Giving Rights

With phone service down probably for another week-plus (I hate Qwest), I'm having to travel to the parent's house to use their phone line. This has limited normal internet surfing and blogging, but given me (again today) an opportunity to observe the latest bear damage. Last night it broke nearly half the apricot tree in harvesting just about all of the green apricots left. The bear has been inconsistent, both in the days it visits and in the time of day (except for avoiding broad daylight). Hunters like predictability.

At any rate, I finally finished a longer post.

__________

At the end of a post a few days ago on the San Francisco mayor's impact on gay marriage, I made reference to Oregon's upcoming measure on defense of marriage as follows:

Politicians can't give social acceptance...it has to be earned. Some of our gay activists forgot that (or maybe just don't care), and that's penalizing the entire gay community...especially the silent majority who need acceptance to chance coming out of the closet.

If the defense of marriage measure in Oregon passes, and odds are it will, many homosexuals will take that as a personal slap in the face, a rejection of their sexuality and way of life. Obviously from some voters it will be. But from others, the vote will be a message to the activists and politicians...treat us as you wish to be treated. If you earn our trust, ask us for gay equality and we'll give it. But, marriage is a bridge too far at this point.

A minor point first...I was writing a the last couple sentences as a composite viewpoint of what I hear people say around here, but if my writing wasn't up to that task or some readers would prefer to take it as my viewpoint, not much more I can do about that. As to the content, especially around the concept of "giving" rights (which sure pressed a few people's buttons), here's an example of how many folks use the word "give" regards votes:

Measure 28 was a vote on whether to give the state more tax dollars.

Note there is no agenda in the word, no arrogance, no freudian slip indicating monarchical imperiousness. Same goes, at least in the folks I talked to, for voting on gay equal rights. It's just a word indicating what the literal effect of the vote would be, regardless their distrust of gay activists and politicians.

There was no desire or intent to offend. Most of the folks I was referring to are traditionalists who have come around to supporting gay equal rights. However, they aren't convinced, at least yet, that the institution of marriage needs an update--an expansion to include same-sex couples. That makes them rather normal in today's society...folks who were taught a prejudice and/or belief system who are doing, or at least considering, some changing. At least their minds are open to the subject.

__________

I completely agree the backlash of anti-gay forces was inevitable whether Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) had done anything or not (and both worldwide pablo and b!X (Portland Communique) have excellent posts on the subject). Yes some things could have been done differently to change the intensity of the backlash...water under the bridge now.

I do think there are two types of backlash though, the second of which is (or at least was) avoidable. This involves the type of people I've been talking about who are basically supportive of gay equality up to civil unions but are queasy about gay marriage...the swing voters, so to speak. Most of them were not initially inclined to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but many gay activists right now have a tin ear when it comes to the impressions they send to the swing voters.

A sad percentage of Oregon's current gay activist leadership comes across in interviews as radical, self-righteous, and condescending to the average joe and jane (at least here, a long ways from Portland). Though few here could identify BRO by name, they certainly recognize the attitude they see in the interviews. By any means necessary, civil disobedience...these generally don't sell well to the average person. It's a positive that BRO has been low-key lately.

Meanwhile, the defense of marriage folks have done a pretty decent job so far of muzzling/hiding their supply of more radical types. They've avoided a fair amount of the negative Oregon Citizens Alliance baggage, making the backlash look less intolerant than normal (not their choice of words, I'm sure). But, it's early.

Perversely thus far, the defense of marriage advocates generally appear more reasonable than do the gay activists to the average swing voter I talk to (and I'm typing this post in the house of a couple of them). There's plenty of time for more reasonable heads and impressions to prevail, but that will involve (the inevitable attack ads and articles on the defense of marriage types and) the gay activists putting a more reasoned face on their efforts.

A good tactic would be to remind people of the number of homosexuals that most of us would be proud to have as friends and neighbors, if indeed they aren't already our friends and neighbors. Yeah that doens't take on same-sex marriage, but the sub-text is that society is still undecided on what it wants regards same-sex marriage, so let's not close the door on the discussion of equality which we as a society so treasure. Sure I'm an avowed incrementalist in terms of achieving gay equal rights, but let's be practical here for a moment...the moderate approach will sell better to the swing voters.

Negative campaigning can help the effort, but I really think there needs to be more done to project the positive images, if for no other reason than to repair some of the damage BRO has unintentionally self-inflicted (whether they have any realization of this or not...self-image is not what matters here). Gay activists have alway pushed in the court, councils, etc. (again, that's the general impression), but reacted when it comes to measures. This would be a good time not to look measured, not reactionary.

__________

I'm sure the situation looks somewhat different to folks in or near Portland. But regards messages and tactics, one size doens't always fit all.

Now we'll see if dissenting e-mailers and others can be civil in their differences of opinion.

Comments

[Tom]

Hi, I just found your blog as a result of reading Willamette Week's listing of top Oregon blogs. I was reading your 8 July posting about gay rights, and a question occurred to me: out of all of the activists, for all of the various causes, how many of them are native Oregonians?

There has been a lot of movement to Oregon in the last 10-15 years, and I wondered what were your thoughts on the matter of how non-native Oregonians change the political issues in Oregon? For example, liberals from liberal regions of the country move to Portland and Eugene, and alter the political balance enough to raise social/political issues that were not discussed in the past. I'm sure that there is a conservative example to this as well, but I cannot think of one at this time. Maybe something along the lines of conservatives moving to rural Oregon and affecting local politics in the same manner.

Ultimately, this could lead to a polarized, and unfortunately caustic, political landscape in Oregon. I remember when I was a kid (1980's) politicians were at least civil to each other.

[RoguePundit]

I know that the current leader of Basic Rights Oregon is from the East Coast, and I've read about some others from out of state, but I'd be guessing when it comes to percentages, their influence, etc. Indeed Portland and Eugene generally draw more liberal folks (they drew our current and previous governor, both born and raised elsewhere). But with the exception of Ashland, Southern Oregon seems to be drawing a fairly conservative crop of Californians, and a decent percentage of them are definitely involved in local issues. They don't want Oregon to become the California they left.

I think one of the things that's changed activism in Oregon and the nation, regardless who is running the local groups, is the big money that comes from national organizations. They demand loyalty for their contributions, and that loyalty doesn't tolerate a lot of compromising.

I think the Democratic leadership in the state is more representative of the typical Oregon Democratic viewpoint than that of the Republicans. The Democratic base is pretty typical here, though with a fairly long history of liberal activism.

In my view, the Republican leadership is more conservative than the average Republican voter...not so for Eastern Oregon, but indeed for Southern Oregon. Yes most Republicans here are conservative fiscally and in foreign policy, but many are moderate to liberal in their social views, and that just doens't seem to come through in too many of the politicians at this time. Gordon Smith has had some tolerant views on homosexuality, for instance, but he'll vote for defense of marriage unreservedly. It reflects how the Republican party nationally is going, and that leaning right is leaving behind a fair percentage of moderate Republican voters here in Oregon and elsewhere. They have nowhere to go though with the current liberalism in the Democratic Party.

I'm absolutely convinced that it's going to get worse before it gets better regards our political landscape. For instance in the legislature, several of the moderate Republicans who compromised and supported the Measure 28 surtax were defeated in the primaries by harder right opposition. The Democrats didn't have to compromise on taxes, so legislative incumbents were pretty safe. When the voters are punishing moderation, they're fostering stridency. The moderate Republicans are voting for hard-right conservatives in part because they want to hold the line on taxes and they know Democrats won't...the voters don't necessarily want the rest of the conservative package, but it's an all-or-nothing deal these days.

It's up to us to demand compromise instead of gridlock over principles, and so far we voters haven't been up to that task. Next year's legislative session and the budgetary bloodletting may finally get the voters up in arms over the lack of compromise, but I'm not holding my breath. This ill-will towards one's political opponents still seems to be gaining strength. Sad.

Thanks for visiting the site.

[Tom]

I, too, think that it will get worse before it gets better. I also think that if there is no compromise in the Legislature, then we will see one of two courses of action: whichever party is in power will push for redistricting (always the death knell of a state); or, a strong third party alternative will emerge. Personally, I hope for the latter vice the former. I have seen what has happened in CA with politically "safe" districts: nothing. That is the main reason why the California state Assembly could take in more than $70 billion and still want to spend $99 billion. There was no consequence because all an incumbent has to do to get reelected is convince a plurality of his party's voters to vote for him or her in a primary; the district would pull the lever for the party come November. Then it is spend, spend, spend. I can definitely sympathize with conservative Californians living in Oregon not wanting to see their new state go the way of their old state.

However, I can’t reasonably foresee compromise coming to Salem. The two camps have polarized and it is almost like a personal enmity has come between the aisles. Sometimes, I think that Eastern Oregon Republicans are so far to the right because it's the opposite of the Willamette Valley crowd. For whatever reason they choose in Salem, the state Republicans’ big cousins in Washington, D.C. have not given them a good example to follow. You mentioned Gordon Smith and his liberal streak, but also his loyalty to major issues. What sickens me the most about politicians is their inherent lack of a spine or ability to stand up for anything in which they believe. It used to be that Oregon and Washington had powerful members of Congress and the Senate, from both sides, and they could compromise to send the pork our way (the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area comes to mind). But, another consequence of this was that they were also more apt to stand their ground on issues that would stray from the national party. Senate Committee chairmen are not afraid of much when it comes to reelection. Mark Hatfield, Bob Packwood (for all of his other faults), Tom Foley, even Wayne Morse (although I’m too young to remember him or his policies), all of these men were respectable and about as honest and trustworthy as a politician could be. Wayne Morse was not afraid to buck the system and vote his conscience against the Vietnam War.

[RoguePundit]

I'd like a third party option if it would be centrist, picking up a bunch of the dissatisfied folks who are basically middle-of-the-road in both parties. But unless someone with deep pockets and/or enormous charisma comes along to help make it happen, I just don't see it.

I really think gerrymandering has evolved into something which is polarizing the nation...it needs to be reformed. Both nationally and in many states, I agree districts are so safe that politicians can really stray hard in both directions with little danger of losing re-election.

I think it has to get so bad in Salem that the voters revolt, and it's got to get way uglier before that happens, I'm afraid.