Well said, Jeff. I couldn't agree more.

There are many aspects of DPs which can be examined and surely will in the months ahead. Not sure that raining on the LGBT community's parade by making the perfect the enemy of the good at this particular point in time makes a lot of sense to me...

Thanks, Marshall--you capture my sense of this milestone perfectly.

Bill, I agree that domestic partnerships aren't enough. We shouldn't stop here.

My question for you: Should we have not passed domestic partnerships? Should we have let the status-quo stand until we could pass full marriage equality?

I remember the Oregonian editorial in response to the court decision to offer marriage rights to all families in Massachusetts. The Editors cautioned gays and lesbians to be happy with, I believe, our newfound status in entertainment (I think they even mentioned the popularity of "Will & Grace"), and not push too hard for actual civil rights.

Do all gays and lesbians think in lockstep? No

Why assume that all heteros do?

I hope that on some level you recognize that the Oregonian simply does not speak for all heteros... on any subject.

I want to thank all the people--straight, gay or other--who worked to make domestic partnerships in Oregon a reality.

I have yet to meet a straight person who is an active supporter of Oregon's domestic partnership law who thinks that law is sufficient and that we ought to stop there. I have yet to meet a straight person who is an active supporter of Oregon's domestic partnership law who is patting himself or herself on the back and crowing about how great they are for supporting it.

Oregon's domestic partnership law will improve the lives of a lot of Oregonians and that's a good thing worth celebrating. Does it make us perfect? Not hardly. We've got a long way to go on a lot of fronts before we can even see perfection off in the distance. The same is true of New York.

Congratulations to all of us in New York and Oregon. I have confidence that many of us will continue to work on those further steps to move our whole country closer to the ideal of equality for all people.

Oregon Bill, you seem a little riled up at me for being straight. Others on this thread share my view of this new law, but your spleen is reserved for me. As a straight, white man, there are very few issues of social justice that I can address in a demographically homogenous way (I'm no longer even poor). Do only gays get to speak about legal rights for gays?

Posted by: James X. | Feb 5, 2008 1:18:01 PM Also, I think I'm raining more on straight self-congratulation. LGBTs are well aware of the inherent discrimination of this already.

James,

I know that you are aware of the fact that I've argued strongly for what I strongly believe to be the ultimate possible equality on this issue. I know you do because we've discussed it in past threads. Ditto for Oregon Bill.

This isn't about settling for less and crassly engaging in arrogant self-congratulations as you've pretty bluntly accused. It's about recognizing what David Deyo rightly (IMHO) describes as an important milestone in an ongoing struggle.

Think about the time span between the Magna Carta and the fledgling Democracy that Washington, Adams, Jefferson & company founded, which was even then woefully short of what we take for granted today.

Just as the 4th of July is a celebration of an imperfect milestone, so too is this fine post Jeff wrote a celebration of an imperfect milestone. Can't we just for a few moments savor winning this skirmish? The war rages one either way.

We agree that you are still treated differently under the law, and that pains me a great deal. But I'm not celebrating that disparity, despite how you wish to characterize it. I'm celebrating the fact that you have more legal rights today than you did last week. To me, progress is worth celebrating.

Have you met Jeff Merkley, doretta?

As a matter of fact, I haven't met either Jeff Merkley or Ted Kulongoski.

However, Jeff Merkley, having said he's for repeal of DOMA, clearly is not taking the position that what we have is enough and that we should stop there so he does not provide a valid counterexample.

I give Steve Novick credit for his unequivocal support for gay marriage. I also give Jeff Merkley credit for his work to get domestic partnerships passed.

"If you look at the evolution of gay civil rights in the larger scope of history, we've made breathtaking progress in a very short span of time."

As a gay man active in the LGBT equality movement for over 20 years, I'm glad to see one of us make this point.

Fundamentalist, true and false, zeroes and ones, all or nothing thinking works for pocket calculators and certain self-styled Christians. It does not work for me. The perfect is sometimes indeed the enemy of the good, if the world is viewed more than two colors at a time.

I am very grateful for the progress we've made towards GLBT equality in Oregon, with the active cooperation of many straight allies who have done a great deal of work for us, at great personal risk and political cost. While it's important to keep our eyes on the prize of fully equal rights, nationwide, there is no reason not to pause, be a bit grateful, and give thanks.

Thank you, very much, to the many, many thousands of straight Oregonians who have worked - in small ways and in some cases very large ways - to help my community take a large step towards full equality.

We are your allies. Thank you for being ours.

I know I'm speaking for thousands in saying so, and I sincerely hope we Oregon LGBT folk remember who are friends are in the tough elections ahead. We have friends. We need to be friends.

"However, Jeff Merkley, having said he's for repeal of DOMA, clearly is not taking the position that what we have is enough"

What does repealing DOMA do if you don't support marriage equality? Merkley stops at civil unions; to him apparently marriage is just between you and God. There is no "more" than civil unions that doesn't include marriage.

Let's not turn this into another Merkley/Novick thread. We've done that topic ad nauseum.

Trying to start a divisive semantic arguement on which term passes a contrived label "purity" litmus test by someone with a stunningly obvious political axe to grind is just insulting. Either the goal is full equality of rights and responsibilities under the law or it's not. Period.

Trying to drive a wedge between allies who all agree that the status quo isn't good enough can only help those who want to prevent equality from ever becoming a reality.

What does repealing DOMA do if you don't support marriage equality? Merkley stops at civil unions; to him apparently marriage is just between you and God. There is no "more" than civil unions that doesn't include marriage.

Sure there is. There's federal recognition for civil unions. That's a whopping huge "more" that doesn't include marriage.

I think you're right, Bill. We probably are stuck here for the short-term. But that's not an entirely bad thing, IMO. Keeping an eye on the margin of victory for M36, it seems to me that when the vast swath of Oregonians who aren't knee-jerk anti-gay rights, but who nevertheless supported M36, see that none of the apocolypic crisis predicted by the reich-wing don't come to pass, they'll be much more receptive to moving Oregon on to the next step. In fact, I suspect that many of them will be much more receptive to distinguishing between Church and State vis-a-vis Civil Unions.

None of that means that anyone should be pleased at the wait. Separating the secular (civil unions) from the religious (marriage) is something that I'd advocated for for a long time and I'm far from pleased that it still hasn't caught on yet. But I firmly believe that we have every reason to be expectantly hopeful that today's minor victory will inexorably lead to tomorrow's full equality for all... when finally a woman or man will be judged on the content of her/his character rather than skin color, religious belief, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other factor.

As I said before, we've won a skirmish. The war rages on either way.

doretta, how does federal recognition of civil unions move beyond civil unions? There's a bit of 1+1=1 in your statement.

Trying to start a divisive semantic arguement on which term passes a contrived label "purity" litmus test by someone with a stunningly obvious political axe to grind is just insulting. Either the goal is full equality of rights and responsibilities under the law or it's not. Period.

Somehow I don't think many LGBT people feel that the difference between unions and full marriage is merely semantic. Nor should they; quite obviously the differences are economic and cultural as well. In any case, how disappointing to see you label that portion of the LGBT community as "having a stunningly obvious political axe to grind." Against whom? Apparently they see a difference, or they wouldn't endorse one candidate and not another, on the basis of their relative positions. You need to stop pretending the belief that marriage matters has sprung from the evil mind of a single Novick supporter--as opposed to people like Evan Wolfson and Al Gore, among others less notable. Argue the conclusion if you must, but desist from the attempt to marginalize the breadth of sentiment for another position--because it's a provable loser.

TJ, your citation of Wolfson has been debunked. He clearly and unequivicably argues for equality. You're getting hung up on the word rather than the point of the exercise.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out to you numerous times, there are disagreements within the LGBT community over "marriage versus Civil Unions for all." My LGBT activist daughter has made that much clear on my blog, as have others here at Blue Oregon. All of that is a debate for another time.

Your attempt to turn this thread into a partisan campaign ad is insulting.

doretta, how does federal recognition of civil unions move beyond civil unions?

Try not to change the subject, TJ. We were talking about moving beyond where we are now. What Jeff Merkley says he wants is Federal recognition of civil unions that conveys the federal benefits that marriage currently conveys. That would be a huge step beyond where we are now. I don't think it's really that complicated.

Somehow I don't think many LGBT people feel that the difference between unions and full marriage is merely semantic. Nor should they; quite obviously the differences are economic and cultural as well. In any case, how disappointing to see you label that portion of the LGBT community as "having a stunningly obvious political axe to grind."

That one wasn't aimed at me but I'm going to comment anyway. I happen to be a gay person who got married in a lovely ceremony on the harbor in Victoria B.C. a few years ago. That was hugely significant for us even though our marriage is not recognized by any legal entity of practical significance to us. We will probably do the domestic partnership thing today for the legal protections it carries but for us the marriage carries all the emotional weight.

With that as context, let me say that "the stunningly obvious political axe" is, well, stunningly obvious to this particular gay person who is not yet committed to either candidate in the Democratic primary race for U.S. Senator. One could easily get the impression around here that certain non-GLBT Novick supporters see gay marriage more as a means to electing their candidate than an end in itself. Your attempt, TJ, to hide behind the GLBT community by claiming that that comment was aimed there is as transparent as it is disingenuous.

Bill,

I absolutely agree. At first I have to say that I was really hurt by what seemed to be not just a disregard for hetero allies but almost an anger towards us. But I've thought on it quite a bit since this post was put up by Jeff and I think I understand where you're coming from better.

So patronizing pats on the back make me queasy. It ain't over until full equality - and that means marriage for every family, or domestic partnerships for every family. No special rights for religious bigots who think I'm worth less than they are. They're wrong. The state ultimately must offer equal rights and benefits for all of us.

Not queasy because we personally disgust you but rather because you don't want this to be the culmination point and fervently want us all to keep that fact in mind? If so, yes... I get that now. And I think I can speak for most if not all of the supportive heteros here in saying that we share your concern.

Please understand that we can never put ourselves in your shoes and experience this from your perspective. And perhaps it is easy for us to be eager to celebrate precisely because we can only view this from where we are. We understand that in that respect we are effectively disabled. But we do try and we are your allies through thick and thin.

Oh sure Kevin, Wolfson was just really sloppy to write a book about how civil unions are just as good as marriage--and then title it "Why Marriage Matters." Just an editing oversight, I'm sure. I don't know why you go on about division in the community; I asserted no unity and in fact qualify my references to the "equality community," or say "that portion" of LGBT as I DOD above. You're working a red herring on that one.

Doretta, you said he favors repealing DOMA, which is great. But that step moves us no closer to marriage equality per se. I'm interested to hear he has called for full financial benefits at the federal level; that's nice to know. When did he say that?

As for a means to an end or hiding behind a community: I don't find marriage equality to be a litmus test; marriage is not currently on the table no matter who supports it. And neither man intends to campaign on it. The reason I bring it up is not even because it is a definable difference between the two. I bring it up because as with other issues where a difference is obvious, the Merkley campaign and its supporters are seeking to blur those differences by denying they are different instead of acknowledging it and standing behind it. If Merkley wants to be against full equality, let him be that way and the voters shall judge. But don't hold a position and then pretend it's the same as your opponent's when it's not. And I didn't claim Kevin's attempt at ad hominem, like yours, was intended at the equality community. But that's obviously where it must land, since the position is the same. You can villify me all you like; it doesn't invalidate the point being made by others, and to Mme it about me insults their views as well.

Bill,

The empathy isn't hard to muster. As I mentioned previously, my oldest daughter is Bi. Actually we've had several heart-to-heart talks and she's frankly not sure what her orientation is, which is fine with me. Part of that is likely a function of her age since she's still 19 for a few more days. But I love her the same either way. As a parent I'm sure you can empathize with that.

In any case, she was a very active member of GLSEN throughout highschool and represented Oregon chapters at regional (California) and national (Washington D.C.) events. LOL - I still remember when she came home from the national event and told me all about learning how to do passive resistance demonstrations. The lesson worked perhaps too well because her dorm all got sent home a day early for passively protesting some obscure GLSEN policy governing their behavior while at the event. Kids... ;-)

Oregon Bill wrote:

"The state now offers me some rights and benefits of marriage." (emphasis added)

The State of Oregon grants every right, and every responsibility provided by marriage under Oregon law to those in a domestic partnership, with the exception of the term "m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e".

Please read OFFA Section 9:

Oregon Family Fairness Act

The State of Oregon cannot change Federal law, much less the cultural history and social perception of "m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e" in civil society. And the State of Oregon can only influence, not directly control, the policies of interstate corporations, for reasons having to do with the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (though, frankly, many large corporations are way ahead of any State when it comes to LGBT equality).

However, to charge that the State of Oregon and the people leading its government have done anything less than everything in their power to grant equal rights and responsibilities - other than the 7 letter word - to domestic partners is simply not true.

You are right, Bill. I completely agree that there's a lot of work left to be done (we're no doubt going to be screwed hard by the Federal "stimulus" packages being discussed). But, we need to aim our "guns" accurately. The Oregon Democrats have done huge work for us, and there's no need for friendly fire in this campaign.

I don't really want to get into something that I know so little about but... I'm not sure that the Oregon AG has the legal authority to deny federal marriage benefits. It seems to me that the most he could possibly do, and that's probably dubious, is pare back state-granted rights and privileges.

Fr. Gilhousen, two quick responses. I was careful to say that Merkley does not favor marriage equality. I did not speak of just "equality." And it seems like you acknowledge that by continung to say that full marriage equality and no civil marriages are equal. They're not, and Merkley's position represents a leveling down, rather that leveling up. You make the point in trying to deny it. It's not just different methods, it's a different plan entirely.

Torrid,

You remind me of the school yard bully who goes around giving kids wedgies and then laughing about it, seemingly glibly unaware that it's not actually funny at all. But I guess that's what drinking too much Kool-Aid goes to a person... Such a person loses the capacity to distinguish between scoring productive political points and just making an ass out of him/herself.

TJ,

"The equality community?" Of which you, presumably, are a member and I'm not?

In addition to being hilariously funny, that pretty much sums up my objection to your approach to this subject.

My chosen solution for providing equality between gay people and straight people where marriage is concerned is simply to allow gay people to get married. That's how they do it in Canada and, as I mentioned before, marriage matters to me enough personally that I went to Canada and got married even though I knew I wasn't going to get any of the legal and economic advantages most people get automatically when they get married.

However, I recognize that there are people, both gay and straight, who think there are other ways to get to equality for GLBT people on the subject of marriage. They take other positions for some combination of philosophical, pragmatic and political reasons.

It appears to me from poking around his website and Googling around the web, that Jeff Merkley is in the camp that would get to equality by having state sponsored civil unions for everyone while leaving marriage as a religious rite. If that's the case, then I think it is incorrect to say he does not support "marriage equality" for GLBT people. There are GLBT people who agree with him as they see marriage as an inherently religious construct and they don't think the state should be in the position of sanctioning religion. Are they also not part of the "equality community"?

I recognize that Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley hold different positions on gay marriage and I prefer Steve's approach. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the work Jeff Merkley has done to help get a significant set of benefits for gay people that we've never had before.

Sounds great! But how do we get there now that Oregonians (including many "straight ally" supporters of domestic partnerships) have written their Christian prejudice against gays and lesbians into the state constitution..?

I must have missed that list of "straight ally supporters of domestic partnership who wrote their Christian predjudice against gays and lesbians into the state constitution".

In my experience the intersection between the people who have actively supported creating domestic partnerships in Oregon and those who promoted measure 36 is pretty close to empty.

We get there the same way we were always going to get there. We live our lives. We work on legislation. We work on changing hearts and minds. We bring court cases.

What goes in the constitution can come out again. Measure 36 is nowhere near the first obnoxious, offensive and hurtful thing put into the Oregon constitution.

To clarify: Homophobia is deeply, intrinsically religious ("my god hates lesbians").

It's easy to prove that the excuse for homophobia has very often been religion. It's not nearly so obvious that religion is the cause of homophobia.

Re: "levelling down" vs. "levelling up"

Catchy phrase but essentially meaningless rhetoric.

One person's "levelling down" is the next person's "getting the government out of my marriage".

Was taking the ability to own slaves away from white Southerners "levelling down"? We could have gotten to racial equality by allowing black people to own white people, after all, and that would have been adding to the possiblities for black people rather than subtracting from the possibilities for white people, i.e. "levelling up".

Again, I do think that opening marriage to gay people is the right thing to do and the appropriate way to "marriage equality" but not because of some nonsensical notion of "levelling down" vs. "levelling up".

In my experience the intersection between the people who have actively supported creating domestic partnerships in Oregon and those who promoted measure 36 is pretty close to empty.

I certainly share that experience. However I'm not sure that's precisely what Bill was driving at. In any case, he's more than capable of expanding on what he meant, so I won't strive to do so in his stead.

That said, I don't think it a safe assumption that everyone who voted for M36 necessarily did so for the same reasons, substantially or otherwise, as those who actively promoted it. I definitely do believe that some (many?) who voted for it were motivated more by deeply held religious convictions than by any desire to deny equality to anyone. Many of whom would go along with something comparable as long as it isn't percieved as dictating to their religion.

I say all that as someone who once viewed this issue from precisely that perspective. I was fine with DPs or CUs fully equal in every respect to marriage... just so long as it wasn't called marriage. My guess is that Jeff Merkley and many others who advocate civil unions for all also once held similar views. Some perhaps still do. And I also strongly suspect that many if not most of us who came at it from that perspective also believe very passionately in the Separation of Church and State - thus the advocacy of civil unions for everyone. To our way of looking at it, anything else involves a compromise that invites slippery slopes of one sort or another. As Thomas Paine put it,

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."

Lest anyone misunderstand me here, I'm not saying that gay marriage is bad or that I can't support it. I certainly can support it. I personally just don't see it as the best option given the Church/State implications of marriage and my absolute conviction that nothing fully and truly good ever comes from entangling Church and State. I guess a better way of stating that is to say that I see the marriage route as inherently dangerous and possibly leading to unintended consequences (ala Thomas Paine's quotation...) which could be prevented by sharply drawing a bold, stark line between Church and State and going with civil unions for all instead.

"The equality community?" Of which you, presumably, are a member and I'm not?

I didn't presume anything, other than to observe that an equality community exists, made up of both homo- and heterosexual folks. By your explanation of your position, it sounds like you're very much a part of the equality community.

However, I recognize that there are people, both gay and straight, who think there are other ways to get to equality for GLBT people on the subject of marriage. They take other positions for some combination of philosophical, pragmatic and political reasons.

As do I, as I've pointed out twice now, however much it seems you want to perceive otherwise. That doesn't make their position the least bit logical--you cannot get to marriage equality without allowing all committed couples to marry. That's what makes it equal, don't you know. There is no "other way." Getting rid of civil marriage does not prevent marriage; it only creates inequality in a different realm. When marriage has no civil context, one's only outlet for marriage will be the sacred outlets. And they are free to discriminate (not necessarily on orientation, just on faith). The only way to reach equality in civil marriage is...to provide everyone the chance at civil marriage.

There are GLBT people who agree with him as they see marriage as an inherently religious construct and they don't think the state should be in the position of sanctioning religion. Are they also not part of the "equality community"?

Not if they don't believe marriage should be open to everyone, no.

One person's "levelling down" is the next person's "getting the government out of my marriage".

Which is what levelling down is--preventing ANYONE from having something, as a way to placate the desires of those who only want to prevent SOME people from having it. Instead of all-race municipal pools, no pools. Instead of integrated public schools, no public schools. Your slave example follows structure but not form, since we view marriage as an inherent personal good regardles of any institutional context--but we view slavery negatively. Of course we want to reduce that which we believe harms society. The dysfunctional logic of civil unions for all is to reduce a public GOOD in the name of reducing inequality, as opposed to simply increasing access to the good thing. It not only sacrifices sociocultural benefit on a misguided notion of Jeffersonian purity, it does it for no reason, since no sacrifice is really necessary in the first place. It costs us nothing to offer marriages to more people.

That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the work Jeff Merkley has done to help get a significant set of benefits for gay people that we've never had before.

That work isn't up for debate, and that's really the point--standing proudly on the achievement of civil unions IS all well and good, and something to celebrate. But that's as far as it goes; the idea of same sex couples receiving marriage recognition by the state, as opposite sex couples do freely, is not on the table.

Oregon Bill, I'd like to thank you for your persistence. I don't agree with every word you write, but you help me be clearer about the kind of solidarity I should strive for.

In some respects (not all) the situation now may be comparable to the situation in anti-race discrimination Civil Rights Movement sometime in the late 1950s. In one key respect it may be like the 1930s or 1940s, as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was gradually building up a string of cases challenging Jim Crow in various places, but especially education; Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka followed a successful suit against unequal law school admissions in Texas (I think) in the 1940s, e.g. And there is nothing like Brown at all for LGBTQ equality yet.

But even after Brown I (1954) there was a second Brown decision, 1956 I believe, about implementation of the doctrine that "separation is inherently unequal" in which the Supreme Court wrote of proceeding "with all deliberate speed." At the same time the segregationists were organizing "massive resistance" (M36, DOMA etc. are equivalents). Congress passed & Eishenhower signed an anemic Civil Rights Act in 1957; Eisenhower also took a position that there were "extremists on both sides", explicitly defined as those who wanted to maintain inequality and those who wanted full equality. Quite what the moderates wanted, both inequality and equality at the same time, apparently, is logically hard to discern. But like "all deliberate speed" and like the counsels that it is going to take time for more people to change their minds before we get to full marriage equality, what he was saying represented a situation of flux and change in which many white people (including Eisenhower himself, a product of segregated Kansas) were profoundly uncomfortable with the changes even as they were increasingly being forced to face what was wrong with the status quo.

That it will take time for more change is realism. But it equally is realism that continued pressure for that change is necessary. Oregon Bill, I don't see you as saying much different from what Martin Luther King, Jr. said to the white ministers who urged him to call off his Birmingham campaign in 1963, in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, in which he refused to be patient.

David Deyo, there is a difference between saying Christianity is inherently homophobic, which you deny, correctly, and saying that most homophobia and in particular the opposition to marriage equlity embodied in M36 derives from one form or another of Christianity, which Oregon Bill says, also correctly. Although a great many Christian ministers and priests would say that it is inherently homophobic, that the bible and (where relevant) the authority of the church define homosexuality as a sin, to be feared for its threat of eternal damnation. This is being contested increasingly in Christianity, the UCC position is particularly important since it is a trinitarian denomination out of the Calvinist traditions.

But that battle is very far from won and the UCC position is in a small minority among denominations. As Oregon Bill says, the vote for M36 was heavily driven by Christian religious beliefs. I disagree with him about how to deal with that politically, because I don't think disparaging people's faiths are apt to change beliefs rooted in them, and while I think he is right that the law is religiously rooted, it isn't overtly enough religious to be effectively challenged on church-state grounds in court IMO, which is where his position seems to point. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

On civil unions + religious marriage vs. full civil marriage with or without benefit of religion, I used to favor the former. Now I don't think it can work politically, even if it has internal logical consistency.

If we push civil unions + religious marriage, we will be pushing to redefine marriage radically. We will make the claims of the M36 people that marriage equality threatens the meaning of their marriages literally true. Equality under existing marriage law doesn't threaten anyone's existing marriage. Radically redefining marriage does.

Doretta, I would like to thank you separately for helping me understand elements of how to look at solidarity in a different way than Oregon Bill does.

To the "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" folks, in my view, we are in a situation where it is a question of the good needing to remain the enemy of the mediocre, even if the mediocre is better than the quite awful. Domestic partnership is mediocre. Full marriage equality in one state is good -- but is not full marriage equality full stop until DOMA is repealed & the full faith and credit clause applies to same sex marriages.

People here may not know anyone who supported domestic partnerships and voted for M36. But it certainly was one of the arguments that the M36 promoters used to persuade people that voting yes was not simply grossly unfair: you can be for defining marriage this way and still not be unfair because you can support civil unions or domestic partnerships. Since then we see that for the leaders this was simply a lie. I doubt that many M36 yes voters were active proponents of domestic partnerships. But I think it is possible that quite a number of them are not against domestic partnerships either, which is why if the promoters of the repeal referendum should somehow appeal and win, I think they can be defeated. Those people are people for whom LGBTQ equality just isn't that important.

There are certainly many people in Oregon who, driven by their Christian religious prejudice, still don't see my family as equal to their own - but don't want to see themselves as mean-spirited and prejudiced either.

Honestly, I think you have touched on the crux for many, many Oregonians. And whether doing so is right, wrong or indifferent, that reality is a big factor in why I favor civil unions for everybody.

Yes, Chris is right that taking that route would mean redefining marriage, but so too would legally expanding marriage to encompass gays. The advantage of civil unions for everyone, IMHO, is that it bypasses the entrenched religious-based opposition you described. I mean, straight folk are going to have to accept a new understanding of "marriage" either way. There's simply no way around that fact. So why not take the route which avoids stirring up those folks prejudices? Why not use their desire to see themselves in a good light to our advantage?

It just seems to me that the issue comes down to which is more important - forcing folk to change their beliefs or equality for all?

Your slave example follows structure but not form, since we view marriage as an inherent personal good regardles of any institutional context--but we view slavery negatively. Of course we want to reduce that which we believe harms society. The dysfunctional logic of civil unions for all is to reduce a public GOOD in the name of reducing inequality, as opposed to simply increasing access to the good thing.

No. You and I may see civil marriage as a public good but not everyone does. In fact, quite a few very sincere people do not. I know a number of heterosexual couples who have chosen not to get married because they don't see it as a public good even though getting married would provide them with many benefits personally. That was my point in the slavery analogy, that "levelling up" effectively begs the question. It assumes that everyone agrees that civil marriage is a good thing. It's inaccurate to suggest that anyone who takes that position is against "marriage equality".

Then why did a majority of Oregonians vote for Measure 36 - and express support for restricting marriage rights in polling - while another majority backed a separate package of more limited rights and benefits (domestic partnerships)?

You've changed the subject. We were not talking about voters. We were talking about people who actively worked to make domestic partnerships a reality for gay people in Oregon. Those are two different groups of people. The latter is an ally in my book. The former, not necessarily so.

No. You and I may see civil marriage as a public good but not everyone does. In fact, quite a few very sincere people do not. I know a number of heterosexual couples who have chosen not to get married because they don't see it as a public good even though getting married would provide them with many benefits personally. That was my point in the slavery analogy, that "levelling up" effectively begs the question. It assumes that everyone agrees that civil marriage is a good thing. It's inaccurate to suggest that anyone who takes that position is against "marriage equality".

Excellent point, Doretta. I too know hetero couples who have done the exact same thing. In fact, my in-laws are one such couple.

Straight Supremacist? Hmmm... it's a very interesting frame. Can't say as it ever would have occured to me. But it is the kind of "brain candy" that I very much enjoy pondering.

I may write about it over at my blog and see what kind of feedback it gets. If so it'd probably be tomorrow or Sunday as I have a full slate for the rest of today.

Or... better yet, if you want to frame it yourself I'd be happy to post it as a guest post on my blog. Just click my name for my email address, I've modified it just for this one post. Hopefully spammers won't glean it. LOL

Dammit... didn't work. Try this: kevin at oregonrainsticks dot com.

Doretta, you conflated civil marriage with marriage removed from any context, which is what I said originally. I think you'll have a very hard time arguing that the concept of personal committment is not an inherent good, or not universally considered of human benefit. To suggest that society does not consider marriage a social good stretches the imagination, and to further suggest that it's not clear whether there's a difference between the relative merits of marriage and slavery makes me wonder who your friends are.

We believe it is good when people pledge themselves to each other. We do not believe it is good when people are sold to one another. In any case, even allowing for detractors as you might suggest, that doesn't change the principle that you don't level down a social good. The process of seeking civil unions outside a marriage context is predicated on social commitment as a good, not an evil--so a down-leveling remedy remains an illogical prospect.

I think you'll have a very hard time arguing that the concept of personal committment is not an inherent good, or not universally considered of human benefit.

If I were arguing any such thing you might have a point. But since you seem to be debating for scoring points rather than making them, it's probably really stupid of me to be debating with you at all but I will try one last time.

Here is the point I have been making:

Some people believe that legal benefits provided by the state should only be provided for secular reasons in a secular context. They believe marriage is hopelessly entwined with religion (not to mention that some of them believe that the history of marriage lines up much more closely with the history of slavery that you would credit). They believe that the best way for the government to support a societal interest in personal commitment is via civil contracts that are not entwined in religious or quasi-religious institutions or ceremonies. They see removing the state from supporting marriage (not commitment) as a distinct step up, not down.

Believing that does not make them either against equality or for "levelling down".

You and I may see civil marriage as a public good but not everyone does.

Doretta - are you married? Are you a parent?

Custody, inheritance, durable powers of attorney/health care attorney, and hospital visitation are beneficial rights for many. Nobody has to get married - but it helps some, and if it's going to be an option, it has to be offered equally by the state...

Bill,

Yes, I'm a parent. If you reread upthread you will find that I got married in B.C. shortly after same-sex marriage was implemented there. Our child was already no longer a minor by the time we got that opportunity but of course the only way we would realize the legal benefits of that marriage would currently be to move to Canada. Believe me, I get the usefulness of all that stuff and I too have had the experience of raising a child in a relationship where the route by which most people get those benefits was closed to us.

The line you quoted above was about "civil marriage" for everyone vis a vis "civil unions" for everyone where "civil unions" convey all those benefits that currently go along with marriage.

I would think that given the way that marriage has been entwined with religion you of all people would welcome moving those benefits to the entirely secular construct of civil unions that would be offered to everyone.

<h2>P.S. Bill, I kind of like "straight supremecist". There may be some possibilities there.</h2>