March 06, 2005
Congregation Of Oregon Republicans Opposes Civil Unions
'Communique' Waits To Be Told It Isn't Bigotry
Now and again during our coverage of the same-sex marriage story last year, we would get ourselves into trouble with some of our readers because we kept arguing that no matter how much opponents of such marriages claimed otherwise, that opposition mainly was rooted in bigotry.
That subset of readers liked to charge that such language was needlessly inflammatory and counterproductive. We, for our part, tended to respond that we felt it was entirely appropriate to call things as we saw them. As such, we fully encourage that subset of readers to move along to something else, because we're going to do it again.
Yesterday, at the annual Dorchester Conference of our state's fine Republicans, attendees opposed civil unions on a vote of 188 to 89 -- although we note that they did so to the obvious chagrin of some moderates.
(Hat tip to a Jeff Alworth post at BlueOregon for alerting us to the fact that the Dorchester Conference held such a vote.)
At this point, certainly none of this is about the sanctity of marriage, because we're no longer talking about marriage (although it never was about the sanctity of marriage to begin with). Given how much the state's righteous wing demonstrates otherwise, we wonder if there still are people who say we shouldn't call it bigotry.
If nothing else, we certainly feel even more justified than we were before in referring to the proponents of Measure 36 as the Special Rights for Heterosexuals Coalition.
Comments (17)
SamIt on 06 Mar 2005
It strikes me as typical that those who spread hate and fear are the first to call others for using violent or "offensive" words.
The strike you down, deny you human rights, and then say your a bad person for tell them to go take a flying leap at the moon.
I pray that the so called god they are doing this for is kind to such sin.
Mitchell Santine Gould on 07 Mar 2005
Samit wrote, "It strikes me as typical that those who spread hate and fear are the first to call others for using violent or 'offensive' words."
This is, in fact, perfectly consistent with the behavior of the schoolyard bully--the kid who gleefully terrorizes and pummels others -- but merely grab his arm to stop him, and he squeals like a stuck pig as if he's been fatally wounded.
Just below the skin of every bully, and every bigot for that matter, is a coward. The adult bigot is just the schoolyard bully grown older.
Mitchell Santine Gould on 07 Mar 2005
Whoops, I just realized I was remiss in referring to bullies and bigots as male.
We usually forget there are *plenty* of female bullies; and we are, alas, embarrassed in this country by a bumper-crop of female bigots.
Dave Lister on 07 Mar 2005
Please don't judge all Republicans by this particular vote at Dorchester. There are plenty of moderates like myself who are in favor of civil unions. I wasn't there this year, but at last year's Dorchester Packwood suggested that the party drop it's abortion plank. The vote on that one came down in about the same percentage.
The fact is that the most active Republicans are also the most conservative. It's the active ones that are drawn to events like Dorchester. I would bet the same is true of the Democratic party; that the most active also tend to be the most liberal. I think what we need in this state is moderation from both sides and a common sense approach to solving our problems.
Sid Anderson on 07 Mar 2005
It's not just the civil union vote. It's these votes too. Note to GOP moderates: You're a dying breed.
Dave Lister on 07 Mar 2005
You might be right, Sid, in which case I am a dinosaur. But I wonder if the same cannot be said of moderate Democrats?
Sid Anderson on 07 Mar 2005
What is a moderate Democrat? And what is the difference between a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican?
I don't even know what kind of Democrat I am. I'm a small business owner who believes in the free market. But I suppose it's all about what kind of free market. I don't beleive in an unregulated free market because the ultimate outcome of that is Wal-Mart to the nth degree. In otherwords, unregulated capitalism will ruin capitalism.
I support progressive taxation because I believe that the people who make the most money in our society are the most dependent on the efficiencies of our system, which are paid for and supported by public taxation. And of course, it's much harder on the working poor to pay taxes. 15% of $1000 is much more painful for a working poor person to pay than a person who would pay 15% of $1,000,000. Painful in terms of having enough money to cover basic needs.
In any case, if Joe Lieberman is a moderate Democrat, then I can comfortably say that I am not a moderate Dem.
Dave Lister on 07 Mar 2005
Sid,
Sounds like you and I would be in agreement on many, if not most, things. Maybe we should simply call ourselves moderates, and forget about the parties.
tom on 07 Mar 2005
If you lable yourself as member of a party then you are in deed and in words sanctioning that party's actions. If your party supports bigotry and hate then you are part of that via support, affiliation and endoevours.
A possible solution could be found in the idea that the two party system in this country is bankrupt and all those supporting it are simply tossing thier poltical captial into a large black hole of good intentions gone very wrong.
Knowing this and still doing it makes you part of the problem. Sorry, its not comforting to know your good works are part of a great bad, but thats what we have on both sides of the two party system these days.
The road to redeeming ths country's poltical system will not be easy or happen in a lifetime, the alternative though is passing on to the next generation a choice of no choice, of either coopting personal belifes to cheer lead for a "party" no matter how vile thier outcomes, or to be paved over by the pary machinery.
Crush crush goes the individual...
-tom
Sid Anderson on 07 Mar 2005
I noticed Tom McCall's name on the list of attendees for Dorchester Conferences in the past. Do you think if McCall were still alive today he would even bother attending such a conference?
I'm not sure if McCall would even be considered a Republican in today's terms... not even a moderate one. Gordon Smith is supposedly a "moderate" Republican, but I beg to differ. The ads he showed in the Portland market during his campaign were "moderate" but his ads in the rest of the state were all about being "pro-life" (whatever that means.) Smith is the kind of Republican that supports corporate polluters and then passes the cleanup bill to the tax payers. Why? Because he's done it himself with his own business.
Check out his voting record, and you'll understand he's no moderate even though he masquarades as one around the elections.
The One True b!X on 07 Mar 2005
I've been busy, but I am following htis thread. I just wanted to point out that I did go out of my way to add "although we note that they did so to the obvious chagrin of some moderates" after mentioning the vote regarding civil unions.
The One True b!X on 07 Mar 2005
Oh, and as for whatever subset of mdoerates may oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions: They may not be bigots, but they are definitely beholden to the trap of semantics, unable to separate civil "marriage" from religious "marriage".
So, maybe that subset of moderates are not bigoted, but they are still narrow-minded.
Dave Lister on 07 Mar 2005
Well, I guess we can debate the merits of the two party system until the cows come home, but under the current rules you don't have any choice on the choices unless you pick one or the other. Maybe we will see a new party or parties born sometime down the road (there aren't too many Federalists or Whigs running around anymore), but you can bet it will still be a two party system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't registered independent voters outnumber Republicans in this state? If so, how could the passage of Measure 36 be exclusively due to the Republicans?
doretta on 08 Mar 2005
"If you lable yourself as member of a party then you are in deed and in words sanctioning that party's actions."
That's an absurd statement. I choose to join with people I disagree with all the time. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of a single group I belong to whose every action I 100% agree with.
As an individual I have every right to assert my individual independence of thought and action by joining whatever groups I want for whatever individual reasons I might have irrespective of anyone else's evaluation of what that joining means.
I find it beyond ironic that supposed paeans to "individualism" like the one above seem inevitably to consist of one person explaining to other people what those other people's actions really mean and why those other people are wrong if they don't choose to follow the writer's plan of action.
Gary Marschke on 08 Mar 2005
It's truly sad (and telling) that when faced with the current challenges of global terrorism and genocide, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, unbelievable deficits, health care and social security, the best and brightest of the Oregon Republican party chooses to focus their apparently narrow minds on an issue like same-sex marriage. Was Karl Rove by chance the keynote speaker?
The One True b!X on 08 Mar 2005
Well, they addressed global challenges... by voting to support the US invading Iran.
JS on 09 Mar 2005
Portland Couple sues USA Next courtesy of DailyKos.
A $25 million lawsuit was filed today against right-wing front group USA Next and political consulting firm Mark Montini International for stealing an Oregon couple's wedding photo and using it without permission in a high-profile gay-bashing ad designed to drum up support for social security privatization.
Following an admission of photo theft by the creator, advertiser and publisher of the ad, the couple whose image was stolen - Rick Raymen and Steve Hansen of Portland, Oregon - today filed a four-count lawsuit in federal court in Washington, DC. The suit alleges that the use of the couple's image without permission constituted an invasion of privacy, was libelous, violated their right of publicity and constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress [...]
"Our privacy and personal integrity were violated when our wedding photo was stolen and used to portray us as treasonous, unpatriotic, and a threat to American troops," Rick Raymen said. "We have been harassed and humiliated by this hateful ad campaign and by the bigotry and anger it has generated against us nationwide."
"Our lawsuit is intended to make USA Next and Mark Montini pay for the harm they have caused and to send a message to them that they cannot recklessly play with peoples' reputations and make them targets of hate, as they have done with us," Raymen said. "When we get our judgment, we intend to donate to those who fight the kind of hate and homophobia that USA Next and Montini have demonstrated."