Distorted Picture Measure 20-88 'vision' is far from 20-20. BY JERRY DIETHELM Not so fast. There are still some serious questions to be answered about the downtown "Civic Center Vision" and the proposed new police station on 8th Avenue across from City Hall. Questions such as, "Whose vision is this?" And is this a popular, widely shared vision, or is it something that's been cooked up by our outgoing mayor and city staff and pressed too quickly through a lame duck City Council? And why didn't this proposal ever pass through our Planning Commission where it could get some needed public air and where it could build the wider public understanding and support a project of this scope demands? Come to think of it, the proposed Triad hospital project on the EWEB site never passed through the Planning Commission either. These two projects and the development of 8th Avenue as a "Great Street" connecting the Park Blocks to the new courthouse and the river are projects that will have a long-term impact on our downtown and our riverfront. They need to be brought to our attention, not quietly managed and slipped behind our backs. They deserve to be done well, even if it takes more time and care. They need to build community in more ways than one. Now we're being told that the police station will be built on 8th Avenue whether we pass Measure 20-88 or not. So what would a no vote on Measure 20-88 really signify — that we think the police should put their house in order before we build a new house for the police? That we think the matter of the city-owned site and its relationship to the fate of City Hall is too far from settled? (What if we decide, for example, to move City Hall to the EWEB headquarters building when it becomes clear that the required Triad subsidy is just too large to swallow or to hide?) Would it mean that we don't approve of the merging of police and social services that the bond issue would provide? Or if that's such an important idea, that it shouldn't be tacked on to the building project as a sweetener and ought to be made integral from the start? Would it mean that we wonder if the $29 million might be better spent to jump start Chief Lehner's plan for community policing and pay for some of the startup costs in the neighborhoods that will be necessary to make it work? Would it mean that we are excited about the possibility of remodeling of the Park Blocks but don't think the necessary public planning has been done or that a satisfactory agreement for city-county cost sharing has been reached? Would it mean that we approve of the "Great Street" preparation of 8th Avenue and look forward to its conversion to two-way traffic, the wider public sidewalks, lights and trees that will set the public framework for the kind of mixed use development that we know is required to bring a city street to life and make it safe, but just don't think it's a good home for the police? Does anyone realize or remember (or care) that at least five of the 10 teams of planners, architects, landscape architects and city officials who participated in the mayor's all day Civic Center Vision design charette recommended against siting the police building and its connected one-full-block of parking garage on the city-owned site? Team after team asserted that it would put a "big dead thunk" of no street life after 5 pm for two full blocks on 8th Avenue — just what a "Great Street" doesn't want or need — and proposed a location that had better access and was more suitable for the mass car storage that most people don't realize is part and parcel of a modern police station. With so many of the town's planners and designers raising the alarm, wouldn't it be wise to take another look before plunging stubbornly ahead? Measure 20-88 is and open and far from shut case. Jerry Diethelm is a member, along with Charles O. Porter and Jerry Rust, of the Executive Board of the Emerald Waterways Citizens Committee, Inc. He is also professor of landscape architecture at the UO.       Competing Values Morality and same-sex marriage BY MERLE WEINER Opponents of same-sex marriage often fail to mention what lies at the center of their views about marriage policy. No one, except perhaps the Vatican, wants to speak the word "morality." It is the elephant in the room that no one will mention. Morality debates are not new. We have discussed morality with respect to many issues, including abortion, prostitution, pornography, and unmarried couples' access to contraception. These conversations, however, are always uncomfortable because we feel unable to convince the other side and because our efforts to do so may be viewed as efforts to "impose our moral views" on others — something that is now impolite at best. One thread runs through all of these morality debates regardless of the topic: Should the majority's morality be able to trump the rights of individuals who disagree? The discussion is often clouded by claims of institutional illegitimacy, with people freely invoking words like "activist" judges or "federalism." These are interesting side issues, but they miss the real question. The debate seems fresh each time we engage in it because there is no universal answer to the question. Yet the debate is always framed by two competing values. On the one hand, we use the law to draw some lines that give us a feeling of "community." For example, we would be a different community if we were ever to start considering seriously the legality or morality of consensual cannibalism. Democratic law-making allows us to reflect who we are in some collective sense. On the other hand, we also value the ability of everyone to define "the good life" for himself or herself. I may not want to drink alcohol as part of my daily routine, but I understand that it is unwise to impose my beliefs and desires on you through the law. The notion of liberty is a doctrine deeply embedded in our collective conscience. Part of the way we navigate issues that straddle these two values — the value of democracy and the value of freedom — is to see if the claims of morality are genuine or whether they are based solely on animus toward someone who is different. We give no weight to the latter. As the Supreme Court said when it struck down the Colorado constitutional amendment that would have made it impossible to legislate against sexual-orientation discrimination: "[I]f the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." In addition, we require those with morality claims to show the rest of us the tangible harm from permitting a particular practice. Suzanne Goldberg, an associate professor of law at Rutgers, found that "the post-World War II [Supreme] Court has never relied exclusively on morality to sustain government action with the exception of the now discredited Bowers v. Hardwick [the case that upheld the Georgia statute that criminalized same-sex sodomy]." While the Supreme Court might occasionally approve of morality as the basis for a law, the court only allows us to define our community based upon that morality when there is also a more concrete justification for the legislation. This requirement of tangible harm prevents religious-based claims of morality — where the claims are quite numerous and often strongly held — from being imposed on others for no reason other than religious doctrine so says. In the context of the same-sex marriage debate, some claims of morality may be more properly described as "animus." Others' claims of morality may be suspect for different reasons. Philospher Ronald Dworkin has suggested that moral argument must have certain characteristics and lack others. Moral argument is not based on false facts, or parroting one's neighbor, or an irrational phobia, or mere prejudice. That leaves one final question: Are children of gay and lesbian parents harmed by living in a same-sex household? Opponents of same-sex marriage invoke this "fact" frequently to justify their position. The validity of fact is questionable when one considers the diversity of American families and what qualities produce well-adjusted healthy children. It is not the gender of the adults in the household, nor their practices behind closed doors, that matters, but rather whether they are loving caregivers who will support and nurture the children and continue to do so over time. Numerous studies show no harm to children from living in same-sex households. The American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health reviewed the literature and found no meaningful differences between children raised by gay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents. In the end, we as a society should recognize that the time has come, or will be coming soon, when we can and should give same-sex couples who want to marry the ability to do so. In our efforts to mediate the tension between democratic choice and individual freedom, we should ourselves recognize that an individual's ability to live his or her own vision of the good life should win out with respect to this issue. We need not be afraid of the courts reaching this conclusion because, in fact, it is the right one. Merle Weiner is an associate professor at the UO School of Law and teaches family law.
		Table of Contents | News | Views | Calendar| Film | Music | Culture | Classifieds | Personals | Contact | EW Archive | Advertising Information |