Double dare

Here are two more opportunities for readers to prove Worldwide Pablo wrong.

First, news comes today out of WWP's nearly native homeland of King County (Washington state) that banning same-sex marriages violates the state constitution and must be allowed as a matter of due process. The ruling is stayed until Washington's appellate courts take up the matter and make a final ruling, and no doubt, the legislature and perhaps the electorate respond. It's interesting to note that the march to gay marriage in the Evergreen State has been primarily through the courts: gays try to marry, told they can't, they sue, the court affirms the right, it goes up the appeals chain. This seems eerily close to the very idea WWP advocated himself some months ago when less sage voices closer to home insisted on an executive-branch solution, which as we know, immediately inflamed SSM's opponents and enlivened heretofore idle religious conservatives to a degree never before witnessed -- all of which of course produced the same-sex marriage ban amendment now before Oregon voters. Call it distraction, call it whatever you like, but WWP tends to think the Oregon style pales (and badly) in comparison to the example of our friends up north, who quite likely will actually enjoy the benefits of gay marriage long before Oregonians ever do. Time will tell.

Your second opportunity to prove WWP wrong comes courtesy of a new opinion poll on said SSM-ban amendment, reported today in Willamette Week. Yesterday, WWP described efforts to frame this fall's election in purely constitutional terms as dull and doomed. The optimistic poll reported today in W-Week, on the other hand, conducted on behalf of Basic Rights Oregon, shows the ballot measure within spitting distance of being defeated. It sounds a little too good to be true, but WWP would gladly eat a hat or two for it to be so. BRO's caveat that the respondents were read background information before casting their polling decision makes one suspicious; this almost never occurs in reputable opinion polling, and more importantly, it never happens when ballots are filled out. Still, the question must be asked: Is it a slam dunk for the Defense of Marriage cabal? Maybe not. If so, WWP is wrong again.

Only time will tell.

[Confidential to Isaac: Yes, ThURLsday is on. See you there, tomorrow.]

Comments

[The One True b!X]

Hmm, no wonder me ears were burning. ;)

At to the first point, I can only reiterate my argument from a few weeks back that Oregon's arriving at a Constitutional amendment battle was inevitable nomatter what path was taken. And of course it's entirely possible that anti-gay forces in Washington will take that route, which, if it happens, would only help support my argument of inevitability. Plus, I continue (obviously) to believe that there is value in having 3,000-plus same-sex marriage licenses already in existence here, and in some cases actually in use in terms of obtaining the legal benefits of marriage. Rhetorically (although not legally), it turns the fight here into one against a measure proposing marriage nullification.

As to the second point, I was thinking about that poll, and just what might have been asked, ever since the "no on 36" launch event the other day, because I thought I had read a comment on Communique about a poll. Sure enough, this comment relates a poll conducted by Equality in Oregon (which it seems is another umbrella name for the fight here in Oregon), and what was asked/stated. However, the dates don't match up, since the poll referenced at the launch event, and reported on Communique and in today's WW, was conducted July 8-12, whereas the poll referenced in the linked comment appears to have been at the very end of July.

I had thought about asking at the launch event about what the poll question(s) were, but didn't bother -- primarily because when I asked for the specific result numbers (which were not in the media packet), the person I was speaking to had to go double-check that they were going to release them. Apparently, they had been debating the issue.

[Worldwide Pablo]

Only the ears? Hehehe.

P.S.: WWP will post these comments here, because it seems rude and supremely unkind to make more of it than it is. But it must be mentioned that your criticism of Judge Bearden is most unfair, in the extreme, and it serves more evidently to your detriment, not his.

It's a facile exercise to get worked up over judicial decisions we disagree with. Well, so what? Get in line.

To make the argument you have, in the language as you have chosen, likens you more closely to the likes of Trent Lott and those the two of us are known to disclaim. [And how weird is that?]

b!X, how much worse it is to do so when the facts of the cases are so different, and the judicial providence so unlike, Oregon's situation? [And yes, there are many differences in point of law.]

Not to belabor the point, but the Oregon and Washington situations are hardly comparable, one having emerged from law, the other from politics. Given Oregon's situation, the Washington decision would be different; given the Washington situation, Judge Bearden's decison would differ. This, those of us who read, study, report and love law, understand. Why didn't you?

In failing to acknowledge this, and the innumerable other nuances that set the two states' stages differently, and to persist so unfairly against Judge Bearden and the limited politically charged task put before him, yields both a misunderstanding of these cases and a grave disservice to the idea of courts as our third and equal branch of government.

Comment as much as you like [and no doubt you will] about the subtleties these cases present -- that's your perogative [and your speciality, for that matter]. Just know that for many of us, it's a discredit to you and your good work on Communique when you do so by joining the rabble chorus of those who dishonor the honorable.