Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The Clackamas print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1989-2019 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 20, 2004)
CK A MA October 20, 2004 Commentai 36 prohibits civil rights Jacob Ray > The Clackamas Print Measure 36 doesn’t discriminate against same-sex couples, its just pre serves the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Measure 36 puts very simple wording in our state constitution saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. Yes, two people who love each other should be allowed to commit to each other, but that doesn’t have to result in marriage. Friends commit to each other, parents commit to a child, and people commit to their pets. All of those are types of love, all produce commitment; none of them are mar riage. Marriage is a special union for a man and a woman. I’m all for giving same-sex part ners the title of a union, but mar riage is too sacred of a thing to be changed. There are plenty of different rules that apply to mar riage, such as, one can’t marry more than one person at a time, or a person who is already mar ried, a close relative or under the age of 17; and a man can’t marry another man and a woman can’t marry another woman. These are rules that are intact for the good of individuals and society. It’s the same for everyone; same-sex couples aren’t singled out. If we change these rules to say that any two people who love each other can marry, who’s to say that any three can’t? I mean, if two gay people can marry, why can’t a bisexual marry two partners—or a polygamist and his eight wives (or husbands)? To be fair we’d basically have to let every person marry whoever they want. Pretty soon marriage would just be a word used to say that two people are together; it wouldn’t be anything special. The argument against measure 36 is that gay and lesbian couples want the same benefits (i.e., insurance and health care) as heterosexual couples, and I believe that if the right legal documents are filed, same-sex couples can have pretty much close to the same benefits. If a man gets health cov erage through his job, his wife is going to have to pay additional to have the same. In some situations a little extra effort is needed. I have no problem with same-sex partners, and like I said before, I have no problem with calling it a union. But if we let just anybody marry, then what have those 34 years of marriage my parents have really meant? They were nothing more than “in love?” I know we’re in a new millennium and a lot is changing, but sometimes certain things need to stay the same because they were meant to be that way—for now, at least. *Only the “I” statements reflect the views of the writer; sources were collectedfrom www.voteyeson36.org. “I think the term ‘mar riage’ should be reserved for one man, one woman. But I have no problem with [homosexuals getting together] and calling it something else.” “I don’t see why it’s necessary.. .homosex uals aren’t trying to push their beliefs onto heterosexuals, so why are heterosexuals trying to push their The C lackamas Print is a weekly student publication and is distributed every Wednesday except finals week. Something queer is going on in the realm of the Oregon constitution this November, as citizens from all over the state will be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment (Measure 36) which would prohibit gay and les bian couples from marrying. Regardless of one’s stance on homosexuality as a sexual orientation or practice, such an amendment would do more harm than good. I will not try to argue the morality of the gay and lesbian lifestyle, as that would be fruitless in persuading the general public. Instead, I will argue the case against radical change to the constitution, assuming that the general public can set aside their personal beliefs on homosexuality for this brief time. The first point to be made is that the Oregon constitution, in all of its lifetime, has not been used to prohibit civil rights. If it passes, it would only create one of die greatest “slippery slope” situa tions our nation has ever faced. How far off is it from banning interracial marriage? Or how about prohibiting left-handed Americans for marrying (some thing that the Bible is also strong ly against, when interpreted liter ally)? The counter-argument is that outlawing gay marriage would not be prohibiting civil rights, as they were never allowed to marry before. This does hold some water, until one considers that by following that logic, it could be deduced that not abolishing slavery would have been acceptable, because the slaves Came to America as slaves, and never had freedom in America, something to which I am sure very few of the proponents of Measure 36 believe. Why should the minority be allowed to express their will on the majori ty? This is something I don’t believe that the American people should be allowed to vote on. As warned by the great thinkers such as Alexander de Tocqueville and John Steward Mill, one of the biggest things we have to fear about democracy is tyranny of the majority. It’s time for the government to step in, to prevent the majority from expressing what may be an unfair and uneducated opinion (there’s a reason, after all, that the framers of the constitution were against democracy). I urge the American public to vote “no” on Measure 36. A vote “no” is not a vote for gay and lesbian marriage; it is a vote to keep from dangerously amending the constitution, to leave things how they are now. It is not a vote against the sanctity of marriage, but a vote to defend the sanctity of the rights of every Oregonian, because doing otherwise would be a step backward in the great history of our nation. do you think about Measure 36? j “They have the right to do whatever they want. They’re not hurting me; they’re not hurting anybody.” Ryan Crawford 19600 S. Molalla Ave. Oregon City, OR 97045 (503) 657-6958 ex. 2309 The Clackamas Print r STU POLL: Kelsey “You should be able to marry who ever you want.” the Ben Maras E ditor - in -C hief : Isaiah Creel C opy E ditor : James Tombe N ews E ditor : Ben Maras O pinion E ditor : Hilliary Ferguson F eature E ditor : Karlin Johnson A&E E ditor : Cory Price S ports E ditor : Nie Delzell P hoto E ditor : Joel Gaynor “I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I’m against the easure.” Hilary Finley “Whose busi ness is it? They’renot bothering any body!” DeShelly Hamill “I see no prol lems with guj marrying gw and girls man ing girls....wh ever makes person] happy.” John Herbert S taff W riters : Michele Bluemmel, Tony Cho, Ashley Cljne, Cyrus Cross, Brandon Delzell, Matt Hanrahan, Frank Jordan, Cassie Mathieson, Michael McCormack, Yasmine Najmabadi, Joe Piazzisi, Amanda Polopolus, Jacob Ray, Jeff Sorensen, Jadon Triplett, Becky Wiley, Katie Wilson P roduction A ssistants : Jesse Arguello, Joanne Bergstrom, Stephen Bostwick, Alyssa Buster, Monica Gizowski, Norma Martinez, Angela McDaniel, Gregg Radspinner, Diane Tierney A d M anager : Ben Holm A dvisor .- Linda Vogt D esign E ditor : Michael P hotographers : Brie D Truman Anderson D epartment A ssistant . B G oals : The C lackamas Prints® the news in an honest, unbiased,! manner. The opinions expressed® sarily reflect those of the student administration, its faculty or The J comments to cheifedgdackama® ------------------ —
