Gay Mom Against Gay Marriage

Kate Martin tried to get the letter below published in the Post-Dispatch. But they did not print it, so she gave me permission to print it here. Voices you don't hear very often, but they too are out there in this great country of ours. Thanks Kate for writing to me to let me know:

To: letters@post-dispatch.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:32:27 PM
Subject: letter to editor


A letter was published May 20th about the California Supreme Court ruling which overturned that state's ban on same-sex marriage. The writer stated "gay marriage will be the law of the land, and intolerant straights will just have to get over it".

The writer puts the issue in a very small frame in which to think about the conflict. If people
are against two men or two women being legally married then they are called intolerant or worse.
The writer calls it "hateful discrimination that fearful Missouri voters wrote into their constitution."

First of all, my three daughters and my sons-in-law are neither intolerant nor are they hateful.
And they have me as their a gay mother.

Second, it is not only heterosexuals who are against two men or two women legally marrying.
The impression too often given is that all gay men and lesbians are in favor of changing the
definition of marriage. This just is not true.

If one views the issue of same-sex marriage in very tight boundaries - as people who are in love
and want to share benefits - it would indeed seem very small and petty to object. But it is not
a simple "love and benefits" issue.

Same-sex marriage is a radical leftist concept pushed by gay leftists elites who themselves sneer at the instituiton of marriage and monogamy. The New York Times carried an article by Clifford Krauss (8 /31/03) quoting the editor of Fab, a gay magazine in Toronto, "I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." Challenge and change - the institution of marriage. Sounds
like a this is about more than "love and benefits".

I am not suggesting that all or most gays and lesbians, in a rush to get married are radical leftist activists bent on deconstructing societal institutions. Many are marrying for love and benefits and viewing the issue in the tiniest frame possible. Not all gay people, just as not all heterosexuals, have fully considered the impact of the issue, the monumental cultural shift, and the use of incrementalism as a means of changing insitutions to suit whatever activist judges and group-think self-apppointed leaders can conjure up in order to be front and center on the cutting edge of whatever.

After same-sex marriage is legalized, as sure as night follows day, there will be three or more people ready to challenge the idea of only two people being allowed to marry. And the same innocent
sounding "love and benefits" premise will be used.

Change the definition of marriage just once and there will be continuous change from here on out until it is completely unrecognizable and meaningless. And that is the goal.

Kate Martin

posted by maggie at 12:32 PM VOTE

<< Home