BARA Gay Marriage Page

With the sudden emergence of the topic of gay marriage onto the national scene, we feel it's important to offer some discussion of the issue on the BARA website. We will be posting interesting opinion pieces on the subject on this page. In particular we would like to publish your stories. If you have a story to tell about how the lack of formal status for your relationship effects you and your family, please share it with us. Stories can be posted anonymously if you prefer.

We begin this series with a locally written opinion piece titled "The Rhetoric and the Reality".

One of our regular correspondents recently sent me a wonderful parody of Dr. Seuss, titled "How the Grinch Stole Marriage", written by Mary Ann Horton, Lisa and Bill Koontz. Rather then steal the piece for our page, I'll link to it on Mary Ann Horton's website. It makes an important point, and I'm sure you will love it!

Next we are posting an "Open Letter to President Bush" that has been circulating on the internet, incorrectly attributed to Bette Midler. Although it wasn't written by a celebrity, the message is still worth reading.

Beth Quinn wrote "For the Self-Righteous: Vow to Quit Meddling"

Finally, there is a story from PFLAG discussing how a "Congressional Subcommittee Stacked the Deck To Promote a Homophobic Agenda" in a January 23 Hearing.

The Rhetoric and the Reality

Can anyone explain to me how same-sex marriage can pose any threat to this country or to heterosexual couples, married or not? I am serious in asking this question. Opponents of gay marriage continue to say that gay marriage threatens the institution of holy matrimony and that advocates are against traditional marriage. Where do they get these perverse ideas from? This is simply untrue.

This issue is not about holy matrimony. That is the province of institutions of religion, not the civil government. Churches are free to do whatever they want with regard to the rite of holy matrimony. What we are talking about here is civil marriage.

And rather than being against traditional marriage, same-sex marriage advocates are for the expansion of the opportunity for marriage for all citizens. This is an equality issue.

There are over a million same sex families in America who are raising their own children (from previous marriages or by adoption.) Why should these same-sex families be denied the protection and advantages of marriage? This is a family value issue.

But there is a real threat to America. The threat is twofold: The shamefully high divorce rate that puts children at risk in the turmoil of broken homes and a proposed amendment which, for the first time ever, would write discrimination into the Constitution of the United States of America.

Let's call a spade a spade. The undercurrent of the opposition to gay marriage is a deep-seated prejudice against homosexuals. These people do not want equal rights for homosexuals. They support discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I suspect that these people are cut from the same cloth as those who objected to Harry Truman's integration of the military in 1945, and the nondiscrimination legislation of 1964. Prejudice is deep-seated in America.

When ideas of individual liberty cross the restrictions imposed by religious dogma there are many who would impose their religious codes as restraints on the rights of others in spite of what the First Amendment says.

Contrary to the high hopes of Jefferson and Adams, America has become a second class society compared to much of the enlightened world, content to be passive in the face of the needs of defacto underclasses of minority citizens and their children.

And now we have reached a point where our leaders have joined the religious bigots and are advocating official departure from the concept of equality and are willing to change our Constitution to perpetuate discrimination against some of our citizens, creating an official class of lesser people. This is a sad day for America.

James H Pursell

An Open Letter to President Bush

This message has been circulating on the internet purporting to be the work of the always gay friendly Bette Midler. However it's actually the work of non-celebrity Stephanie Finnegan, who posted it to her blog on 24 February 2004. Despite the incorrect attribution, it's still a wonderful piece of writing.

Thanks Stephanie!

Dear President Bush,

Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I would like to know why.

In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced - some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in this country - something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently.

Look instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51 years together! I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the likes of which this society has never seen.

This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment - and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and hold their love to a higher standard?

Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is none of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage". I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual expression, and its high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace.

You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to believe.

Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment.

----

Here is the original piece on Stephanie's website.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/sleepysaj/2004/02/24/

And a follow up;

http://www.livejournal.com/users/sleepysaj/2004/03/09/

For the Self-Righteous: Vow to Quit Meddling

By Beth Quinn

Times Herald-Record

February 23, 2004

I was going to leave the gay marriage issue alone just to save myself some grief. But then I thought, what fun would that be? Somebody's got to irritate the self-righteous folks who tell the rest of us how to live, and it might as well be me. You know who you are, so get your writing implements ready because you'll want to damn me to hell by the time we're done here.

For me, there is one central question in the whole gay marriage controversy:

What do you care?

What difference does it make in your own life if two gays or lesbians get married? It simply mystifies me that you feel threatened by this. What possible harm could it do in your personal, little life whether the two guys living at the end of your block say "I do"?

I keep hearing the same pat answer from your prophets of doom - that allowing homosexuals to marry will "destroy the institution of marriage."

Well I gotta' tell you, a lot of gays and lesbians have been getting married in San Francisco lately, and so far my own institution of marriage is doing just fine. I checked. When I heard they were lining up for licenses, I asked my husband if he felt our marriage was going downhill on account of it.

He just ignored the question and wanted to know what kind of perennials I thought we should put in this spring. I took that as a good sign. Perennials are an investment in the future, so I figure he's sticking around despite what those homosexuals are doing.

So, self-righteous folks, I guess I'm wondering what's wrong with your own marriages that you feel so threatened by another couple's happiness. Are you unable to sustain a good sexual relationship knowing that two gay guys are sleeping together in wedded bliss? Are you unable to have an intimate conversation with your spouse because you're distracted by the notion of two women going off on a honeymoon? Because if your marriage is that unstable, you should stop worrying about what others are doing and tend to your own problems before your divorce contributes to the decline of the institution of marriage.

I've given this a lot of thought, and I've completely failed to come up with ways that gay marriage will have an impact on your life. It won't raise your taxes. It won't cause the kid who shovels your driveway to quit. It won't make your laundry dingy. It won't alter the weather. It won't cause your dog to start passing gas. It won't affect your relationship with God. It won't cause you to develop a tumor on your head.

Those of you who would talk about grand concepts like society and institutions and pillars and guideposts and moral fibers and whatnot, I say this is just your excuse for meddling. And history has shown us that nothing good ever comes of meddling in other people's affairs. Every time Christians showed up to mess with heathens, for example, we just ended up with a lot of unhappy heathens with syphilis and smallpox.

Those of you who would point out that the dictionary definition of the word "marriage" involves a man and a woman, let me point out that the dictionary is a living, breathing document that changes as word usage changes. If you doubt it, look up the word "dot" in a current edition.

We the people get to decide what's in the dictionary. The dictionary doesn't get to dictate our societal conventions. Your hair isn't going to catch on fire if the definition of marriage is eventually changed to read, "two consenting adults" instead of "man and woman."

As for the Bible, which is always the last refuge for those of you who want to impose your will on us savages, we're not all reading out of the same book.

More fundamentally, the Bible is not a legal document. If it were, those who fail to love one another would be rounded up and thrown in jail. The prison budget would go through the roof what with all the new cells we'd be needing for the neighbor haters.

I have only this advice to offer those of you who oppose gay marriage: Don't marry a homosexual. If you're a man and you don't want to marry another man, for crying out loud, stick to your guns! That would be a terrible idea. You'd be miserable! Same for women. Marry someone of the opposite sex if that's your personal preference.

After all, no one's got the right to meddle in your private affairs.

Congressional Subcommittee Stacks Deck To Promote Homophobic agenda in January 23 Hearing

January 21, 2004, Washington , D.C. – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), our nation's largest grassroots family organization, demands that the House of Representatives drop testimony from proponents of “reparative therapy” for gay and lesbian citizens.

The House Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources has scheduled a hearing on faith-based initiatives on Friday, January 23. Republican representatives have stacked their witness list with affiliates of Focus on the Family (FOF), a fundamentalist Christian organization that promotes intense therapy and religious piety as a means of “changing” the sexuality of gays and lesbians.

“It is unconscionable that our federal elected officials would even consider using the hard-earned tax dollars of millions of parents to fund the denigration of their children ,” said David Tseng, Executive Director of PFLAG.

Focus on the Family confirmed that five of their representatives will testify at the faith-based funding hearing. One witness, Mike Haley, will devote his presentation to advancing Love Won Out, FOF's organization dedicated to reforming homosexuals. The Love Won Out website states, “Focus on the Family is promoting the truth that homosexuality is preventable and treatable... We want people to know that individuals don't have to be gay.”

“Nonsense,” says PFLAG's Deputy Field and Policy Director, Roy Gilbert-Higginson, PhD., a former clinical psychiatric social worker. “There is nothing reparative about this destructive and psychologically harmful practice, which is based on outdated and disproved pseudo-science and fundamentalist religious prejudice.”

Back to the BARA Opinion Page