October 03, 2004
Lies, Damned Lies, And Oregon's Righteous Wing
Grumpy Dispatches From The Marriage Wars
In today's column, Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard exhibits -- in full force, no less -- the cognitive dissonance so flamingly evident amongst the righteous wing in the debate over same-sex marriage in Oregon.
At one and the same time, Reinhard manages to argue both that Measure 36 merely reinforces the existing understanding of marriage under the Oregon Constitution and that Measure 36 is necessary because the state's marriage statutes likely won't survive the constitutional challenge in the courts.
Readers more thoughtful and mentally-aware than Reinhard will easily notice that these two arguments rely upon mutually exclusive -- in fact, entirely contradictory -- notions of marriage under the Oregon Constitution as it currently stands.
Reinhard pulls a nifty little rhetorical trick in order to execute this feat of acrobatics, and it's another one of the righteous wing's favorite rhetorical tactics: He labels the courts' responsibiltiy to interpret the validity of statutory law based upon constitutional principles an act of "amending" the constitution, therbey granting himself permission to describe the fight as one between competing amendment processes. Knowingly or not, Reinhard does what much of the righteous wing does when he draws this entirely fallacious comparison -- namely, he disparages the balance of powers amongst the three branches of government.
(Hey Oregonian: For what would probably be a mere fraction the monthly salary Reinhard receives for this sort of "writing", we'd be more than happy to give you ongoing republication rights for anything we produce here. We certainly can't be producing anything worse than what he gives you, but apparently you believe the "market" desires what he has to offer.)
Meanwhile, Georgene Fox Rice, one of Reinhard's fellow DeceptiCons (that's Deceptive Conservatives, with apologies to a certain line of toys and related cartoon series) in this fight, echoes part of Reinhard's disingenuousness, saying that the "amendment clarifies and confirms what always has been understood by Oregonians" and does not "change the essence of the Oregon Constitution." She also perpetuates one of the righteous wing's other favorite lies about the debate over Measure 36.
"Measure 36," she writes, "is a response of last resort to the unlawful issuance of marriage licenses and legal challenges aimed at reversing long-established law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman."
This is the conensus mythology amongst opponents of same-sex marriage in Oregon. Longtime followers of this story, however, know that the push to constitutionally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman began prior to Multnomah County's issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in March or the legal challenhes which ensued.
As part of a package of four initiative petitions, two Constitutional amendments were filed in February but then discarded in favor of the filing which went on to become Measure 36. So much for Fox's assertion that Measure 36 merely is some sort of "recourse" necessary as a response to the actions of others.
Which brings us around to a quick tour of other coverage of this subject over the past week. Over the the Marriage Matters weblog, they recently linked a helpful resources -- that being a report from the American Bar Association on marriage and its associated rights, which sould be required reading for anyone heavily invested in following this debate.
This past Thursday brought a flurry of coverage, and we'd wager that what we managed to catch isn't all of it. Over in The Oregonian, the editorial board wrote in opposition to Measure 36, miraculously managing to disassociate its own opposition to same-sex marriage (they've previously, in essence if not in so many words, told gays and lesbians to sit down, shut up, and accept civil unions) and urge voters to keep this debate out of Oregon's Constitution.
Elsewhere in the paper that day was a look at satire in the Voters' Pamphlet, which offers readers a look at just why there are some strange-sounding PACs involved in the Measure 36 battle.
Out of Bend, The Bulletin examined Oregon's central position in the fight against similar ballot measures all across the country.
In one of our favorite recent pieces, The Portland Mercury revealed the personal gain of Tim Nashif, who directs the Special Rights for Heterosexuals Coalition while also receiving more than $100,000 from its campaign for Measure 36 in the form of payments for printing and other services.
Finally, also all on Thursday, a few of Oregon's weblogs weighed in, with one calling same-sex marriage a good idea with bad timing, another offering some thoughts on "argumentation", and another urging rights for all, not just the Right.
Comments (9)
Samuel John Klein on 03 Oct 2004
Typical of the thought-free, strawman-loaded, talking-point based writing of David Reinhard. He's a hack, and I stopped reading him long ago.
You just did a valuable public service in succinctly explaining why he is wrong.
Of course, some seed with fall on infertile ground. Thus it must always be so, I fear.
Sam Klein.
Armed Prophet on 04 Oct 2004
The Oregonian could use a thoughtful non-syndicated conservative columnist. As it stands, we have David Reinhard.
tomhiggins on 04 Oct 2004
B!x in the Oregonian just might make it less than the "hold your nose and read" paper of the town it is.
Let me just say that anyone who slips in Transformer refferences should not only write for a paper but be the Great Ceasars Ghost person in charge.
We need a Draft B1X As Perry White effort.
Elaine of Kalilily on 04 Oct 2004
How about someone who lives in Portland (I don't) get together a petition to the Oregonian to "draft b!X as the new Perry White." That's one way to keep him in food and shelter and fighting for truth, justice, and the American Way.
Anne Dufay on 04 Oct 2004
Aw, don't be so hard on Reinhard. He has his uses. For instance - you can rely on knowing exactly what he will say on any subject - before you even finish his headline.
This saves time in the morning for us news junkies who try and keep up on all sides of the issues -- there's no need to read Reinhard, he's always redundant.
If they replaced him with "a thoughtful non-syndicated conservative columnist" I might actually have to read the column - and that would mean setting our alarm clock to go off a full 5 minutes earlier...
So I say "Save Reinhard -- the man who puts the snooze in the snooze button!"
Anne Dufay on 04 Oct 2004
More pernicious than Reinhard with his pro-forma ideologue cant, is the "reasonable" argument of pro-36 Democrats.
This is the line that goes "it’s not about right and wrong. Its about "nuance" it’s about "timing" – it’s about the polls.
But ya know, aside from that itty-bitty issue of where one stands on right versus wrong, there IS a good old fashioned sex-and-morality story here -- it goes like this: "Be careful who you hop into bed with, or you'll be ashamed of yourself in the morning."
Our generation appears no better at stepping up to the plate for the civil rights issue of our time, than any previous generation was for theirs. God help us, we've even dug out that smelly old discredited shibboleth "separate but equal."
I propose a new bumper sticker: "Liberals don't let Liberals whore for the Moral Majority."
Joseph E. Howard on 04 Oct 2004
Although, I wrote these comments last March, they hold just as much truth today:
It does not matter if you are for or against gay marriages. In the United States we have what is called, and is one of the foundation blocks of our nation, the separation of church and state.
"Marriage" belongs to the church-side. Being a part of the church-side, there is no place for marriage in the state-side. For any state to issue marriage licenses goes completely against the basic law of "separation of church and state." Why is government issuing marriage licenses in the first place? Why is the church sticking it's nose into business of the state? Why does the church accept the state as an issuing body of a practice of the church?
(Up until just recently, I have always supported the motto "In God We Trust" as a standard upon all coin and paper money issued by the United States, a practice that has been thorough since 1957. Because of the inter-mixed problems, meaning the mixing of church and state, on the gay marriage issue, I can no longer support the mixture of church and state in the motto upon a state issued document.)
I've been watching the anti-gay marriage protesters as they spit and scream and treat gay people as "sinners." They reminded me of the way the Nazis treated Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals as lesser than human. Other than being live and in color, these protests mirror the black and white newsreel footages of the taunting and physical abuses initiated by the Nazis upon others.
How pure and righteous many religious believers are. They are right and everyone else is wrong. They will pound their Bible, but will not initiate the practice of love, unless it fits their need. They will spit upon love between two people should that love not fit within their perfect model.
You can pound the Bible or you can choose not too. The Bible is a book written by and promoted by people. It may be devine, it may not be divine. But regardless of questioning the Bible, because the Bible is a human document, the considerations in regards to the planet, as a whole, and the other species, which live upon the Earth with humans, is not taken into the whole equation.
The whole equation is the Earth's ability to continue its life. The Earth's ability to evolve through time allows life to continue. To only follow the teachings of the Bible in regards to marriage and populate more upon the Earth, is certainly, a solution of grave consequences. This ideology of continued population upon the planet just adds to a population of over seven billion. How many more times can this planet take population growth.
Does every human being need to populate? Could it be that the old thoughts contained in the church-side "marriage" be out-of-date with the realizations of today? Let the followers of these out-of-date ideologies keep their belief in marriage.
As the planet evolves within the natural order, which propagates continuation of life , whether the Bible says it is right or not, this order will continue as it has for four billion years. Far greater than the Bible, is the natural evolution of the planet and that ideology is certainly devine.
So, who is to say that gay marriages are a "sin?" Over-population of the Earth has got to be more a "sin," than a simple union between two people of the same sex. A union of love should never even be considered a sin, but killing off, in regards to over-population, our ability to exist certainly is a sin.
At least, as Americans, we must honor the rule of separation of church and state and do everything within our power to keep the church and the state separate. Whether it be the removal of the motto "In God We Trust," from our money or pushing the word marriage out of our government and back to the church.
Issuing bodies of government need to issue documents for civil unions and not call those documents Marriage Licenses. The government has no right to be acting as agents for the church and the church has no right to be setting rules on how the government issues documents for unions of love.
Referee on 05 Oct 2004
Hey Oregonian: For what would probably be a mere fraction the monthly salary Reinhard receives for this sort of "writing", we'd be more than happy to give you ongoing republication rights for anything we produce here.
Hey, Bix. I think you've got something there. I think there is a market for your brand of cliqueish, name-calling, shouting down dissent. I just drove past a playground and didn't see any child reading the Oregonian. Clearly an untapped market.
Still, you probably are not a good candidate to appeal to that crowd, either. While both Reinhard and Rice dealt with the preeminant concern in this debate, children, you deliberately avoided that argument. It seems you wish to avoid your target demographic. Oh well. Perhaps the Oregonian can go directly to the playground and get better insight, anyway.
athought on 05 Oct 2004
>>>Hey Oregonian: For what would probably be a mere fraction the monthly salary Reinhard receives for this sort of "writing", we'd be more than happy to give you ongoing republication rights for anything we produce here.
Hey, Bix. I think you've got something there. I think there is a market for your brand of cliqueish, name-calling, shouting down dissent. I just drove past a playground and didn't see any child reading the Oregonian. Clearly an untapped market.
Exactly. He should be writing for the Mercury; they do truthful and childish congruently.