Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage without Public Meetings in Oregon

There was some interesting debate about the process by which same-sex marriage was legalized here in Portland, Oregon. Jack Bog objected to the process, leading to an interesting debate in his comments (including some comments by local politico Randy Leonard and (towards the end of the thread) some comments by me). The One True b!X took the opposite view. (Links via Long Story, Short Pier).

The issue is, should the County Commissioners have held a public meeting or two on the issue before announcing their decision? I’m not sure.

The Multnomah County Commissioners were legally within their rights to decide the rules for issuing marriage licenses without holding a public meeting. The controversy is whether they should, as a matter of principle, have held a public meeting or two anyhow.

I’m sympathetic to the “open government” philosophy, but I’m even more sympathetic to the need for equal rights for same-sex couples. If the county commissioners had used the open process some folks have called for, there’s a chance that gay-rights opponents could have gotten a pre-emptive injunction blocking same-sex licenses being issued. As The Oregonian commented after a judge turned down an after-the-fact injunction, “Monday’s ruling showed again that it’s harder to stop something that’s already happening than to prevent something that hasn’t happened yet.”

If anti-gay forces had gotten a pre-emptive injunction against gay marriage, then the fight for equal rights in Oregon would have proceeded as it did in Massachusetts: it wouldn’t have happened unless the state’s highest court made it happen. That would have been a needless gift to the anti-gay forces, who would have turned the issue into one of hysterically shouting about “judicial tyranny!” and “activist judges!”

As it is, this decision was made by local elected officials, driven by pressure from a pro-gay lobbying group and by lesbian and gay couples eager to marry. (The Oregonian published a nice description of the process by which the decision happened, secret meetings and all).

As a matter of strategy, the fight for gay rights is far better off when the initial decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses comes from a local official (as in Portland and in San Francisco), rather than from a high-court judge. The anti-gays are happiest when they can oppose gay rights by screaming “judicial fiat!”; let’s deny them that pleasure as much as we can.

Perhaps more importantly, getting gay marriage made legal at once (even if it might not stay legal forever), and the resulting news footage of happy newlyweds, has put a human face on the issue that only heartless people will not be moved by. While some opponents of gay marriage are driven by their boundless hatred and venom, in the end I really think that most people, when they come to see gay marriage as a human issue rather than an abstract issue, will come down on the side of fairness, equality and freedom. Putting a human face on this issue is the best possible strategy for gay rights – and it’s not only good strategy, it’s the truth.

Has same-sex marriage lost a supporter or two due to the county commissioners’ approach? Maybe. But I think the potential gains far outweigh the losses, in this case..