 |
  |
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
|
Take
The Pledge Since we've got 236 days of ugly ads and knife-fighting to go before the Nov. 2 Bush-Kerry face-off, it seems like a good time to talk about laying down some non-presidential (but very key!) bricks on the pathway to progressive power. The biggest hole we have right now is candidate accountability — you know what I mean — candidates who claim they are progressive or Democrats but then take us for granted once they are in office. Names like Georgia Democrat Zell Miller (who voted for the Bush tax cuts and will soon campaign for him) come quickly to mind. Some call this the "weenie problem." Others are far less charitable in their terminology. Whatever the term of art, it is extremely frustrating to see good laws fail or bad laws pass because votes we relied on went sour. In the old days, when there was a truly grassroots Democratic Party with block captains on every street, if a candidate voted against the Party line, they'd find someone else to run. Discipline and tough love ruled the day. None of this me-first, "I am going to vote against the Party-line and do-whatever-I-want to get re-elected" kind of stuff. No sirree, you voted with the party like they do in Europe — or you felt the consequences. So how do we get real accountability back for any progressive party? Well, like all things progressive, we're not going to fix the whole kit and kaboodle overnight. Most of our Senate and House candidates raise their own money — think of them as free-lance businesses. The problem is that the "weenies" are also franchises that are misusing our brand (Democrat, progressive, whatever our brand is). Right now, the price of our "franchise," let alone getting our vote, is essentially free. That must change. The good news is that we can change the formula — immediately — if the coalition groups that give candidates money start exacting simple pledges before they endorse or donate. This stuff works. Six-year old Common Cause Congressional pledges turned the tables on four key votes and made the difference in winning campaign finance reform in 2002. On the political right, term limits proponents and anti-tax advocates have had huge success for the last decade by garnering simple pledges and then hammering elected officials who later try and go back on their word.
So what's a simple pledge for us to consider? Or we could simply get candidates to sign a values-based pledge that helps answer the basic "1,2,3,4 what are we fighting for" question in thematic terms. Here's one draft: I pledge that as a progressive candidate for Congress, I will fight for equal economic opportunity and equal access to health care; promote individual privacy, civil liberties and open access to an information commons; end discrimination in all its forms; and support expanded public investment that pays future dividends to our children and the environment. Too fuzzy for you? No worries. I am for letting a thousand pledges bloom (feel free to post yours at www.kumbayadammit.com) My friend John is touting a very specific economic pledge that is pure populism and pretty good politics. He wants Democrats to stand for: 1) double taxes on millionaires; 2) four week paid leave; 3) increasing the minimum wage to $10; 4) offering two years of free college; and 5) giving citizens the same health care as Congress. The key strategic point here is we need to start getting candidates to take the pledge before we let them take our cash. That said, we should keep in mind that no single pledge is necessary — different progressive constituencies and groups will have unique issues they will want to use in benchmarking candidate performance. I'll be encouraging my friends at MoveOn. Org, ProgressiveMajority.org, and GrassrootsDemocrats.com to start the pledge drive. But they'll need all the help they can get. Dan Carol is a Democratic political strategist and a founding partner of CTSG (www.ctsg.com),a progressive consulting firm based in Eugene and Washington, D.C.
On
the Sidelines The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners last week began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, acting on the advice of legal counsel. Lane County, by contrast, has decided to wait on Attorney General Hardy Myer's legal opinion before taking any action. While no one doubts that Lane County has acted lawfully thus far, is Multnomah County unlawfully defying state law? Absolutely not. Both sets of officials are acting in good faith to fulfill their responsibilities, and each course will help to write the next chapter of Oregonians' experience with this issue.
Every elected official in Oregon takes an oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the state and the U.S. In fulfilling these obligations, public officials must independently interpret and apply the law every day in cities and counties around the state. A brief example should illustrate the point. If state legislators enacted a law empowering officials to issue business licenses — but requiring them to refuse permits to Asian applicants, few would doubt that state and local officials had the power and the responsibility to refrain from enforcing the law in a manner they believed to violate constitutional guarantees, even in the absence of a judicial ruling. Thus, even if state law is believed to restrict marriage to unions between a man and a woman — a distinct possibility — county officials in Oregon still have the obligation to determine whether that law is consistent with more fundamental guarantees of liberty and equality. It is simply unavoidable.
Officials answer the question explicitly when they decide to issue marriage licenses, as Multnomah County did last week; but they also make a legal judgment implicitly when they refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as Lane County has done. Although counties could wait to be sued by those who are denied licenses, the availability of this option does not relieve officials from making some choice about what the law means in the first instance. There can be little doubt that Multnomah County's action raises the legal and cultural stakes, galvanizing supporters and opponents of gay marriage. But so does Lane County's decision to remain on the sidelines. When battle has been joined on a matter of constitutional importance, even inaction has social and legal significance. In New York City last week, dozens of same-sex couples descended on City Hall, requesting marriage licenses. The city refused, citing its and the state attorney general's reading of state law, and the applicants eventually returned home. Although the moment passed, the symbolism remained. With the pending litigation in Portland, the controversy has entered the next stage: constitutional litigation. After the legal issues are decided, both sides will have another opportunity to mobilize the populace. Three legal-cultural templates serve as tantalizing or dreadful possibilities for Oregon: the experiences of Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts (which has yet to unfold in its entirety). After a judicial ruling requiring equality for same-sex couples in Hawaii, the people rewrote the state Constitution, nullifying the ruling. Vermont serves as an experiment with side-by-side institutions of heterosexual marriage and gay unions sanctioned by its highest court. Massachusetts has moved toward constitutional amendment, but legislators are momentarily deadlocked over the matter; looming in the background is a ruling by its high court requiring either full marriage for same-sex couples or no marriage law at all.
A fourth possibility exists: The Oregon Supreme Court could uphold the constitutionality of heterosexual marriage without requiring its equivalent — this is what the Washington Court of Appeals did in 1974. This would hand one side a convincing victory, but would likely produce a further round of divisive constitutional mobilization and heightened national scrutiny. Which template will become Oregon's future on this issue? Whatever the outcome, let it be said that both Multnomah and Lane counties played a crucial role by provoking citizens, judges, and activists and by sharpening the constitutional issues. Robert Tsai is an assistant law professor at the UO who teaches constitutional law.
Justice
is Coming My soon-to-be lawfully wedded wife and I are sitting in front of the computer screen weeping. No, the system hasn't crashed. Nobody died, and neither of us has PMS. These are tears of joy, baby. It's happening. Equality is in the air and on the bandwidth. Justice is coming, as no doubt are many of the happy couples who are free at last to consummate their finally legal matrimony. We're looking at online pictures of happy lesbian and gay newlyweds. San Francisco's City Hall keeps providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, no matter how hard Governor Rumpelstiltzenegger jumps up and down. Every day the e-mail brings us more good news from all over the country. Judge Dale Koch just refused to issue a restraining order in Multnomah County, where they're issuing more licenses in two and a half days than they normally process in a year. That adds up to $25,000 in marriage license fees per day flowing into the county coffers. (You'd think Lane County would — excuse the expression — prick up its ears at the potential windfall.) Even the daily paper runs a big color photo of Gretchen and Sarah, Tim and Kent, celebrating their weddings after getting licenses at Multnomah County Courthouse in Portland. These marriage licenses are for real — as legit as vehicle registrations, as undeniable as birth certificates.
The whole world is watching as hundreds — now thousands — of "Spouses for Life" celebrate their love . . . legally. "Will you marry me?" I ask my beloved. "Yes! Will you?" In our sixteen years together we have pledged our troth so many times I've lost count. We will seal the real deal, we've agreed, when we can get a legal license not just in San Francisco or Massachusetts, or even up the road in Portland, but right here in our own home town, the way every local heterosexual couple has the option to do. It's only a matter of time. Marriage equality is barreling down the pike. Even our own Lane County, commissioners are sure to do the right thing, eventually. Equality is so close we can taste it. It's in the stream of photos and reports documenting San Francisco's and Portland's four thousand plus same-sex weddings so far. Nothing can stop the flow of freedom — or tears.
My gal and I cuddle up in our cozy den, passing each other the Kleenex and holding hands, our matching gold bands twinkling. I blubber my way through another online wedding album and a photojournal account of well-wishers throwing rice and rose petals as each pair of beaming brides and gleeful grooms emerges waving their official certificates. Wifey and I hug, grab more tissue and let it flow. The love surging out to the newlyweds spreads over us — all of us — over all these years of coming out of the closet only to face disinheritance and excommunication and dishonorable discharge. Here is the long-awaited payoff for all the marches and rallies and campaigns to get our human legitimacy recognized. Finally, decades of panels and speakers' bureaus and telling the truth of our lives to the people next to us on airplanes have brought us to this day. The outpouring of love and support from families and friends and anonymous well-wishers is the cherry on top of all the organizing, lobbying, and canvassing; of being here, queer, and getting used to it; of all our work to relegate our second class citizenship to the history books. Now we're looking at a digital slide show of our friends Jennifer and Deb who just tied the knot up in Portland. Their sweet, smiling faces get us going all over again. My gal and I blow our noses and effuse our Mazel Tovs. We're so happy for them, so happy for everyone. So proud. Writer Sally Sheklow teaches essay and magazine writing at Lane Community College Downtown Center.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
