A meeting yesterday after work with Pablo (author of the worldwide pablo blog, one of my favorites) led to our engaging discussion about a number of topics, including in particular contrasts between how the Democrats and Republicans have pushed their views in Congress and in the state legislature, and the so-far fruitless efforts of Basic Rights Oregon and others to advance a civil unions bill in Oregon. (For background, please read Pablo’s open letter to Roey Thorpe of Basic Rights Oregon criticizing BRO’s strategy this session, and her response, also posted on his blog.) My sense is that they both dislike on principle obtaining civil rights for same-sex couples a little bit at a time, but that one is willing to accept and push for incremental gains, figuring that more can be obtained later, and the other favors an all-or-nothing approach: full equality now.
I compared this debate to how the Democratic and Republican parties treat their nominees. Nationally, Republicans who don’t like their presidential nominee tend to support the candidate anyway, or at least to be quiet about not liking the guy. For example, in 1988 I rarely heard a conservative Republican say that he hoped Governor Dukakis would win because he didn’t think Vice President Bush was truly conservative enough for his taste. The Republican stalwarts recognized that even if Mr. Bush didn’t agree with them on many issues, philosophically he was a lot closer to them than Mr. Dukakis was, and they would vote for Mr. Bush. By contrast, I heard liberal Democrats say that because Mr. Dukakis wasn’t in their camp on Issue X, they would rather see Mr. Bush win than have an imperfect Democrat in the Oval Office. (They got their wish.)
I think incrementalism is the better route. Gains once achieved are rarely taken away. And with the cause of civil unions and same-sex marriage apparently dead for this session, I offer a modest marketing suggestion to the proponents for the next session: instead of pitching civil unions as a step toward equality, fair treatment, and equal rights (values not historically associated with the State of Oregon; see the continuation below) for same-sex couples, advertise the disadvantages. Why should gay couples be able to dissolve their relationship without going to court, when straight married couples can’t? It’s not fair, the proponents could argue (with tongue firmly in cheek) for gays to be exempt from a burden imposed on straight couples. "No special rights!" the proponents could argue, twisting the opponents into knots. The proponents can’t do any worse than they did this session, and — who knows? — they might pick up enough votes to get the measure through the 2007 session. After that, introduce bills to inflict on same-sex couples the other burdens of marriage, a few at a time. It’s worth a try.
Here is an extract of proceedings of the Oregon territorial legislature from 1857, when it was framing the state constitution. The provisions prohibiting blacks from moving to Oregon, and Chinese persons from owning property here, remained in the constitution until 1927 and 1926, respectively, taken from this web page. The Oregon Blue Book demurely avoids printing the text of these provisions.
——————————————————————————–
SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE, 1857.
"SECTION __. Persons lawfully held as slaves in any state, territory or district of the United States, under the laws thereof, may be brought into this state; and such slaves and their descendants may be held as slaves within this state, and shall not be emancipated without the consent of their owners.’
"And if a majority of such votes be given against slavery, then the foregoing section shall not, but the following section shall, be added to the Bill of Rights, and shall be a part of this constitution:
"SECTION__. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state, otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.’
"And if a majority of all the votes given for and against free negroes shall be given against free negroes, then the following section shall be added to the Bill of Rights, and shall be a part of this constitution:
"SECTION__. No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbor them.’"
The proposition for slavery was rejected by a vote of 7,727 for a free state; for a slave state, 2,645. This resulted in the incorporation of the anti-slavery proposition, which became Section 34 of the Bill of Rights. The proposition for exclusion of free negroes or mulattoes carried by the vote of 8,640 for, and 1,081 against. That section was incorporated into the constitution as Section 35, Article I, Bill of Rights.
"No Chinaman, not a resident of the state at the adoption of this constitution, shall ever hold any real estate or mining claim, or work any mining claim therein. The Legislative assembly shall provide by law in the most effectual manner for carrying out the above provision." (Article XV, Section 3.)
"Nor shall any negro, Chinaman or mulatto enjoy the right of suffrage." (Article II, Section 6.)
Comments
5 responses
I’ve had this same discussion before (incrementalism vs. all-or-nothing) with regards to both equal rights for same-sex partners, and partisan politics.
I’ve heard the argument (though I’m not completely sold on it) that “liberals” are more ideological rather than “conservatives” who are more realistic. Liberals are looking for change, so the question is whether change can come incrementally, or whether it requires a “revolution”. Thus, liberals are more likely to vassilate between more and less progressive candidates/issues.
Conservatives, wanting to maintain the status quo, don’t have that same tug-of-war because they don’t want anything revolutionary.
As I said, I’m not sure I buy this theory, but it is interesting.
I spoke with someone from Oregon Family Council, and he was absolutely thrilled that BRO was using the “all or nothing” approach. Because it made it easy to stop them in the legislature. He thought BRO would use the incremental approach, but they didn’t, and he was relieved.
So, you can believe what you want. But as a practical matter, the incremental approach is the one that’s going to get you what you want.
Australia (where I spent the last 30-odd years) had a whites-only immigration policy* until the 1950s and wasn’t fully rid of it until the 1970s, so getting rid of regressive legislation in the 1920s doesn’t seem quite so bad to me.
Also, apropos of nothing at all, isn’t “cranky curmudgeon” something of a tautology?
*http://www.google.com/search?q=white+australia+policy
I suppose it is, as a curmudgeon is by definition cranky, but I liked the alliteration.
Durability? If a judge declared the marriage statute void as violative of the equal privileges and immunities clause, resulting in a reshaping of the civil unions law so as to conform, would this be more durable than forever re-debating the extension of privileges on a whim? I am not inclined to favor perpetual wedge issues that balkanize politics. It would be harder for opponents to strip the constitution of the equal privileges and immunities clause than . . . [fill in the blank].