MARRIAGE AS A CIVIL RIGHT: Ken Darling

[Ken is an executive in Minneapolis.]

You are missing the point, Maggie:

1) Mixed orientation marriages ARE deviant and immoral...they are based on a lie of false love, a lie that has done great damage to heterosexual women over the ages. Do you really think Will-and Grace-style, gay-straight marriages are a real option for the people involved? That is nothing but rhetorical posturing; it has no basis in the real world, where finding out one's mate is gay causes heartbreak, not a subtle re-evaluation of the meaning of male-female relationships.

2) You also miss the point on anti-miscegenation laws...yes, at their base, these laws were about underpinning a racist state and culture, but "protecting" white marriages was precisely the mechanism used to achieve that broader goal. Supporters of such laws claimed, just as you do now, that the laws were needed to protect the traditional family and the sanctity of marriage. They saw no distinction between protecting traditional marriage and maintaining a racist state -- the former was essential to the latter. We have history on our side on this matter. Racists opponents of mixed-race marriage predicted the demise of the family and of the institution of marriage if marriage were allowed to honor love that crossed racial barriers; they were wrong. The same will prove to be true for gay marriage. In a generation, you will be as embarrassed by your opposition to gay marriage as southern whites are oftheir earlier opposition to inter-racial marriage.

3) Ben does not argue, as you imply, that ALL religious people know where they stand. He argues that religious opponents of gay marriage --Christian fundamentalists and biblical literalists -- at least have a basis for their believes, unlike secular opponents of gay marriage like you. Ben's point was that your arguments are collapsing under the rulesof logical debate.


posted by maggie at 8:06 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home