Reasons Oregon gives to vote "yes" on 36 inside . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Athelwulf

Rest in peace Kurt...
Registered Senior Member
Soon the voters of the state of Oregon will decide whether or not to pass an amendment of the state's constitution defining marriage as strictly between one man and one woman. This is called Measure 36.

Today my mom got a brochure from the Defense of Marriage Coalition, based in Portland, Oregon. Here's their website. Inside were seven reasons to vote "yes" on the measure.

I went to the website they printed in their brochure and found a similar list. Here's a link.

Two of the reasons in the brochure are not listed on the site. I will type the reasons not listed on the site below:

Reason 3: Four Multnomah County Commissioners Used Secret Backroom Tactics To Skirt Oregon's Marriage Laws

Without a single public hearing or announcement, four Multnomah County Commissioners skirted Oregon's 141-year-old marriage laws to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They not only scorned the Oregon public with their backroom antics, they even kept one of their fellow Commissioners completely in the dark. It's the most brazen example of authoritarian government. It seems the only people made privy to their secret scheme were those in an extremist gay rights group called Basic Rights.

Reason 7: Over 244,000 Oregonians Respond To Preserve Marriage

Measure 36 really is Oregon's last chance to preserve marriage. If Measure 36 fails, the fate of marriage will be decided in a courtroom. That explains why more than 244,000 voters signed petitions to place Measure 36 on the ballot. It was the most signatures ever collected. And it was also done in record time. It shows that Oregonians care about marriage and why it's so important to vote YES on 36. It really is our last chance to preserve marriage.
Click to expand...

I will provide my opinions a bit later. I would like you all to comment on this. And . . . go!

Note to Moderators: I looked through this subforum for a related thread, but the only one I found was locked. Thanks in advance if you find a thread to merge this thread with.

- Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Âðelwulf
 
Ah, this one's cool on its own. I haven't been keeping up my own pet topic, of late. And there's news.

This will be an interesting one, because every time many Oregonians sign a petition like this, they get shot down at the statewide ballot. It's usually close, but the prevailing question among Oregon voters is when will these hateful nutcases go away and just let people be people?

Oregon ultraconservatives despise freedom. Many sought to ostracize gays; others worked to diminish one's control over their own living and dying; and now they seek to challenge the Constitution again because they have some obsession with other people's sex lives.

It is, of course, my hope that Oregonians once again do the right thing and reject the measure.
 
Tiassa, thanks for yer input.

I'm also interested in what ya think about the reasons given to vote yes. I don't think they are good, solid reasons. Reason 3 on the site even nullifies the reason to have such a measure on the ballot!

I noticed that all the people I have talked to that would vote yes seem to have no good reason. It kinda started to irritate me.

. . . Btw, yes, I would vote no on this measure.
 
Advocacy review

I think Reason 3 is most likely misrepresented, as that could simply indicate a quiet out-of-court settlement to what might have been a spectacular early trial. (I believe myself familiar with the rhetoric of this brand of conservatism, having lived and voted and even polled and PACced over the course of several years in Oregon.) Reason 7 is moot, as the OCA Gay Fray showed in the 1990s. Lots of signatures then, too, and nary a statewide victory, as I recall. Same thing happened with a bizarre child-porn measure, but any analysis of that issue is necessarily flawed; I know for a fact the research contributing to as many as three ballot measures in a two-year cycle was in shambles. There was also the attempt to repeal Measure 16, the right-to-die law. Many signatures does not equal a ballot win; conservatives are very willing to support their petitions, and something like "Protect Marriage" has a more mainstream tone to it than "Legalize Marijuana and Let People Out of Jail". I've skipped dope petitions before for poor structure. It's harder to get signatures for shaky or bad liberal measures.

In the meantime, let's look at the seven points in total:
(1) Tell elitist Multnomah County Commissioners that Oregonians don’t make laws in secret meetings with powerful special interest groups.
Admittedly, I don't know the specifics of what they're referring to; the only web references I've found so far are invective. But frequently private meetings settle public issues. Voters need to know more about what the traditionalists are complaining about. The inefficacy of the Oregon traditionalist complaint is akin to the incoherent ramblings Spartacist Communism.​

(2) The research is overwhelming; children with a married mother and father consistently do better in every measure of well-being. It’s more important than race, economic status, educational background or neighborhood.
Comparing heterosexual married family units to single-parent family units says nothing about homosexual couples raising children. There is no relevant comparison in point #2.​

(3) Measure 36 is not a new concept in Oregon. Over 350 Oregon statutes affirm what most people have always believed: marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
How many statutes were made during the period that dark skin equaled three-fifths of a human being? Prejudice is prejudice. Bigotry is bigotry. How many statutes were made forbidding interracial marriage? If I raised that as a ballot issue, would "single-race marriage is not a new issue" really matter at all? Wrong is wrong. Unequal is unequal. That M36 proponents can claim to cite 350 statutes in Oregon says nothing about the fact that such statutes oppose the United States Constitution. I do wonder if traditionalists really feel their marriage fetish is worth sacking another tradition--that of equality in these United States. That's all they really ask, apathy toward or the revocation of the famous "Equal Protection Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment.​

(4) A Marriage between a man and woman is more than just about a loving relationship, it’s also about the laws of nature. Every species requires a male and a female to produce offspring.
With a nasty divorce rate among heterosexuals, extramarital affairs commonplace, ad nauseam, marriage is more a legal status these days. Let's take the legal status out of marriage, and then traditionalists can define it any way they want. Additionally, as the world is having some problems accommodating the people who are here already, relying on reproduction as a fundamental necessity of marriage is a shaky claim.​

(5) In the past eight years, 40 states have passed new laws protecting marriage between one man and one woman. This election ten states have Constitutional marriage amendments on their ballots.
Is the fact that prejudice exists really an argument in favor of its perpetuity? Is the presence of inequality in a society that proclaims equality really an argument on behalf of preserving inequality? If the Supreme Law of the Land--e.g. the United States Constitution--isn't good enough for the traditionalists, well, what can we tell them?​

(6) Oregon laws are already clear about marriage; it’s between a man and a woman. But one activist Judge could change that with a single decision. That’s why Measure 36 is so important, because even a Judge cannot change the Constitution.
This is the second time this specific point appears and the third time in general; see #3 and #5. Such argumentation doesn't fly in high school; why should it here?​

(7) Measure 36 does not prevent anyone from having a committed relationship and does not hinder benefits. It just preserves marriage as a unique relationship between a man and a woman, that’s not discrimination.
The Supreme Court of the United States has already determined that "Separate but Equal" is an inappropriate barrier; gender is not a suspect classification. A return to segregation does nothing to advance equality in the United States.​

As with the OCA, these folks have no case whatsoever aside from their own bigotry. Why they so despise the Constitution and the equality it guarantees is a puzzle to me. Without the Equal Protection Clause, we could clamp down, as a society, on religion. The only way around such a lockdown would be to bet on ignorance, and that, as we see in such a shortsighted advocacy of bigotry as these seven points, hinders the ability of any group of people to function together as a society.
 
Last edited:
woah! oregonians get to vote on whether they want to keep their freedom or not??

Howard just banned gay marriages without caring what the public think
 
wow neat find!! Sad that a ballet so full of hate can be put on a ballet. Nice of the state of Oregon to suggest the micro-management of other couples affairs. I was looking for the Christian link to this....somewhere behind all of there has got to be a a coalition of Christian churches.
 
On religion:

• Graves, Bill. "Oregon Catholic board lends support to Measure 36". OregonLive.com, September 9, 2004. See http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1094730970115710.xml

However, as to direct support, I find it most interesting that the members of the Defense of Marriage Coalition are frightened of themselves. If you look on the home page for Yes on 36, you'll notice there's no apparent "About Us" link that tells us who the DoMC actually is. Most organizations are proud of what they do and like to tell us at least that they are a coalition of industry associates or some-such.

We might have to ask Oregonians to fill us in on the detail: who's buying out the arguments for the measure in the voter's guide? Do Ramsdell, Mabon, Lively, or any of the classic names appear?

In the meantime, the editors of the Willammette Week pretty much sum up the argument in a relatively short column. (Click the link, really. It's worth it.)
 
robtex said:
wow neat find!! Sad that a ballet so full of hate can be put on a ballet. Nice of the state of Oregon to suggest the micro-management of other couples affairs. I was looking for the Christian link to this....somewhere behind all of there has got to be a a coalition of Christian churches.
Click to expand...

It's not as though measures such as this haven't existed all over the nation (in every state except Massachusetts but even that was quite recent). Now they just want to make these laws stronger by adding them into state constitutions. There’s no real loss of freedom here, just entrenching the bigoted decisions they’ve already made.
 
The strange thing is that these groups, especially in Oregon, seem to think the State Constitution is safe. As Colorado learned after 1992, this is not the case.
 
These people could do more for the protection of marriages by providing reasonable health care and childcare option but they choose to interfere with others personal decisions instead. How does this help to preserve or threaten heterosexual marriages?
 
nice link athelwulf

unfortunately, i doubt those hundred reasons will be enough to counter the effect of the bible
 
The bible is a red herring. It condems Shellfish about 5 times as harshly as homosexuality, but you never hear anyone bitching about red lobster.
 
Two words: Jesus weeps.

(Disclaimer: The link above, to my knowledge, is not a joke, is not a parody, is not a satire, is not . . . .)
 
OMFG! Those people that made that site are the ones that're gonna burn in their Hell (although it doesn't exist, but ya get what I mean)!
 
It's clearly satire, the arguments provided are all a bit too transparently question begging and really can only lead you to the conclusion that gay marriage is no big deal. . . but it still certainly does make you jump at first, doesn't it?

The Bible says that marriage is for procreation. God made Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve made Cain and Abel, not an empty nest.
Click to expand...

For instance, why bother mentioning that Adam and Eve supposedly begot only two male children to populate the earth with? I don’t think anyone is that blind, not even radical Christians, and especially not ones with political points to make. They may be dense, but they at usually at least know how to play the game.

I had some idea that I’d post more examples and examine them but uhh I think it’s kind of redundant, and nearly every point made is pretty much the same in terms of serving to contradict the idea of having a Christian monopoly on marriage.
 
Last edited:
Guerilla guide

Alain:

A couple of things:

• The link was sent to me via email under the title "The REAL Oregon Voter's Guide"; the person who sent it doesn't make those kinds of lines a joke.
• Look at the address: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_fav.html ; the address sos.state.or.us leads directly to the office of the Oregon Secretary of State; the Secretaries of State are not prone to this form of humor.
​
That the entries are satire, well ... that's up to Mr. Dennis Moore. It might say more about Oregon's voter's guide that such arguments can be printed.

After all, there is the HeterosexualBreeding website.

Mystech:

Certainly it makes me jump. But yes, these arguments are apparently being circulated in the official voter's guide. I'll have to swipe my mother's copy if I get a chance.

Something like that would never fly up here. We've got one paid statement for and against for each ballot issue.

Can you tell the Secretary of State down in Oregon is getting tired of hearing from the gay-bashers? (In the 1990s, homophobes complained on at least one occasion that they had been unfairly shorted by the Sec. o'State. It had something to do with the ballot title, the difference between "protecting children" and ... whatever it was the ballot title came out to be.)

I do have a certain sick affection for the statement by Jeff Roth, which includes:

A mother and a father are necessary for a child's emotional well-being and development. Many of us know the pain of not receiving a father's or a mother's love and attention. In same-sex marriage, this is not even a possibility.

Jeff Roth
Click to expand...

Mr. Roth is jealous? Is that really what I'm reading? "We didn't get two parents, so you don't!" I mean, I'm sorry for Mr. Roth's parentless pain, but come on.

Of course, I can think of a number of friends who were sexually abused by their fathers.

Not one of them was same-gender contact. But that's just my circle of friends. And you don't hear me calling for heterosexual marriage to be treated accordingly, nor heterosexual parenthood.

Fear and jealousy? Is that really all they've got?
 
Last edited:
The newspaper in my hometown has published a few letters to the editor pertaining to this measure. I've read one in particular. The writer and a friend of mine are really close, so it's a bit more meaningful to me than the others.

They haven't posted it on their site, but I found a related letter they did post. Click here.

Soon the letter I read will be posted, and I will again provide a link.
 
Okay . . . The letter I was talking about hasn't been published on the site of my hometown's newspaper yet. Maybe I should just type them up or scan them or something.

Anyway, we got another brochure from the Defense of Marriage Coalition a few days ago.

On the front was a little girl with a gloomy look on her face and her head resting on a school bus window. Underneath, it reads "The Classroom Will Never Be The Same".

Inside, on the left side, it lists Oregon teachers that are voting yes. On the right side, it reads this:

If Measure 3 Fails . . .
Gay and Lesbian Sex Will be Taught in Oregon Schools.
Is that what you want?​

If parents think that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples won't affect their children, they should consider what's happening in Massachusetts after court-ordered same-sex marriage.

National Public Radio just interviewed a Massachusetts teacher who uses charts with her Middle School students to explicitly teach gay sex.

If parents object, she says, "give me a break, gay marriage in Massachusetts is legal now."

And soon it could be legal in Oregon too,
if Measure 36 fails.​

"I am concerned that schools will be one ACLU lawsuit away from having to promote same sex relationships as equal to marriage as we have always known it. That would be confusing to our students, troubling to our teachers and bad for schools."
Clark Brody
Former Oregon Deputy Superintendent of Public Education
Click to expand...

Yer thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top