I live in Portland which is in Multnomah County in which the county commissioners consulted their lawyers and decided that not issuing same-sex marriage licenses unconstitutional and there's nothing in Oregon law that would seem to prohibit it (though you'd better bet people are looking). Marriage in Oregon is defined thus:
106.010 Marriage as civil contract; age of parties. Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS 106.150. [Amended by 1965 c.422 ç1; 1975 c.583 ç1]
So the county commissioners simply told the clerks to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Yay! No new law or referrendum necessary, it was already on the books and the lawyers told them their current policy was likely unconstitutional. Purely an administrative move. Some folks are saying that since the law was written in the 19th century they never would have thought to specify that its *one* man and *one* woman, but these are probably the same folks that argue the literal interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. Let the legal wrangling begin. Meanwhile, they're handing out licenses.
I found out today that this is happening about a mile away, so I spent the afternoon cheering on people going into and coming out of the licensing office and to counter the dour and inevitable group of Christian Nuts hanging around outside.
Apparently yesterday was when all the shouting happened. Today was pretty much like a party. The four or five Christians quietly held their signs touting various Biblical Peril and Leviticus quotes and the four of five supporters with signs cheered and waved and handed out flowers. The officers from the Sheriff's dept. were happy to have a cushy job walking around in the sun. Everyone else was either getting a license, there with a couple getting a license or helping people get married. The officer I spoke to said there were about 450 licenses issued yesterday and about half as many today. The line when I was there was about half a block.
And then there were the Ministers from the Universal Life Church who showed up in clergical garb to marry people right then and there as they came out of the county offices. Yes, that's the same Universal Life Church that advertises in the back of Rolling Stone. Its not a joke, they're real Ministers with the legal power to perform marriage. There was even a guy on hand giving away free wedding photos. God I love this town. Curtis Poe is a minister and showed up along with a few others to hold the ceremonies. The best part being when Curtis has to ask "which one of you would like to be the groom?" because that's what it says on the paperwork. There's a spot for the bride's name and the groom's name.
The folks I talked to who were getting married and licenses largely had this to say: Its about time! Seems lots of people had been living together for years in legal limbo and this is like a dream come true. Lots of senior citizens came for licenses. Yep, little old ladies that have been together for decades finally allowed to get married. I hope someone's keeping track of this information, it would be a nice stat to throw in the face of the "gays are monogamous" crowd.
The folks protesting were disappointingly unimaginative. The usual signs with quotes from Leviticus and stuff about Sodom and Gamorrah. One fellow hung around until the very end (doors closed at 5pm, the Ministers kept marrying people outside until about 6) and I talked to him. He was tragicly sincere about saving gays from eternal damnation and apologetic for those people that were doing the yelling and cursing yesterday. He didn't seem to have any hatred, he really thought they were making a huge mistake and just wasn't aware of the Biblical Consequences. I shook his hand, told him I was impressed he stuck it out and told him I'd see him tommorrow. :)
Some folks showed up with their own interpretations of the Bible. "God Hates Shrimp! Leviticus 11:10" "Thou shalt not wear clothing made of two materials! Leviticus 19:19" "Those who do work on Sunday will be put to death! Exodus 31:15". Its always fun pointing out to Bible Thumpers that they're being hypocrites if nothing else for their amusing explainations as to why they're not.
The only interesting protester I saw had a sign out: "Straight, White, Conservative and Married. Don't I get a say?" A weird message unless you know something about the politics that went on behind this. Apparently what happened is four of the five the county commissioners discussed this and didn't tell the fifth! And the fifth is the only guy on the council representing the easternmost (and thus most conservative) district. One the one hand, that's not cool to do things in secret. On the other hand, that's politics. And awww, its a woman's club and not a men's club this one time. I really can't feel that bad about it.
Paradoxicly to all the cheering and happy honking of horns from the folks driving by on their way home from work and the lackluster turnout of protesters, it seems the polls are overwhelmingly *against* this. Multnomah County is skitzo. Portland is very liberal. The surrounding area outside the city is most definately not. So issues like this really split between urban and rural. Living in Portland, you only see one side.
Anyhow, the marriages go on!
I wish people would stay away from the "religious" argument. There is plenty of other stuff to say. Like the lifestyle being bad unhealthy and bad for families. The 5000 years of traditional man+woman marriages around the world. The historical fight for it in America itself. The slippery slope issue. The list goes on and on without it ever being a religious issue.
Besides, most of the protesters that show up with religious signs for or against couldn't even tell you where Leviticus is found in the Bible. If the could, they would go to the New Testament where God forbids homosexual conduct but lifts all food restrictions.
Re:Well...
phillup on 2004-03-05T15:43:34
I wish people would stay away from the "religious" argument.
I couldn't agree more...
Besides, most of the protesters that show up with religious signs for or against couldn't even tell you where Leviticus is found in the Bible.
As someone who was raised as a "Baptist"... I'd like to thank you for reminding me why I don't give a damn for the entire lot... Say one thing... do another.
---
Meanwhile, while watching this in the news the other night... my wife and I have decided that religious people must be doing some really questionable stuff in their own bedrooms... and this should be looked into.
For the life of us we can't figure out what on earth people could be doing in the privacy of their own homes that would affect our marriage. To have even an inkling of an idea must come from experience... we think.
I wonder what experiences the "church goers" are having and what undue influence it is having on our society. Whatever it is... it should be looked into and stopped so that we can move on.Remember Sodom and Gamorrah... in bed.
schwern on 2004-03-05T21:26:18
Meanwhile, while watching this in the news the other night... my wife and I have decided that religious people must be doing some really questionable stuff in their own bedrooms... and this should be looked into.One guy had a very professionally made sign "Remember Sodom and Gamorrah", while everyone else's were hand made. Since this issue came to a head so fast, we speculated how he got such a professional sign done so quickly.
We figured he just took it down from over his bed.
Re:Well...
vsergu on 2004-03-05T15:47:43
Isn't the "unhealthiness" of the "lifestyle" related to promiscuity? Do you really think that allowing gays to marry would increase promiscuity? If so, I'd like to hear how you work that out.Re:Well...
RobertX on 2004-03-05T15:59:24
The fight is about normalizing the homosexual lifestyle, when it is not a normal lifestyle.
50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year. Source: M. T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 1973), pp. 56-57.
Two homosexual icons, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, wrote this about male homosexuality: " gay men aren't very good at having and holding lovers...(because) gay men tire of their partners (sexually) more rapidly than straight men." And according to them, the average homosexual male first "seeks (sexual) novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; (but) eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. "The cheating ratio of 'married' [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%." Source: Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen," After the Ball," (NY: Doubleday, 1989) pp. 304-320.
In 1978, a study done by two homosexual doctors revealed staggering statistics. Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%) had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%. And 79% noted that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers. Source: Bell, A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. " Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women " (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)
75% of homosexual men are currently carrying one or more pathogens. Source: Miles, A.J., et al. " Effect of Anal-receptive Intercourse on Anorectal Function. " Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 86 ( March 1993 ): p.146.
In 1981, it was reported that 78% of "gay" men have had or have a Sexually Transmitted Disease ( STD ). Source: H.H. Hansfield, "Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men," American Journal of Public Health ( 1981 ): pp. 989-90.
In a 1997 news article, The New York Times stated that a male teenager entering the homosexual lifestyle today has a 50% chance of getting AIDS by the age of fifty. Source: Sheryl Gay Stolberg, " Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," New York Times (late edition, east coast), November 23, 1997, section 4, page 1.
Re:Well...
lachoy on 2004-03-05T16:15:49
So if I'm part of any group that has a tendency toward promiscuity I can't marry? Or does that only apply if I'm part of the group that you consider "abnormal"? Weren't eastern europeans considered abnormal? African americans? Or for that matter, anyone with a darkish hue?
If you consider homosexuality abnormal that's your business, I couldn't care less. When you use your belief to tell other people what to do and who to love, that's a different matter. Why should you even care?
I realize it's pointless to argue because nothing I say is going to change your mind, but... oh, whatever.
Re:Well...
RobertX on 2004-03-05T17:03:29
I am not telling anyone what to do or who to love. I am just stating that I (and the majority of Americans) do not consider homosexuality a normal lifestyle. I stop short in telling them to stop. If they want to risk their health then that is up to them. I even stop short of creating a constitutional amendment. There are better ways to protect marriage.
You arguments against people groups being abnormal is inane. Those people groups do not have inherent health risks associated with them. The color of someone skins does not cause a higher health risk. And most of those people groups are against same-sex marraige themselves.
What makes it right for them to force their beliefs on me when 5000 years of marriage has always been traditionally defended here (for the last 200 or so) and around the world as one man and one woman?
They have exactly the same rights as I do to get married. According to the laws and tradition that is between one man and one woman.
And no you are not going to change my mind. I believe the lifestyle is wrong for a myriad of reasons. I do respect your input though.
Re:Well...
lachoy on 2004-03-05T17:15:07
How are two people getting married "forcing their beliefs" on you? When two muslims get married they're not asking you to believe the Koran is the holy word of God, they're just asking you to respect their beliefs in their own religion and for one another. How is this different?
The other arguments, "it's always been that way" and "it's a health risk" are also wrongheaded. I hate to trot the argument out again but history is rife with examples of traditional practices that have been overturned with progress: slavery, wife-as-property, etc. And even if male-to-male marriage is a health risk (you didn't say anything about female-to-female...), what do you or society care about the health risk? Does that mean bungee jumpers or skydivers -- or coal miners, or people with herpes, or nymphomaniacs -- shouldn't get married?
Re:Well...
RobertX on 2004-03-05T18:35:08
Nice straw man argument.
Re:Well...
lachoy on 2004-03-05T19:40:48
Okay, I'll bite: Assume I'm a moron and explain the differences. Without using a gussied up version of "those fudgepackers are evil".Re:Well...
vsergu on 2004-03-05T20:41:58
Why do people who argue that they're opposed to homosexuality for health reasons, not because of religion, remind of people who rave about the benefits of hemp clothing but claim their interest is unrelated to marijuana legalization?
For that matter, they also remind me of people who trumpet scientific studies saying that homosexuality is genetically determined and claim that means it should be legal and socially accepted. If tomorrow studies found that it wasn't genetically determined, would they then believe homosexuality should be illegal? Whether it is genetically determined or learned (and I think it's pretty clear that it's not 100% genetically determined) is irrelevant to questions of morality or social acceptability.Re:Well...
lachoy on 2004-03-05T20:55:36
Absolutely. Mostly similar tactic: "It's in the best interest of the children."Re:Well...
vsergu on 2004-03-05T18:04:57
If your argument is based on health risks, then perhaps only lesbians should be allowed to marry, since the risks of lesbian sex are lower than those of heterosexual sex.
Besides, homosexuals aren't the only people who engage in "abnormal" sexual practices. Are you in favor of outlawing all such behavior, so as to avoid legitimizing it?
Re:Well...
RobertX on 2004-03-05T18:34:05
But we do already...
Re:Well...
RobertX on 2004-03-05T18:37:23
Though only articles I quoted where were about males, the risk of lesbian sex is HIGHER that hetero as well.
Re:Well...
hfb on 2004-03-05T19:01:53
So how do you feel about gay men who marry to hide their lifestyle and have children, too?Re:Well...
hfb on 2004-03-05T19:03:17
Schwern...you should put on your overalls and go down there and start shouting "FUCK THE FARMERS! FUCK THEM RIGHT UP THEIR ASS" next to the fundys. Get someone with a camera to go along with you as I want pictures, too.:D Tasty pictures
rafael on 2004-03-05T19:21:26
I want pictures of Schwern holding Bible quotes about God forbidding shrimps(*) in front of an evil sushi restaurant that destroys our traditional values.(*) for those of you heathens who aren't familiar with the Torah, this is actually true.
God Hates Shrimp
schwern on 2004-03-05T22:03:50
Somebody already beat me to it.Re:Tasty pictures
hfb on 2004-03-06T09:41:30
What about the naked sushi chef?
:) Fun, but this isn't about taunts.
schwern on 2004-03-05T22:10:44
I thought about it. Part of the reason I went down there in the first place was there's this REALLY LOUD street preacher who was there on Wednesday condemming the people there in his REALLY LOUD BOOMING VOICE! This guy can project. I was hoping he'd be there again and I could counter-preach in my own Conference Voice.
He wasn't there yeseterday. Instead it was just a doudy group of very quiet Fundies. I thought about doing a little needling, but then I realized that jeez, people are getting married here! This is a dream come true for them. They're having a little party five feet away. The last thing they need is for some prankster to come along and cause a ruckus.
So I just hung out, borrowed a "God Love All Marriages" sign and waved to cars going by and brought hot tea for the ministers performing marriages out there in the cold all day. This isn't about me.
And the fundies were so dour and their signs so reactionary and Biblical, you really couldn't have asked for a better group to show up and protest. They did a great job of making fun of themselves.
Still, I'm hoping that guy does show up today.:) Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again.
schwern on 2004-03-05T22:01:58
What makes it right for them to force their beliefs on me when 5000 years of marriage has always been traditionally defended here (for the last 200 or so) and around the world as one man and one woman?A) Nobody's forcing their beliefs on you. Nobody's hand-cuffed you to another man, dragged you down to the county clerk and demanded you get a marriage license. By declaring that before the eyes of the law, only a man and a woman can have a legal union you are forcing your beliefs on other people. Marriage, legal marriage, the decision between yourself and your spouse to be a single entity before the eyes of the law and has many benefits and perks associated with it. The important thing is that two people want to live life together, own property together, share their income and posessions and maybe even raise some kids together. Legally and without unnecessary complications. The man & woman thing is really incidental.
B) Tradition is a cop out. If we simply followed tradition we'd all be dragging around stone sledges and paying tax to the king. We certainly wouldn't be having an argument on the Internet.
:) Things change. "That's the way its always been" is a really lame reason to hang on to something. C) I provide you with the homework problem of applying your rationales to interracial marriage. Its 1950. Marriage has always been traditionally defended here (for the last 150 years so so) as one man and one woman of the same race. Consider.
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again.
chromatic on 2004-03-05T22:56:52
Nobody's forcing their beliefs on you..... By declaring that before the eyes of the law, only a man and a woman can have a legal union you are forcing your beliefs on other people. Holy Cognitive Dissonance, Batman!
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again.
schwern on 2004-03-06T01:44:07
?
Also ?Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again.
chromatic on 2004-03-06T02:00:25
So if he likes a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, he's forcing his beliefs on other people, but if someone else likes a law that defines marriage as between two people regardless of gender, that other person is not forcing his beliefs on the first person?
I fail to see how that's not a contradiction.
Then again, surely the purpose of law itself is to enforce a set of beliefs.
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again.
zatoichi on 2004-03-06T02:34:49
Then again, surely the purpose of law itself is to enforce a set of beliefs.
Good point. So the question really comes down to: where is the line drawn? When do we as a society say "That is immoral?". And if we continue to vacilate on the moral lines, "Where does it stop?".
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again.
schwern on 2004-03-07T20:56:22
Yes, legalizing same-sex marriage is forcing beliefs on other people in the same way that the fourteenth ammendment is forcing beliefs on other people. That is, all law is forcing your beliefs on someone at some point, even if that law is about freedom. I hope we all knew this already.
While its good to remember that all law is, in some way, enforcing belief, its about as interesting in the context of this discussion as having a physics argument and someone chiming in, "but you can never really prove anything". Everyone involved knows this. That we still talk in absolute terms is not a denial, but simple linguistic laziness. You can have a much more productive discussion by ignoring these pedantic exceptions and getting on with the interesting part.
Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again.
chromatic on 2004-03-07T21:19:28
My hope is that people will stop bringing up the tired old pseudojustification "don't force your beliefs on me". It may be amazingly obvious to you and to me that that's exactly what law is, but as long as people whine and cry about how their rights are superior to those of everyone else, I reserve the right to tell them that their arguments are stupid and completely unconnected to reality.
Then again, I can be a real jerk sometimes.
:) Re:Forcing me, forcing you, forcing me again.
pudge on 2004-03-24T03:31:51
Tradition is a cop out
It's a cop out for saying we shouldn't change, but it's a damn good reason for saying we should only make those changes legally and deliberately, collectively, instead of by fiat of a few (unless those few happen to be supreme court justices:-).
Re:Well...
wickline on 2004-03-06T19:23:29
> Those people groups do not have inherent health risks
> associated with them
Actually, there are very clear health risks associated with people groups defined by skin color. Folks with more melanin (skin pigment) are at a much lower risk for skin cancer. The correlation runs the other direction regarding heart disease. You can find trends like this for many health risks.
Some racists would look at a hand-picked collection of these correlations and claim that other races are genetically inferior while ignoring the evidence that their own race is just as "inferior".
So, your claim that lachoy's representation was a straw man may need more support. Some folks may in fact claim that different colored skin correlates with different health risks, and may further claim that those health risks are "abnormal" while their own health risks are "normal".
This reminds me of your claim that certain facets of gay male relationships are "abnormal". (I didn't notice you discussing gay female relationships in the comments I've read so far.) You have selected out those characteristics of gay male relationships which are both distinctive to those sorts of relationships and distastfull to you. You have used that collection of patterns to label the group as "abnormal in a negative sense" (as opposed to a minority race which you might say is "abnormal in a completely neutral sense").
You do not appear to have closely examined the negative aspects of heterosexual relationships. Due to the rampant sexism in our culture, I suspect (yes I'm failing to provide evidence) that heterosexual marriages are much more likely to result in one partner (the wife) sacrificing goals and dreams for the other. I suspect that the incidence of spousal abuse (and child abuse as well) is much higher in heterosexual relationships. The number of accidental and/or unwanted children must be much higher in hetersexual relationships. Considering the multi-generational effects of depression and abuse, I don't think that these issues are trivial.
There are differences between the two types of relationships. I do not think it is fair to look at one group of differences and say that it makes the one "abnormal in a negative manner" while ignoring those differences which would lead one to the opposite conclusion. You claim that it's silly to discriminate on the basis of which group is in the minority (which is why you frown upon racism), but I wonder what basis will remain if you look at the problems associated with heterosexual relationships.
Perhaps you will find yourself thinking that "on the balance, the problems associated with gay marriages are more significant than the benefits" and use that to rationalize your position against gay marriage. If so, I wonder if you would care to apply your balance to the issue of race. Will you take the time to determine exactly which races are best adapted to which geographic regions, and argue that nations' borders should be drawn accordingly and populations relocated as needed?
I suspect that contemplating such a project (the application of this hypothetical ballance to racial fitness) would leave a very foul taste in your mouth. How then can you feel so comfortable applying the balance to a minority defined by the parity of their love lives?
What makes it OK to believe that your majority (heterosexuals) is "better" than the minority in this case? At what time in your life will that same premise be turned against you to allow others in your community to judge you as inferior? When the time comes, will you respect the community's judgement as well-founded because it allows you to believe that heterosexuals are better than homosexuals?
-matt
Why stop with gays?
schwern on 2004-03-05T21:43:10
Let's assume those stats you dug up have some basis in reality. Should we legally prevent someone from getting married just because they're a member of a group and thus might be at risk? If we do it for gays, why not every other at risk group? Should we take statistics of STDs, divorce, spouse and child abuse rates amongst various ethnic, social, sexual and economic groups and only give out marriage licenses to those who aren't in an at risk group? If we're going to deny people the right to marry based on statistics, let's at least be consistent about it!
"I'm sorry, you're a poor white heterosexual male and a member of the Republican party. Your father's criminal record shows that there were five domestic disturbance calls to his residence when you were a child. I see you attended a fraternity while at community college. You're in an at risk group likely to beat your wife and have far too many kids. We can't issue you a marriage license."
In other news, I'm giving you a homework assignment. Go out and dig up some of the statistics used during the 50s and 60s to prove that interracial marriage should be avoided. Compare and contrast with your own stats.
Re:Well...
phillup on 2004-03-05T22:11:34
The fight is about normalizing the homosexual lifestyle, when it is not a normal lifestyle.
And so far, the result has been normalizing infidelity and adultery.
Not to mention setting seed to the idea that the laws made by government are largely to be ignored.
That is what happens when you pass stupid laws... people start ignoring the law.
Is that really what people want? To weaken the very fragment of government just because some people have a stuffy diety that they think may actually exist?
---
50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year.
From age 30 to 34 (4 years) I had a baker's dozen sex partners... and I'm straight.
The paragraph after that... holds true for me and all of my straight friends also. Sexual boredom isn't a "gay thing".
It stopped when I got married.
You want people to settle down... let them get married. Not letting them "settle down"... not giving them a legitimate place in society... that is the cause of your statistics.
It isn't about "gay"... it is about promiscuity.Legal Error in Your Favor!
schwern on 2004-03-07T21:09:14
That is what happens when you pass stupid laws... people start ignoring the law.Multnomah's an interesting case because, unlike San Francisco, the interpretation so far is that same-sex marriage upholds the law as the law is written on the books and that it would be unconstitutional by the fourteenth ammendment not to allow the marriages. The county's actions seem to be legal. Of course, people are arguing what the intentions of the lawmakers were (and they're right), and there's already a lawsuit in the works, but for once the poorly worded law is on our side.
:) The state attorney general will give an opinion soon and that will pretty much determine Oregon's official position on this and whether or not they're going to come after Multnomah county.
Re:Well...
iburrell on 2004-03-05T23:37:37
I read an excellent comment about the study that was dredged up about the health risks among homosexuals. If homosexuals are promiscuous, and promoiscuousity leads to health problems, shouldn't we be encouraging monogamy and marriage among homosexuals?Also, other studies found that lesbians have less health problems than straight couples. This has certain health implications.
