Gay marriage: Oregon should be next
The last few days has been amazing in America. Iowa's Supreme Court ended exclusion of gay couples in marriage and Vermont's State Legislature overrode a veto to pass same sex marriage. These great moments of pride and amazement keep happening in our country and all I can do is stand back and smile. As a people we continue to take steps to do what is right for all the citizens of our nation.
I want Oregon to be next.
Over at Basic Rights Oregon's blog, the question posed is what is next for marriage equality in our state. The only way to achieve marriage equality in our state is to run a ballot measure campaign. Are Oregonians ready for that? I don't know. Is it time? Yes. It's time for all of us to do the right thing (It's not just a Spike Lee joint, people). This is not an endeavor just left for activists. Every last person who supports GLBT rights has to open their mouths and their wallets to pass a ballot measure putting equality back into our Constitution. Go to BRO's blog and tell them how your feel or say it here. Let them know to move forward and that we've got their backs.
Basic Rights Oregon, go for it; and let me know where to sign up.
|
April 7, 2009 |
Karol Collymore | Comments (84 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Lee Coleman | Apr 7, 2009 10:57:49 PM
Yes! Thanks for the support for what I and others wrote on the BRO site. The political process is the only secure way to repeal Measure 36 (that is, if we beat the opposition in a second public election their momentum will be slowed just as the OCA slowed and then finally ground to a halt).
Resort to the judicial process gives no guarantee that the Oregon court will strike down M 36. Worse, if the court were to strike it down the decision would be to the advantage of the opposition. The immediate result would be a repeat of the Prop 8 situation because the opposition would immediately take advantage of public sentiment. We would end up with their ballot measure on the ballot rather than ours.
Running our own ballot measure at the right moment would cost us lots of money. But think of the millions that the Mormon church -- and the fringe groups -- would spend that they could otherwise spend on, say, a general election in 2010 or 2012.
Posted by: Lee Coleman | Apr 7, 2009 11:01:19 PM
Stop the assault says: "I already know where to sign up, at the collection plate every Sunday opposing that kind of insane change."
Makes my point oh so well!
Posted by: Ted Blaszak | Apr 8, 2009 1:42:05 AM
I believe that Oregon is better then measure 36. That measure 36 was a mistake in our past and we should overcome it and correct ourselves. That we should restore the dignity to our state lost in a heated election animated by fear and prejudice.
I believe that deep down we are good people who honor and respect our neighbors. That all of us hold dear the principles of equality. That the majority of Oregonians would support a ballot measure that allows people to love the ones they love without interference from the state.
Oregon should join VT, CT, MA, IA, and DC. We should repeal this discriminatory legislation with the very same popular vote that has put it in place.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 8, 2009 6:43:55 AM
I agree with Ted and Lee.
Basic Rights spent millions playing defense against Measure 36 with no success. I believe that they should put a full equality amendment on the ballot every year until it passes, the same way that the Women's suffragists did. It took them 5 times to finally pass their bill, but they did it -- 8 years before the Federal Government.
If the process is started now, I believe that we will see full equality within the next 10 years -- probably sooner.
Posted by: The Libertarian Guy | Apr 8, 2009 7:55:29 AM
Frankly the government has no business issuing marriage licenses, but given the present situation marriage equality is the way to go.
Ain't no one's business how someone lives their own life.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 8, 2009 8:13:21 AM
There is no polling in Oregon to indicate any shift has happened in Oregon with gay marriage. Basic Rights of Oregon with their utterly stupid maneuvering in Multnomah County simply succeeded in bringing an anti-gay constitutional amendment into law.
Oregonians by a small margin support domestic partnership and civil union, but not gay marriage. Pushing the issue simply mobilizes and strengthens the right wing and Republican party. And at this time bread and butter issues of food on the table, health care coverage, a steady income are the real issues. There is no support among the political leadership in this country or this state for gay marriage with rare exception. So Oregon will not be next, and I predict that like California, Iowa will amend their state constitution and knock down what the courts have done. The Democratic Party has a unique historical position to address universal health care, income inequality, a foreign policy of partnership and peace, and elimination of nuclear weapons. Moving gay marriage to the top of the list is not justified and will simply sabotage other issues with greater priority.
Posted by: carla axtman | Apr 8, 2009 8:21:41 AM
Basic Rights spent millions playing defense against Measure 36 with no success. I believe that they should put a full equality amendment on the ballot every year until it passes, the same way that the Women's suffragists did. It took them 5 times to finally pass their bill, but they did it -- 8 years before the Federal Government.
I will personally volunteer to gather signatures for this.
Posted by: Karol | Apr 8, 2009 8:25:44 AM
Bill R,
I didn't realize that treating all people equally under the law wasn't a priority for this country. What a shame, this whole time I thought I was living in America.
Posted by: Karol | Apr 8, 2009 8:25:44 AM
Bill R,
I didn't realize that treating all people equally under the law wasn't a priority for this country. What a shame, this whole time I thought I was living in America.
Posted by: Walter H | Apr 8, 2009 8:38:42 AM
Oregon's constitution begins with: Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
Our constitution guarantees people are equal. Repealing the section put in by Measure 36 should be paramount, since it is inherently juxtaposed to Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution.
You know, it was unpopular in the South to free the slaves. And it was unpopular in many parts of the country when interracial marriage was made legal. Why should we wait until things are "popular"; we should do things because they are just.
Posted by: Bruce | Apr 8, 2009 8:41:20 AM
Look at all the "Bible people" COMING OUT of the woodwork! They love the Bible so much they're doing all in their power to help fulfill it (and make it even more believable!). In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big "signs" that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the "days of Lot" (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually hurrying up the same worldwide "sign" and thus hurrying up the return of their own Judge! They are accomplishing what all of the Bible-thumpers couldn't accomplish! Gays couldn't have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture - you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other. Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back out resurrected Saviour even quicker! Bruce
Posted by: Douglas K. | Apr 8, 2009 8:48:00 AM
If Nate Silver is correct (and he's got a really good track record thus far), Oregon would be ready to repeal Measure 36 right now.
We should go for it. There is a progressive grass-roots infrastructure that simply was not in place in 2004. ActBule.con, for example, makes national fund-raising fairly easy. We will have six years of demographic shift; six years of our oldest voters (the most strongly opposed to marriage equality) dying off, and six years of our youngest voters (the most supportive) joining the voting rolls. Between aggressive voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, it's really just a question of getting supportive voters to return their ballots.
We also will face a different political landscape than in 2004. Back then, marriage equality seemed like a scary thing to a lot of people. Some of them are still scared, but a lot of Americans have had a chance to see it in action. After seeing gay couples married in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont (and any other states that might approve marriage equality in the next year), it's no longer some weird, radical thing. The ongoing national conversation is swaying hearts and minds.
All told, this adds up to a good chance of success.
I should also point out that there won't be a lot of competition for progressive donations and volunteers in Oregon in 2010. Senator Wyden will be running for re-election, but he's unlikely to face serious opposition. There will be a governor's race, but the Republican bench looks pretty week right now. The legislature might put some tax reform initiatives in front of the voters. There probably will be more Sizemore measures (or Mannix or McIntyre or others) to fight. But overall, it should be a pretty good year for a progressive ballot measure, and marriage equality really is a no-brainer.
Of course, the bigots will be playing defense and trying to mobilize their own dwindling base. We can't take victory for granted. But it's attainable next year. There's no up side to playing it safe and waiting for a surer thing. And heck, even defeat would be a step in the right direction: if opposition to marriage equality was 58-42 in 2004 and 52-48 in 2010, that simply means "almost there ... try again."
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Apr 8, 2009 8:54:08 AM
Karol needs to start this process at her very own Catholic church...
She and her fellow "progressive" congregants regularly fill the collection plates at St. Andrews, Holy Names, Holy Family, which goes directly into the coffers of the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland - the NUMBER ONE FINANCIAL SUPPORTER OF "YES ON 36..."
And my family is tired of this glaring hypocrisy, and also tired of silly baseless religious prejudice emanating from these child abusing, misogynist, special underwear clad Catholics, Mormons and other bigoted Christians who continue to draw support from Portland's "friendly" and "progressive" congregations...
Karol's church needs to witness the evident humanity and equality of my family, too, and understand that amending state constitutions in order to overturn the guarantee of equal protection - because their invisible three-part deity hates dykes! - is no longer acceptable behavior.
And it shouldn't earn Karol's (or any other parishioner's) continued financial support.
The words are so pretty. Now cut off the cash.
Posted by: Hank Stern | Apr 8, 2009 9:03:36 AM
http://wweek.com/editorial/3522/12409/
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Apr 8, 2009 9:06:31 AM
Seems to me, Oregon's next big chance will come at the 2012 general election, when Progressives will turn out to re-elect President Obama. And we're going to need all of their votes.
Over at fivethirtyeight.com, Nate Silver lists Oregon as one of eleven states that would not pass a gay marriage ban now.
The problem is, Oregon has a substantial "the people have spoken" mentality that resists do-over elections. Witness what happened with Assisted Suicide, where attempts to repeal the law failed by bigger margins than assisted suicide had passed by in the first place. Some people don't even like assisted suicide, but voted against repealing it just on "no do-over" principles. Similarly, there will be some people who vote against repealing the gay marriage ban JUST because there's already been a vote.
And if we have a repeal vote and it fails, there will be even more "no do-over" no votes the next time.
So we have to choose the right election to attempt it.
If we have to wait until 2012, then no I DON'T want Oregon to be next. I want a dozen or more other states to jump on the equality bandwagon in the meantime, to let our voters know that this is part of an inevitable trend similar to the passing of the stupid "miscegenation" laws of the last century.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Apr 8, 2009 9:12:56 AM
Gays couldn't have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture - you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other.
Huh?
Oh, right. This must be a joke. Please, let it be a joke.
Being lectured by Catholics on protecting kids from inappropriate sex is like being lectured by Michael Vick on care and feeding of my dog.
Posted by: Vince | Apr 8, 2009 9:40:17 AM
Hi Karol, nice post, I thought that video was interesting. Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in our nation. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+marriage
Posted by: Bruce | Apr 8, 2009 9:40:43 AM
Just Google or Yahoo "Zombietime" and click on "Up Your Alley Fair" if you think I'm kidding. And who's to say this can't happen on public streets around the world? Bruce
Posted by: Bob R. | Apr 8, 2009 9:54:03 AM
Bruce, just Google "mardi gras" or "spring break" and see what _heterosexuals_ do on public streets around the world. Your argument is completely irrelevant and does not create a distinction.
Religious conservative: Someone obsessively concerned and distressed that someone _else_ might, somewhere, somehow, be having a good time.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 8, 2009 10:17:07 AM
Bill R - The public will never support full equality until the issue is put in front of them and advocated for in an affirnative fashion on a regular basis. As to this business about full equality damaging "higher priority" issues...
Higher priority for whom?
Justice delayed for 40-50 years is justice denied for millions of our fellow citizens.
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Apr 8, 2009 10:30:32 AM
Study Finds Fewer Catholics In New England
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-religion0310.artmar10,0,890045.story
And almost no Mormons!
Hmmm...perhaps there's a connection?
** It's time to stop giving money to St. Andrews, Holy Family, Holy Names, etc... **
Otherwise, our top opponent of equality (the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland) will have plenty of money (YOUR money) to keep holding gay and lesbian families down.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 8, 2009 11:16:37 AM
@ Karol
Maybe you have a job, and maybe you have something to eat and a roof over your head, and maybe you have health care, and maybe you don't think nuclear war with Iran is a real possibility, but frankly I consider all those things more important than whether you can get married to your partner or not.
Posted by: Douglas K. | Apr 8, 2009 11:18:03 AM
The problem is, Oregon has a substantial "the people have spoken" mentality that resists do-over elections. Witness what happened with Assisted Suicide, where attempts to repeal the law failed by bigger margins than assisted suicide had passed by in the first place.
This won't be much of a problem. First, it would be six years later; it's not like we "just voted on it" last November. Six years is enough time for people to reconsider their previous vote. Second, the resistance to "do-overs" is most evident when the legislature sends back a measure for a do-over. It would likely be different when it's a citizen-driven initiative.
In fact, it's for exactly that reason that I think the repeal measure needs to come from the people, not the legislature. If citizens circulate a petition to put repeal on the ballot, it won't come across like "the politicians" weren't listening.
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Apr 8, 2009 11:30:04 AM
Bill R.
My partner has been out of work since he was laid off back in August. He has no insurance. The insurance I get from my company is crap at best ($500 out of pocket to have a Dr shoot super glue into a finger that I cut and send me home)
We do have food and a roof....for the time being anyways.
I do fear nuclear war with a few different countries.
BUT...I still think being able to marry my partner and have that marriage count in all 50 states, as our constitution mandates, is just as important as all of those other things. I am a citizen of America damnit! The country that bills itself as the first and greatest democracy in the world. Living up to that reputation will only help us solve our other problems.
Yeah, there are a ton of issues that need to be worked on right now but I firmly hold the belief that people are able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Apr 8, 2009 11:35:34 AM
What about the first section of the State Constitution as quoted above by Walter H.? "We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right..."
How can M36 be constitutional? Is anyone suing to have it struck down?
Posted by: doretta | Apr 8, 2009 11:54:30 AM
Bill,
So your position is that we should wait to work on gay marriage until we have eliminated poverty and homelessness and have acheived world peace?
I'm grateful that the suffragists and the abolitionists didn't share your perspective.
I'm all for being strategic, but I don't see that you have made any kind of case for your argument that a gay marriage ballot initiative would interfere with achieving those other things.
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Apr 8, 2009 11:56:54 AM
>How can M36 be constitutional? Is anyone suing to have it struck down?
It's constitutional in Oregon because Catholics and Mormons (and many other religious Christians) voted for and/or gave money to support the ballot measure campaign to AMEND our state constitution...
Of course it does contradict the "equal protection" clause, so a fair reading of the federal constitution (that is, without imposition of religious prejudice by those five Catholic men on the current Supreme Court) should overturn it.
There is a precedent, of course: religious voters in many states had already amended their state constitutions when the US Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation amendments with their decision permitting interracial marriage in 1967.
But once again, the roadblock here is religion - particularly those who continue to support Catholic and Mormon churches (and the Albina Ministerial Alliance, etc...).
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Apr 8, 2009 11:58:37 AM
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Apr 8, 2009 11:35:34 AM
Measure 36 was a constitutional amendment. Iowa's law was only statutory, which is why it was struck down, the constitution takes precedence over statutory laws. But since Measure 36 amended the constitution, it's constitutional by default. I'm not a legal scholar, but I can't imagine on what grounds a court could overturn M36.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 8, 2009 12:06:57 PM
In this debate about gay marriage it is notable that gays want to get into an institution that 50% of heteros want to get out of eventually. The reality is that government sanctioned marriage is a falsehood, and a failure. Marriage is a matter of human relations and not law. I would like to see us move to a policy of civil union for everyone with appropriate legal protections and responsibilities that , and leave marriage in the realm of a spiritual covenant of human relations and not a matter of government regulation.
And the righteousness argument really carries little weight. If those who call themselves progressive want to return to marginalized minority status issue and have the Mike Huckabees and the Rush Limbaughs of the world running our country, then have at it. The political ineptness of Basic Rights Oregon and its effete leaders should be a lesson for all of us. The utterly stupid move of using the backdoor coup in Multnomah County to legalize gay marriage resulted in an oppressive constitutional ban on gay marriage. It managed to reinforce every paranoid right wing talking point about the "homosexual agenda." I stopped contributing to Basic Rights Oregon after that. I was willing to support them when gays were being hounded by the O.C.A. But when they insisted on using my money to be stupid and inept and aid the right wing cause, that was the end.
So all of the cheer leaders here.... Who is the statewide or national leader who is going to stand up and legalize gay marriage, here in Oregon, or nationally? No one.. and with good reason, because such a person could not, and will not win an election. So for now the matters of economic justice and survival far outweigh the questionable "right" to have the government recognize a contract between persons that very few honor anyway. So you can all sit around in your restaurants and coffee houses and talk about what's fair, but the average Oregonian over the kitchen table could care less until there is a change in consciousness in the barrier between gay and straight, and an empathy that flows both directions.
Posted by: paul | Apr 8, 2009 12:15:45 PM
I know that every religious person gets painted very poorly because of debates like this where the VERY vocal minority uses the Bible as their reason for their bigitry. Please keep in mind that there are A LOT of religious people who very much are for gay marriage. You won't find those type of people in churches where you are not allowed to think for yourself and must except what the pope, or some other supreme authorty says as the final word on everything. There are other religions that allow people to read the Bible and intrepret it for themseleves. Most of these people tend much more towards an inclusive world where gay marriage would be excepted. Just please stop paining ALL religious people as the same as these LOUD voices.
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Apr 8, 2009 12:15:47 PM
>I'm not a legal scholar, but I can't imagine on what grounds a court could overturn M36.
It would require a decision by the US Supreme Court.
It's too bad that our former Attorney General, Hardy Myers, did so little to defend gay and lesbian Oregonians from selective denial of our basic civil rights.
But then again, the leading proponent of this assault was the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland, where Mr. Myers contributed to the collection plate (and therefore to the successful "Yes on 36" campaign) on many a pleasant Sunday morning...
Thanks all you progressive parishioners at St. Andrews, Holy Family, Holy Names..!
You're the reason Vermont puts Oregon to shame.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Apr 8, 2009 12:28:12 PM
Bill R. has a right to his cynicism and defeatism, but today is a different day on the political scene.
When the bonehead move to force the right-to-marry equality was made in Multnomah County, the Bushies had us running scared from the terrorist bogeyman. They had convinced the body-politic that "everything had changed" and changed so an authoritarian government was justified. Unitary presidency indeed! AKA tyrrany. That is viewed now with a justly jaundiced eye.
So we cannot depend upon a powerful political leader to advance the cause of equality? When could we ever? The leaders are just those that find themselves confronted with the parade of activists and seizes the baton to "lead" the groundswell. Don't belittle those who care enough to "sit around in your restaurants and coffee houses and talk about what's fair", as they are the only hope we have to right the ship of state.
Posted by: Bob R. | Apr 8, 2009 12:43:22 PM
"In this debate about gay marriage it is notable that gays want to get into an institution that 50% of heteros want to get out of eventually"
The thing is, Bill, for those 50% of heteros, marriage laws provide a means for an exit which considers the care and well-being of children, the disposition of joint property, the sharing of future income, the provision of a fair hearing, mediation, etc.
The system for divorce is messy and doesn't always work well, but the alternative is a mess of independent contracts which would wind up in court anyway as lawsuits between the parties in a divorce. Since acrimonious divorce proceedings are going to wind up at the doorstep of the state anyway, the state has an interest in providing a common framework for ending a marriage.
These legal frameworks for the ending of a marriage actually provide a degree of stability and reduce uncertainty. You know going in what your options are.
Sam-sex couples and their families have been denied these frameworks for generations, and are only now just barely beginning to get access to them.
A patchwork of occasional civil unions and marriages which aren't federally recognized is not the answer... try telling hetero couples that they aren't legally protected in their relationship should one or both of them cross the wrong state line.
Try telling a hetero soldier who gets married overseas that they can't bring their spouse back home to the USA.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rights, procedures, and frameworks which are taken for granted by hetero couples, married or not, which provide for stability and security for relationships and families.
That's what same-sex couples rightfully demand access to.
Posted by: jamie | Apr 8, 2009 1:17:39 PM
"In this debate about gay marriage it is notable that gays want to get into an institution that 50% of heteros want to get out of eventually"
Not so. I want equal rights. That means the right to get into an institution, or the right to stay out of it, at my discretion. Right now I have no such right and no such discretion; this is all being determined for me. That's why I want a change.
Posted by: Douglas K. | Apr 8, 2009 1:30:53 PM
I'm not a legal scholar, but I can't imagine on what grounds a court could overturn M36.
Procedural grounds. The argument would be that it's a "revision" rather than an "amendment" and therefore needed to come from the legislature, instead of being initiated by citizens through the petition process. Basically, it would be: "we're striking it down because you did it the wrong way."
I think that challenge failed in Oregon. It's currently before the California supreme court. We'll see if they come up with a different answer.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 8, 2009 1:36:16 PM
"frankly I consider all those things more important than whether you can get married to your partner or not."
I would guess that's probably because you already have the option they seek
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 8, 2009 2:12:53 PM
@ Bob R.
The legal arrangements you refer to might just as easily be taken care of in a civil union law.
@ Torrid Joe
The point I was making is the premise that writer here assumes the basic needs are being met, a person has the income, the health care, a place to live, a sense of basic security from violence. In the hierarchy of needs getting government sanction of your domestic partnership is far down on the list. And if you are trying to convince a majority of Americans to care about gay marriage, why should they care, when the basic needs aren't being met or are being threatened, in our current economic crisis. Why should they care? All of this simply plays into the hands of the right wing and their labeling of gay rights as a liberal elitist issue. Your attempt to diss me as being unfair or unconcerned is an argument that just doesn't play outside the Portland/Eugene set. What about the right to have a food on the table, or healthcare, or shelter, or education for your kids? Why is gay marriage front and center for liberals when whole communities, indeed most of our country, is going down the toilet. Timing is everything in politics, and gay marriage might be big stuff in some circles right now, but not in electoral politics. And if you push it, you will pay the price, and a heavy price of failure.
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Apr 8, 2009 2:26:00 PM
I don't see anywhere in her post that Karol assumed that all was right and well in the world and that Gay marrige is the only thing that we had left to do to reach our utopia.
I see an article expressing happiness that an issue that many people find as important as any other issue is making headway.
Hierarchy? I don't see one. All of the issues you listed above are threats to our citizens life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Inequality in marriage is a threat to those principles as well and can be "worked on" at the same time as everything else.
We have 535 congress members, 2 exectuive branch officers. All of which have giant pools of staff. 50 governors and thousands of state and local leaders and millions of concerned citizens.
Your telling me that with all of these people working to make our country better we can't handle more than 4 or 5 important issues at a time without shooting ourselves in the foot?
I prefer to take a much more optimistic view. Yes we we can chew gum and walk. All at the same time
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Apr 8, 2009 2:36:36 PM
Did you know that Catholics believe marriage involves THREE "persons?" See Archbishop John Vlazny's comments in this Catholic News Agency press release from 2004. Maybe this explains the strong bond between Oregon's Catholics and Mormons in opposing basic civil rights for all Americans..?
***********************************************************************************
Oregon Catholic board lends support to ballot against same-sex marriage
Sep 10, 2004 / 12:00 am (CNA).- The Oregon Catholic Conference is expected to support a ballot that would ban same-sex marriage when its board meets today, reported The Oregonian.
Measure 36 on the Nov. 2 ballot would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, and it would recognize marriage only between a man and a woman.
The Church’s support of this ballot comes as no surprise since Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland has been outspoken about the sanctity of the sacrament marriage – as the union of one man and one woman – from an early on in the same-sex marriage debate.
In a column in the diocesan Catholic Sentinel April 15, the archbishop wrote that marriage "no longer involves two persons, but three, husband, wife and the Lord…There simply is no sacramental marriage without a man and a woman."
The Oregon Catholic Conference represents the state's 425,000 Catholics. Its board includes Archbishop Vlazny, Bishop Robert F. Vasa, Bishop Kenneth Steiner and Fr. Dennis O'Donovan.
The Catholic Church will be joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in supporting the measure. The Mormons already issued a statement Wednesday saying their church "favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as a lawful union of a man and a woman." There are 139,507 Mormons in Oregon.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=1921
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Apr 8, 2009 2:49:38 PM
So, 'Oregon Bill' do you think you need to foment hatred of fundamentalist religion to advance your case for equal rights? I doubt anyone needs convincing that their stance is stuck in the Middle Ages. You are invested in making them your enemy, making things worse.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 8, 2009 3:01:45 PM
In the hierarchy of needs getting government sanction of your domestic partnership is far down on the list. And if you are trying to convince a majority of Americans to care about gay marriage, why should they care, when the basic needs aren't being met or are being threatened, in our current economic crisis. Why should they care?
As Obama has noted, I AM my brother's keeper. When a child on the South Side of Chicago gets a shit education, it should concern everyone.
Seeing as how the government sanction of the partnership provides a significant set of economic and social advantages, it's a lot more pivotal than you may realize--again, apparently because you've never not been able to avail yourself of it.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 8, 2009 3:06:37 PM
@ Marshall Collins
I believe Karol was advocating more ballot measures, not federal action. And the right wing just loves gay marriage issues on the ballot, it brings in the money and the voters in droves.
That said, I'll make a bet. In the 2010 election, you're not going to see a single federal or statewide official run on a pro-gay marriage platform. Why? Because it's political suicide.
And when you have people like those on this list who think you win people over to the cause by attacking religion, it solidifies the case against gay marriage.
Posted by: Ian McDonald | Apr 8, 2009 3:15:03 PM
Why is gay marriage front and center for liberals when whole communities, indeed most of our country, is going down the toilet.
I can think of a few items on the progressive wish list that should be questioned in this way.
But not this one. It's moving on its own timetable, and it's moving very fast.
I would submit that the fight against gay marriage is the artifact of economic over-indulgence.
Posted by: meg | Apr 8, 2009 3:40:23 PM
Homosexuality is not allowed in Islam. There are various verses in Quran where Allah clearly says about Homosexuality.
We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? "For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." - Holy Quran 7:80-81
"Of all the creatures in the world will ye approach males". "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" - Holy Quran 26:165-166
The end result for not giving up homosexuality was the destruction of entire cities
When Our decree issued We turned (the cities) upside down and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay spread layer on layer Marked as from thy Lord: nor are they ever far from those who do wrong! - Holy Quran 11:82-83
1.2 billion cant be wrong
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Apr 8, 2009 4:16:13 PM
Your right Bill, Karol is advocating a bm. And I am all for it. The right wing in this state especially did use the ballot to accomplish a lot of their political motives. But people are starting to wise up and if 2006 and 2008 are any indication soon the ballot in Oregon will be more of a tool for progressives to use. We handed the right a spanking on the ballots over the last couple of cycles and they are losing steam. Let's fill in those gaps with more progressive measures. Like we have just recently seen. If it were a campaign that was done from the ground up with as much fervor and excitement as we can muster we win. We will have the money and and man power to turn out MORE people to the ballot than the other side.
Posted by: Kristin | Apr 8, 2009 4:37:34 PM
Thank you, Karol....I would have commented earlier, but I was busy with other good causes....
I think it is exactly because of Oregon's previous fights that we need to have this fight now. Basic Rights Oregon is perhaps the strongest and most skilled glbt organization in the nation specifically because it's been fighting for so long...we can win this fight because in Oregon, we all know where we stand (regardless of where)...it's just time to move people into action.
In 1988, the state approved the first OCA ballot measure by about 52%...then, the citizens in Oregon woke up and rejected measure after measure after measure. Until m36. Since then, we've see activists across the country winning the fight -- we will win our fight too, just like we've beat back so many OCA measures.
And for those who think this isn't a pressing economic issue, you might ask if the glbt couples, who aren't afforded hundreds of economic benefits because of their lack of rights, feel the same way.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Apr 8, 2009 4:56:20 PM
The reason the plight of the GLBT community rankles me so is that they are persecuted by conservatives as incapable of forming stable relationships, yet when they call for recognition of the family they make they are rejected for making one according to their own nature. A Catch-22 gotcha... it's just inhuman.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 8, 2009 5:41:20 PM
An interesting discussion in all.
As a life long Oregonian who's lived in all parts of the state I think we're a long way from approving gay marriage in this state. But I don't think we will get there by slamming religion nor churches, nor by asserting a kind of moral or cultural superiority, nor by court decisions. We will get there eventually by making the case and educating the public that gay marriage is a social and economic good. The passing of generations and the change in consciousness that we are witnessing will hasten that change. This discussion thread tells me that gay marriage advocates need a change in strategy, and a change in message in order to implement that kind of public education.
Posted by: Oregon Bill | Apr 8, 2009 7:50:18 PM
>You are invested in making them your enemy, making things worse.
They ARE my enemy.
Amending the state constitution to selectively deny my family a basic civil right does not make you my friend.
Dropping money in the collection plate at St. Andrews, so the Archdiocese can spend it on a successful political campaign that diminished my family's legal status, does nothing to advance equality - or make you my friend.
And coddling the religious, respecting the religious, tiptoeing gently around the religious - folks who have no serious arguments to support their prejudice (their "arguments" are, in fact, patently ridiculous) - that hasn't gotten us very far...
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: stop the assault | Apr 7, 2009 10:52:06 PM
I already know where to sign up, at the collection plate every Sunday opposing that kind of insane change. Civil unions okay - same sex marriage a step too far.