Let's Be Clear - I Don't Hate Gays, Part Two

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

First, I sincerely apologize for not posting my follow up to last Thursday's blog entry "Let's Be Clear - I Don't Hate Gays, Okay?" as I promised I would. Life, as is often the case with me, got in the way of my best laid plans.

My original intention was to expand on the false premise regularly asserted by those on the left that to be against same-sex marriage is to hate homosexuals. I actually had something (almost) ready to go for Friday afternoon when I decided to take a slightly different route to the same ultimate destination.

Why?

Because since Thursday's post, several regular liberal readers of my old blog (redirected over here to Proof Positive) have e-mailed me at my old e-mail address to take issue with my assertions.

(For future reference, please post your responses here for everyone to see).

Subsequently, my inbox has been egged with comments of tolerance, civility and gentility -  a leftist specialty.

Clearly, I struck a chord with some.

From "rightwing scumbag" to "Nazi" to just plain "evil" – including one somewhat convoluted wish for my death – my e-mail inbox was as colorful as it has been in some time (A veritable rainbow of colors, you might say).

Some of the sweet nothings I scored included "leech," "hater" and "closet homo."

All infinitely clever. (Liberals are angry when they're beautiful).

One blogger, however, called Alan, was a tad more mannerly and politic.

As a means to an end, I will address him directly (but you’re all invited to “listen.”)

Hopefully, he will post any and all responses here at Proof Positive.

Alan wrote:

Many - perhaps most people - who oppose gay marriage actually do hate gays. And some of these people deny it, and rely upon a more palatably “respect for traditional marriage” argument to mask their prejudice.

Alan, I will respectfully disagree with you on this point. The vast majority of people who support retaining the traditional definition of marriage do not hate gays. What you are saying is simply not true. It is a myth propagated by those who wish to push the radical same-sex marriage agenda and falsely portray traditionalists as callous and unforgiving gay bashers. Indeed, I can hate the attempt to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage – and I do - but I do not hate those who are gay, nor do most of us on the traditional side of the aisle.

Sorry, but I simply won't - or don't - hate homosexuals.

Alan wrote:

The argument you have made about gay people being able to marry just like other people is neither logically nor constitutionally sound - it has been rejected by almost all courts and learned jurists in other contexts and in this one. Further, not only is it incorrect, it is just insensitive. It comes across as cruel and degrading, as does the implicit comparison of our relationships to bestiality and incest.

Alan, I defend the logic of my argument. The fact is, any man can marry any woman. It is in this point that the issue of "equality" truly lies – not in the desire to attain something that exists outside the millennia-old accepted parameters of the institution. That radical judges have, in recent years, pushed their own agendas, in direct contradiction to the will and consent of the people, does not necessarily make a decision constitutionally sound. Matters of public policy are always best left to the people, not bench legislators.

A blogger at Townhall.com who calls himself Ken The Playful Walrus articulates the point very well:

Under the principle of equal access/protection, California law prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver’s license can’t be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation.

Is sensitivity to be measured by how much one concedes to the requests and desires of given population groups? Is it not possible to be sensitive and sincerely empathetic to the desires of homosexuals on a personal level while wanting to maintain the traditional definition of marriage on a macro level? These are not mutually exclusive positions.

I can, for instance, empathize with the hurt and anger my daughter feels for not being allowed to go on a ski trip with the rest of her track team, but I can still stand by my position and forbid her to go for whatever reasons I may have had.

You also took offense to my inquiry about incest and beastiality, but you miss my larger point.

The question really is … from where do you derive your values in defining what constitutes a marriage? Why is incestial marriage off limits if same-sex marriage is to be allowed? Why is your line in the sand more correct than mine? What criterion do you use to define acceptability? From yourself? From a friend? To be consistent, you would have to agree that the institution of marriage is to be open to any combination of consenting parties (inasmuch as an animal could "consent"), otherwise the guidelines are simply "The Desires of Alan" at the moment. If you do support same-sex marriage, but do not accept sibling-marriage or marriage between men and sheep, for example, what makes your bigotry and biases valid, while mine are not?

I know where my values come from. What about yours?

Alan wrote:

It is a legitimate argument that marriage should be preserved because of the importance of gender roles in parenting. It’s just not a very good one. Why? It doesn’t reflect the reality of what marriage means in current society, it doesn’t reflect the reality of modern families and it doesn’t meaningfully weigh the benefits of granting the benefiial state of marriage to same-sex couples against the costs to society of making a change.

Can that be denied?

And if so, on what grounds?

That doesn’t mean that gays cannot be good parents. That isn’t the point.

But to deny it or diminish the immeasurable importance of having children raised by one father and one mother is to deny reality. At the risk of peddling bumpersticker fodder, boys need men to learn how to become men. Girls need women to learn how to become women. The sexes, oddly enough, complement each other. They were created that way - and having both in the role of shaping the lives of children is the imperative.

Alan wrote:

Gay marriage is an answer to the issue of how society should treat the meaningful loving romantic relationships of gay people. Civil Unions is another answer. Acting as if they don’t exist under the law - failing to protect the parties thereto and the children thereof - is a third answer. But I posit that anyone who believes the third answer is the right answer cannot legitimately deny animus toward gays. If marriage is not your answer, what is? Civil Unions? Something else? Perhaps you could address this issue directly.

If the people (of any given state) were to vote for the state endorsement of same-sex marriage, as distasteful and disappointing as it would be, I would abide by it and accept it. Religious arguments set aside, this issue is about the will of the people. It is up to those who wish the definition to be reconstructed to sell their arguments to the American people, not unlike the women of the suffrage movement did over a century ago.

Whether they could or not is an entirely different issue.

Ken The Playful Walrus makes these five points:

1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent.

2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.

3. The people of California have only consented to issue marriage licenses to bride-groom couples, as reaffirmed in their voting Yes on Proposition 22 in 2000.

4. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license.(2)

5. Since there is no right to a state-issued marriage license, the California Supreme Court erred when ordering the people to issue marriage licenses even though no bride or no groom would be involved.

To want to defend the traditional definition of marriage is not hateful nor is it illogical. And it certainly isn't cruel. Locking up homosexuals for being gay, for example, would be cruel. Sending sex police barging into the homes of suspected gays to keep homosexual acts from taking place would be cruel. Having the state declare officially that homosexuality is to be publicly denounced and gays spat upon is cruel. Certainly, the way homosexuals are treated in countries like Iran and Afghanistan constitute genuine cruelty to a grotesque degree. The desire by people to keep marriage as it has always been – that is, the union of one man and one woman – is not cruel.

Alan, I know of no one who wishes to "act" like homosexuals don't exist under the law. I invite you to cite any legitimate examples of conservative leaders or proponents of traditional marriage (outside of an infinitesimal fringe of wackos) who say that homosexuals should not be allowed to have any rights at all. The overwhelming vast majority have no objection whatsoever to making sure gays are afforded the same legal protections that married couples are. In fact, civil union status, one could argue, should be afforded exclusively to homosexuals. I have no problem with that. Other legal arrangements – like, for instance, between siblings or long-time best friends – can also be arranged through the state. Legal arrangements of any kind should be allowable under the laws of each state. If they are not, then that is the fight to take up.

The bottom line is … government should be neutral on the issue of same-sex marriage. It should not condone it nor condemn it. It should remain silent on the issue. However, to promote traditional marriage is not only in the best interest of society, it is, quite literally, the very lifeline of society, and has been for all of human history.

I appreciate your e-mail very much. With every bit of respect I can muster, thank you for your comments, Alan. I sincerely appreciate them and wish you well.

Next time, post them here!

-