For once and for all
Michelle Neumann
Those opposed to Oregon's pending domestic partnership legislation are again dragging out the specious argument that the intent of voters in passing Measure 36 was not just to define marriage, but to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships.
For once and for all, this is simply not true.
… polling of Oregon voters conducted in November 2004 by both Hart Research and Decision Research suggests that the Defense of Marriage Coalition, Oregon Family Council and others are wrong when they claim that the creation of civil unions violates the will of Oregon voters who approved Measure 36, therefore reciprocal benefits are the “reasonable compromise.”
Of those Oregon voters who supported Measure 36, a majority–57%–agree with allowing gays and lesbians to enter into civil unions, but not marriage. Measure 36 supporters were asked to clarify whether they were more supportive of:
A) Civil unions that provide ALL of the same protections and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, or
B) A system that provides just SOME of the protectionsIn response, voters indicated, by a margin of nearly 10 points, that they more strongly support civil unions that provide ALL of the protections and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples.
(It's important to keep in mind that SB 1000 would have passed in the last session, but for the personal intervention and legislative rule-breaking by the Speaker.)
Without linking to it, here is one example of the arguments of opponents of domestic partnerships:
The Governor and his self appointed 'Task Force on Equality' set about the task of legally ignoring, circumventing, and even rejecting, the will of the people, and that friends, is 'top down' government, not government of, by, and for the people. It makes all of us 'subjects' and not 'citizens.' Our Forefathers called it 'tyranny.'…We are...seeking to ...ensure what is moral and in the best interests of all Oregonians.
As one of my first year law professors used to say to us all the time: "The problem with your argument is that it cuts too far." And that is the problem here. Self-appointed arbiters of morality deciding what is "in the best interests of all Oregonians"? Ignoring the will of the voters as expressed through their elected representatives? Isn't that tyranny? Doesn't that make everyone else their subjects? Regardless of how you feel about this issue, if you want to persuade, you need to use an argument that can't be turned back on you like that. It just doesn't work.
Here is the mission statement of the catholic church I went to when I was growing up:
Welcome to the parish community of Saint Francis of Assisi. As members of the Body of Christ, we become an integral part of the mission of our parish family. Presently, this mission is stated as follows:We, the people of Saint Francis of Assisi Parish in Gates Mills, Ohio, recognize that we are a large cosmopolitan parish, representing a broad spectrum of age, nationality, educational background and financial status.
Recognizing that our diversities are many, we are a loving, united community of Christ’s people and our goal is salvation. We care for every person within our parish. Asking the help of the Holy Spirit, our mission is to enable the people of God in Saint Francis of Assisi to carry out their Christian commitment, to be strengthened by Eucharistic participation, and to work and grow according to the law of Christian charity.
The teachings of Vatican II offer insights into the meaning of our vocation as Catholic Christians. We are all the people of God, called to use the many gifts, which we have graciously received, for the good of our bothers and sisters.
Saint Francis of Assisi, our patron saint, has left us a powerful example of how to appreciate the wonderful world around us and how to share the goods of the world which we have been given with those who are less fortunate or more needy. In this way we build up the Body of Christ.
I like that mission statement a lot. It does not say "hire lobbyists and public relations agencies and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars vilifying and attacking people and sending out direct mail". It talks about building up, not tearing down. It says, simply, that we are called to use our gifts for the good of others. I cannot think of a better mission statement than that.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 1, '07
Thank you Michelle for fighting for equal rights on the facts and on moral principle, rather than by playing the juvenile semantic games we have seen elsewhere on this blog. That is the only way we are going to prevail for fairness and equal rights.
As I noted on an earlier thread, I'm wondering how the disreputable tactic of twisting words by some, in such a transparently dishonest fashion, will affect this previous winning margin? There are a number of variables that come into play so it will be difficult to tell. The best we can hope for is that people really don't pay much attention to the misguided segment of the online world that has chosen this sophmoric tactic.
May 1, '07
Or when the Oregon Family Council and the "Defense of Marriage Coalition" said things like, "If same-sex couples need legal protection, they should consult their legislative representatives. If they need legislation to do that, no one is going to stand in their way."
or
"Gay and lesbian couples are free to pursue marriage-like rights via a different avenue, such as civil unions that have been approved in Vermont."
or
"Oregon's measure was written specifically not to address civil unions."
Here are their statements.
9:06 a.m.
May 1, '07
Exactly! The piece that Bryan links to is one of the most helpful resources for refuting this argument. BRO put it together last session, and I've used it 1000 times since.
Print it. Copy it. Give it to your friends. It's time to take this specious argument away.
May 1, '07
I am curious as to what the legal possibilities are for DOMC or other such groups once this bill is passed and signed by the governor. Can the legislation be blocked?
Also, why is it that it will not take effect until January of 2008? (Not that I am lucky enough to get "married" or "domestic partnered" yet....) But, I am a firm believer that the longer such a law stays in effect and is utilized the better its chances of survival.
May 1, '07
Bryan and Kristin and everyone -
This is really worth reading: Thomas Merton quote
10:26 a.m.
May 1, '07
Very worth reading. And, applicable to all of us, I think.
Something to hold in mind also for those of us who consider our activism and equality a type of spirituality.
May 1, '07
Two favorite cartoons of mine regarding the furor over "traditional marriage":
This Modern World: A Brief History of Marriage in America
Attack of the Gay Agenda - Mark Fiore
Speaking personally, several of my relatives were forbidden by Oregon law to marry and some crossed over into WA state to marry. This despite the fact that they were US and Oregon citizens by birth and despite the fact they had fought in WWII against the Japanese while the rest of the family (all citizens by birth save for my immigrant grandparents) were stripped of their civil liberties and property and were "interned" for the sake of 1940s "Homeland Security".
Oregon was one of the last states to allow interracial marriage between Asian-Americans and Caucasian-Americans. The arguments against marriage, or to even be afforded the rights bestowed upon those who today can legally marry is morally reprehensible.
May 1, '07
From the BRO Blog circa 2005 (SB 1000 link in the article). This just affected me so strongly when I read it and I think about it often:
Such a powerful statement, so simply and beautifully expressed.
This is the reason activists are activits. Not because we know we can win - but because there is a good fight that needs fighting. Whether it be domestic partnerships, underdog Democratic candidates, election fraud, impeachment...we take these on because we feel compelled to action, and because the failure to act would feel like capitulation to injustice.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
May 1, '07
I believe you're correct. While most seem to oppose state sanctioned homosexual marriages to some degree, I don't hear a similar outcry over civil unions. So Adam & Steve want to be legally recognized as life partners. Fair enough and nobody can squawk about the state redefining marriage just to suit a bunch of sinful sodomites. Frankly, I couldn't care less about ones sexual preference or proclivity, so long as it stays among consenting adults.
9:18 p.m.
May 1, '07
tl--
Exactly. I bring up that point when I talk about rights for same sex couples. My husband is Asian and I am Caucasian. It wasn't that long ago we wouldn't have been allowed to marry.
We'll celebrate our 10th anniversary this year, something I'd like to see my homosexual friends be able to do with their loved ones.
May 1, '07
Joe, don't get me started on a discussion of who has been "sinful", as you say. I don't have the next 48 hours to sit here and catalog the list I would like to show you. I'm sure you have an idea of where I would start (assuming we disregard that whole "judge not" "guideline"). Especially when you do not want to attach your real name to your post, I don't see why I should go to the trouble.
May 2, '07