The most confusing part about the "apology" written up by Harry Esteve of the Oregonian is this part:

In an interview with The Oregonian today, Smith said he remains staunch in his belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. But he said he regrets bringing up his Mormon past. "My remarks referenced a point in time when a few of my ancestors were persecuted for not adhering to that belief," Smith said. "It was an unfortunate reference, and I apologize for making it."

Smith isn't for gay marriage--he's making that abundantly clear. And I'm not seeing where he's for the right of states to self-determine on gay marriage--because he voted for DOMA.

So what was the point of him showing up to this thing in the first place?

Kari, you just need to get a secret decoder ring.

"If you'd grown up a <s>Mormon</s> right-wing Republican in a Left-leaning state, and spent <s>your life</s> election years trying to get out from the shadow of that legacy -- it's <s>an emotional scar</s> political baggage that you carry. I meant <s>no offense</s> to baffle you with bullshit by sharing that part of my history."

I don't see what the confusion is about. The two are connected because they both deal with the courts defining marriage.

The only person who is confused here is Gordon Smith. He seems to be the only one who thinks that if we step one iota away from "one man, one woman" that we're opening the floodgates.

He's basically giving us the Rick Santorum "man on dog" argument, dressed up.

It's really simple. Let me put it terms you (and Smith) can understand. The advocates of marriage equality think marriage should be defined as "one adult, one adult".

How's that? Easy enough to understand?

At the time of Measure 36, I wrote that the ballot title should have been:

“Amends Constitution. Restricts rights of certain citizens to enter into certain contracts. Aligns Oregon Constitution with sacramental rules of selected religious faiths.”

The implication of some previous comments--that polygamy ought to be legal on the grounds of "religious freedom"--is a red herring, however. If one's religion calls upon one to commit human sacrifice, should that be legal, too? What if one's religion "commands" a parent to withhold medical care from a child? Is that something that society is supposed to respect because the label of "religious belief" has been attached to it? There are societal interests that supersede religious beliefs; our legal system recognizes that.

I disagree with your reasoning.

The philosophical underpinning of the American take on civil rights is: "your rights end where mine begin." In other words, you don't get indulge yourself at my expense. Murder and withholding medical services are both arguably examples of the rights of one individual being deprived by another. Polygamy simply is not comparable.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not a fan of polygamy. I have my hands full meeting the needs and wants of one woman. Trying to do that with multiple women strikes me as sheer lunacy! Or... expanding it to polyamory (multiple partners of either gender), I can't imagine sharing my lover with another guy and being okay with that.

BUT... consenting adults of (reasonably?) sound mind ought to be able to do it if that's what they want to do.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I don't see how polyamory necessarily infinges any one of those in any way. Human sacrifice and denying medical services to a child both inherently either deny all three or place all three at a very high risk of being denied.

There is a difference between defending polygyny and objecting to persecution of it. If there are extant marriages regarded as legal in the prior context, and the law changes to allow only one marriage at a time to a man, which of the wives is to be chosen? What happens to the marital property and other rights of the others? To the legal status and inheritance rights of their children? And so on. All this short of jailings. The recent issue about separation of FLDS children from their mothers (note that this focus was highly gendered at least in news coverage) reflects the same type of problem.

Smith says he feels scarred by the collective memory of persecution, Craig Foster that he feels pride at it, but Craig's comments provide evidence that in various forms the collective memory is indeed powerful. I don't really doubt that Smith has those feelings.

A different reason why they may come to his mind in the same-sex marriage rights controversies is that his own allies in opposing same-sex marriage regularly bring up "polygamy will be next" arguments, the least offensive of several variants on the trope. This actually may be somewhat tricky ground for Smith to traverse in his right-wing political dealings. There certainly are believing orthodox Christians of many denominations and political leanings who regard the LDS church as a "cult," or at least "not really Christian," including on the Right. I think it likely that a significant portion of the "won't vote for him because he's Mormon" sentiment he faces is among conservative Christians.

And then he has a converse problem with Mormons. As I read his apology, it's as much to people like Craig who are proud of their polygamist heritage, and/but who also oppose same-sex marriage as a sinful relationship (don't mean to impute that position to Craig, whom I don't know), as to LGBT people, despite Esteve's framing.

Carla, I don't think DOMA prevents state "self-determination" on marriage laws within states exactly, viz. Massachusetts and California. What it does do restrict such marriages to second-class status insofar as it prevents them from giving access to benefits of marriage under federal law and permits other states not to recognize same-sex marriages, whereas they may not refuse to recognize heterosexual marriages. (Does anyone know if this applies to marriages legal in one state that would be "underage" in another?).

It feels to me as if the non-recognition part should fall afoul of federal constitutional provisions that require states to recognize the laws of other states, but I haven't heard of any legal challenges on that basis & so suspect I must be wrong.

The Oregonian's story doesn't actually address the "state self-determination" issue explicitly, so Smith is still being allowed to be vague or contradictory. Is Smith saying he's "personally opposed" and still politically opposed? Or does his original interview reflect toying with a shift to personally opposed but now wouldn't oppose politically, like the position of some Catholics and others on abortion rights? Would he continue to oppose politically in Oregon, but is trying to draw some sort of obscure distinction about other states to muddy where he stands?

(Does anyone know if this applies to marriages legal in one state that would be "underage" in another?)

I don't know for certain, but the anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that it doesn't work that way. When piano rocker Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin it caused a massive public backlash which badly hurt his career for several years. But I'm not aware of any other state or nation which refused to accept that marriage as legally binding and valid.

At least Gordon was right about one thing: I'm sure his campaign did want to kill him for bringing up the subject of polygamy at all. Yet if I were a Mormon, given what has been in media recently, it would probably be on my mind, too.

On the relevant subject, however, the difference between the two candidates seems to be pretty clear: Smith supports domestic partnerships but opposes gay marriage. Merkely supports both domestic partnerships and gay marriage.

Voters are free to choose between the two candidates accordingly.

"On the relevant subject, however, the difference between the two candidates seems to be pretty clear: Smith supports domestic partnerships but opposes gay marriage. Merkely supports both domestic partnerships and gay marriage."

No, they both support DP's but oppose gay marriage. Merkley believes marriage is between a couple and God.

No, they both support DP's but oppose gay marriage. Merkley believes marriage is between a couple and God.

So gay couples can't have a marriage recognized by their God (or whatever religious insitution agrees to recognize it)? Merkley has stated in public and on tape that he's for gay marriage..so that hobby horse was corralled long ago.

Forget it..I've had this argument over and over. Mark can feel free to continue to be wrong. Whatever.

The translation on what Smith was saying in the video is much murkier, however...and I don't think there's been a full explanation or accounting by Smith of his meaning.

In my view, that's the real story here.

I am a bit confused by the reaction of some in the gay community to Senator Smith's remarks. On what grounds are they offended by the senator equating historical discrimination against polygamist marriage with current discrimination against gay marriage?

Are you sure that's what he was doing in his remarks? I've gone back and watched it multiple times..and its very confusing. And Smith has so far refused to explain exactly what he meant.

The problem really lies in the fact that we don't know what Smith was really trying to say here. So attempting to dissect meaning without that knowledge is a futile exercise.

As are these weird attempts to defend his words.

What moral basis is gay marriage rooted in that suddenly makes it morally superior to polygamy?

Monogamy.

Some of the commenters here seem to be conflating the issues of polygamy and child-brides. They are not the same thing. In the latter, it involves a minor unable to make decisions for herself (or himself), including entering into contracts.

Polygamy itself is more complex than the meme of dirty old men vs. underage girls we see in the media. Polygamy and polyandry are both widely practiced in time and place both legally and outside of legal boundaries, e.g. "casa chicas." Not all of the arrangements are necessarily exploitive, depending on the specific cultural practices. Presumably polygamy is outlawed in the U.S. because it conflicts with the historical norms of Anglo culture (post-Viking anyway), conflicts with contemporary Christian doctrine, and, lastly, is intended to prevent exploitation of women, especially from secret marriages or abandonment. Whether the ban on polygamy does much to prevent domestic abuse or abandonment is an open question in my mind.

If you read the journals and publications of Mormon plural wives you discover that the economic benefits of plural marriage were quite considerable at the time. Plural marriage provided freedom from drudgery by brining more hands into the home to share the workload. Think of the labor shortage in a two-parent household even in this age of automatic applicances, and then consider what it was like for a woman in the 1800s.

As for equal rights, Utah granted the vote to women in 1870--becoming only the second state to do so (heavily Mormon Wyoming was the first.)

The LDS's history of plural marriage often makes it an object of scorn or mockery, but I see little discussion here or elsewhere about what the true harm there is in consenting adults entering into contractual relationships with more than a single partner if all parties are agreed to it (yes, I know "there's the rub.")

As a campaign issue, pursuing Smith on this looks like a loser to me. All it does is create sympathy for him and make his attackers look like religious bigots.

I'm guessing that Buckman Res has his tongue firmly in cheek, but I actually agree with his argument. Bearing in mind the cautions and caveats brought up by Kevin, the bottom line should not be a specific number of consenting adults.

I've watched a few efforts at marriages and relationships involving multiple partners, and their success rate hovers around the same level as historic examples of successful communal living in any format.

Close to zero.

Doesn't mean that there's a compelling interest for the state to regulate or exclude this behavior.

As far as I'm concerned, any and all behavior involving consenting adults, that does not injure parties ouside of the agreement is no one's business but their own.

This concept is a bedrock principle at the intersection of progressive and libertarian thought.

So gay couples can't have a marriage recognized by their God (or whatever religious insitution agrees to recognize it)? Merkley has stated in public and on tape that he's for gay marriage..so that hobby horse was corralled long ago.

Sure they can have it recognized in some churches. But that doesn't do a thing to make it civilly recognized. And thus would leaving marriage to couples and their God, automatically shuts same-sex couples out of obtaining a civil marriage license--since God isn't a county clerk.

Merkley's stated he's for gay marriage? Then it MUST be true! Just like McCain stating he's not for privatization--ignoring all those times in the past when he said he was. As long as we're talking about God, that response sounds an awful lot like "Jeff said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Every time someone tries to get over on this issue by falsely claiming that Merkley supports gay marriage, the record will be corrected.

My belief is that Senator Smith made the biggest mistake one can make in politics. He had a momentary lapse, and actually said what he thinks. I think he did not vet his thoughts thoroughly enough through the filter of political correctness which now rules our political discourse. Now he is suffering the consequences for that.

Cool. Thanks for offering that up.

So that means that Gordon Smith is refusing to explain exactly what he meant with his remarks because he's a big chicken--afraid that his personal views are highly unpopular with rank and file Oregonians and it would harm his campaign if he does.

Senator Smith's policy positions are very well-defined in this area, and I wouldn't expect his positions to change, if for no other reason than political reality. People are now trying to look for a deeper and more personal motivation for his comments. Regardless of what Senator Smith believes personally, it is much more intersting to me to examine the rationale of those who are so offended by his remarks. This is developing into a major issue in an important campaign. I'm very intersted in the standard being applied by those who are so offended and outraged.

Perhaps people are offended because they're misunderstanding exactly what Smith was trying to say. That often happens when there's a breakdown in communication. It seems to me that if Smith were to simply tell us (his constituents) exactly what he meant in his remarks (rather than continue to muddy the waters with weird apologies that make no sense), he could go along way to resolving this.

Is there an underlying principal behind these people's support for gay marraige, or is it simply what they want. If it is simply what they want, it seems to me that the appropriate place to seek change would be at the ballot box, rather than through the Courts. If it is an underlying principal that is being cited, then I don't see what would characterize any distinction between gay marraige and polygamist marriage as far as the Courts are concerned.

I don't think those are really the high priority questions at the moment. The first thing on the list for me is: what the heck was Gordon Smith's trying to say here? What does he mean?

The rest of the gay marriage/polygamy stuff is a smoke screen (IMO) to keep Smith from having to fully explain his remarks.

Its nice of you to help him with that, btw. But I'm kind of like a dog with a bone on these sorts of matters. :)

Jack Roberts wrote: "On the relevant subject, however, the difference between the two candidates seems to be pretty clear: Smith supports domestic partnerships but opposes gay marriage. Merkely supports both domestic partnerships and gay marriage."

The difference is hardly that clear.

Smith actively opposes LGBT equality through vocal support for the Federal "Defense of Marriage" Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). DOMA imposes greater Federal tax burdens on same-sex couples by denying recognition of our relationships. DOMA also blocks interstate recognition of our relationships as otherwise required by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia.

Both Jeff Merkley and Barack Obama oppose DOMA and the FMA.

Gordon Smith is an opportunist who knows what it takes to win a statewide race in Oregon. He's rolling out his election-year "rainbow wash" again; pretending to be a friend of the LGBT community because it plays well in the Willamette Valley. Yet, as shown by his DOMA and FMA stance, "separate but sort of equal-ish, just be happy I talk to you sometimes" is fine by him.

Anyone who cares about LGBT equality - instead of politically expedient lip service - should actively support Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate.

"What moral basis is gay marriage rooted in that suddenly makes it morally superior to polygamy?

Monogamy."

On what basis is monogamy morally superior to polygamy?

That said, the "rational basis" for not legalizing polygamy is that it does not conform to existing laws of marriage that establish things like succession and custody, and in fact would make a serious hash of them. Same sex marriage wouldn't require a single change to any set of laws beyond the one legalizing it.

"Those who support making changes through the courts will have a difficult time coming up with a legal distinction that would allow gay marriage, but not allow polygasmist marriage. That's the part I find interesting."

It's actually very easy, and has been done here a couple of times already: same sex marriage would require no changes to any other laws covering married people, because it would still be a union of just two people.

Multiple partners mess with things like default succession in an estate. Currently everything goes to "your spouse" if you don't leave a will. How would that work if you had three "spouses?" What about divorce, custody of children, et al?

Legalizing polygamy would require a change in the nature of the way the state administrates marriage. Same sex marriage does not; it merely broadens eligibility.

Well, you asked for a legal distinction between them, and my response was that same sex marriage is self-contained, whereas polygamy would require a rewrite of many other laws.

Anyone who cares about LGBT equality - instead of politically expedient lip service - should actively support Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate.

Well said, Leo.

I agree that his statement was extremely confusing. I think what he was saying is that he voted for DOMA because he felt like it was important to take the issue out of the courts. He said he didn't want to have federal judges imposing changes to the definition of marriage in areas where doing so would be extremely unpopular. I think he is fearful of a backlash against the gay community if that were to take place. That is where he made the analogy to the Mormans who were persecuted for their marriage practices.

You may be right. But then again, you may be wrong.

We'll never know unless Smith decides to stop hiding on this and come out with an explanation, however.

Until then, all of this is simply wasted speculation in the form of pixels.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 1:06:18 PM

Thanks, buddy!

:::wink, wink:::

[Editor's note: Please don't impersonate other people.]

Thanks, buddy! :::wink, wink:::

Blow me, Gordon. You've got too many weasel positioning attempts of your own to get excited about any that might afflict your opponent.

But assuming that wasn't really Gordon Smith, it's interesting that the apparent position of the true author is "better to cover up Merkley's actual position than tell the truth about it...because the truth might not work out as well."

"Three spouses? Divide everything by three. Divorce and child custody? Courts routinely deal with those issues already when couples split up."

Note that I didn't say resolution of those issues was impossible--but that they required resolution to begin with. Gay marriage does not change any of the incidents of marriage, only the eligibility. Polygamy would have profound impacts on a host of marital incidents.

But assuming that wasn't really Gordon Smith, it's interesting that the apparent position of the true author is "better to cover up Merkley's actual position than tell the truth about it...because the truth might not work out as well."

Or you could just tell the truth.

But I digress.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 3:16:33 PM

Blow me, Gordon.

Okay. Given how frequently you indirectly cyber-fellated me during the Primary, that only seems fair. But don't expect a marriage proposal.

[Editor's note: Please don't impersonate other people.]

You've got too many weasel positioning attempts of your own...

What? You think you have a copyright on weasel positioning or something?

[Editor's note: Please don't impersonate other people.]

"or you could just tell the truth..."

That being the same advice I'd give Merkley, I agree. It would have prevented a lot of conflict caused by his failure to do so.

That being the same advice I'd give Merkley, I agree. It would have prevented a lot of conflict caused by his failure to do so.

You simply won't be satisfied unless you can continue to fight the primary over and over again.

You weren't interested in the truth then and you're not interested in it now. You're interested in fighting.

No, I'm interested in correcting the record. The primary is over. Merkley is now running against Smith, and apparently will be claiming he supports gay marriage, which contradicts prior incompatible statements. The issue was brought up by someone else, in the context of general election arguments. Your attempted deflection is simply a canard.

If someone tried to say Merkley opposes ANWR drilling and so does Gordon, I'd be one of the first to note the contradictory evidence against Smith. Similar accuracy regarding Merkley's position, doesn't seem to be as much of a priority among some, if muddying that accuracy might redound to Jeff's favor--a strategy Merkley seems well practiced at.

Churches define Marriage and other sacraments as they see fit for their beliefs, traditions and sensibilities. Government defines marriage and other contracts, enforces their terms and sometimes presides over their termination. Thankfully our forefathers recognized that religion and government should stay out of each other’s business. Unfortunately, we've let them become entangled on the issue of marriage.

In the law, "marriage" is shorthand for a host of agreements between two adults taking on these obligations willingly. It involves not only obligations of these two adults to each other, but also an obligation by the state to recognize the relationship and enforce the obligations.

Polygamy has got a bad name for a few reasons. 1. It has burst into public consciousness in instances where it is coincident with coercion. 2. Sometimes that coercion has involved children. 3. It doesn't appear to be a contract in which the parties' obligations are equal or even equivalent.

The state has an interest in preventing coercion and in providing recourse to those who are coerced. The state also has an obligation to give equal privileges and immunities under the law. I'm not sure how you could write laws to codify polygamy without codifying its essential inequality. It would have the law saying that a man has certain rights of inheritance and kinship in such a relationship by virtue of being a man. Men and women of a particular faith may believe that to be appropriate, but the state has no business backing that up.

Same-sex couples, on the other hand, are only asking for the same rights that the rest of us have, to enter into exclusive life partnerships recognized by the state, to pursue happiness, a basic American right. It is incredible how those who claim to "defend" marriage have decided that love and commitment do not make a family; sex does.

Every targeted group in history has been subjected to the argument that they can't have equal rights because others who already have those rights are offended by the idea. It's not really an argument; it's backlash, a political tantrum.

As for Gordon Smith, I don't think he knows what he thinks, except that he really likes being a Senator and that he doesn't like the sound of "former Senator."

Just so we're clear... The hook that TJ is hanging his entire argument on is a blog post by a Novick supporter repeating what she thought she heard Merkley say in a conversation at a party.

It seems that other LGBT organizations - Basic Rights Oregon, eQualityGiving, and Just Out magazine - heard something else.

I'm not interested in re-litigating the primary either, but merely in correcting (or clarifying) the record.

I'm kinda fascinated by all the people who want to sit here and tell us what they think about polygamy - rather than trying to figure out what Gordon Smith thinks about polygamy.

I'm kinda fascinated by all the people who want to sit here and tell us what they think about polygamy - rather than trying to figure out what Gordon Smith thinks about polygamy.

Good point Kari. I guess it's because Gordon brought it up but didn't really give us a clue. His "My ancestors were persecuted for this, not that there's not anything wrong with it" remarks remain mystifying after his later explanation.

It seems like maybe he's saying that flexibility on the "man+woman" part of the formula would imply flexibility on the "one+one" part. That's something I don't buy.

Just so we're clear... The hook that TJ is hanging his entire argument on is a blog post by a Novick supporter repeating what she thought she heard Merkley say in a conversation at a party.

As the Novick supporter Kari is talking about, I'd like to state for the record that I still stand by what I heard and what I wrote. If Merkley later decided to use fuzzier language, that's his prerogative. But it doesn't change what he said to me at that DPO donor event (not exactly a "party").

Anyone new to this discussion, read what I wrote and judge for yourself.

Stephanie, it seems to me from your LO post that Jeff gave you an answer that wasn't so much wrong-headed as unrealistic. We are not going to totally revamp the civil marriage system and rename secular marriage "civil unions" or anything else, because the "defense of marriage" folks will see that as downgrading their own, which is exactly what they fear. The road to full equality is too long by that route. We should be looking for the path of least resistance.

Just so we're clear... The hook that TJ is hanging his entire argument on is a blog post by a Novick supporter repeating what she thought she heard Merkley say in a conversation at a party.

Oh, goodness no--although that'd be quite enough. Nice job working overtime to make it sound like her recounting was shakey (this after suggesting maybe it never even happened, as I recall), by the way. But her version was essentially corroborated by the candidate himself at the WW interview, when he attempted to extricate himself from the contradiction the editors presented him with, regarding the previously stated desire to see marriage resolved not by government, but between a couple and their God. Kevin Kamberg nearly made his living for a while there arguing exactly the same position: marriage is sacred anyway, so it's best removed from governmental sanction altogether (other than the legal and economic incidents thereof).

You can scratch and claw your way to speculatory degradation of Stephanie's account--but the video where WW editors ask three different times about what they saw as a mutually exclusive pair of arguments Merkley agreed he held, is harder to dismiss. The sure-to-come rebuttal that they were simply satisfied after three iterations of this, I think is better resolved by Occam's suggestion that they grew tired of asking for something responsive.

I have an idea: surely at some point the argument will be made, look--everybody knows you say Merkley is skating on his marriage equality position, we get it, shut up. I can almost promise you I will never bring it up here again before the general...if no one tries to pass Merkley as standing up for full marriage equity. I certainly didn't bring it up until then in this thread.

Is it even on his website yet, a statement of support for same sex marriage? Still waiting, almost 11 months now. And anyway, everybody knows some Merkley people will try to pass off his position, we get it, shut up. Don't fake, won't complain.

Merkley stands for full LGBT equality.

Those who want to hang their hat on a word rather than on full equality by whatever means are free to do so. That's an interesting discussion in and of itself which I have indulged in too. But that discussion doesn't change the fact that Merkley stands for full LGBT equality.

Gay marriage, which Jeff Merkley supports, is one way to get there. Civil Unions for everyone would be another way to get there. One way may be more difficult or challenging than another, it is true. But that doesn't change the fact that full and total LGBT equality would be the result either way.

So the next time you find yourself wondering if beating your head against a brick wall just might be more productive than reading yet another petulent rant by Mark Bunster (aka TJ), just remember the larger context and scroll down to the next comment.

Torridjoe wrote: "Is it even on [Merkley's] website yet, a statement of support for same sex marriage?"

Long before the Senate campaign, Jeff Merkley showed up at a key public DPO GLBT Caucus meeting, on his own initiative, just to ask what we needed from him in the Oregon House. We had a very positive dialogue, and Jeff moved forward as a critical leader in the fight for the Oregon Equality and Family Fairness Acts. These laws implemented the top two Legislative Agenda Items in the Human Rights Plank of the 2006 DPO Platform.

Anyone second-guessing strategic decisions made during the fight for these particular laws should look within the LGBT community itself. We're a realistic crowd. We're in it for the long term. And, we will win in the end.

There has never been any question within the DPO GLBT Caucus that Jeff Merkley supports full equality for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Anyone suggesting otherwise simply doesn't know what they're talking about, or is grinding an axe better left in the shed.

Stephanie, it seems to me from your LO post that Jeff gave you an answer that wasn't so much wrong-headed as unrealistic. We are not going to totally revamp the civil marriage system and rename secular marriage "civil unions" or anything else, because the "defense of marriage" folks will see that as downgrading their own, which is exactly what they fear. The road to full equality is too long by that route. We should be looking for the path of least resistance.

Yes, Sue, I think that's not an unfair way to characterize it. The direct route to marriage equality leads to civil marriage for all, not the abolition of all civil marriage.

Whenever there is a civil rights issue, equality can be achieved through leveling UP or leveling DOWN. Either integrate the swimming pool, or close the swimming pool. In either case, equality is achieved, after all. I think in general most of us would agree that leveling up is the way to go. I was disappointed that where marriage rights are concerned, Jeff Merkley seemed inclined toward leveling down.

Actually I don't see any reason not to take Jeff Merkley at his current word, even if his previous position was different, especially given the evident view of LGBT civil rights activists that he has been a consistent ally who has delivered on his promises.

There was a time in anti-M36 campaign when I was intrigued by the "civil unions for all" line of attack. Eventually I concluded what Sue Hagmeier said, particularly the bit about making true the otherwise specious claims of the antis that marriage equality changes their marriages or takes something from them.

I changed my mind. That I used to think something different doesn't mean I don't now think what I think now. If anything, it makes it more likely that I really do think it.

Same for Jeff Merkley. His clear statements now are not political expedience nor politically expedient. They reflect an honorable evolution of thinking, IMO. More power to him, I say -- in more ways than one :->.

If I were Steve Novick, I would call Torrid Joe and ask him to put down his dukes and stop fighting on my behalf. Torrid's highly vocal allegiance to Novick runs the risk of souring people on Novick's next big race, which I hope he wins so he can keep kicking @#$ for working people.

In the meantime, I remain a fan of both Merkley and Novick. I want Merkley to head to DC after the November election. He's the candidate, and he's awesome.

How about that new BlueOregon system, where we can give thumbs-down to post-primary squabbles?

Jamais Vu, systematic polygyny (multiple wife marriages) requires a systematic younger age of marriage for women than for men, unless for some reason men are being removed from a population at a greater rate than women, or extra "outside" women being brought in somehow -- which I suppose could have been the case in the early Mormon population when it was embedded in a larger population.

But in a heuristic self-reproducing population, in which the sex ratio is 1 to 1, multiple marriages by men can occur only when young men defer marriage leaving their corresponding age-mate women to available to marry older men. An anthropologist named Vernon Dorjahn who studied polygyny comparatively in the 1950s (or published in 1957, anyway) found this to be true in practice as well as theory, and also that the societies with the higher prevalence of polygyny had the greatest differences in age at marriage between men and women (and considerable numbers of men who never married before they died, under pre-industrial life expectancies.)

This doesn't necessarily equate to child-marriage, but it usually does mean predominately teen-age marriage for women and creates pressures to allow that even into early teens.

Polygyny tends to be most common in areas where there is a lot of land relative to people, and labor is thus in short relative supply. That partly corresponds to your remarks about the labor advantages of Mormon plural marriage on the frontier, but also earlier age of female marriage tends to increase the number of children and the availability of child and youth labor. The more so since later age of male marriage prolongs young men's status as social juniors who work for elders, the age dimension of patriarchy (rule of fathers, fathers being both males and elders). Aspects of shared labor potentially beneficial to co-wives need to be interrogated within the overall division of labor by sex -- if women do a disproportionate amount of labor, the sharing effect may be minimized while the whole system redounds to the ultimate benefit of elder, multiply-married men in ways that can be quite exploitative of women, especially younger ones and junior wives, and junior men.

Once the balance tips to a relative shortage of land compared to population, polygyny tends to give way to monogamy, and women tend to be constructed ideologically as "mouths to feed" and sources of more "mouths to feed," rather than sources of labor, their own and their childrens'.

This is reflected in systems of marriage prestations (gifts between kin-groups sealing the marriage as a kin alliance). The British anthropologist Jack Goody has argued persuasively that such marriage prestations are also intergenerational transfers of wealth prior to the death of parents, allowing the establishment of new households. But in polygynous societies, the form of prestation is almost universally bridewealth -- husband's family gives marriage gifts to bride's family, in compensation for the loss of fertility ("bridewealth is childwealth," in one saying), gifts which in social ideals usually are earmarked to secure a wife for one of the bride's brothers, thus establishing a new household in the lineage. If it's not bridewealth, it may be bride-service (husband works for bride's father or maternal uncle, depending on whether kinship is patrilineal or matrilineal, e.g. the story of Leah and Rachel in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament).

In monogamous societies, however, marriage prestations almost always are dowry -- wife's family endow the new household formed in the husband's kin-group with start up wealth (often this really involves marriage goods accumulated or made by young women themselves, for ordinary families), underwritten ideologically by the idea that the husband's kin-group is taking on a burden that needs to be supported.

Although this has been written in present tense, it mostly refers to agrarian societies, and these patterns tend to break down with industrialization, especially or first in the working classes.

European monogamy pretty much derives from Roman law and the Roman empire, in which monogamy was not particularly favorable to women, the patria potestas (power of fathers) being in theory absolute. Christianity's monogamous ideal derives from the religion's development in the Roman imperial milieu, and then was spread with the religion into areas not formerly part of the Roman empire, first in Europe, and latterly in Christian colonized and missionized areas.

"Torrid's highly vocal allegiance to Novick "

certainly no crows around BlueO, what with all the strawmen being erected!

Novick's position on marriage equity is quite clear. I don't see where he's at issue, especially since he is not in the race. (And you sure have a funny way of picking candidates your own self; I don't like the Dead because their fans smell so good--I try to evaluate the band itself).

This was about Merkley's stance. Chris Lowe seems willing to bestow absolution via evolution--but WW gave him some chances to find evolution. His explicit choice was to both cling to the 2004 response, AND the 2008 new line.

Either a consistent No or a full and open Yes would have been fine. I'm not a purist about it; as someone said Obama isn't really for it and neither was Edwards for that matter. But Edwards almost admits it like his own failing, and is honest about his struggle. It's the weaseling that is unnecessary.

It's interesting to watch a group of presumably straight people judge one another based on how and in what manner people like my partner and I should get legal equality for our relationships, and more interestingly, by what terminology.

Extreme positions are easy to take with no skin in the game. And then there's real life, with its long steady slog towards lasting, effective political and cultural change. Aesop wrote an apt story about this.

Because marriage is a religious institution, and should be respected as such, "civil unions for all" is the most equitable stance we could have in civil law. However, experience tells me that straight people will not easily relinquish their special right to have special laws and a special legal word which applies especially to them, even if the legal effect is the same. And as long as the legal effect is the same ... one hundred percent the same at State and Federal levels ... I'm personally okay with this. Time is the great leveler. Culture changes with time, and law follows culture.

There has never been any question within the DPO GLBT Caucus that Jeff Merkley supports full equality for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Anyone suggesting otherwise simply doesn't know what they're talking about, or is grinding an axe better left in the shed.

Exactly.

That is the REAL correcting of the record..and it should continue to be every time its stated otherwise.

Now...is anyone else still wondering what Gordon Smith was actually saying in that video or is it just me?

I'd rather integrate the swimming pool than close it, even though "equality" could be served either way.

Stephanie, you seem to be an absolutist on gay marriage. So, then, why do you support Barack Obama? Aren't you one of his delegates? How do you reconcile your support of him with his "fuzzy" position on gay rights?

Jack, we're talking about politics here, aren't we? (Just checking.) Don't we all have a number of issues that are important to us? I originally supported John Edwards (as did Jeff Merkley, Steve Novick, and Kari Chisholm, I might add), for a few great reasons, and one of them was my conviction that his wife's support of marriage equality would bring him around relatively quickly (but in any case, it was great that she openly expressed her viewpoint on that and other issues, and he did not seek to muzzle her).

I choose which candidate I will support in any campaign based on a bundle of issues that are important to me. Marriage equality is very important to me, but it is only one such issue. That's why I've repeatedly stated that I'll vote for Merkley over Smith -- because on the issues generally, including this one, he is closer to where I am than Smith is. I disagreed with Novick on several issues but supported him in the primary because he was closer overall to my outlook than Merkley was.

My future vote for Merkley doesn't look like a very enthusiastic one right now, but I'm hoping he'll show me something that will fire me up over the next few months. I'd like that. Even if he doesn't, I will vote for him out of a deep desire to be rid of Gordon Smith.

But it doesn't help when people oversell Merkley and pretend that his position on every issue is ideally progressive and in perfect alignment with what we all believe (or should believe). All candidates are flawed. Gordon Smith is a lot more flawed than Merkley. Full stop.

Carla Axtman wrote: "Now...is anyone else still wondering what Gordon Smith was actually saying in that video or is it just me?"

He was babbling, and let his actual, unrehearsed feelings about the GLBT community show through the cracks. He feels we're icky and embarrassing, and feels the same about his ancestors. That's it, in a nutshell.

It's clear that Jeff Merkley is the only actual friend the LGBT community has in this Senate election. Gordon Smith has repeatedly taken advantage of us, throwing occasional bones our way to grease his election-year swings back toward the Oregon mainstream. I am sick and tired, though, of my community being used this way, and hope my fellow LGBT Democrats feel the same.

I'd rather integrate the swimming pool than close it, even though "equality" could be served either way.

You are still proffering a false choice fallacy, as was pointed out to you ad nauseum during the Primary.

Building a new, better swimming pool which omits the design flaws inherent in the first swimming pool would serve equality just as well and would arguably be the more "progressive" solution. Be that as it may, the point of the exersize is, or at least should be, full equality by whatever means the majority decide they/we want to use.

So what happens to the existing swimming pool in the interim, Kevin? Do you open it up? Or do you close it?

Why do you have to build a "special" public facility so it can be integrated?

Why not open up the perfectly good, functional, and cherished public facility you already have? If it's good enough for the majority, why isn't it good enough for the minority too? For everyone equally?

Remember, this is a magic swimming pool whose capacity is limited only by the limitations of human love.

So what happens to the existing swimming pool in the interim, Kevin? Do you open it up? Or do you close it?

Why do you have to build a "special" public facility so it can be integrated?

Why not open up the perfectly good, functional, and cherished public facility you already have? If it's good enough for the majority, why isn't it good enough for the minority too? For everyone equally?

Remember, this is a magic swimming pool whose capacity is limited only by the limitations of human love.

Chris, Your arguments are not universally applicable. Sex and procreation are not always the goals of marriage--often economic security is. Brigham Young married a number of older widows whom he supported but never (apparently) cohabitated with.

If the lack of men is the driving factor for polygamy, it's interesting that the Mormon Church was forced to give it up not long after the carnage of the U.S. Civil War, which put the male/female ratio considerably out of balance, with many widows and orphans left without bread-winners at a time when women's ability to support themselves was much more limited than today. As I'm sure you'd agree, the driving forces behind social and legal attitudes towards marriage are complex. At the very least, you'd think a society with rates of divorce and child abandonment as high as ours would think twice about having knee-jerk reactions against other people's alternatives to the "typical" family.

That being said, I don't want to detract from the original message in this post; which is that Gordon Smith opposes equal rights for the GLBT community. That is clear, as is the choice of whom to vote for in fall--Jeff Merkley.

Tom Civiletti wrote: "It is a little sad when one marginalized group attempts to normalize their own status by denigrating another marginalized group, but I suppose that is unavoidable in such an imperfect world as ours."

Now that is an elitist view.

Now that is an elitist view.

Huh?

Yes, it is always sad when any group of people being discriminated against responds by pointing fingers at another unpopular group and saying, "Hey, at least we're better than THEY ARE!"

How is that elitist?

Jamais Vu,

Mormon polygamy is fairly unusual in anthropological terms and the way the system generally has worked historically.

I never said that lack of men is the driving factor in polygyny. Actually it's usually not a factor at all. It's a minor way it can happen departing from the ususal pattern.

Usually patrilineal kinship and patriarchy in the context of high availability of land relative to labor are common elements.

My point about fewer men referred to the possibility that Mormon polygamy may not have depended on youner age of women than men at marriage, because Mormons may have recruited more women than men from outside their own community. I don't know if that was the case, but I was just trying to say that the most usual pattern may not have applied to the Mormons.

Your remark about Brigham Young marrying older widows might or might not reflect any kind of demographic facts. It does as you say point to ethical dimensions of marriage and how multiple marriages might allow marriage to serve as a way to address the issue of widows are provided for in society. "Provide for" is a term whose meaning is variable in relation to the extent that gender roles and limited division of labor in agrarian societies may constrain female widows' opportunities to provide for themselves, of course.

Nonetheless, once Mormon society became relatively isolated from U.S. society, or if it never was the case that more women than men joined, or that men did not die at higher rates than women, the only way for widespread polygyny can exist is by men marrying at significantly older ages than women. The key is the difference in the number of years -- 15 vs. 23 or 20 vs. 28 (f vs. m) would allow the same degree of polygyny. So the principle doesn't require very young female marriage.

But, if you have situations where there are strong ideologies favoring large families, and relatively short pre-industrial lifespans such that industrial era ideas of "adolescence" tend not to exist, that creates cultural pressures for fairly young female marriage toward the beginning of potential childbearing years.

And even if initial age of female marriage is relatively high, relatively large systematic older age of men in marriages tends to underwrite patriarchy. I hope you are not trying to argue that Mormon society was not patriarchal, as its ideology literally and overtly is so. Of course that doesn't particularly differentiate it from the societies and cultures from which it emerged at the time.

I'm perfectly happy to consider other alternative family forms. I've spent much of my life trying to understand people and cultures who historically had polygynous ideals and histories in which attacks on those ideals formed a key element of imperialism, colonialism and the construction of particular systems of white dominated racial oppression.

Also I consider that our current system is substantially polygynous and polyandrous -- i.e. a substantial plurality of men and women both have multiple wives or husbands. However, we do it serially.

On the other hand, while it is true that about 50% of U.S. marriages end in divorce, about 2/3 of individuals who marry stay married to the same person for life. The apparent paradox is resolved by the fact that many persons who get divorced do so more than once, and also that second marriages may become ones for life.

I am unwilling however to see divorce as simply a bad thing. Forced marriage and forced remaining in marriage can be or protect severe forms of oppression. Nor does the fact that a different marriage system may have some features better than ours mean it may not also have worse ones, that should be just as subject to scrutiny.

Apparently it makes a difference which way you nest bold & italic.

stop bold?

Now preview didn't show the formatting continuing. I'm going to try one at a time.

Stephanie, you nailed it lovely (lovelily? or is that a flower?) on the swimming pool metaphor.

Oceanlake, Smith does not just want to prevent lingering prejudice by having change through votes. He has voted for laws that would 1) prevent a same-sex couples in state in which people voted in same-sex marriage from receiving the full benefits of marriage within the federal system, including direct federal benefits, and 2) the principle of universal recognition of any state's marriages by all other states in the union.

The arguments about 1) and 2) are different, 2) might be argued not to conflict with what you say Smith's view is, but 1) is in complete contradictin to it. In both cases, Smith has voted for same-sex marriage to have second-class status and not only does not favor full equality but has voted to prevent it.

Regardless of what his gobbledygook meant.

<h2>The best one can hope for is that the confusion might mean he's really thinking about it and hasn't finished yet (I remain a member in spirit of the Pollyanna Society at times, I know). Given his other recent patterns of re- and mis- representing himself, it seems more likely that this was just an inept aspect of that effort, though (my Cynics' Guild view).</h2>