I'm researching a book (titled America's Struggle
over
Same-Sex Marriage) and currently am in Oregon
conducting
interviews with participants in the Measure 36
campaign, one
of the 13 ballot referenda last year placing
one-man-one-woman limitations on the definition of
marriage
in state constitutions.
Yesterday, I met with someone affiliated with the
Oregon
Family Council who criticized the decision last
March by the
Multnomah County (Portland) Commissioners
extending marriage
licenses to same-sex couples. The process, and
not the
substance, of their actions was the target of his
lament,
stating that the commissioners had not acted
openly in making
the policy choice and had not invited public
participation.
He then said, "The people are smart enough, fair
enough, and
wise enough to make important social policy
decisions."
Later in the interview, he expanded on the
thought: "A well
run initiative campaign by the gay community
listing, say,
the top 20 rights of marriage (intestate
succession; visiting
each other in the hospital; making medical-care
decisions;
etc.) might have worked. They should have taken
it to the
people and said, 'Prove to us that you're not
biased against
homosexuals. Prove your basic decency and
fairness. Look at
these rights and acknowledge that they're
appropriate for us
to have.' I think such a campaign would have done
very, very
well in Oregon."
I then asked him if he could provide examples from
American
history of statewide referenda that had the effect
of
expanding the rights of a disadvantaged minority.
He could not.
I have further interviews scheduled with
supporters of
Measure 36 and ask your help: Are there instances
of
initiatives or referenda in the United States
where voters
indeed expanded the rights of minorities (racial,
ethnic,
disabled, etc.)? My (superficial) knowledge is
that they've
only had the effect of contracting rights.
Dan Pinello
dpinello@jjay.cuny.edu