The Wake

Re: Tom Meyer, who wrote: “When I looked up the definition of marriage on dictionary.com, it read 1. a. “The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.” The key here is that it is between and man and woman. Not a man and man, or woman and woman.”

Using a version of logic in which controversial issues can be solved by consulting dictionary.com creates a conundrum of downright royal proportions. If he had bothered to read the entire dictionary entry for “marriage,” rather than choosing the definition that best fit his existing beliefs, he would have discovered that marriage is:

4. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

The key here is that it is between a king and queen of the same suit, not between a king of diamonds and queen of spades, nor between any king and any six, nor between a jack and the Queen of England. In addition, by extending the special rights of marriage to sentient beings, Meyer is attempting to destroy the institution that has been the biggest cornerstone of the Anglo-American card-playing society. Changing this fundamental and established practice, which has been almost solely responsible for the creation of unproductive self-loathers possessing fantasies of holding others’ lives in their dirty pathetic hands, is basically rolling the dice with our future. It would seem as if no truly moral player of the cards of life would approve of rolling the dice with anything.

Fortunately for Meyer, he’s using the wrong dictionary anyway. Observe:

Marriage: 3. a license to fuck: conservatives are big on protecting the sacred bond of marriage. […] 7. suicide in its worst form: dude, Ben committed marriage yesterday. […] 14. Prison.…slavery…my life… […] 15. a big fucking joke. Also see love, which also is a big fucking joke. [urbandictionary.com]

Also see heterosexism: quite big (especially on fucking) and most definitely a joke.

-Brian Hokanson

Just a couple points that are also facts:

-The divorce rate is pretty high, that doesn’t seem to be a stable “building block of society.”

-There is an abundance of scientific literature showing that children from same-sex households grow up to be normal functioning adults.

- Children from single parent households who have lost a father or mother also turn into normal functioning adults.

Who are you, Mr. Meyer, that we are to take your word on gender roles as fact? I’d like to see your documentation on heterosexual marriage that so cleanly dismisses any other situation.

-Ken Galo

Mr. Meyer:

I appreciate the suggestion to set aside sentiments and look at realities you made in your Wake Student Magazine article entitled: “Keeping it Straight.” In that spirit, I’d like to present a few additional realities for you to consider.

Human beings are, at their core, social creatures and are largely designed for monogamy (don’t let The Jerry Springer Show fool you). Humans don’t fare well when they’re forced out of intimate social relationships with other humans.

Now here’s the tricky part (and this is where you should pay extra special attention), homosexuals - that’s gay men and lesbians - are human beings! Shocking, eh? I know it blew my mind when they told me.

OK, OK, sarcastic remarks aside, let’s put the last two paragraphs together and look at how the facts boil down. Homosexuals, as with all humans, have a mental health requirement to form lasting social bonds with other humans. Still with me? Good.

Now let’s look at the government’s responsibility towards that requirement. One of the government’s jobs, according to the preamble of the Constitution, is to “promote the general welfare” of ALL of the citizens of the United States. Certainly, the preamble is not, in and of itself, part of the codified supreme law, but it provides one of the few good insights into what the founding fathers’ intent was for our federal government. That intent is the basis upon which modern American jurisprudence is built.

One of the key, albeit not the only, reasons the government has made regulating marriage it’s business is the distinct interest it has in providing for the general welfare of the American citizenry. Among that population is a significant group of people who would rather form life lasting bonds with a member of their same sex. Why is it then, that the government should discourage them from what amounts to a very healthy endeavor? Why is it then, that people should not be conferred equal rights simply because the person they love does not meet the standards you have set? That sounds oddly totalitarian to me. Even if it’s not just you, let me point out that society, on the whole, is roughly half-and-half on gay rights issues. A few percentage points one way or the other does not mean you can simply ignore the minority. I would never suggest ignoring the right’s view on this, but I would suggest that their view has very little in common with the notion of equal protection under the law, yet another key constitutional tenet.

I’d like to address a few specific things you said, if I may. You claim that experimenting with the building blocks of society is a bad thing. I’d like your explanation of where you think society came from, if not from experimentation with what works and what does not. The entire founding concept of America was as an experiment, one upon which the jury is still out I might add.

You said that marriage is almost entirely responsible for the creation of responsible adults. Now, while I take issue with that premise for a number of reasons somewhat outside the scope of this letter, let’s for a moment assume it’s true. Is it not in society’s best interest, then, to allow marriage for as many consenting adults as possible? Including those who wish to be in relationships with members of their same sex? Again, your assertion appears to contradict your vision.

You said that emotions make for bad facts, which make for bad laws. Well, that’s almost right. Bad facts make for bad laws. That much is true. But, emotions do not make for bad facts, or for bad laws. The Bill of Rights wouldn’t exist but to protect people’s rights to their emotions. The right to pursue happiness, though, again, not part of the codified supreme law, is a founding principle upon which the rest of our American social and legal system is built. We are remiss to neglect mentioning that in this debate.

Finally, I challenge your predilection that “No matter how hard a homosexual couple tries, they cannot create the same experience for their children that a heterosexual couple can.” You (and the radical right along with you) can attempt to present that sentiment as fact as much as you’d like, but study after study after study shows it to be incorrect. Kids from homosexual parents prove to be no more or less emotionally adjusted, intelligent, or even likely to be homosexual themselves than kids from heterosexual households. A quick Google search will yield that much information. The studies do, however, show that kids from homosexual households are likely to be more open and well adjusted about their own sexuality, be they straight or gay, than kids from straight households. Though, as with all statistics, this is far from universal. Yes, some kids from gay households do end up maladjusted. So do some kids from straight households. Do not impugn a mass of people based on a few examples of negative experiences.

Ultimately, this country was founded on the concept of freedom for everyone to do as they please within the bounds of doing no harm to anyone else. You’ve failed to make a compelling argument as to why gay marriage is harmful to anyone, and so has every public figure that I have been exposed to who agrees with you. The closest anyone has come is, as you put it, that it is “risky to roll the dice”. Risk is certainly not something this country is unfamiliar with in its policymaking, the War on Iraq is proof of that. Why then, is it so out of bounds to “risk” allowing people to love each other openly and with all the same rights straight people already have?

The burden of proof lies upon you, and you’ve yet to convince. Until you can, there are no grounds for continuing the discriminatory practice of disallowing gay men and lesbians the right to marry.

-Adam Kuglin