of which the impact on the children who have no political power to weild of their own in this matter.
And I dare say you will never see it as long as you place such off-balanced priorities above all else.
Referee on 21 Oct 2004
Anne -
1) "Anonymous Lawn and Referee are certainly someone's dogs...With all the courage of a man in a white sheet,..."
And here we have someone else who thinks they can substitute accusations and invective for argument.
2) "I made the mistake of arguing with them - it's really a supreme waste of precious time."
I agree that your posts have been a waste of time, much like bart and user, above. I've seen you level personal attacks, as above, I've seen you attempt to divert off topic, heck, I've seen you do both and attack someone not even in the discussion (your 17 year old), but I've never seen you actually make an argument. To this day I have no idea how you justify redefining marriage for same-sex couples. But that would likely require more effort than the meanness and evasion you have invested in so far.
On Lawn on 21 Oct 2004
One thing that amuses me to no end is that dissent is so completely foreign to this forum that such outlandish conspiracy theories seem most plausible to them.
So, how much do you think b!x or anyone else would pay for me to bat for them, huh? $5,000? $10,000? How much is a constitutional ammendment worth to you? From this moaning and groaning one would get the impression y'all are simply outgunned right and could use the help. How much is it worth to you? Making money doing this doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Ha! I am only kidding. You can only be this good by being in the correct side of an issue.
But if you want to make me the issue here instead of push polling and 36 then by all means go ahead. I happen to be quite an authority on myself. The best in the world, if I say so myself. And my arguments stand and remain unchallenged. I have no aversion to that deal. I like discussing marriage more than myself, don't get me wrong. But y'all have to do what you *have* to do.
bartajam on 21 Oct 2004
Anne D - I'd certainly like to know what legal justifications citizens could have to stop blatant lying and distortions in a campaign. I think it was an improvement to make candidates say when they are behind an ad. Shouldn’t there be more transparency of who’s paying for push (distortion) calls? Sounds like something everyone could agree on.
a user on 22 Oct 2004
To Lawn and Ref,
I am happy to engage in reasoned discourse, but if I believe you are asserting bigoted and homophobic statements, I will say so.
There is nothing irrational about calling something bigoted and homophobic. Nor does it
close off discussion.
If you are so reasonable, then disprove the claim. I do believe this is at the root of your aversion to gay marriage. Your unwillingness to even tolerate ("behavior demanded as tolerance of them personally") homosexuality is the problem. I don't ask you to approve, but I do ask you to tolerate. That is the requirement of a liberal society. And the refusal to tolerate differences is what defines a bigot.
I state again, and expect you once again to ignore the challenge: please tell me how a display of "tolerance" can be vulgar.
And please do not repeat the "Dykes on Bikes" comment. That was not a display of *tolerance*, that was a parade. And the parade occurs down mainstreet, not next to your local school (as Lawn threatens).
The act of tolerance was allowing such a parade to occur.
You may choose to call the parade itself vulgar, but how is the act of *allowing* a group to express itself "vulgar"?
Lea on 22 Oct 2004
bartajam,
Emotionally, I agree with you. However, there some persuasive reasons why laws against false political advertising would be difficult to enforce. Primary among them is freedom of speech. Factcheck.org has a special essay on the subject.
http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports188.html
More than anything else, I tire of the assertions that 36 is not an attack on homosexuality but a protection of the child-rearing potential of hetrosexual couples. I do believe that marriage of two loving, mutually supportive people is in the interests of a stable society and that society should recognize and support that structure.
We will each vote our conscience over the next two weeks. May compassion prevail.
On Lawn on 22 Oct 2004
There is nothing irrational about calling something bigoted and homophobic. Nor does it
close off discussion.
If you are so reasonable, then disprove the claim.
And thats exactly the point of the label game, isn't it. You put labels on people with nothing more than a play-ground invocation. And then it is up to them have to fight them off.
The ol' guilty until proven innocent. Sorry, that does not register in my books of "reasonable", "fair", or even "egalitarian".
And yes it does close off discussion, replacing it with silly name-calling.
Gary on 22 Oct 2004
I'm in Kitsap County, WA. My housemate and I received similar calls without the specific reference to Prop 36 -- messages at first, with promises to call back, which they did until we answered. No humans involved, voice recognition software, stating this survey involves 45 seconds of yes-or-no questions. Buried amidst "Do you consider yourself a Republican?" and questions about taxes, abortion and the right to life was one question about the need to reaffirm marriage as between one man and one woman. No overt FEC connection; I don't have caller ID. Identified very quickly at the end as sponsored by Citizens Against Proposition One, which I can't identify -- both Pierce and Clark Counties have Props One, and statewide we're up into the 800s. Maybe they're trolling for support for a WA amendment next year.
Referee on 22 Oct 2004
1) "If you are so reasonable, then disprove the claim."
I think you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny. If you are so reasonable, then disprove the claim. That is why the "reasonable" thing is for the claimant to provide the proof, not the defendant. I believe pointing out that you called Mr. Yuhas a homophobe goes a long toward discrediting your use of the term.
2) "...please tell me how a display of 'tolerance' can be vulgar."
Ah, yes. Tolerance as the new morality. Well, if someone wanted to defecate in your drinking water I can sit back and tolerate it because it's not my ox getting gored. Is that sufficiently vulgar in your book, or do you think my display of tolerance meets your new morality? By the way, saying I "ignored" your challenge the first time and then telling me not to use the same argument again kind of makes it look like you haven't a clue what "ignored" means.
3) "You may choose to call the parade itself vulgar, but how is the act of *allowing* a group to express itself 'vulgar'?"
Here you make Mr. Yuhas's point by presuming that topless bikers and thonged men is central to homosexual expression.
4) Onlawn: "And yes it does close off discussion, replacing it with silly name-calling."
It is a retreat from rational discussion, as user admits. He would rather us get off the topic of same-sex marriage and instead deal with his childish name calling. He thinks it would actually be a valid response for us to spend an entire post on the subject of his accusations, rather than same-sex "marriage." It is an admission that he has no more argument to make, and so wants to try his hand at a different argument.
Referee on 22 Oct 2004
Lea,
1) "I tire of the assertions that 36 is not an attack on homosexuality..."
In that case, show how passing Measure 36 will prohibit homosexuality.
2) "...but a protection of the child-rearing potential of hetrosexual couples."
Let's see, I would need to show how that potential gets redefined out of marriage by calling same-sex couples "married." How to do that, how to do that...
3) "I do believe that marriage of two loving, mutually supportive people is in the interests of a stable society and that society should recognize and support that structure."
Ah. That's how. Thank you for making my point for me.
While we're on your new definition, let's bring back Mr. Yuhas's point. Do only two person groupings promote a "stable society?" Why not three or more? Do not unions of close relatives promote a "stable society?" Why not include them? And why make these unions exclusive? Can't someone have more than one of your unions and still promote a "stable society?"
Problems aside, society may have an interest in the same-sex couple, as you propose, but "stable society" is not the same interest that it has in the married couple. Therefore, the two should maintain their own identity, which is what Measure 36 accomplishes. If you want to promote your "stable society" theory as reason for government intrusion, put your own measure on the ballot and let the voters discuss it. Attempting to subvert the democratic process behind closed doors with corrupt politicians isn't how to resolve the problems in your proposal.
On Lawn on 22 Oct 2004
It is an admission that he has no more argument to make, and so wants to try his hand at a different argument.
You know I was thinking about this as I was travelling the windy highway road past the lake on my way home from work. Lost of beautiful scenery to look at, and I realized something -- posts go where the argument is.
And we all naturally know this, we really do. When I wrote that making me the subject of posts was okay with me I should take that back. I have no need for publicity or a reputation.
But the argument is that I'm being attacked for who I am. What I do is cast into a strawman of various evils, moral transgressions if you will.
But the more they accuse the less it makes sense. I'm a bigot? No I'm payed off. I'm really good at research? A product of having so much time on my hands I suppose. But no, thats not true I am an embarassment to my history teacher. Just like a ship seeks any port in a storm, this flamewar searches and reaches for any insult it will give them refuge from the impact of the arguments wielded.
Same sex marriage is a mockery of egalitarian values. It is a imitation of a institution of great social value. It is me substituting a real foundation for your skyscraper with one made of cardboard and claiming discrimination if you don't accept it.
The situation is clear. Its very well defined. Trying to wrest the facts to balm the persecution complex of those reaping the fair, natural, normal and lawful consequences of their decisions just creates a mess that not even they can navigate.
Any system that tries to cover such different relationships as the man-man, woman-woman, and man-woman under the same terminology will always become unweildy. Searching for the least common denominator to regulate the relationships on will only remove the recognition of the capacities of each. It is, as was pointed put previously, homogenization.
Well bring out the white suits, and put Big Brother in your bed room. Difference is just intollerance, and Big Brother is here to make sure you aren't bigoted. After all its just in the name of equality that everyone is equalized, right?
It is a very clear issue. Very clear.
Lea on 22 Oct 2004
Referee,
In that case, show how passing Measure 36 will prohibit homosexuality.
An attack need not be prohibitive to be an attack. This measure seeks to void more than 3,000 same-sex marriages that were celebrated last spring. If someone attempted to create an amendment that voided my marriage, I have to say that I would feel attacked.
While we're on your new definition, let's bring back Mr. Yuhas's point. Do only two person groupings promote a "stable society?" (etc.)
As a matter of fact, I think that whatever happens between consenting, informed adults promotes a stable and healthy society. However, that is not the issue. None of the same-sex marriages was of more than two people or closely related, and no one is proposing that that should be the issue. The elaborations you invoke only serve to cloud the issue of whether marriage should be gender-specific. I don't think it should.
I also think that creating a separate legal relationship of whatever name is inefficient. Rather than duplicate the thousand-odd federal regulations that apply to married couples with another thousand-odd regulations that address "civil unions", we should allow same-sex couples to marry. Questions about medical decisions, right to privacy and a host of other non-finincial questions are settled in one fell swoop.
If you want to promote your "stable society" theory as reason for government intrusion, put your own measure on the ballot and let the voters discuss it.
I might. I know that I'm going to be contributing a lot more money to Basic Rights Oregon.
Bartajam on 22 Oct 2004
Lea - thanks for the link from factcheck.org. It's an interesting read. It doesn't address creating more transparency in who is supporting the ad/push poll. Realistically, I suppose that is less likely to occur than charging political operations with lying.
As for our trolls which take up so much of the space around here. If you get paid for other work, you are missing out on some great job opportunities. We understand you don't want to allow any two unrelated people to express their love by getting legally married. Many people agree with your intolerance toward gay couples (including far-lefty gays who don’t like marriage in general.) Now I suggest you use your powers of dissection to slowly take the wings off some of the flies in your house so people can discuss the issue in the topic.
On Lawn on 22 Oct 2004
As for our trolls which take up so much of the space around here.
Right, because dissention is "trolling". That is just how tolerant you are.
This measure seeks to void more than 3,000 same-sex marriages that were celebrated last spring.
This measure seeks to protect egalitarian values of home and equal gender participation in the establishment of it.
I do appreciate the George Wallace overtones of that argument in particular though. It pictures a government marching down on celebrated institutions, and claims how unfair it is. You standing defiantly in the doorway, representing the majority in this echo-chamber of a forum. You, protecting that which was done illegally.
Questions about medical decisions, right to privacy and a host of other non-finincial questions are settled in one fell swoop.
Boy, reading this argument you would think they were only in it for the convenience, "Give me convenience or give me Death" as Jello Biafra says. But nay, they are in it for the money too.
Imagion the following scenario, and think in your mind just how likely this would be...
Certainly families can be create from people who are not related. In the very near future we will be able to create a child with the genes of two same sex partners.
Under the homosexual interpretation of marriage, if one union is as good as another, do they not then have a right to that procedure? Then the state must fund it, no? I mean, without state compensation it would merely be a priviledge of the rich, and fly in the face of its foundation and "right". How could child bearing be something only accessible by rich homosexuals and heterosexuals, and not violate equal protection?
The state would be required to fund (in the name of equality) the attempts to make their homosexual marriage the same as heterosexual marriage by providing money to third parties to make it so. It would be essentially subsidising homosexuality, using state resources to fund their impersonation of marriage. And on average they would would be accessing more money than heterosexual couples. And that would be mean the state would be endorsing with money homosexuality over heterosexuality! Which as I understand it, means "subsidy".
Indeed, in application this would be asking for the state to subsidize a lifestyle choice, above one that is proven to be more beneficial. It is as if two homosexuals combine together and say "I love you so much I am willing to force the state to subsidize whatever it takes to make us just like a marriage". And that I feel does not display the true love and commitment that marriage was intended to foster. Nor does it seem applicable to the intent or description of "equal protection".
Instead it looks like playing the plight of the mongol hordes, in one easy swipe laying claim to lands, possessions, moneys (etc...) of their unjustly richer neighbors.
What is the real difference here? Equalization *is* homogenization, and having more than another is worthy of indictment. In this case, indictment of being bigoted (which Orwellian overtones of calling a relationship that requires representation of both sexes "bigoted" has already been noted and uncountered in the discussion).
The cry is "they have it so we should too". Why don't we alter the definition of handicapped so that I can get a social security check, "they have it we should too". Its discrimination that I don't get the same social security check they do.
Too extreme an example? Think of how the above example of infertility is *exactly* that. Like I said the issue is clear, its straight forward. It is an unwarranted and unmitigated attack on the most valuable and honorable institution in human society. Whats not fair? They have it, and homosexuals should too. Not that they want the responsibility, just the convenience. And that, friends, is their idea of fairness. That is their idea of tolerance. And it is only a mockery of the same.
On Lawn on 22 Oct 2004
Many people agree with your intolerance toward gay couples (including far-lefty gays who don’t like marriage in general.)
Ghandi is reported to have said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Probably no better discertation on the benefits and problems with the moral of equality has ever been given.
The term "eye for an eye" is as old as civilization. King Hammurabi anciently imposed a law that enforced that evils done by one individual to another were punishable by returning the same evil to the guilty party. Moses imposed such a law in Israel also, and it was exemplified in the saying, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." It is repeated three times in the Torah (re: Ex 21:24, Lev 24:20, Deut 19:21). To societies waking up to the notion of civilization, this was easy to understand and easy to enforce. And above all, it was equal and fair. After all, how many quatloons does an eye cost? How much cattle is adequate repeartion for the loss of a hand? It is much easier to deal in this most bloody currancy to ensure equality.
On the surface we can interpret Ghandi as pointing out how such a law is problematic on a physical and real level. Many people were left blind and without hands. And in a society where every eye and hand was valuable in helping ensure survival, everyone suffered. Also, the finality of the punishment far outlasted a persons ability to reform.
On a higher level though, I think Ghandi was referring to blindness in a metaphorical sense. Ever heard the expressions; "blind with rage", "blind fury", and "blinded by jealousy"? The immutable Jack Burton of "Big Trouble in Little China" says in his opening monologue,
Each of these sayings describe a situation where people's emotions drive them faster than they can see. Faster than they can see everything their actions will do. Faster than they can see the ramifications their philosophies would have if widely adopted by society. They are truely blind because cannot see the ramifications beyond their immediate selves.
Though a useful task-master for pre-school children and emerging societies, such vindictive and forced equality in the name of justice is not the most excellent way. And Gahndi was not the first to discover its shortcomings. For about the past two or millenia, many moral leaders have taught a much higher law. A law that superceeds equality? Yes, a law that superceeds equality.
From Christ to Budha, a code has distilled in the eschelons of societies all over the world that describes a justice that achieves more opportunity and more civility. These morals seek to directly remedy and reduce the causes of violence; rage, jealousy, fury, etc... Again from Jack Burton's opening monologue,
Recently I fear we are seeing a movement to return to ideals of, "an eye for an eye" in all of its blind and selfish ugliness. I've already mentioned that to me the same-sex marriage proponents opperate under just such a logic, but may are simply anti-marriage also for the same selfish reasons. They are driving for a change in marriage faster than they can see, and faster than society can react. They are asking for reperations for percieved evils commited by the institution of marriage in the past. The latter of these especially are putting their own judgements of equality above the vices of jealousy, rage, and fury that motivate them.
And the cost of their proposals, like Gahndi noted about "eye for an eye" in general makes the whole world blind. Blind to the beauty and egality in marriage. Blind to the incalculable benefits that marriage has provided for society as the establishment of the political entity we call "family". Blind to the people who will really be asked to pay the price of their antiquated notions of justice, the children abandoned by parents or aborted out of convenience. It is the natural byproduct of their values would have if adopted widely by society on a very real and physical level.
Now don't get me wrong. I do not wish to paint all same-sex marriage advocates with this broad and drastic a brush. Some are genuinely concerned for the ramifications of same-sex marriage on society beyond the satisfaction of those indulging in it. Some argue that same-sex marriage does retain the moral underpinnings that can support the responsibility of family. They are also (in my experience) honest is establishing that a union with a mother and father is still the preferable structure for raising children.
I applaud them for their responsibility. I respect them for their honesty. But you will probably understand why I have little tolerance for the solution proposed to just do away with marriage as a government recognized institution entirely, or open it up to any privately created interpretation.
Some even come to the debate excited that they have found a solution to the whole argument, "Look everyone will be happy now". I fear for all their intellectual prowess and gymnastic show, they are the most backward in their ideals and the most ignorant to the conditions of real life and civilization. I expect my dissapointment shows as insolence to their self-proclaimed genius.
Lea on 22 Oct 2004
On Lawn,
You, protecting that which was done illegally.
The illegality or not of Multnomah County's actions has yet to be determined by the Oregon Supreme Court.
Boy, reading this argument you would think they were only in it for the convenience, "Give me convenience or give me Death" as Jello Biafra says. But nay, they are in it for the money too.
I don't understand why you dismiss something like being able to make medical decisions for an incapacitated beloved partner as a "convenience". Why do you do that?
Imagion the following scenario, and think in your mind just how likely this would be...
Are there now state-sponsered fertility clinics performing IVF and artificial insemination on insolvent hetrosexual couples? I personally do not know of one, but perhaps you do.
Not that they want the responsibility, just the convenience.
Wrong. I cannot let that pass. They already have the responsibility and are glad to shoulder it. I personally know a lesbian couple who adopted an eight-year-old girl who was so badly abused that she could not stand to be in the same room as a man. To say that she was controllable by a woman has to carry a caviat: at first, my friends sometimes had to bodily lay on her for up to fifteen minutes to restrain her from injuring herself and everyone around her. That child is now eighteen and a stable, sane credit to her mothers.
That is an extreme example of the responsibility that is already taken by thousands of same-sex couples across the country. By granting the "conveniences" (your term, not mine) of marriage, we are protecting the children of same-sex couples as well as the two adults involved.
Referee on 22 Oct 2004
Lea,
1) "This measure seeks to void more than 3,000 same-sex marriages that were celebrated last spring."
There is no requirement that one be homosexual to seek a same-sex "marriage" license. As for the attack aspect, given the illegitimate circumstances of the licenses in question, which have already been ruled illegal, I'm not sure you are justified in saying those participating in the illegal behavior are the ones being attacked.
2) "As a matter of fact, I think that whatever happens between consenting, informed adults promotes a stable and healthy society."
Further demonstrating that your "stability" definition is nothing but an attempted watering down of the current definition. This has been my point all along.
3) "The elaborations you invoke only serve to cloud the issue of whether marriage should be gender-specific."
This is not about the 3000 illegal marriage licenses in specific, but about marriage in general. Therefore, talking about your attack on marriage in general in no way clouds, but rather cuts right to the heart of the matter. You say that any consenting adult relationship supports stability in society, and that marriage exists only to acknowledge this. Therefore, any of these relationships qualify. You also say that marriage, your definition of marriage, is a fundamental right. So despite the fact sibling relationships qualify, polyamorous relationships qualify, business relationships qualify, you wish to deny them all this "fundamental human right" arbitrarily. That, my friends, is prejudice.
As I have said before, all of this is the natural result of pulling procreativity out of the definition of marriage. When one acknowledges the purpose of marriage to include this capacity then one can easily understand why siblings can't marry, why the number two, and why both genders.
4) "I also think that creating a separate legal relationship of whatever name is inefficient. Rather than duplicate the thousand-odd federal regulations..."
Back to the convenience argument. First of all, Measure 36 will not affect "federal regulations" either way. Second of all, whether copying is convenient or not, it still makes no sense. I'll start again from the top. Whatever the purpose of same-sex couples in society, it is different than that of married couples. As such, it needs a different treatment. Neither group should be saddled with the unrelated needs of the other. Each should be allowed distinct treatment in society for its distinct needs.
5) "I might. I know that I'm going to be contributing a lot more money to Basic Rights Oregon."
Giving your money to Basic Rights Oregon will not put anything on any ballot anywhere. That organization has shown nothing but contempt for voters in this state and democracy in general. Not only did they work on their back room, secret, and illegal deal with the corrupt, power-hungry commissioners in Multnomah County, they bragged that they could use legal challenges as a way to delay any ballot measure enough to keep it off the ballots. No, I'm afraid you'd have as much luck getting something on the ballot by giving your money to the Taliban, who also is in the process of displaying contempt for the voting public.
[Note: MarriageMatters website cut off public debate and deleted comments that exposed this anti-democratic behavior by (big) BRO. It is clear who is really trying to "end the debate."]
Referee on 22 Oct 2004
1) "The illegality or not of Multnomah County's actions has yet to be determined by the Oregon Supreme Court."
But it has been found illegal in circuit court. An appeal is not itself an order to vacate.
2) "I don't understand why you dismiss something like being able to make medical decisions for an incapacitated beloved partner as a 'convenience'."
Same sex partners have this already, despite what BRO says in the voters pamphlet. Who was it that asked about making it illegal to lie in political campains?
3) "That is an extreme example of the responsibility that is already taken by thousands of same-sex couples across the country. By granting the 'conveniences' (your term, not mine) of marriage, we are protecting the children of same-sex couples as well as the two adults involved."
Adoption law is here to deal with existing children and OnLawn is not referring to homosexual adoption. In the case you reference an already existing child was in a bad situation and a better situation needed to be found. Marriage deals with creating those children in a better situation to begin with.
On Lawn on 22 Oct 2004
Adoption law is here to deal with existing children and OnLawn is not referring to homosexual adoption.
Neither did she, actually.
In fact I remember just before Marriage Matters shut off comments what we were talking about. It was about same-sex couples adopting children.
[Note: MarriageMatters website cut off public debate and deleted comments that exposed this anti-democratic behavior by (big) BRO. It is clear who is really trying to "end the debate."]
Lea, I gotta ask you, what did you cut off the debate for in Marriage Matters? Was it for exposing BRO's backroom closed dealings to invoke illegal behaviour by the government?
Or...
Was it because you were (as in this forum) caught in an egregious deception of referring to individual homosexuals adopting as a (oh what was it again?) vast majority of states allowing homosexual *couples* to adopt?
There is a big difference, which is why you jumped on that, isn't there. Its why you steered the conversation again in that direction here. Because knowing that marriage is about raising children, you sought to use it as precidence to show that homosexual partnerships already act as families.
I emphasize it is because it is apparent that you do realise marriage is about forming families. Otherwise you wouldn't keep bringing it up in such a factually precarious and logically reaching way.
But that misrepersenting homosexual couples isn't the most egregious deception. That goes to conflating fostership and adoption. I am personally for homosexual couples fostering children.
And funny you should mention a story, because I know of one like that too. Only the adopted parents were heterosexual and the positive male role-model the father was able to present was a real benefit. That girl went on to getting married and is very happy with her husband. In fact that couple adopted six children with different but simularly abusive backgrounds.
Lea on 22 Oct 2004
On Lawn,
Lea, I gotta ask you, what did you cut off the debate for in Marriage Matters?
... steered the conversation again in that direction here.
What on earth are you talking about? I believe that I have read the Marriage Matters website once, but that is the extent of my involvement.
Referee,
Further demonstrating that your "stability" definition is nothing but an attempted watering down of the current definition.
Not watering down. Giving recognition where recognition is due.
Same sex partners have this [medical decision making] already
How? If I am misinformed, tell me what the reality is.
Referee on 23 Oct 2004
Lea,
1) "What on earth are you talking about? I believe that I have read the Marriage Matters website once, but that is the extent of my involvement."
I don't blame you for trying to distance yourself from that website. Asking for comments and then deleting them and closing down the debate when those comments turn critical is more Taliban than democracy.
2) "Not watering down. Giving recognition where recognition is due."
How are you "recognizing" marriage by saying it has no more purpose in society than a baseball team, another relationship between consenting adults? Perhaps this discounting of marriage is exactly the recognition you were going for in which case your motives in proposing same-sex marriage become extraordinarly suspect.
3) "How? If I am misinformed, tell me what the reality is."
Through a living will in Oregon you can assign anyone the right to make medical decisions for you. Surely you cannot have missed this point as both proponents and opponents of Measure 36 acknowledge it in the voters pamphlet.
Incidentally, this issue is being portrayed as if people are dying in hospitals because there is no decision maker there. In fact, hospitals deal all the time with people they have never seen before and who have no known decision maker. Even someone married doesn't necessarily bring their spouse along to every trauma that might befall them. Hospitals aggressively work to save the life of everybody who is brought in unless there is a decision maker there to tell them to stop. The decision maker is there not to provide medical expertise, but to bring non-medical issues to the hospital's attention. For example, some accident victims would object to a blood transfusion. Some people would rather not be resuscitated than risk mental incapacity. Living wills are a good idea, I have one, but they are not the "my partner would have died without it" thing they are portrayed to be.
Lea on 23 Oct 2004
I don't blame you for trying to distance yourself from that website[Marriage Matters].
It isn't a matter of distancing myself one way or the other. I'm very new to the blogging community, and On Lawn seems to think that I am the owner of MM or somesuch. Whatever was done or not done there, I know nothing about it.
2) "Not watering down. Giving recognition where recognition is due."
How are you "recognizing" marriage
Sorry - I misspoke there. By 'recognizing', I meant recognition that the supportive, committed relationships of same-sex couples deserves the label of marriage as much as those of hetrosexuals.
/Through a living will
Ah.
The decision maker is there not to provide medical expertise, but to bring non-medical issues to the hospital's attention.
I will say that this is not entirely correct. If my husband and I were travelling and one of us had a medical emergency of some sort, it could be a problem if the other is not present. Both he and I are on medications that preclude some form of treatment or other, and some of those interactions can be serious or fatal.
Medical bracelets aren't the answer either. A friend of ours was recently badly misdiagnosed by paramedics who, in shoving up his sleeve to get a pulse rate, shoved his medic alert bracelet out of sight.
And, it seems misleading to say that same-sex couples "have this already", refering to the right to make medical decisions for their partner. A more accurate statement would be "can obtain this already" by means of a contract.
This is a dead horse that we have beat into the dust and are now starting to make a horse-shaped impression in the ground. We don't agree. We won't agree, and we're not going to change each other's mind. As I mentioned towards the beginning of this thread, you will vote your conscience, and I will vote mine. May society prosper from the result.
On Lawn on 23 Oct 2004
As I mentioned towards the beginning of this thread, you will vote your conscience, and I will vote mine. May society prosper from the result.
I for one hardly find that appeal to be genuine. Having faith in the populace means you give them the facts, and good information to decide with. Hardly compatible with the scenario in your post...
To counter Referee's point that spouse decisions on medical care is needed to save lives, you presented the case where knowledge of pharmcutical reactions would save lives.
Yes you did.
I'm sure it is not news to you that there is no spousal priveledge required at all to do that. So it doesn't apply, does it. Then I can only find that as an attempt at disinformation.
And now if you have nothing to do with Marriage Matters then you have my appology and relief. Marriage Matters looked like a cite that was interested in discussing the matters at hand. Then it deleted a thread of discussion for seemingly innocent reasons. Then less than two weeks later turned off all discussion entirely, thus earning a real black eye for its cause.
In the blogging world there is little one can do more nefarious then delete and censor while a discussion is in progress.
So you'll excuse my incredulous attitude towards appealing to human conscience. While I appreciate the sentiment I chafe when it is run roughshod.
Referee on 23 Oct 2004
1) "I meant recognition that the supportive, committed relationships of same-sex couples deserves the label of marriage as much as those of hetrosexuals."
Even though it does not perform the same function or have the same capacity. I understand. You never did explain why the "supportive, committed relationships of" siblings don't deserve the label of marriage. Is it simple prejudice on your part?
2) "If my husband and I were travelling and one of us had a medical emergency of some sort, it could be a problem if the other is not present. Both he and I are on medications that preclude some form of treatment or other, and some of those interactions can be serious or fatal."
Actually, hospitals often have to guard against this possibility when treating someone for whom they do not have a medical history, but you are right. You would get better care if the hospital knew your medical history. Since you cannot guarantee your spouse will always be present to provide this I am sure you support President Bush's proposal for electronic medical records that will always be there when needed. But I digress.
3) "And, it seems misleading to say that same-sex couples 'have this already', refering to the right to make medical decisions for their partner. A more accurate statement would be "can obtain this already" by means of a contract."
A living will is not a contract, and it is not misleading to say same sex couples have this already since they do. That they had to fill out the same living will that I did to get it is a side issue.
4) "...we're not going to change each other's mind..."
I have no intention of changing your mind. As I have said, I am out to convince those who are still legitimately considering the issue. Both sides have articulated their positions and, more importantly, I think these discussion have revealed the true forces behind each side of the debate. It is the character of these debates more than the content that I suspect will be the most compelling to the open-minded.
Anne Dufay on 24 Oct 2004
Wow, I haven't checked in for days, quite an impressive regurgative effort by those two. I admit I did take a second to check to see if they called me any names -- I was pleased to see they had. The opprobrium of some is truly the finest compliment of all...
Anyway, to the subject of the pseudo-poll, which I really am interested in. Lea writes "... there some persuasive reasons why laws against false political advertising would be difficult to enforce. Primary among them is freedom of speech."
I agree, in terms of general advertising, etc. However, I wonder whether using false pretense to gain access to one's house (via telephone) is protected as well? For instance, I have the right to use caller id and blocking technologies to block the calls of anyone unwilling to identify themselves. I also have the right to put my name on a "do not call" list, and block sales calls to my home. So - what is my legal right if I'm on the do-not-call list, and someone calls my home, pretending to be, oh, say, a researcher studying lead in our drinking water, and I agree to answer the "researcher's" questions, only to find myself listening to a sales pitch for a commercial water-filtration system?
I submit that the "poll" I answered had as much to do with real polling, as the "researcher" in the example above, has to do with real research.
So, false premises were used to gain access to my home. How is that protected free speech?
Lea on 25 Oct 2004
Hello Anne,
Yes, it has been lively here. Welcome back!
I submit that the "poll" I answered had as much to do with real polling, as the "researcher" in the example above, has to do with real research.
So, false premises were used to gain access to my home. How is that protected free speech?
Unfortunately, soliciting for a vote is not the same thing as soliciting for money, and political non-profits are exempt. The national Do Not Call registry (from whose FAQ I took the follwing quote) specifically addresses the issue:
"Q: I get calls soliciting money for political organizations or for charities – will the National Do Not Call Registry stop those calls?
A: Political solicitations are not covered by the National Do Not Call Registry. Telemarketers calling to solicit charitable contributions are not covered by the registry, but if you make a request to a specific organization that they not call you, they are required to honor your request. If they subsequently call you again, they may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.
Q: What about telephone surveys?
A: If the call is really for the sole purpose of conducting a survey, it is not covered. Only telemarketing calls are covered – that is, calls that solicit sales of goods or services. Callers purporting to take a survey, but also offering to sell goods or services, must comply with the National Do Not Call Registry."
That's one of the 'benefits' of a robocaller - there's no one to receive a request of non-contact.
This is one of the inconveniences that we get for living in a free society, right up there with the right other folks have to call you names.
On Lawn on 25 Oct 2004
This is one of the inconveniences that we get for living in a free society, right up there with the right other folks have to call you names.
Sometimes the person crying in the corner isn't the victim but the person who was caught in the act.
This merry agrandizement of vicimizationhood is pathetic, if you ask me. I'd be willing to venture that you two have not been called names at all.
Yet, I have been called bigot, homophobe, mean, and a number of other outright invectives.
So while you two marvel in your more-civil-than-thou attitude just note that it is not lost on me the hypocrisy of your false accusations.
Anne Dufay on 26 Oct 2004
Thanks, Lea, for the research. It sounds like this approach is a dead-end, at least for now. And, as a free-speech proponent, I can't take too much umbrage, though I have to admit, I do take a stand at my own doorway. I hate to think of my kids answering that phone, and hearing those hateful lies.
On the other hand, they would no doubt have just hung up sooner than I did - after swearing a bit into the recording, sooner than I did... They've heard worse, I'm sure. They've come across their own "lawnmowers" and "red-faced referees" in their young life-times. They're probably better at dealing with such folks, than I am... :-)
So, what recourse is there? What bothers me is the legitimacy the cloak of "poll" gives to base, lying, propagandizers. Maybe the only response is open airing of the dirty laundry (an earlier suggestion on this blog).
I note, however, that these propagandizers know their stuff - they put this one out at the very end of the campaign -- just in time to catch dithery swing voters -- and just too late to catch the attention of an electorate burned out on stories of "he said, she said."
So, this one, really by far the most scurrilous of them all, got the LEAST major media coverage of them all.
I'm not sure how to tackle that. And, it's too late to do anything effective now, but I think brainstorming on tactics for the future would be a good thing.
Everything, comes back.
Anne Dufay on 26 Oct 2004
One more thing occurs to me. The thing that set me off on the lawsuit track, originally, was the strong sense I had, after listening to that diatribe on my home phone, that I'd just been read a piece of hate mail.
Now. I don't know where the legal line falls on this issue. But, there's a terrible black hole lurking behind the scriptural correctness of these folks, and that, in my opinion, takes you, by straight lineal lines, right to Matthew Shepard.
I guess that gets to my basic problem with this question. We're not just talking about whether a property line gets moved one foot one way, or one foot, the other.
We're talking about people's lives. The rights we will accord them, or not. And, why.
Referee on 26 Oct 2004
Anne -
1) "...the scriptural correctness of these folks, and that, in my opinion, takes you, by straight lineal lines, right to Matthew Shepard."
Your linking of religion and Measure 36 to Matthew Shepard is clearly an inflammatory reach since nobody endorsing Measure 36 was involved and the two people convicted of murdering him did not even claim to be religiously motivated. Further, virtually every religion roundly condemned the act.
This is yet another example of you trying to divert away from the real issue: the purpose of marriage. In this case, however, all you do is display your extreme intolerance and irrational hatred of all those who believe differently than you.
Anonymous on 27 Oct 2004
I am so sick and tired of hearing people use "I'm a Christian" as an excuse for homophobia and their reason for why they're voting yes on 36. TIRED OF IT. If you are a Christian, perhaps you can use your efforts and excuses to work towards protecting children from the local pastor who was just arrested for sexual abuse of a minor and ensuring that children within your own circles of good Christianity are safe and protected. Once you get your own house in order, then move forward and "save us all." But until then, there is something in this country called Seperation of Church and State: move ON, will you?
On Lawn on 27 Oct 2004
the scriptural correctness of these folks, and that, in my opinion, takes you, by straight lineal lines, right to Matthew Shepard.
Hmmm, I've seen this before...
Seems the quoted religious organization is more honest and forthright than Anne, the anti-religious person.
We're talking about people's lives. The rights we will accord them, or not. And, why.
Lets remember what became of the discussion on rights.
Disengenious seems to be the par for the course for you. Perhaps if you were more religious you would have learned that lying is not good. But you ddon't even need to be religious to know that, just like the definition of marriage doesn't require religious scholarship.
It seems to me that you are simply riding homosexuals as a horse to tilt at religious windmills, with disinformation as your lance. I find nothing honorable or noble in that. Anyone find anything honorable or noble about that?
Are homosexuals a downtrodden minority? No they are one of the most pampered and spoiled minorities there are. Again from Alliance Defense...
There go those religious people again with and their values of honesty and integrity.
What bothers me is the legitimacy the cloak of "poll" gives to base, lying, propagandizers.
Okay, I haven't taken the poll so lets look at what b!x said is in the poll...
This was borne out by the comments in this thread. The computer was able to detect "yes" and "no" and when an answer was neither. Indeed such technology exists. Verizon's technical support uses such voice recognition technology. I see no reason to tthink the answer was recorded and taken into consideration.
Nothing nefarious about that.
Okay, nothing nefarious yet, by b!x's own admition.
This is also factual, and then asks you to say if you think it is going to happen in Oregon. As you well know I rather think it might judging from the impact of the demands for homosexual tolerance has demonstrated in San Diego, Massachusettes, and I'm sure many other regions in the nation.
Some have a different opinion. From what I understand, opinions requested does not amount to, "base, lying, propagandizers."
Someone then please tell me what is going on, what the complaints are really about.
Because wading through all the feigned victimization on this board (by the very people calling others "bigots, base, hateful, mean, etc...") I can't tell just what the deal is.
To me it sounds like political hay out of nothing. But then again I haven't been called to take the survey.
this one, really by far the most scurrilous of them all
Nor do I find a push poll (even if the resentment to be justified) at all on par with the nefarious back-room dealings with BRO by the Mulinoma county officials. Nor is it anywhere near as bad as the George Wallace style defiance of the Oregon legal system that was the outcome of those secret meetings.
I just see a bunch of grasping at straws by segment of society resenting the fair, legal, lawful, and natural consequences of their actions. Especially by those accusing me of calling people names while unloading a wheelbarrow full of invectives of their own. Hypocritical and false, thats what that is.
Referee on 27 Oct 2004
Anonymous -
1) "I am so sick and tired of hearing people use 'I'm a Christian' as an excuse for homophobia and their reason for why they're voting yes on 36."
Thank you for highlighting the religious phobia and bigotted name-calling that highlights the anti-Measure 36 campaign. You will notice that none of the pro-Measure 36 arguments posted to this thread have referred to religion at all. The only ones making religious arguments are the anti-Measure 36 side, like yourself. Go ahead and read back through this thread and then I hope you get as much of a laugh out of your own misconception as I did.
Frankly, I don't know what people you are talking to because not even my most religious friends say they're voting for Measure 36 simply because they are "Christian," in fact several of my most religious friends are Muslim. Marriage has been practiced as a fundamentally man-woman relationship in all societies through all recorded time. Certainly the Chinese, the Hitites, the Egyptians, the Greeks didn't claim they supported man-woman marriage because they were "Christian."
2) "But until then, there is something in this country called Seperation of Church and State: move ON, will you?"
The "Seperation of Church and State" argument, dubious as it is, does not apply at all, as the Circuit Court in Oregon has already found. Even atheist states like the former Soviet Union practice(d) marriage. The unrelated "Seperation of Church and State" argument is merely an attempt to divert the discussion because the "let's take children out of marriage" argument same-sex "marriage" advocates are left with is a giant loser and they know it.
Anonymous on 28 Oct 2004
Yawn yawn and more yawn.
I'm sure you can come up with 5 paragraphs to debunk that statement too. Your homophobia is obvious, no matter how many words you try to wrap yourself in.
Referee on 28 Oct 2004
Anonymous -
Oh, big surprise. Another SSM advocate who thinks personal attack is a substitute for an argument.
David H on 31 Oct 2004
On October 31st at 7:30pm I got a call from FEC. This was the 2nd time in the last month that I received this push poll.
David H on 31 Oct 2004
On October 31st at 7:30pm I got a call from FEC Research in Washington State. This was the 2nd time in the last month that I received this push poll.