More Intolerance in Oregon

After a hiatus brought on by having too much fun to have time to read the paper; because Rupa asked nicely; and because there's so much appalling in the news today, I'm back ... at least, for now.

Yesterday's ruling in Oregon invalidating last year's gay marriages is sickening, if unexpected. It's just incomprehensible to me that people can impose their own moral codes on others -- but that's precisely what's going on here. (Morality as tied to religion will be a subject for a whole nother post, and a much more vituperative one.)

Says one idiot:

Opponents of same-sex marriage said they were particularly irked by [the county's] issuing licenses not sanctioned by the state.

"The vast middle of the electorate out there was always worried that there might be some secret gay agenda," said Kelly Clark, a lawyer who represented Oregon's Defense of Marriage Coalition in the case. "And, lo and behold, there was a secret gay agenda."

"I think they set their cause back," Mr. Clark added.

Woah -- a "secret gay agenda"?! If that "secret" agenda was gay marriage, then there was no secret about it. If Mr. Clark means something else (by which I could infer "corruption of our nation's youth" or "the slow dismantling of the sacred institution of marriage"), he's not expressing himself very well. Hidden gay agenda, my ass -- their agenda is to have the same rights as straights, in the same fundamental way as blacks (on paper) do as whites; women (on paper) do as men (though again, a topic for a whole nother post of today).

This Mr. Clark may be onto something with the bit about "setting their cause back," though. The issue of gay marriage has been in the news a lot recently, and I've heard it said -- both now, but especially before the [craptastic] election of last November -- that this may be to the GLBT&c. movement's detriment, and to the religious right's benefit. I think there's some truth to this:

1. Gaining acceptance for being gay in a culture dominated by Christian ethics is going to be an uphill battle to begin with, given that the very thing that sets them apart (sex) is one of the most taboo things in the opposing culture. That's not helpful, and it sucks (no pun intended).
   
2. So, marriage is not what the gay rights movement needs to be focusing on -- it's a huge issue, and one that's easily wielded as a divisive tool to sway morally-conservative voters. It's not something good to begin with from the current starting point, where a majority of the country might not believe homosexuality is wrong, but a majority appear to think that homosexual marriage is.
   
3. Rather, the gay rights movement should be working to talk about tolerance in more basic forms -- maybe combating discriminatory hiring practices, &c. -- but not focusing on the 800-pound gorilla of its agenda.

[Oh god, but the bulleted list graphic here is hideous!]

I'm not sure I buy all this reasoning. I think marriage is a pretty fundamental right, given the tax benefits. But I can see how it tiptoes around the edges of Christian morality, and is therefore an easy one for the right to vilify. It may therefore be true that all this focus on marriage -- both in state courts, and election-time talk of an a constitutional amendment -- is, in fact, harming the movement.