As any of my friends can tell you, I tend to be an optimist when it comes to the government. I want to believe they have our best interests at heart. But all this news about Bush proposing a constitutional ban on gay marriage terrifies me. I have no problem with Bush opposing gay marriage. But when he starts actively taking steps to remove rights from a group of people, even I start to get alarmed. It’s worth noting that this is a move so repugnant to the American people that it has only happened once before, and as Jon Stewart said, we all remember how well the Prohibition worked out.
Anyways, I’ve edited this post several times now, and I’m still not happy with my attempts to put my feelings on this into words, so I’m going to quote two other people who have done it much better than me.
“Sometimes I think the greatest hindrance to our cause is the sheer force of the American legend. So strongly do people believe this country stands for freedom that they can’t fathom it’s ever otherwise. Sign a few contracts, the well-intentioned advise, and you’ll get all the same rights as straight couples—that’s an outrageous fiction, but not as outrageous as the notion that being almost equal under the law is good enough.”
– The Villiage Voice: I’d Leave the Country, but My Wife Won’t Let Me by Laura Conaway
“George Bush has proposed that we use the federal Constitution to take rights away from a group of Americans. Think about that. Lon and his boys wanted to mess with the state constitution to equate people like me with pedophiles. Bush wants to go further. Last I looked, there’s no law preventing pedophiles from getting married–as long as they’re heterosexual.”
– Willamette Week: My Velvet Revolution by Byron Beck
Despite my apprehesions about the president, I’ve been very happy to see that Oregon is one of the few places in the country that’s actively supporting gay marriage. Even Benton County, who were forced to stop issuing same-sex marriage certificates to avoid the attourney general coming after them, managed to avoid completely reversing their stand on the issue by not issuing any marriage certificates to anyone, gay or straight. Their reasoning is that if the certificates apply to everyone, then a cease order applies to everyone as well. It’s not as good as continuing to issue them, but it’s at least still a way to recognize the county’s stance on the issue.
“The commissioners have drawn some criticism for refusing to issue any marriage licenses until the gay marriage question is settled in court. Jaramillo said that withholding licenses from opposite-sex couples is consistent with the commissioners’ previous decision to recognize the rights of all people to get married. Benton County residents can still get married here, the commissioners said. They would just need to drive to Albany or another county seat to obtain a license. ‘Please be patient,’ Jaramillo asked of anyone who would be inconvenienced by the decision.”
– The Corvallis Gazette: Benton to join Multnomah County lawsuit by Becky Waldrop
I'm a 30-year-old 
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:12:43 -0600
From: Werner
Subject: Marriage License, Frisco style….
A scene at City Hall in San Francisco:
“Next”
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Names?”
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers? You can’t get married.”
“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
“Incest?” No, we are not gay.”
“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other because we are family. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license.
“Next”
“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
“All right, all right.
“Next”
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“In what names?”
“David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
“That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
March 24th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
Scott … it’s worse than you think. Since your mother and I have a Benton County marriage license, in theory this could impact you. If they choose to enforce this retroactively, our marriage is null and you and your brothers are legally bastards … [vbg]
March 24th, 2004 at 7:43 pm
Hey!
March 25th, 2004 at 10:30 am
I just remember when Bush “won” the election, thinking to myself:
“It’s only four years. How much damage can he possibly do?”
March 25th, 2004 at 10:31 am
It reminds me of my favorite F-word: Facism. The main tenent being that you create second-class citizens that do not enjoy the same rights that the other people do.
March 25th, 2004 at 1:01 pm
like all the handouts the poor and enfeebled get, that the rest of us don’t? we are a little second-class compared to them, aren’t we?
March 25th, 2004 at 11:32 pm
What in the hell did they expect would happen? Why wouldnt they do this under clinton or the next democratic president? Why would they try it under a republican? What do they expect? If you provoke somebody and they hit you, then dont complain. Provoking bush and then bitching about it because he reacts in the way that anybody with conservative views would is like bitching that trying to open a hamburgher joint in India results in a ban on hamburgher joints. What the hell did you expect?
March 26th, 2004 at 9:39 am
Since you didn’t clarify who “they” are, I’ll assume you’re referring to the assorted mayors of San Francisco, New Paltz, etc., and their issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I’ll also assume that you’re likening those licenses to “provoking” President Bush, and his threats of a Constitutional amendment to him hitting back.
The inherent flaw in that argument, and your indignation that this surprises anybody, is the assumption that President Bush’s decisions as the head of our government needn’t be decided on a more mature level than that of a schoolyard bully.
Essentially, as you so lucidly put it: if you provoke somebody and they hit you, then don’t complain.
What did we expect? We expected that the President would at least open this issue to a discussion, rather than slamming the lid on it with a severe and drastic threat, like some kind of bully, just because he disagrees with it.
Yes, we should have expected this. Yes, we probably could have seen it coming. It’s not a surprising decision for Bush to make, considering his background. It’s not something we couldn’t imagine him doing.
But, just as if he’d punched us for calling him a name, it stings. It hurts. It took us off guard, because, also just as if he’d punched us, Bush’s reaction is so extreme, so out of proportion to what has been done, that it’s shocking.
If Mayors Newsom and West had kicked off a national debate, and months of investigations and debates and followed, and the national opinion appeared to be leaning heavily towards support of a Constitutional Amendment, Bush suggesting it *might* have seemed appropriate.
As it is, it’s ridiculous. It’s a slap in the face, and it is against what our nation stands for. The primary tenet of government is religious freedom, which is why religion has traditionally stood separate from the government. In order for us to allow people to practice their faith in peace, we must not allow our own faith to control how we govern.
I’m glad that Bush is as clear on this issue as he is, personally. I’m glad he’s willing to speak from his heart, and I’m glad he’s willing to honestly say what he believes.
But for him to say that two consenting adults, in private, without harming themselves or anyone else, have no right to have their commitment to each other legally recognized is absurd. The very notion of telling people how to live their daily lives is far beyond the scope of our government’s purpose.
If it was just the Pope condemning gay marriage, that would be fine. The purpose of a religion is to provide a set of rules and doctrines to tell people how to live, in accordance with what is right according to their God, and it’s perfectly legitimate to say “No, our religion forbids it, and this church will not recognize this union.”
But the purpose of a government, or at least our government, is to provide equality under the law, to protect people from being repressed by others, to give people the freedom to live their lives as they choose, so long as they cause no harm.
This is a loaded analogy, but if Bush is going to ban gay marriage, he might as well ban Jewish marriage, or Muslim marriage. Either way, he’d be going against the intentions of the Constitution.
March 26th, 2004 at 8:25 pm
I just want to clarify that when I refer to government in that reply, I’m referring specifically to *our* government, here in the U.S. of A., and not government in general.
March 26th, 2004 at 8:31 pm
That was wonderfully put, Ryan, and I’m happy someone finally went against whoever this person is. I couldn’t quite arrange my thoughts eloquently enough, so I didn’t. I was quite enraged, however.
Bravo.
March 27th, 2004 at 11:36 am
I’ll second that for Sean and myself who both happily read your post last night and then thought “That was Ryan??”
Bravo!
March 27th, 2004 at 1:11 pm
To Ryan:
I dont want to hurt your feelings which you seem eager to assume. I am just annoyed at all these fools whining because bush acted exactly as anybody would expect him to act. Any other reaction from bush would be suspicious to tell you the truth. I am also annoyed that they would try it under bush.
When your goal is the right to marry, the best way to achieve it is not to provoke somebody like bush. If your goal is to make bush look like a fool and get the supposedly huge support for the democrates to appear and toss bush out of the white house then choosing an issue that he is strongly against and forcing him to show his opposition to the country might work. It all hinges on the countries attitude toward that issue. Unfortunately, for the fools who did this no matter what their motivation it backfired horribly. If the goal was the first one its just stupidity to try something like this under bush. Why not wait until a democrate is in? If the goal is the second one it backfired horribly because suprise suprise more than half the country doesnt want gay marriage. So now we stand and bitch about how evil bush is because he is acting just as we would expect him too.
The real reason they did this? Well I think they are guilty of group think. They assume that everybody thinks just like the people in their neat little group. And they assumed that all they have to do is break the law to prove a point. It is arrogance to assume that everybody thinks just like you, or that you can somehow convince them by breaking the law.
As far as my “assumption” that you say flaws my arguement, you need some more time dealing with people before you realize that my assumption is absolutely true. I am not saying that it is ethically right or wrong.
You should read War and Peace.
One last thing, before you all sit back and laugh at how smart you are and how stupid I am because you have better english than me. Judging me on my english is a pretty arrogant thing to do. It assumes that English is somehow a standard that all people need to be held against. What if English wasnt my first language? What if I didnt study English in school. Assuming that English eloquence is as important to everybody else as it is to you is arrogance. I am sure you will say that I have painted you with the wrong brush, if you started reading my post with a wry smirk thinking “oh great another oportunity to laugh at this jerk,” then you are exactly who I am talking about.
March 30th, 2004 at 6:36 am
Just a question, who said anything about your english? It’s a personal preference of my own that I choose to express myself in only the best way I can. You’re command of the language never came into play. I wasn’t attempting to make a jab at you. My post never made it out, because it didn’t sound right to /me/.
March 31st, 2004 at 6:58 pm
To AA:
I was enraged by your implicit acceptance of Bush’s bully attitude, not by his actions.
We all know how the world is: everyone has worked for assholes before, people who feel the only way to get through life is to belittle and bully people: probably half the bosses I’ve ever had have been like that. Bush is simply one of those guys in the most powerful job in the country.
What pissed me off about your post is that you just said well, that’s the way it is, what did people expect?
It may not have been unexpected, but that doesn’t make it right.
March 31st, 2004 at 7:16 pm