From editorial page of the Portland Oregonian, November 12, 1992
reprinted without permission in keeping with true Usenet tradition:

The Nine Lives of Ballot Measure 9

by David Reinhard
Associate Editor, The Oregonian

Absent divine intervention, no mere mortal probably can stop the Oregon Citizen's Alliance from putting a tamer version of Measure 9 on the ballot in 1994 -- and perhaps passing it. But Oregon's No on 9 forces should try, though doing so may mean excommunicating some of their flock's own true believers.

The homosexual movement's zealots, of course, want more than tolerance of gays and lesbians, more than the legitimate goal of protection against housing and job discrimination. The homosexual movement's true believers -- gay liberation's militants -- seek nothing less than a societal stamp of approval for homosexuality.

Tolerance is not enough, because tolerance is inescapably judgemental. "When we tolerate a practice, a belief, or a character trait, we let something be that we judge to be undesirable, false, or at least inferior," John Gray, Oxford University fellow, has written. "Our toleration expresses the conviction that, despite its badness, the object of toleration should be left alone."

Live-and-let-live will not do for gay liberators and their apologists. Explicitly or implicitly, they champion a "neutrality of radical equality" (Gray's term) that gives equal public status to homosexuality and heterosexuality. Taking rationalism and relativism to the far reaches, these radical neutralitarians [why do I keep thinking that Spiro Agnew must have recently infiltrated Oxford? -- Doretta] would basically mandate "the legal disestablishment of morality." Heterosexual or homosexual marriages? Straight-sex basics or gay-sex basics in high- school sex-ed classes? Monogamy or polygamy? Who can say? What right does anyone have to distinguish? All lifestyles or orientations or preferences or whatever are equal. "As a result," writes a disapproving Gray, "morality becomes in theory a private habit of behavior rather than a common way of life."

Gray calls this "radical stuff." Yet this is where many in the No on 9 crowd are smugly sashaying. Despite their pleas that Measure 9 was not about homosexuality but civil rights -- a view I held in opposing 9 -- many of their arguments said or implied just the reverse. "Bigot" and "homophobe" were tossed at anyone who is not thrilled by, or at least not indifferent to, homosexuality. Homosexuality was often cast as just another sexuality. (One No-on-9 enthusiast told me the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality was purely "aesthetic" -- like one's taste in art, I guess.)

But the smaller-than-expected loss of Measure 9 and the unexpected victory of Colorado's milder measure should confirm the folly of trying to press beyond tolerance to tacit approval of homosexuality in our laws and school. So, too, should recent polls on the issue, particularly the exit polling from Tuesday's election in Oregon.

A recent Newsweek poll, for instance, found that while 78 percent of those surveyed believed homosexuals should have equal rights in job opportunities, 58 percent disapproved of legally sanctioned gay marriages and more than half said homosexuality is not "an acceptable alternative lifestyle." The Measure 9 vote mirrored the nation on this delicate issue: tolerance of homosexuals, but not approval of homosexuality.

Oregonians rejected the measure's invitation to intolerance at best and persecution at worst. They rejected 9's grotesque language and strutting use of state agencies to set moral standards for students. A look at the exit polling, however, underscores not only last Tuesday's triumph of tolerance. The polling also highlights the future potential of a less aggressive measure.

Tellingly, 27 percent of pro-9 voters thought homosexuals should have protection from job and housing bias. Not quite the haters of No-on-9 lore. Equally telling, 23 percent of no-on-9 voters said they opposed such protections. How many of these voters would have voted for a less inflammatory measure, a measure more reflective of the public's anxiety about homosexuality and the in-your-face demands of gay liberation's true believers? Would Oregon's Roman Catholic archbishop oppose a more refined measure? Would 66 percent of Catholic voters follow his lead (as they did Tuesday) even if he did? Would other denominations oppose a milder measure?

All of this suggests that gay liberation's true believers should back off -- or be backed off of -- their more radical demands that homosexuality be given equal status in our marriage and benefits laws, the common culture and particularly the public-school curriculum. The heterosexual public already embraces tolerance of homosexuals. But it also sees homosexuality as a public question that's different from issues of race and ethnicity. The push for out-and-out approval -- Gray's neutrality of radical equality -- is likely to trigger more Measure 9-style backlashes.

Anyone who thinks this is gratuitous advice from a heterosexual or "homophobe" should think again. Recently, the gay community has had its own interesting debate between live-and-let-livers and "we're-here, we're queer, get used to it" [sic] gay liberators on this issue. And no wonder. Homosexuals who simply want to live their private lives privately and not bait the larger heterosexual community will be the ones hurt by a Measure 9-style backlash, as they were in Oregon's recent ugliness.

Homosexuality was once "the love that dare not speak its name." These days it's often the love that won't pipe down. Perhaps it's time at least for a little discretion.