TO THE EDITOR
While attending yet another meeting on
highly questionable land use practices with
Lane County’s Land Management Division
last month, I asked for the county to supply
legal counsel. I was told by the head county
planner that “There were plenty of lawyers
here.” True enough — the only problem
being, they all work for developers.
If a developer could legally burn your
house down and make money doing it, you
would come home to a pile of ashes. This
mentality would carry over into Measure 37
should it pass. Heaven forbid!
The big developers would make millions
upon millions of dollars with their connec-
tions (incest is best) and we the little people,
would wind up subsidizing the infrastructure
needed for their grand plans to turn Oregon
into North L.A. Death to 37.
Norm Maxwell
Lorane
KEEP ROADLESS RULE
In January 2001 the Roadless Rule was
finalized, declaring 58.5 million acres of
national public forests safe from most log-
ging and road building. Now, President Bush
is preparing to repeal the rule after the elec-
tion, which would allow millions of acres in
Oregon, Washington, Colorado and New
Mexico open for logging.
Shouldn’t the fact be questioned that
Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey who
oversees forest policy spent 20 years as a lob-
byist for the timber industry? Or the fact that
he worked for timber companies such as
National Forests Products Association,
American Forest Resources Alliance and
American Forest and Paper Association? Oh,
or how big timber companies contributed
over $1.2 million to candidates in the 2000
election, and continue to filter money into the
White House?
Wake up America! This is not an issue of
our forests’ safety; it is the safety of your chil-
dren’s planet. In Oregon our remaining
1,965,000 acres of roadless national forest are
at stake. Please, don’t let the Bush adminis-
tration ruin our last chance to protect this
land.
Anna Gordon-Norby
Eugene
just to see what the latest statistics were. It
seems those in the know say iatrogenic has
come from third place in 2000 to first place as
cause of death in the U.S.
I’m sure the numbers are debatable, espe-
cially since the medical industry is responsi-
ble for reporting their own faults. But even if
they are in fourth place as some numbers say,
it’s still a situation ripe for litigation if the
slumbering masses start looking up words
like iatrogenic.
Should we put a cap on all that possible
litigation? I mean, this is the industry where it
isn’t uncommon to hear, “Do as I say or you
will die,” and what if they start tightening up
on the “controlled” medication they hand out
so freely?
Greg Daugherty
Eugene
of abolishing SAIF would do massive dam-
age to our state’s economy at a time when we
simply cannot afford it. The end result would
be less money for schools, less money for law
enforcement and infrastructure, less money
for job development, less money for desper-
ately needed social services, not to mention
the thousands of Oregon jobs that would be
lost due to SAIF’s closure.
The only people who stand to make more
money from the passing of this measure work
for a private insurer out of Boston, who does-
n’t understand, or seem to be concerned
about, the bleak fiscal situation our state faces
currently. When you cast your vote, please
join me in doing the only fiscally responsible
thing — vote no on Measure 38.
Kirstin Parmeter-Nusser
Eugene
EXPENSIVE MEASURE
MONEY-GRUBBERS
Have you noticed that proponents of
Measure 38, which would abolish SAIF, have
stopped touting it as the answer to all of our
funding problems? What happened to their
initial assertion that voting yes on this meas-
ure would help fund schools, give law
enforcement a big boost, and help the econo-
my of our state? What happened is that the
financial impact statement painted an entirely
different picture of the future of our state if
this measure passes. Before you vote, please
examine the financial impact estimate on
page 133 of your Voters’ Pamphlet. The cost
How dumb does Liberty Insurance think
Oregonians are? Right, were really going to
vote to abolish SAIF, the company we all
own, so Liberty can send an extra $100 mil-
lion of our money back to the moguls in
Boston every year?
Their money-grab campaign would be
funny if it weren’t so insulting to our intelli-
gence. Who’s going to be fooled by adver-
tisements so transparently false and mislead-
ing? Not the editorial boards of all Oregon’s
major newspapers. Not our major business
and labor organizations. And certainly not the
CRIMINAL BRADBURY
I’m outraged that you would support Bill
Bradbury without making any mention of
how he used “unwritten rules” to keep Ralph
Nader off of the ballot this November! His
actions were criminal. I think he should
resign!
Ken Silverman
Eugene
RIPE FOR LITIGATION
Speaking of caps [Measure 35], I put on
my thinking cap the other day (the one I
saved from the pre-property-tax-cap era), and
looked up the word “iatrogenic” in Google
BY MERLE WEINER
Competing Values
Morality and same-sex marriage
O
pponents of same-sex marriage often fail to mention what lies at the
center of their views about marriage policy. No one, except perhaps the
Vatican, wants to speak the word “morality.” It is the elephant in the room that
no one will mention.
Morality debates are not new. We have discussed morality with respect to many
issues, including abortion, prostitution, pornography, and unmarried couples’ access to
contraception. These conversations, however, are always uncomfortable because we feel
unable to convince the other side and because our efforts to do so may be viewed as
efforts to “impose our moral views” on others — something that is now impolite at best.
One thread runs through all of these morality debates regardless of the topic: Should
the majority’s morality be able to trump the rights of individuals who disagree? The dis-
cussion is often clouded by claims of institutional illegitimacy, with people freely invok-
ing words like “activist” judges or “federalism.” These are interesting side issues, but
they miss the real question.
The debate seems fresh each time we engage in it because there is no universal
answer to the question. Yet the debate is always framed by two competing values. On
the one hand, we use the law to draw some lines that give us a feeling of “community.”
For example, we would be a different community if we were ever to start considering
seriously the legality or morality of consensual cannibalism. Democratic law-making
allows us to reflect who we are in some collective sense. On the other hand, we also
value the ability of everyone to define “the good life” for himself or herself. I may not
want to drink alcohol as part of my daily routine, but I understand that it is unwise to
impose my beliefs and desires on you through the law. The notion of liberty is a doctrine
deeply embedded in our collective conscience.
Part of the way we navigate issues that straddle these two values — the value of
democracy and the value of freedom — is to see if the claims of morality are genuine or
whether they are based solely on animus toward someone who is different. We give no
weight to the latter. As the Supreme Court said when it struck down the Colorado con-
stitutional amendment that would have made it impossible to legislate against sexual-
orientation discrimination: “[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the
laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a
politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”
6 OCTOBER 28, 2004
In addition, we require those with morality claims to show the
rest of us the tangible harm from permitting a particular practice.
Suzanne Goldberg, an associate professor of law at Rutgers, found
that “the post-World War II [Supreme] Court has never relied exclu-
sively on morality to sustain government action with the exception of
the now discredited Bowers v. Hardwick [the case that upheld the
Georgia statute that criminalized same-sex sodomy].” While the Supreme
Court might occasionally approve of morality as the basis for a law, the court
only allows us to define our community based upon that morality when there is also a
more concrete justification for the legislation. This requirement of tangible harm pre-
vents religious-based claims of morality — where the claims are quite numerous and
often strongly held — from being imposed on others for no reason other than religious
doctrine so says.
In the context of the same-sex marriage debate, some claims of morality may be
more properly described as “animus.” Others’ claims of morality may be suspect for dif-
ferent reasons. Philospher Ronald Dworkin has suggested that moral argument must
have certain characteristics and lack others. Moral argument is not based on false facts,
or parroting one’s neighbor, or an irrational phobia, or mere prejudice.
T
hat leaves one final question: Are children of gay and lesbian parents harmed by
living in a same-sex household? Opponents of same-sex marriage invoke this
“fact” frequently to justify their position. The validity of fact is questionable
when one considers the diversity of American families and what qualities produce well-
adjusted healthy children. It is not the gender of the adults in the household, nor their
practices behind closed doors, that matters, but rather whether they are loving care-
givers who will support and nurture the children and continue to do so over time.
Numerous studies show no harm to children from living in same-sex households. The
American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and
Family Health reviewed the literature and found no meaningful differences between chil-
dren raised by gay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents.
In the end, we as a society should recognize that the time has come, or will be com-
ing soon, when we can and should give same-sex couples who want to marry the ability
to do so. In our efforts to mediate the tension between democratic choice and individual
freedom, we should ourselves recognize that an individual’s ability to live his or her own
vision of the good life should win out with respect to this issue. We need not be afraid of
the courts reaching this conclusion because, in fact, it is the right one.
Merle Weiner is an associate professor at the UO School of Law and teaches family law.