John Laird and The Test for Intellectual Honesty

Columbian Editorial Page Editor John Laird May 27, 2007 editorial contained some miscellaneous thoughts including the following:

One word, and a piece of paper - You gotta wonder about people who say they oppose gay marriage but support civil unions. In other words, they will allow every condition of marriage except the use of the word and the granting of a certificate.

That's like a country club telling an applicant of a different skin color: "OK, here's our offer. You can park in our parking lot, use our locker room, play on our golf course, win our trophies and eat in our dining room. But you absolutely cannot say you're a member of our country club, and you
cannot have a membership card. Oh, no, 'cause that would erode the sanctity of our institution."

John advocates same-sex marriage. In order to criticize the opposition, he has made a startling admission, that is, the concept of civil unions is no different from the concept of marriage. In response, I sent an email to John. Following is our email discussion:

Larry: Regarding the your May 27th column, sub-heading “One word, and a piece of paper”, I agree with your view that there is no meaningful difference between civil unions and marriage since civil unions “allow every condition of marriage.” You criticized opponents of same-gender marriage for saying there is a difference. Will you also publicly criticize the Oregon Legislature for passing legislation allowing “every condition of marriage” for same gender relationships thereby violating their state constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman?

Second, the phrase “gay marriage” is incorrect. Gays already have the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. John Laird cannot marry a male. Neither can a homosexual male marry a male. Both can marry a female. They have exactly the same rights and equal protection under the law. The real issue is whether government
should endorse the marriage relationship as strictly between opposite genders or also allow same gender relationships also.

This is important in regards to your illustration comparing this issue with race. A more apt comparison would be to say that men could now have unlimited access to women’s restrooms (or visa versa) only you can’t say you are using the women’s restroom.

John Laird: Thank you for reading the column and taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. We always get a lot of feedback on both sides of this issue. You make some very good points. Feel free to submit a letter to the editor if you like.

Larry: Thanks for your response. I was inquiring as to whether you would be willing to hold both sides to the same criticism that you voiced in your column since both sides are guilty of the same thing. Or if you only intend to criticize those with whom you disagree.

I can write a letter to the editor pointing out the one-sidedness of that particular part of your column. However, if you write about how both sides are misusing the concept of civil unions, it would show that you are being fair by
applying your critique to both sides of the issue. Just a thought.

+++

As of this writing, I have not received a response from John whether he will publicly apply his criticism to all whom it applies, including his side of the debate. I suspect that he will not since his past style has been to write in such a way that places those with whom he disagrees in the most ridiculous light possible.

But, if his criticism of same-sex marriage opponents is legitimate in regards to their view of civil unions then it speaks volumes of advocates who have pushed civil unions in Oregon in violation of their constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Test for Intellectual Honesty now stands before John Laird. Will he pass? Time will tell.