A Message to Maggie Gallagher

Dear Maggie,

After reading your Five Predictions About Gay Marriage , in which you respond to Steve Chapman's request for opponents of same-sex marriage to provide "simple, concrete predictions about measurable social indicators" (see An Odd Silence on Gay Marriage), I couldn't help but share my own perspective with you and anyone else who may be interested. Granted, I'm not a seasoned activist, savvy politician, or "old marriage debate person", but I am an American citizen who happens to be gay and still enjoys the right to free speech.

In short, your stance against same-sex marriage tells society that the LGBT community is not to be seen for its humanity, but for its sexual identity. It reinforces the idea that it is OK to deny people their basic civil rights if they don't match your beliefs. It threatens the very fabric of a free society by imposing the beliefs of one religious doctrine over another. And it ultimately encourages people to view gays through a filter of myths and stereotypes, which fertilizes the seeds of fear, hatred, and violence.

Your predictions seem trivial compared to the injustice your stance on gay marriage embodies.

Prediction #1: In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way.

My View: I'm fascinated by your concern about people feeling 'afraid' to share their views, and the associated 'punishment' they might experience. While I can't quite empathize with what that fear might feel like (right wing heterosexuals afraid to speak out against gays? Really?), I can share the fear that the LGBT community experiences in many aspects of life - every day, in every state:

• Fear: Showing any form of public affection - whether it's walking arm in arm, holding hands, or kissing
  Punishment: Being verbally or physically assaulted
  
  
• Fear: Revealing sexual orientation in the workplace
  Punishment: Being fired (or discharged in the case of the army)
  
  
• Fear: Revealing sexual orientation to friends and family
  Punishment: Being disowned, losing friends, becoming socially vilified and ostracized
  
  
• Fear: Revealing sexual orientation to church
  Punishment: Being labeled a 'sinner', subjected to 'healing' or even exorcism, or possibly excommunication

I could go on about the fears gay couples have about estate planning in a legal system that does not protect our joint assets, or the void some couples feel for being denied the right to raise a family, or the devastation we experience when the law prevents us from making medical decisions on behalf of our loved one. I could go on about these things, but I won't. There's no point, as I don't expect you to relate to the inhumanity behind the policies.

Of course, all of these things can be addressed in a gay relationship if one has the financial resources and legal savvy to buy these securities, but they are not extended as rights to gay couples in the same way they are to heterosexual couples. And that is the problem.

It is wrong that American citizens have to buy rights that are freely extended to the rest of American society.

Prediction #2: Public schools will teach about gay marriage.

My View: I'm struggling to understand the concern you're trying to represent here. I'm not sure to what extent schools even teach children about traditional marriage (I don't recall that class, actually), but I can't imagine that it would be overshadowed by lessons on same-sex marriage.

To my knowledge, schools don't spend much time on other arcane marriage issues such as mixed-race or mixed-faith matrimony, or even the current epidemic of divorce in our country. Nor do I believe they teach children about the pros and cons of co-habitation or 'common law' marriage, which is certainly frowned upon by many religions. Why do you feel that same-sex marriages would be treated any differently?

I would also be curious to know your perspective on whether schools should teach children about other topics such as evolution and our solar system. As I'm sure you know, many faith groups believe these are moral battlegrounds as well, and assert that children should be sheltered from such heresies. Are you of that opinion?

Prediction #3: Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accomodated in any way.

My View: Your prediction infers that teaching children about societal law equates to teaching children about the morality around those laws. In my mind, these are distinctly different things. For example, one can teach about the laws pertaining to marriage, co-habitation, and divorce, and still remain neutral on whether co-habitation and divorce are moral.

I believe that schools should teach children facts (reading, writing, arithmetic, science, etc) blended with culture (history, civics, law, arts, war, politics, faith, etc). Facts should be taught as such - sharing all that man's quest for knowledge has proven to be tested and true (with appropriate distinctions between scientific facts vs scientific theories). Culture should be shared in all its diversity - recognizing that society is influenced by countless factors, and is only defined by the filters and beliefs applied by those defining it.

As children are taught about culture they should also be taught the art of reason, so they know how to form their own views. The art of reason includes the ability to listen to various viewpoints, to form a rational opinion, and to articulate and defend your position. It is the art of reason that has allowed civilization to prosper and evolve.

Schools should teach children the rationale behind differeng viewpoints on issues of social morality. Let them exchange ideas, debate, and challenge each other so they have the skills and tools necessary to stand behind their ideologies when they are old enough to shape society. If children aren't taught how to debate sensitive topics in a classroom with respect and reason, how can we expect them to do so in society as adults? Perhaps that's a fundamental gap in society today.

Regarding your concern that a parent will no longer have the right to dictate what a school should or shouldn't teach their child about moral issues - I don't agree they have that right to begin with. Parents have every opportunity to shape their child's belief system at home and at church. If parents are worried that their child will learn things in school that will cause them to abandon that belief system, perhaps the parents need to spend more time with their child to ensure they establish a sound moral gounding, whatever they believe that to be.

Prediction #4: Religous institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married).

My View: I don't understand how the government can bring forward 'soft litigation threats' to religious institutions... perhaps you can educate me on this. I understand that the government can affect religious institutions through tax status, but I can't imagine how same-sex marriage would cause the government to play that card in any way, shape, or form. I'm hoping someone more educated on this topic can weigh in, as I certainly have no expertise here.

I personally believe the biggest risk to religious institutions is whether they can maintain their faith base in a rapidly evolving society. Civil litigation can come from anywhere - with or without same-sex marriage being honored by the government - and I expect these institutions will be challenged by their own base regardless of legislative policy. Whether the challenges involve litigation, or simply manifest themselves in attrition, I don't know. But it's not the government the church has to worry about.

From my perspective, the religious institutions are the ones who need to grapple with the morality of same-sex marriage. It is up to each faith how they want to interpret their religious doctrines and apply them in modern society. The government should have no part in that interpretation.

If a same-sex couple chooses to be married by a church, they will choose a church that sanctions same-sex marriage and the government should honor their marital status. If a same-sex couple chooses to be married without subscribing to a specific religious faith, they should be able to apply for marital status through the government just like any other couple. If an opposite-sex couple believes strongly that gay unions are immoral and should not be sanctioned by their church, they should belong to a church that shares their belief.

Regardless of the views of the various religious institutions, the government's role is simply to honor the relationship and defend the rights, obligations, and benefits that are extended to married couples. It's as simple as that.

Prediction #5: Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline.

My View: The ideal for a child is to be raised in a safe and supportive home by parents who love and care for them. In case you haven't noticed, our nation is plagued with dysfunctional families of all shapes and sizes - many of whose issues stem from single parents and/or divorce. Same-sex marriage can't realistically have any impact, positive or negative, on this nationwide crisis.

If your goal is to strengthen the sanctity of marriage, perhaps you should focus your energy on teaching couples how to cooperate, collaborate, negotiate, and reason with each other rather than worry about the respective genders of the married couple. The sanctity of marriage is not defined by the genders involved as much as it is the commitment to the institution of marriage. That commitment is no stronger or weaker for a man and woman than it is for a same-sex couple.

In Conclusion:

I thank you for sharing your predictions, as they provide insight into how you (and presumably your like-minded peers) perceive the risk of same-sex marriage on society. I'm disappointed that your predictions aren't quantifiable societal indicators as Mr. Chapman originally requested, but at least you had the moral conviction to respond. I can only hope that more of your peers will respond in fashion, as it will only help encourage the debate and dialogue on this topic.

For the record, I disagree with your views, and am somewhat surprised that your predictions aren't more damning of same-sex marriage considering your notable stance on the subject.

From my perspective, the war against same-sex marriage has been waged from a position of fear and contempt. If you take the time to read through some of my previous blogs, you'll see that I believe the basis of this fear stems from societal myths and stereotypes rather than the reality of the LGBT community. Myths and stereotypes breed fear, which leads to hatred and ultimately violence.

As a gay man who has been in a committed relationship for almost 16 years now, I can say with certainty that societal fears and persecution will not change the fact that I am gay, nor will it prevent me from sharing my life with my partner. As an American citizen, I will demand equal rights not because I want to impose my beliefs on others, but because I will not have others impose their beliefs on me. As a human being, I will urge my fellow man to accept and respect me for who I am - not based on the labels they attach to me.

Maggie Gallagher, if your real goal is to enrich society and ensure its longevity, then I urge you to consider that society can only evolve by embracing and encouraging diversity. The darkest days in the history of the human race are steeped in intolerance and injustice. Let's not repeat those mistakes; we're better than that.

I welcome your response.