The Marriage Merry-Go-Round
Editor's note: Today, Kristin Teigen joins BlueOregon as a regular contributor. She's worked for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Organization for Women, and now lives in Oregon with her husband and two boys. She describes herself as "one of those radical feminist, enviro moms the Radical Right loves to hate."
In a couple of weeks, the Constitution Party, among others, will hand in signatures, hoping to put a measure on the ballot that intends to overturn HB 2007, the domestic partnership legislation passed in the last session by the Oregon Legislature. At this point, it looks like they’ll be successful. Here we go again.
Rather than proactively work to better the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Oregonians, we will spend thousands of dollars and countless hours defending what should be a given – rights are rights and should be extended to all.
Of course, so much of the debate will beat the old drum of marriage rights. While the original legislation did not even guarantee the full array of rights allowed under marriage, no doubt so much of the rhetoric will be about the whole white dress/bad punch/joint income tax scene. To point out how completely ludicrous it is that LGBT folks are not given the right to marry, let’s review some of the people who, in America, are legally guaranteed the right.
Let’s start with some of the obvious creepiness. In 26 states, it’s legal to marry your cousin (for fun, Google – “Rudy Giuliani” “first wife” cousin). Going on, in Kansas and Massachusetts, 12 year old girls can get married with their parent’s approval; in Mississippi, the age of consent for girls is 15. You can also be a horrific criminal -- you can murder, you can rape, forfeiting all basic citizenship rights, yet you can still marry. Perhaps among most abhorrent, in all but four states, a person can adopt a child, raise the child, and then once the age of consent is reached, marry the child. Yes, marry his or her adopted child. Feel free to pause reading now to fight the nausea.
Luckily in Oregon, you can’t marry a cousin and you can’t marry an adopted child. Despite this, instead of going after those whose marriages make our skin crawl, those on the Right argue that committed, adult couples should not be given the hundreds of benefits associated with the right of marriage, much less the far fewer number of rights afforded under domestic partnership.
As I said, here we go again.
|
August 7, 2007 |
Kristin Teigen | Comments (33 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Comments
Posted by: Bob R. | Aug 7, 2007 8:48:35 AM
Don't forget the terrorists! Terrorists are allowed to marry. Gays, not so much. (But that fits a certain pattern -- we're not allowed to be Arabic translators either.)
- Bob R.
Posted by: Eric J. | Aug 7, 2007 9:05:29 AM
Why can't they just leave these people alone! Let them be! Society has better issues to dive into than this. Is the constituion party so bored with their lives that they have to hurt someone to make themselves look important?
Just leave them alone!
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Aug 7, 2007 9:08:43 AM
I applaud the Legislature's move to assure some semblance of equality in Oregon (It's not perfect, but a step in the right direction). It has moved this struggle for equal rights from a purely defensive posture to a more proactive one. This move has been my desire since I moved here in 1991 and was struck by the threat of Measure 9.
Playing defense is not good enough here. Time to play offense. The basic rights signed into law this year will now be threatened by anti-Christians of every shape and color.
When do WE get to take the Offensive? When do THEY get to defend their rights? Ofcourse, they believe that they are defending their rights, but really, Lon Mabon was thrown in prison. Aren't there any lawyers out there that can do the same to some of their leaders? Yes, it is fighting dirty. It is not something that liberals pride themselves in, but money talks. Sue their pants off, throw them in jail for tax evasion, expose their hiring of male prostitutes and meth dealing... whatever works.
No more excuses. No more whinning. We have the intelligence, the money and the anger. We also have justice on our side.
Posted by: spicey | Aug 7, 2007 9:09:12 AM
I think they do it because it will also be a wedge issue - something that gets some Christian Conservatives to the polls in a year when they might otherwise stay away. This is an advantage to R's who might get caught in a landslide.
So, if there's any truth to that, what's a good strategy to deflate the issue while not having the iniative win? Good articulation of the issue, for sure, but how about outreach to the Christian Conservative Evangelical Right Wing folks out there - hoping that they can see the light...
brainstorming. need cafe...
Posted by: spicey | Aug 7, 2007 9:10:32 AM
Oh, and geez - welcome aboard, Kristin - great first post. thanks for your work on this issue.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 7, 2007 9:12:19 AM
Oh, but Krisitn. Incest is quite biblical.
Father Abraham married his half sister, Sodom's Lot married their uncle and Lot went on to do both his daughters after Jehovah thought him righteous enough to save. The yuck factor is cultural.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 7, 2007 9:14:19 AM
Just to err on the side of accuracy:
(1) Rudy Giuliana was married to his second cousin. Only first cousins are prohibited from marrying in Oregon.
(2) If OHSU v. Tanner, 157 Or App 502, 971 P2d 435 (1998), is still good law in Oregon, same-sex dometic partners have the same legal rights as married couples under the Oregon Constitution(which, incidentally, is why PERS should lose the lawsuit described in today's paper where they denied a teacher the right to remove her former same-sex domestic partner as a beneficiary).
Okay, enough with these boring details. Feel free to resume making fun of our crazy laws in Oregon.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 7, 2007 9:19:47 AM
Jack,
As you most likely know, Oregon may have great laws, but until the federal Defense of Marriage Act is overturned, true equality will never be reached.
Kristin
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 7, 2007 9:32:33 AM
Marriage is a civil contract. If a marriage is performed in a place of worship or by a member of the clergy, it can also be a sacrament, but it doesn't have to be. My marriage, performed at the Multnomah County Courthouse (thank you Judge Kantor!), is every bit as binding as those performed by a member of the clergy, perhaps even more so. There is no reason why full legal civil marriage (and all of the attendant benefits and responsibilities) should not be available to any eligible couple.
I loved Bill Clinton for many reasons, but I will never forgive him for a few things, one of which is his craven signing into law of DOMA.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 7, 2007 9:37:59 AM
Jack, what about Measure 36? I thought it obviated the state's equal protections.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 7, 2007 10:49:39 AM
It seems to me that there are two different issues at the root of opposition to gay "marriage".
One is the philosophical/ideological disinclination to grant gays equal rights.
The other, and I suspect it is more widespread than many assume, is mostly just opposition to calling it "marriage" rather than an opposition to equal rights.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 7, 2007 10:51:54 AM
Measure 36 did not overturn OHSU v. Tanner. Remember, that was the case that said, since Oregon does not allow same-sex couples to get married, then same-sex domestic partners must be treated by the state as if they were married (and, specifially, OHSU had to provide health benefits to same-sex domestic partners the same as for married couples).
Measure 36 simply put in the state constitution what Tanner already acknowledged--i.e., same-sex couples can't marry. But its sponsors made clear that their measure did not affect the right to have civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Posted by: pdxskip | Aug 7, 2007 11:08:46 AM
Gay's marrying Gays, Lesbians marrying lesbians, Gays marrying Lesbians, Transgender marrying anybody.....Cousins marrying cousins, Brothers marrying Sisters, or Straight atheists marrying Straight Christians.
WHO CARES? If it fulfills their lives and they live happily together, obey the laws, and pay their taxes (marriage penalty included) WHO CARES?
Our friends leading the Constitution Party are wasting their time and money (a good thing folks!) because this state will never recind civil unions. Marriage will remain an uphill struggle for awhile, but HB2007 is safe.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Aug 7, 2007 11:25:20 AM
pdxskip,
The fact that the "Constitution Party" is wasting their money on this is a "good thing" is not in doubt from me. Since they cannot get a serious candidate to win a state election I suspect that they have plenty of money to fund this issue.
As to your optimism on the safety of HB2007, I truly hope that you are right. After M36, however, my faith in the straight majority to vote for fairness has been greatly diminished. Feel free to prove me wrong November 2008.
Posted by: pdxskip | Aug 7, 2007 11:36:35 AM
Measure 36 was a reaction to the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners ill advised (and totally dumb) over reach in granting legal marriage to gays and lesbians....without FIRST laying the groundwork with their constuients across the county. Just dropping that bonb out of nowhere riled the citizenry and that brought on M36.
People have calmed down and the moderate Dems like me and equally moderate Repubs around the state are in agreement with civil unions. HB2007 is indeed safe.
Posted by: raul | Aug 7, 2007 11:45:23 AM
How about a law that says if you are creating a law solely based on religious dogma, it should be thrown out immediately?
Or how about a law that if you are a preacher or religious leader that gets caught in creepy behaviour ( diddling choir boys, stealing money, wearing a skirt and urinating in front of children- a recent case ) that you should get extra jail time?
There is no GLBT backlash from me, it is more of a backlash against religious nuts, and organized religion in general-
If only we had tax exempt places where these folks can follow any sky wizard they wish? Oh yeah, we do. So then, religious nuts, leave our government alone.
Posted by: Randy2 | Aug 7, 2007 11:55:55 AM
"WHO CARES?"
Unfortunately, those who want to make other people's business their business.
Reminds me of the bumper sticker:
"Oh God: Protect me from your followers"
Randy2
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 7, 2007 12:35:41 PM
"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things--that takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg, 1979 Nobel Laureate, Physics
Posted by: BlueNote | Aug 7, 2007 4:01:00 PM
There are a lot of people (Gordon Smith, Karl Rove, etc.) who are betting heavily that issues like this will distract progressives from the critical mission in November 2008, which is to elect as many progressive Dems as possible to the state legislature, US House and US Senate. Until the Congress is controlled by progressive Dems (and I don't count the so-called "Blue Dogs" as progressive Dems), nobody's civil rights are safe, regardless of their race, creed, color, sexual orientation or whatever.
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Aug 7, 2007 4:50:06 PM
"Since they (Constitution Party) cannot get a serious candidate to win a state election I suspect that they have plenty of money to fund this issue." Simple solution: Give 'em Pavel! Oh wait, you said a serious candidate. Well, by the time he begins insulting them and driving everybody there crazy, they will have wasted lots of time and spent a fair chunck of change. One can hope.
I suggest when all of us thinking folks run into these bigots seeking signatures for this issue, we make it a point of reducing them to smoldering heaps by pointing out what hateful, small-mided, self-rightous jerks they are. Ask them the questions posted above, about divorce (about thier divorce!), about child molesters, and hold their filthy feet to the fire. Make a public scene and rattle 'em good! It's really a lot of fun crushing these idiots!
Posted by: natureboy | Aug 8, 2007 7:32:06 AM
Measure 36 was not a reaction to Multnomah County offering the opportunity to marry. The ballot measure, and several versions thereof, had already been submitted to the state before the county commissioners took such a brave step toward equality.
Posted by: Scott McLean | Aug 8, 2007 12:42:25 PM
I think the conservative agument that gay marriage would somehow undermine the family structure is fundamentally flawed. Some Republicans in Congress have used that kind of fuzzy logic in trying to ban same-sex marriage, which shows they are removed from modern reality.
Allowing same-sex partners to marry would promote monogamous relationships and stability in those relationships. Of course there would still be divorce and all the problems that have caused married couples to get divorced over the years. That's where the effort is needed. If the so-called religious conservatives want to make a difference in favor of families, they should spend more of their time and money helping families stay together.
Posted by: Scott | Aug 8, 2007 12:59:38 PM
The last comment should have read as follows: I think the conservative argument that gay marriage would somehow undermine the family structure is fundamentally flawed.
Somehow the "r" in argument was not there when I read it again.
Posted by: pdxskip | Aug 8, 2007 1:35:07 PM
WOW....Glen sounds like a real piece of work.
Natureboy....you don't have a clue when the M36 (with several versions of ballot titles for the SOS to chose from) was submitted. I had several long time Dem friends in Gresham involved in that effort that begun AFTER Diane Linn and the three mean girls approved issuing marriage licenses to anyone and everyone. Well....except for the guy with the dog. He got turned down.
I was very much against M36 and I worked hard and spent plenty to defeat it. I also lost some friends in that campaign. But the anti M36 crowd was doomed because of the arrogance of the "Sisters of Hawthorne". They spent too much time wandering Hawthorne, the Pearl, and NE Portland coffee shops getting hugs and pats on the back....and not near enough time in the Rotary Clubs, Elks Lodges, JC meetings, neighborhood meetings, and taverns of SE Portland, Mid and East County explaining what they were about to do.. In the end we needed those voters to kill M36 but they felt abandoned.
A lesson learned. I hope.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 8, 2007 3:17:52 PM
pdxskip -- The first actual efforts, besides those of your "friends in Gresham" to put the measure on the ballot did in fact start before the Commission's efforts -- natureboy was right. These efforts joined several by the Right all across the country that intended to turn out the super-conservative vote for Bush in 2004 and many have credited these efforts with electing him-- in a way, the close-minded vote against gay marriage allowed the heinous administration we have today. Thank God at least Bush didn't win in Oregon...
Posted by: pdxskip | Aug 8, 2007 3:35:11 PM
Kristin...I stand by my versions of things. My now ex-friends in Gresham are the actual ones that drove to Salem and officially filed M36 with the SOS.
Thank God at least Bush didn't win in Oregon...
Yeah! That sure saved out bacon didn't it! Pfffffft!
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 8, 2007 3:50:49 PM
Wow -- such maturity. And do you mean saved OUR bacon? Just checking....
Anyway, they may have filed but the efforts started long before the filing. There was an excellent series of articles in the Oregonian about it. You may also contact the Constitution Party AND Basic Rights Oregon if you're really burning for the truth.
Posted by: pdxatheist | Aug 9, 2007 11:20:05 AM
Regardless of when the first paperwork for M36 was filed, something like this was coming down the turnpike for a loooong long time. Anyone remember M9 and M13? M36 would have happened regardless of how our brave Multnomah County Commissioners dealt with this issue. I will grant, though that there can be no doubt that their actions definitely fueled the fire of 36. Anyone who remembers the acid-tongued glee of the hate-mongers at the 36 victory party knows that for many people, punishing Diane & Co. was at least as big a motivation for them as their hatred and fear of gays.
Say what you will about Diane Linn and the rest; she will always have a special place in my heart as someone who realized that sometimes, doing what's RIGHT takes precedence over red tape and paper shuffling. She and the 'mean girls' had the courage to do this and I applaud them for it.
Posted by: Curt | Aug 9, 2007 12:32:46 PM
On the other hand, gay marriage was on the ballot in, what, thirty states (put there by the Republicans) that year. Remember?
Those initiatives were merely there to coax the inbred hill scoggins out of their tar-paper shacks and trailer houses, because they'd be reliable voters for the current corrupt administration and its coterie of effeminate, fat-fingered neocons.
The scoggins came out in force, and as a result the election was so close that there's, what, a fifty-fifty chance that the Republican win was even legitimate.
Now, let's all reflect on what was more important -- solidly defeating the weenies, chickenhawks and neocons, or fighting a doomed battle for gay marriage? I mean, seeing as we all KNEW no state's voters were going to ratify gay marriage?
Gays are reliably better off when grownups are in charge of government, and reliably worse off when the weenies are in charge. It's too bad the gay community couldn't see that, this last time around.
Curt
Curt
Posted by: independent liberal | Aug 9, 2007 2:22:54 PM
Gay marriage is an issue that warrants a bit of civil disobedience. Laws lose their moral authority when they are used to justify persecution.
Posted by: Avis Benjamin | Dec 17, 2007 7:58:06 PM
bodach puritaness wickerware nonuterine twat anophelinae geitonogamous tartrazine
Photography by Louise
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/reservoir_dogs/
Posted by: miller | Mar 5, 2008 10:48:11 AM
Gay marriage,
People; there are no problems with gays marrying in any system they want except the legal one only to gain the legal benefits of legal; marriage ... the only reason is legal benefits. (yes, there will always be 'religious' groups that put restrictions on their marriage; but gay people can just start their own group if they so wish; secular marriage is just a bunch of paperwork to gain legal benefits of marriage (does anyone really think in a true marriage sense that actually means something? Our USA has been around for 200+ years; so marriage did not exist beforehand?).
So the whole issue is being addressed wrong. They don't necessarily want to be 'married' per unjust (we all know) legal system black-and-white, they want benefits. So change the benefit laws to incorporate gaining benefits for anyone that wants or remove all benefits of family and marriage and make it just a mandate that every individual be treated the same.
And Kristen; you snub people marrying adoptive kids (I'm against) but why are your arbitrary right-winged feelings in these issues the way all of us should follow? What secular argument do you have against me marrying my brother or father (I am male) to gain his or give my benefits otherwise I would not be able to obtain? Ooohhh, I see; family (let my siblings, parents, die from lack of health care) does not me anything in your book as much as "gay" fiduciary rights (marriage rights are not an issue everyone except if anyone wants to marry by a particular Church). But it is all hypocracy. When one looks at the arguments, there is no ground to stand on except for the money issues which have really nothing to do with marriage except that they are defined as such by our secular US government.
Miller
They're all fools, almost as much as we are?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 7, 2007 8:37:44 AM
doesn't gay marriage make the Defenders of Marriage's skin crawl as well? That's not a very good rationale to consider the legal propriety of marriage--otherwise it depends on whose skin you are testing.