No On 36!

Here in Oregon we've got a measure on the ballot (Measure 36) that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between "one man and one woman." I am adamantly and totally opposed to this measure. In large part because I find it disgusting and reprehensible that people will try to use our state constitution to promote completely religiously-based definitions and in part because it's just plain wrong. (update 10/17/04: see real live preacher's discussion on this)

If you don't agree with gay marriage - fine. Campaign to your heart's content, dislike the lifestyle, actively work to convert people, and so on. IMO, you need to get some perspective and get your head out of your ass but that's just me. Don't hurt people, but feel free to express your opinion. HOWEVER, you not liking/agreeing with the lifestyle is acceptable while legislating your beliefs into law IS NOT.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, trying to find a good analogy that might make 'normal' people think about it a bit differently and here's what I've come up with: Why don't we legislate "family" as "a man, a woman, and any biological offspring that result as mating between the aforementioned man and woman." Wouldn't that fuck some people up? Let's just list everyone one who would be legally affected by such a definition:

• adopted children
  
• stepchildren
  
• single parent families
  
• other family members such as grandparents, aunts, and uncles could longer be considered primary caregivers
  
• families who take in needy children but don't have any legal 'claim' to them
  

Since I'm no lawyer and don't know much about family law, I'm sure that my attempted analogy would be shot full of holes immediately but I said it to prove a point. When you use the argument that you're proposing legislation to "legalize a historical defintion of marriage", you should think carefully about what kind of precedent you're going to set. If it's okay to define an institution like marriage in such a narrow and limited way, why shouldn't it also be possible to legalize the definition of family (or other social institutions) in the same way?

Using the words "historically defined" seem to me a recipe for disaster. History is ALWAYS written by the victors, the dominators, the powerful. Of course there would be little written about oppressed and minority groups - their voices aren't heard. I think that, in a case like this (perhaps all cases) using a historical example to discriminate, separate, or otherwise hurt people is all too easy because history is often about finding ways to keep the powerless squashed. Finding examples to support ongoing oppression is easy.

One of the most difficult parts of this whole argument is that the people who want this redefinition seem unwilling to admit that it's almost entirely religiously based. I went to a ballot measure forum this past week and the woman campaigning for the measure had lots of other arguments & such but, at no time, did I hear her openly admit that the campaign itself was supporting the measure for religious reasons.

When you can't address the basic premise (the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and therefore gays shouldn't be allowed to marry) because the people supporting that premise won't even admit it IS their basic premise, it's almost impossible to argue. You have to dance around with all other kinds of reasoning, none of which address the basic argument. If you do address that basic premise, many will deny that it IS their premise. If someone refuses to believe that there is a sky, how on earth can you talk to them about the sky being blue?