JUDGMENT DAY

[October 5th, 2005] The Oregonian pisses me off.

My partner, Juan, and I are the lead plaintiffs among other same-sex couples in Martinez v. Kulongoski. That's the legal challenge against the constitutional amendment Oregon voters passed last year stating, "Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or legally recognized as marriage" in the state.

The O's editorial board said we have no business in Salem fighting for the right to get married because we're using "technicalities'' to overturn the will of the voters.

Thanks for the advice, Big O, but as somebody who was inside the courtroom last week, and who is living this battle every day, you'll forgive me if I call bullshit on your argument.

Here's what it was like for me last Monday. Juan and I were already on I-5 by 6:30 am for our first day of oral arguments beginning in Marion County Courthouse at 9 am sharp. We didn't want to be late. It was a beautiful day, but once we stepped inside Judge Joseph Guimond's courtroom, where we joined the other plaintiffs and Basic Rights Oregon, the air became brisk. Maybe that feeling surfaced because, before we got there, we'd been instructed by the good folks at BRO in proper courtroom decorum. We were asked to dress appropriately and not to send the court nonverbal messages-like rolling our eyes. That was hard, especially when the Defense of Marriage Coalition's attorney, Kelly Clark, asked the judge not only to deny our legal argument, but to make a decision against same-sex marriage on the spot. Guimond rejected that, saying it wasn't up to him to decide the merits of gay marriage but only whether the amendment was legal. After an hour of arguments, Guimond said he hoped to have a decision by Nov. 1. So far, so good.

Then I picked up The Oregonian the next day. A small item about the arguments was buried in the "Around the Region" section. But it was the O's editorial board warning Basic Rights Oregon it "should be careful what it wishes for" that made me angry. Although the unsigned piece said, "Editorial pages are not in the business of telling judges how to interpret the law," it went on to say we have no business going against the will of the voter. And if we were to overturn Measure 36, on what they see as a "technicality," our opponents would mount another "bitter" campaign and defeat us by an even larger margin. In other words, the editorial board believes we should settle for less, rather than alienate fellow Oregonians.

I ask you, did that kind of crap work for civil-rights workers in the South, women who wanted the vote or those radical American Revolutionaries? "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue," said Barry Goldwater, an old fart if there ever was one.

The Oregonian's board of white, well-to-do (and nearly all married) nay-sayers doesn't have a clue when it comes to knowing what is good for gays or any other minority. I'm not going to even get into the argument that they'd never dare say this to another minority. I'm just going to clarify the facts. The main arguments in this case, that Measure 36 is so sweeping as to be a "revision" and that it altered more than one part of the state constitution, are not technicalities; they're based on the fundamental principle that no one's rights can be taken out of the constitution by the voters. Furthermore, if we win, there will be no more ballot measures like Measure 36. Period. End of discussion. That's all, folks. I know the editorial board is pushing for civil unions, but Juan and I want to get married. No one should deny us our constitutional right.