Flogging the faithful

Now that an initiative banning same-sex marriage is poised for the ballot [and an all-too-likely victory] this November, the "who's to blame" post-mortems are beginning to appear. In one construct, those who pushed hard [too hard, some might say] for same-sex marriage are on a par with those who dared to point out the political pitfalls of pursuing such a course – and thus the two are equally accountable for the right-wing wrath that has now engulfed the issue.

This is among the many interesting [novel?] ideas advanced by b!X at Portland Communique late last week. Complete with a flow chart and jargon sure to conjure up more than a few memories of one's college political science studies, b!X also posits that a ballot measure was inevitable from the get-go and that the all-or-nothing "civil rights now" mode remains the most effective route to achieving same-sex marriage.

WWP, as you might suspect, has his doubts. [He is "skeptical," after all.] WWP wonders, and asks readers to ponder:

• What's the evidence that a ballot measure is the one and only surefire outcome?
• Does every path to such a ballot measure really exact the same resistance and political friction? Why? If not, would it alter the bottom line? How?
• Even if a ballot measure were the only possible outcome of such a political process, which scenario of events leading up to it affords the best opportunity to defeat it? Surely that scenario cannot be the one we are presently saddled with – short on time, friends and funds, but long on enemies and a war chest to match. Right?
• And what's with the delusion that incremental politics doesn't work? Isn't that what's happening right now in Massachusetts? In California? In Canada? Do we see the religious right empowered in any of these places to the degree that they are in Oregon? [Isn't this why Dishpan Dribble's Tammy is so deliriously happy nowadays?]
• Query: Would it be better to win, incrementally, say, next year or the year after? Or to have your world view validated and proven right in 10 or 20 years?

Not that WWP expects any of his friends and usual detractors to hear or embrace anything outside the orbit of coffee-shop clatter that poses as original thinking here in the People's Republic of Portland. That's about as likely as Jack Bog running for county chair.

But this much seems true: It's highly doubtful that by ignoring the easy-as-you go political approach favored by the very folks who actually decide elections [middle-of-the-road suburban voters] – or by pinning the blame for the religious backlash on those who hold their government officials accountable for political errors – that the purpose of keeping graffiti out of the Oregon Constitution will be well served.

For better or worse, in sickness and in health, we're in this together.

Comments

[GA - Keith]

Marriage has been a desire for same-sex couples -- and one we've fought for politically -- since at least 1974. That's 30 years. How much slower could we take this? The reality is, that if my husband and I had not been allowed to marry in Oregon, we would have headed to Canada or Mass. and gotten married there, then come right back here to Oregon and rightfully expect that we would be treated just like everyone else.

MLK said "The time is always right to do what is right."

The reality is, that every tack the LGBT community has taken on this issue, has been criticized. But it is easy for people to dismiss our rights, suggesting that if we had been more mannered about it, then maybe we would have gotten what we wished for.

We should expect to be treated equally, not expected to ask to be treated equally.