I have been trying to do play by play coverage of the ongoing controversy over gay marriage in Oregon. But, the players and plays change day by day, sometimes hour by hour. This is one flavorful kettle of fish. I'll summarize what has occurred since my last entry on the topic at Mac-a-ro-nies.
I blogged Benton County's decision to become the second in Oregon to grant gays marriage licenses. The county has now delayed issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Instead, Benton County will wait until there is a ruling on whether refusal to marry gays violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Meanwhile, no couples will be granted marriage licenses. Yes, I said no couples. Heterosexuals will also have to wait, surely not the intention of conservatives who flooded the Benton County commissioners with emails and phone calls opposing the plan to grant licenses to gays.
Multnomah County continues to issue licenses and gay couples continue to marry. Data show that many of those tying the knot are from out of state. Some traveled significant distances to reach the only jurisdiction in the country allowing homosexuals to marry. The Associated Press found that sixteen percent of the couples came from a state other than Oregon during the first week alone. With Oregon the only place to go, the proportion has likely increased.
Opinion polls reveal a continuing increase in Oregonians opposed to gay marriage, even as the vows are spoken. The figure is approaching 60 percent. Both in the state and nationally, age and gender are often indicia of whether a citizen favors or opposes gay unions. Women and younger people tend to favor gay marriage. Men and older folks are more likely to oppose it.
So far, the organized opposition has mainly come from the pre-existing network of fundamentalist Christians that supported the anti-gay Oregon Citizens Alliance.
Commission Chairperson Diane Linn, a Catholic from a conservative background, says she will not back down. That is in spite of a recall effort against her and the other three commissioners who agreed to allow gay marriage — and the Oregonian's editorial urging they be driven from office. The Portland Tribune profiled Linn (pictured above) in a recent article.
Article comments
1 - RJ Elliott
Look, if this was being done in a democratic manner, I would not oppose it. But it's not.
What you have is a tiny number of officials (many of whom are unelected) deciding to redefine something that has remained static for centuries.
If the people want change, they will vote for it. If they don't, then change should not be crammed down their throats by a small percentage of officials hoping to go down in history as progressive heroes.
In a generation or so, gays will have the support of the majority to marry, in my opinion. But they don't now.
If they don't want to incur a backlash that may lead to a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, they should be patient. But they aren't.
Gays may well regret "jumping the gun" here.
Personally, I think the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage will fail. However, if it doesn't, these "progressive" officials will have only themselves to blame.
2 - Sandra Smallson
I could not agree more RJ. Also, I feel many of them are marrying to make a point rather than because they want to actually be married.
I dont know how they deduce that the fact that they are married in Masachussets means they will be looked at any different in any of the other states who do not support this change in the Law. It truly is just a minority of people trying to be progressive heroes and that is what makes it all slightly annoying for me. My major annoyance will arise when the next step for the heroes will be to insist they get married in a church. Then, you bet ya, all hell will break loose. In every sense:)
3 - Natalie Davis
Please. There are many churches that already will and do marry same-gender couples. Stuff that in your homo-hating pipe and smoke it.
4 - Mac Diva
Sandra, there will be tangible benefits to being able to marry, if the gay spouses are treated equally. They include health care benefits, being officially recognized as next of kin and shared custody of children, instead of having the birth parent considered the only real parent.
BTW, the Pacific Northwest is the most 'unchurched' part of the country. Many of the homosexual couples seeking to be married here probably aren't even religious. So, why impose someone else's ideas about sin on them? Vic (Ms. Tek) wrote an entry about separating marriage from religion as far as government is concerned. The situation here is evidence in favor of that.
Natalie, don't you dare come to Oregon and do you know what without letting me know-:). I'll email you later today.
5 - Sandra Smallson
Macdiva, I have said on this site before that I have no problem with gay marriages as long as they do not get married in a church. Like you said, why impose someone elses idea of sin on them? It works the other way. If Gay marriages are legalised, the churches can not be forced to carry them out. It is against their own rules and gay people who want to get married in churches will just have to accept that. If there are churches out there marrying gays, they can go to those churches.
I am sure a majority of churches will not carry out same sex marriages and the gay community should not expect them to do so. That is my point.
As an aside to Natalie...are you drunk? Put what in my homo hating pipe? I was not aware until you've now told me, that there are churches marrying same sex couples. I am sure if it becomes a regular thing in many churches, all hell would break loose and I certainly will not agree with it. That is my right. That is my opinion. Why do I have to put anything in my pipe and smoke it?
Homosexuality is a sin in the christian faith whether you like it or not. Whether you agree with it or not. Therefore, the churches will not accept it. As a christian, I believe it is a sin. I dont hate thenm for it. I do not hold it against them. Afterall, I am a sinner myself in other ways. I do not go to the church to fornicate. I do not go to the church to sin. So, why should gays be allowed to come to the church to sin? They will have to take this particular discrimination in their pipes and smoke it. If you wanna smoke stuff. That is how I see it. ME. Not you.
I know it is a Saturday. I forgive your current state of intoxication.
6 - Mac Diva
Sandra. Sandra. Sandra. I doubt Natalie drinks. However, she is a lesbian and you are needlessly hurting her feelings. Instead of thinking the worst, I invite you to visit Natalie's blog and learn more about her. Though you may not change your mind, Natalie makes good arguments in favor of marriage equality for gays.
And, yes, it is true there are churches that marry gays. There are also gay churches. Like people of color, homosexuals have formed their own institutions when excluded by mainstream ones.
7 - Sandra Smallson
How have I hurt Natalie's feelings? I beg of you to let me know that, Macdiva. She accused me of being a "homo-hater" and suggested I stuff my hatred in my pipe and smoke it:) Now, dear Lord, should I not wonder if such a person is in their right state of mind. Particularly because I did not see what could have given rise to such a reaction.
Does she know whether I am aware that there are churches that marry gays? Could she not have informed me in the way in which you have just informed me? Surely she knows it is not an everyday event in churches round the world? Or is it the fact that I said all hell would break loose if gays married in a church? Should I watch what I say about gays because Natalie writes on Blogcritics.org? Is that what is "needlessly" hurting her feelings?
I will be damned if I have to say "I insist a same sex marriage be carried out in St Pauls Cathedral in Rome" when it is not what I think and just so Natalie will not be hurt.
Natalie, I do not hate homos. I have nothing against them. I just do not think they should be married in a church and I have stated the reasons why. I have no problems with them forming their own churches or with whatever church decides to marry them. I just know that it will not become a regular thing in all churches and I am all for that.
I will visit her blog at some point though it seems superfluous seeing as I have no problem with gay marriages. Or is she insisting they happen in a church? I guess I'll find out when I eventually log on:)
8 - Mac Diva
Sandra, I am not saying you don't have a right to your opinion. I am just asking that you consider Natalie's perspective, too.
9 - Sandra Smallson
As far as I could tell, Natalie did not have a perspective on this topic, Macdiva. Her first reference to me was to tell me to smoke my homo hatred in my pipe. I consider all opinions and then I make up my mind. I would have considered her perspective just as I have considered yours on other topics and was responding to RJ's on this topic.
I can't imagine that anyone who refuses to throw rice at a gay wedding is looked upon as being inconsiderate towards gays.
10 - Dan
heh heh, thats ironic. Isn't rice thrown at a wedding supposed to have some sort of fertility blessing connotation?
11 - RJ Elliott
"Sandra. Sandra. Sandra. I doubt Natalie drinks. However, she is a lesbian and you are needlessly hurting her feelings."
How is she hurting her feelings? By expressing her point of view? Are views that minorities disagree with now considered inherently offensive?
12 - Natalie Davis
To the "minority" (goddess, I don't drink, but that word could drive me to it), naturally her statement is offensive. But Sandra has the right to say what she wants, whether or not it hurts anyone's feelings. Just as I can say I believe her to be a homo-hater and heterosupremacist. Freedom of expression is rarely pretty or kind.
13 - RJ Elliott
Natalie, you are being far more offensive than she is. She is stating an opinion you happen to disagree with. You are calling people names.
14 - Natalie Davis
Actually, I am stating what appears to be fact to me. Some dear friends of mine believe hets are better and worthier in the eyes of God than GLBT people; like Sandra they believe churches should be their province and should not be open to the likes of me. They, like Sandra, don't say things like that to hurt me; they say them because that is what they truly believe. Same here.
15 - Sandra Smallson
Natalie, where have I ever implied that "homos" should not be allowed to attend church? I said they can not be allowed to be MARRIED in churches. I have no problems with gays who go to church every sunday. I go to church every sunday and sometimes I might have just had sex out of wedlock (shock! horror!)just before I attend Mass.
The church is for everybody, Natalie. I do not think heteros are more deserving in the eyes of God. If a hetero is a sinner, in my opinion, he or she would go to the same place all sinners go. The Hetero has no special relationship with God that a gay person can't or does not have.
I simply believe homosexuality is a sin. Just like I believe fornication is a sin, but I still do it. I only have a problem with gays who say they are christians and THEN do not acknowledge it as sin. I do not say stop doing it. I simply say, if you are a christian with christian beliefs, acknowledge it as a sin. Now, that is my belief, Natalie.
I think you have allowed your personal emotions to cloud your judgments or ability to comprehensively understand some things. You can call me whatever you like. If it makes you sleep better at night, I am happy to have been of some help:)