Gordon Smith tries to explain polygamy comments
Yesterday, in an interview with the Oregonian, Gordon Smith tried to explain away his strange comments regarding polygamy last week.
First, if you haven't already, watch his comments. "My campaign people will kill me for saying this..."
Demanding an explanation, Frank Dixon - the vice-chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon (and a former chair of the party's LGBT caucus) - said this yesterday:
“It appears as though Gordon Smith is equating gay marriage with polygamy. Senator Smith owes an explanation to me, my partner and to every Oregonian for these comments. He needs to directly address his confusing and offensive statements.”“By his words, Senator Smith may be defending polygamy and suggesting that it was wrong to define marriage in the first place, but only Senator Smith can explain that for sure. If Smith is willing to speak at a forum on gay rights in Washington, D.C., surely he can explain what he was talking about to his Oregon constituents. We deserve a direct explanation. No more emailed statements from your staff, Senator Smith.”
In response, the Senator spoke to the Oregonian newspaper:
"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." ..."If you'd grown up a Mormon, and spent your life trying to get out from the shadow of that legacy -- it's an emotional scar that you carry. I meant no offense by sharing that part of my history."
Does his explanation make sense to you?
|
June 18, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (81 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 18, 2008 6:37:53 AM
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?
Posted by: Lawrence | Jun 18, 2008 7:14:02 AM
I don't see what the confusion is about. The two are connected because they both deal with the courts defining marriage. There was unbelievable persecution in the late 1800's of adults in a multi-spoused relationship being put in prison, having property removed, don't being allowed to vote - because the courts were ignoring religious freedoms.
Smith was talking from his heart, in what he thought was a conversation about marriages issues.
Posted by: Craig L. Foster | Jun 18, 2008 7:48:31 AM
As a fourth-generation Latter-day Saint with polygamous heritage, I carry no emotional scar nor do I feel like I'm walking in the shadow of a polygamous heritage. I am proud of my polygmous heritage and will say so to anyone who asks. I find no shame in my family's history and am proud that my great-grandparents were willing to live their religion the way they believed they should (including spending time in the penitentiary for practicing their religion).
As a believing, practicing Latter-day Saint, I am just as happy to not practice plural marriage today -- as commanded. Nevertheless, I do not and never will carry any emotional scars or be ashamed of polygamy and am offended that Sen. Smith would make a blanket statement like that. Let him carry his dear scars -- I will not.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 18, 2008 8:46:26 AM
Kari, you just need to get a secret decoder ring.
"If you'd grown up aMormonright-wing Republican in a Left-leaning state, and spentyour lifeelection years trying to get out from the shadow of that legacy -- it'san emotional scarpolitical baggage that you carry. I meantno offenseto baffle you with bullshit by sharing that part of my history."
Posted by: Don | Jun 18, 2008 9:33:02 AM
Oh Senator, how can you claim to be a proponent of gay rights when you support a constitutional amending "defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman" according to the Survey you filled out for Project Vote Smart (http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=425)
Posted by: joel dan walls | Jun 18, 2008 9:37:00 AM
The Mormons do indeed have a sad and interesting tale of persecution to tell, and it seems to be a tale that gets passed down in that community; I expect Smith was just responding in a visceral way, no less than, say, Jewish Americans might talk about their ancestors' persecution in their countries of origin. But why he rolled this all into a discussion of same-sex marriage is just weird.
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.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Jun 18, 2008 9:37:01 AM
The Mormons do indeed have a sad and interesting tale of persecution to tell, and it seems to be a tale that gets passed down in that community; I expect Smith was just responding in a visceral way, no less than, say, Jewish Americans might talk about their ancestors' persecution in their countries of origin. But why he rolled this all into a discussion of same-sex marriage is just weird.
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.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 18, 2008 10:10:10 AM
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?
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Jun 18, 2008 10:12:11 AM
I hear a different message in Smith's original statement: that people need to have their rights curtailed in order to protect them from the scorn of conventional society. Mormon's once insisted on polygamous marriages and suffered mightily for that. Smith warns that gays will suffer if they insist on being allowed to marry.
This is a common Republican attitude. Republicans consider people as eternal children who must be ruled by a strong and wise parental government, less they hurt themselves and others in the attempt to satisfy their childish desires. Republicans believe everyone, especially working class folk, should lead conventional lives.
This attitude can be regarded as the antithesis of bohemianism. It is one of the reasons Republicans were supported by many working class voters beginning in the late sixties. The bohemian tendencies of the counterculture made much of America white uncomfortable.
Posted by: Sue Hagmeier | Jun 18, 2008 10:17:19 AM
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.”
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 18, 2008 10:37:27 AM
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.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Jun 18, 2008 10:49:37 AM
I concur with Kevin's last message.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 18, 2008 11:06:27 AM
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?
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 18, 2008 11:24:46 AM
(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.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Jun 18, 2008 11:25:49 AM
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.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 11:55:26 AM
"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.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 18, 2008 12:24:28 PM
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.
Posted by: ajinoregon | Jun 18, 2008 12:32:13 PM
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 they insinuating that gay marriage is somehow morally superior to polygamist marriage? At least the Morman tradition of polygamist marriage was deeply rooted in their religious beliefs. Whether you adhere to those beliefs or not, it would be hard to argue that the practice of polygamy was not a vital part of the religion at that time. What moral basis is gay marriage rooted in that suddenly makes it morally superior to polygamy?
In the full article Rep. Tina Kotek is quoted as saying that she is glad that Senator Smith apologized, but she "wants him to explain himself even more." I would like Rep. Kotek and others to explain more about their outrage. If their outrage is not based on the idea that gay marriage is morally superior to polygamy, then what is it based on? If it is based on this idea, that would be highly ironic, and would contradict the central basis of the argument in favor of allowing gay couples to marry. The gay community has argued that it is discriminatory and narrow-minded for traditionalists to seek to disallow marriage between same sex couples who love each other. Why then does the same not hold true for potential polygamist families who love each other?
I honestly do not have a dog in the gay marriage fight, but I cannot help but point out the glaring contradictions in the arguments being made by some in the gay community against Senator Smith in this instance. Their righteous indignation is completely hypocritical, yet they feel secure in the protection of the politically correct atmosphere they have created, an atmosphere which makes it an unpardonable offense of discrimination to question their ideas.
I do not have a problem with gay couples having the right to get married. But proponents of gay marriage should at least be willing to admit that by allowing marriage to be defined as something other than a traditional union of a man and a woman, they are opening the door to legal polygamy in this country. (I do not have a problem with that either, if that is the way we want to go as a society.)
Finally, I would like to point out that this exchange should allow proponents of gay marriage to better understand the viewpoint of traditionalists who have argued against gay marriage. These traditionalists have argued that giving gay couples the right to marry devalues their own idea of marriage. This very same notion seems to be inherent in the emotional reaction among the gay community to the linking of gay marriage and polygamist marriage. Many in the gay community have taken this linkage as a grievous insult. Well, now you know how the traditionalists feel about your lifestyle choice and your desire to marry. Welcome to the Righteous Indignation Club.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 18, 2008 12:37:25 PM
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.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jun 18, 2008 12:39:53 PM
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".
Who appointed you spokesperson for the marriage equality movement? Your narrow minded definition of marriage sounds like a variation used by those opposed to gay marriage.
How do multiple spouse marriages negatively effect you? What business is it of anyone’s how another’s marriage is structured? There’s no rational argument opposing multiple spouse marriages now that same sex marriages are being recognized by the courts.
Either we extend marriage equality to all Americans or get government out of the marriage business completely.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 18, 2008 12:46:46 PM
What moral basis is gay marriage rooted in that suddenly makes it morally superior to polygamy?
Monogamy.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jun 18, 2008 12:53:40 PM
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.
Posted by: ajinoregon | Jun 18, 2008 12:56:48 PM
Carla,
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.
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.
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.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jun 18, 2008 1:05:24 PM
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.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 1:06:18 PM
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.
Posted by: ajinoregon | Jun 18, 2008 1:08:36 PM
Kari,
I agree that monogomy is the best answer to the question of "What moral basis is gay marriage rooted in that suddenly makes it morally superior to polygamy?"
However it seems to me to be a very slippery slope for advocates of gay marriage to be citing morality as the reason that gay marriage should be sanctioned and polygamist marriage should not.
Doing so places you firmly in the same territory as those who you excoriate as narrow-minded biggots. Advocates of gay marriage feeling insulted as a result of being likened to polygamists is not much different from traditionalists feeling insulted by gay marriage, because it would put them in the same category with people who's lifestyle they find immoral.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 18, 2008 1:11:40 PM
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. :)
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Jun 18, 2008 1:13:12 PM
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.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 1:13:15 PM
"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.
Posted by: ajinoregon | Jun 18, 2008 1:59:05 PM
Carla,
To address your main point -
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.
He supports giving all the rights associated with marriage to gay couples through the political process, but does not support the courts unilaterally redefining marriage.
I feel the same way. Those who want to establish gay unions because they think it is the best thing for society should support that through the political process. 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.
As far as the politics and him not being straightforward. I haven't even seen his apologies, and don't care to. In my mind, a politician who speaks from the heart, and later backs away when the heat is turned up in an already hot political campaign, is better than one who never speaks from the heart in the first place.
I understand if you hold him to a different standard, but I wonder if you would hold the politician who you strongly support to that same standard. :)
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 2:05:47 PM
"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.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Jun 18, 2008 2:17:16 PM
Morality is often an expedient way to codify expediency.
Thou shall not kill: this makes people feel safer, but exceptions are made for war and criminal punishment, because that is expedient. Liberals make an exception for abortion, believing that the woman's right of self-determination should prevail.
Monogamy: this makes it more likely that people can find a mate, as rich dudes will not horde all the hot chicks. It also increases the chance that children will get attention from two parents.
Heterosexual marriage: this promotes reproduction and rearing of children. Although rearing is vital, we now know that same-sex parents are no worse at it than different-sex parents are, and maximal reproduction is certainly no longer expedient.
I think proponents of gay marriage bristle at comparisons to polygamy because polygamy is unpopular. That is a political posture, one not consistent with reason, though.
Posted by: ajinoregon | Jun 18, 2008 2:21:04 PM
I hear what you're saying Joe, and I'm not up on the details of the state court decisions. My main point is about the hypocrisy of those who display righteous indignation at Senator Smith even mentioning polygamy and gay marriage in the same statement. (Btw, if you listen to it, he didn't ever compare the two institutions per se.)
As far as the courts, when I hear people defending gay marraige, I don't generally hear people talking about monogamy, and certainly don't hear them talking about sucession of estate, and custody of children. I hear them saying that as the Beatles said "All You Need is Love."
The issues that you bring up could be easily dealt with if the underlying principle of allowing people who love one another to marry were deemed important enough. In other words if this issue were viewed as a civil rights issue (as most proponents of gay marriage promote it as) then that would supercede all of the other minor administrative issues. The decisions you are talking about could easily be appealed on the basis of civil rights. That is obviously the larger issue at hand.
Posted by: ajinoregon | Jun 18, 2008 2:25:09 PM
Right on Tom.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 2:25:37 PM
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.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 18, 2008 2:28:33 PM
Anyone who cares about LGBT equality - instead of politically expedient lip service - should actively support Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate.
Well said, Leo.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 18, 2008 2:29:30 PM
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: (NOT) Gordon Smith | Jun 18, 2008 2:32:46 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 1:06:18 PM
Thanks, buddy!
:::wink, wink:::
[Editor's note: Please don't impersonate other people.]
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jun 18, 2008 2:37:55 PM
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?
Three spouses? Divide everything by three. Divorce and child custody? Courts routinely deal with those issues already when couples split up. Your argument seems pretty weak considering how government has managed to address these issues in the past.
If anything you’re making a good argument for taking marriage eligibility requirements away from government and only having it administer when the contract dissolves.
Posted by: ajinoregon | Jun 18, 2008 2:38:09 PM
lol...You got it Gordon!
I just love exposing hypocrisy wherever I see it. Especially when in it's on the front page of the Oregonian.
Have fun everybody.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 3:16:33 PM
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."
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 3:19:47 PM
"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.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 18, 2008 3:29:27 PM
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: (NOT) Gordon Smith | Jun 18, 2008 3:31:36 PM
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.]
Posted by: (NOT) Gordon Smith | Jun 18, 2008 3:54:20 PM
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.]
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 4:08:55 PM
"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.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 18, 2008 4:12:02 PM
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.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 18, 2008 4:42:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Sue Hagmeier | Jun 18, 2008 5:17:18 PM
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."
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: James X. | Jun 18, 2008 2:13:50 AM
He doesn't explain what he meant, but by continuing to frame opposition to polygamy as persecution, he seems to be defending it. Which makes me all the more confused why he would oppose letting gay people marry. Can't we each have one spouse before we let other folks get grabby?