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®
------------------
—