portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting oregon & cascadia

community building | human & civil rights

AUDIO FILE: Examining Constitutional Amendment 36

This is the audio from a video I received from No On 36. It is in a talk show format, produced by Allied Video Productions. Measure 36 would ban gay marriage in Oregon.
The program is hosted by Gwen Baldwin, who states at the beginning that "marriage may seem simple on the surface, but I think that we will find.....that it's not so simple. In fact, it's much more complicated than it appears.
Baldwin interviews various people who give their views on why they are voting no on this amendment. The first guest is Pastor Gail McDougal, a pastor of 30 years, now at First Congregational Church in Salem, who lists three reasons for voting against this amendment. "The first being that I don't believe that we should use the Constitution to restrict the rights or ban the rights of people, or any group of people to create a second class kind of citizenship. Rather, a constituion I believe, at both the national and state level is about extending rights to people."
"Number two, the flip side of that argument is to ask ourselves the question whys should heterosexual couples be extended special rights and privileges that are restricted from another group."
"And number three is, unlike many people from other religious communities who see this Constitutional Amendment as a religious issue or a spiritual issue, I think I'm able to distinguish between what I would call that meeting point of the constitutional issues about marriage and the spiritual issues and ecclesiastical practices around marriage."
Gwen, the host then asks: "Is there consensus among traditions of faith around same sex marriage and Constitutional Amendment 36." According to the pastor, "no, there is a number of opinions, there is no consensus, and I beleive that this is part of the confusion about the debate."
Gwen continues interviewing many people from various walks of life during the remainder of this 28 1/2 minute audio file, providing information and perspectives hoping to help others make the decision to vote against this Constitutional Amendment on Novemeber 2, 2004.

No On Constitutional Amendment 36

homepage: homepage: http://www.PhilosopherSeed.org

Oregonian Screws Up Again 19.Oct.2004 13:05


Yesterday THE OREGONIAN printed a front page story that ran in their morning and evening editions re. Measure 36 and it was entirely off the mark. In fact, it had little to nothing to do with Measure 36 although it carried an "Election 2004" banner and said things like, "In the wake of this election, these are things we need to consider" and intimated that if the ballot measure fails, schools will be forced to include homosexual unions in their curriculum which will "confuse" children. The article points to "studies" that claim girls raised by homosexual parents are more "sexually adventurous" and boys "more chaste."

The point is, whether or not the Consitutional amendment passes, some gay and lesbian partners will still have children. They still have the right to adopt, to foster, and to bring children into their lives through in vitro fertilization. If the Oregonian thinks there's a threat or a lack of ideal care, passing this amendment doesn't fix anything . . . it makes it harder on those families.

Does the Oregonian think that granting marriage rights to homosexual partners will create a sudden raging desire to have children? And since when has raising children been equated with "selfishness"? It's - at the same time - the most satisfying and demanding undertaking on the face of the earth and requires great personal sacrifice.

I found it ironic that the feature on questionable homosexual parenting ran opposite an article on a teenager who has been the lifelong victim of her mother's addiction to meth. I have seen no indication that this mother is homosexual; she may even have been married when the girl was born. Detractors of gay marriage claim that homosexuals are thinking only of themselves - that it's their selfish desires that drive a push for same sex marriages at the expense of children. What, then, are the motives of hetereosexual parents when they turn to drugs, divorce, abandonment and the like?

What is the Oregonian's point in questioning the abilities of gays and lesbians to be parents? If they are going to cast man/woman heterosexual unions as ideal, they are going to find that many do not meet the standards of excellence they aspire to. And what about grandparents who are raising abandoned grandchildren? Single mothers or fathers struggling to get by? Group homes? All more desperate environments than the secure and warm homes of many gays and lesbians.

The Oregonian completed ignores the fact that such a Constitutional amendment denies part of the population a number of perks that others take for granted. Some argue that gays can go to court or draw up papers to get some of the same rights. Why should they have to when others don't?

If the Oregonian is going to question the worthiness of gays and lesbians as parents, then take the argument away from an amendment it has nothing to do with and bring every alternative family into the mix.