Subject: ARGUMENTS/LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (please update on websites)
From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 12:24:06 -0400 (EDT) [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

ARGUMENTS/LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
(revised 5/97)

"Gays Can't Marry Because That Wouldn't Be Marriage":

* As a college student from Texas so cleverly put it: "It is also argued that
a same-sex marriage is
impossible since marriage means a 'special relationship between a man and a
woman.'  This position
is so circular that I'm tempted to trace around it and draw a frowny-face in
the middle."  {1}

* "There is no 'always has been and ever shall be' truth of marriage." {2}
 It has been many different
things to many different people through different times and cultures; some
involving same-sex
marriage.  The meaning of marriage has never been "frozen in time." If it
were, women might still be
basically the property of their husbands.  Marriage is evolving and changing
to become more equal and
inclusive, as it always has done.  

* Idealized conceptions of "traditional" marriage is no more reflective of
actual heterosexual
marriages than it is of gay ones.  The focus should be on the reality of
people's lives.  

* The right to marry, if it is to mean anything,must mean the right to join
in marriage with the
person of one's choice.  Those who say gays can marry, so long as it's
someone of the opposite sex, are
making the same argument once told white people in love with someone of a
different race:  "Sorry,
pick someone else." Needless to say, people tell this to other people are not
about to have it applied to
themselves.    

* Marriage is not a zero sum game, in which one couple's marriage has value
only because another
couple is denied it.  If the discrimination against gay people ends, the
institution of marriage will be
strengthened. 

Our Rights as Americans:

* On the 1990 Census form, 1.6 million gay couples told the United States
government: "We
exist." 
* Whether same-sex couples should be able to legally marry eventually comes
down to just two
questions:  "Do gay people love?," and,  "Are they Americans?"

* Some people who oppose gay marriage and other gay rights issues say they
oppose unfair
discrimination, but. . .  But what?  Discrimination is wrong.  Period.  

* This isn't just Jesse Helms' country.  It isn't Pat Robertson's country.
 This is our country, too.    

* If a loved one goes to the hospital, we often have no legal right to make
decisions about his or her
treatment.  Sometimes we can't even see them.  And when someone dies, we
often have no rights even
then.  Members of the biological family of the deceased may try to pretend
the relationship never
existed.  They could prevent the surviving partner from even coming to the
funeral.  A couple could be
together for thirty years or more, but it would make no difference.  Is that
fair?  Is it right?  

* There can be no talk of "special rights" when it comes to gay marriage.
 For straights, marriage is
an option.  For gays, it isn't.  They really do have a "special right."
 That's wrong.    

* "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the
orderly pursuit of happiness.  Yet, the freedom to marry is not a vital right
essential only to the
happiness of heterosexuals; it is vital to the happiness of homosexuals as
well." {3} 

* The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution says that equal
protection of the laws cannot be
denied to people similarly situated.  Gay couples form relationships, and
sometimes raise families, in
a way remarkably--even boringly--similar to any heterosexual couple.  We are
similarly situated,
and to be treated as anything less is not only unconstitutional and
unChristian:  It's wrong.

* "We have ministers of justice, not ministers of people's passions." {4} Our
judges and public
servants are supposed to follow the law and do what's right, not what may be
popular at the moment. 

 * The country's founders made the United States a Republic rather than a
direct democracy for a
reason.  James Madison and other believed that elected officials would and
should have a more well-
thought-out view of what was in the best interest of the nation than would
the fleeting winds of
popularity.   Further, courts were instated not to defer to legislatures or
any majority, but in order
to be a third branch of government co-equal with the legislative and
executive branches.   

* The more you know about the history of miscegenation (marital mixing of the
races) laws, the more
you realize how much they have in common with today's discrimination against
same-sex couples. 
Yesterday's courts said allowing inter-racial marriages would mean they would
also have to allow
incestuous marriage; an argument trotted out once again for gays. 

* In 1958, opposition to interracial marriage was far greater than opposition
to marriage for gay
people is today.  According to a Gallup poll, 94% of of whites opposed them.
{5}  At most, 70% oppose
marriage for gays now.  

* If mixed-race had waited for a majority of Americans to approve of
interracial marriages before
making them legally valid, they would have waited until 1991.  Even then, it
was only by 48 to 42
percent.{6}

* Richard Loving, of the Loving v. Virginia lawsuit that finally struck down
anti-miscegenation laws
in 1967, told the lawyer arguing his case:  "Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love
my wife." He hoped that
would be enough, and so do we.    

* Do you know who we are, America?  We're foster and adoptive parents,
parents who are often able to
adopt only those children the rest of America finds inconvenient.  We're
raising mentally and
physically disabled children, who were placed with us as a "last resort."
 But we bring them up them
gladly, without sorrow, and with unlimited love.  That's who we are.  

* The ability to procreate is held out as a condition for marriage only as a
way to deny marriage to gay
people.  No heterosexual couple could ever be denied marriage for this
reason--that would be
unconscionable, just as it is unconscionable to so deny it to gay people.  

* Eight to ten million children are now being raised in three million gay
households. {7}

Domestic Partnership Not Enough:

* Even from a purely mechanical point of view--the best light in which
domestic partnerships can be
seen--domestic partnership plans still fall far short of the protections
afforded by actual marriage. 
Only a handful of localities have enacted such ordinances.  Many of these are
literally only paper
recognition:  You get to "register" at city hall, but that's it.  Others give
such basic benefits as the
right to choose medical care for an incapacitated partner, certain estate
provisions, and, if you're a
city employee, the right to bereavement leave and spousal benefits such as
health care.  In reality, the
quasi-marriage nature of domestic partnerships makes the benefits all to
quasi as well.  

* Nothing can substitute for the strength and number of rights regarding
one's spouse provided by
legal marriage.  No matter how many other legal contracts one may draw up,
they will never equal it. 
In any case, trying to create a "separate but equal" institution is, as we
all know, inherently unequal.  

* Even if the best ordinances currently in effect were in force everywhere in
America--a proposition
actually far less likely to happen than gay marriage itself--domestic
partnership would still fall far
short of the numerous, nearly unbreakable benefits that marriage affords
automatically.  In the
District of Columbia, which has marriage laws similar to those in many
states, there are 131 marital
benefits; the typical domestic partnership plan has about one-tenth that, and
the rights it does
provide are not the most important ones.    

* Marriage is what we should be working for.  Heterosexual couples often have
the choice between
marriage or domestic partnership:  Gay people have at most only dps; no
choice at all.  If everyone
could choose from a range of options, that would be fine. 

* Are domestic partnership plans a pathway to full marriage rights, or a dead
end?

Morality and Values:

* "Traditional values" that say gay people don't have a right to marriage
aren't really values at all. 
They devalue love, human dignity, and coherent, caring families.  Attitudes
like that aren't "values";
they're devalues.  

* For some people, "traditional values" is their misleading, homophobic term
of art.  It turns out to
mean, simply, hatred.  "Morality" is another technical term of theirs; it
means bigotry.  

* Many of those who speak out against gay people have hardly any actual facts
about us.  Those who
would lecture us on the so-called immorality of our lives don't know the
first thing about how we
actually live them.      

* Exactly what do the "conservatives" conserve?  Families torn apart because
of homophobia,  instead
of held together through honesty?  What are the opponents of marriage for gay
people trying to
conserve, and why?

* "Conservatives say they abhor gay marriage because they value marriage.
 The truth is they abhor
gay marriage because they abhor gays." {8}

* Though we're certainly not surprised to discover a conservative opposition
to gay marriage, their
aversion to it is curious given what they profess to detest about
homosexuality.  These people say they
don't like gays being promiscuous (as if this is true anyway), yet they
forbid us from taking part in
an institution that values monogamy and commitment.  They can't have it both
ways.  

* We find groups who oppose the gay community, claiming they're in favor of
"traditional values." 
Yet they oppose one form of the most traditional value there is; love.  There
is nothing immoral about
the idea of gay marriage because there is nothing immoral about love. 

* Many of those who oppose same-sex marriage say they do so on religious
grounds.  First, in
America, we have a separation of church and state.  Second, we know that many
who object to
homosexuality because the bible (they say) condemns it are very selective
with their biblical
literalism.  

* Bishop John Spong of the Episcopal Church calls for the blessing of gay
couples.  He points out that
the church blesses fox hunts and even warships.  The church has no problem
blessing a vehicle whose
sole function is to reign nothing but death and destruction, yet refuses to
bless the union of two people
who are in love.

* The reason why individuals get married is far more personal than law or
religion.  People desire
companionship; they want someone to spend their lives with.  They may have
children, or they may
not.  But even if they don't, the legal recognition of their relationship
does not diminish.  And neither
does the measure of their love.  

* ". . .the primary reason that God created a companion for Adam is not said
to be procreation, but
because God 'God said, "It is not good for man to be alone.'" [Genesis 2: 18]
 Complementarity and
compansionship are at least as much a part of God's plan in creation as
childbirth.  Indeed it is
remarkable that in the Genesis account childbirth emerges only as an
afterthought. . ." {9}

* "In a recent letter. . .characterizes the efforts to extend the right to
marry to same-sex couples as a
demand that he personally approve their moral decisions.  Why is it, I
wonder, that this argument
never comes up in the granting of marriage licenses to heterosexuals?  A man
can. . .abandon his wife
and children, fail to support them, marry another woman and have more
children with her.  He can
abandon his wife while she is hospitalized, deathly ill with cancer, divorce
her, marry another
woman, and still have enough respect left to become Speaker of the House
(Look it up.)" {10}

Sample Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

Thanks very much for your thoughtful piece on marriage rights for gay
couples.  This is indeed an
issue whose time has arrived, not only because it's likely to become a
reality in Hawaii, but because
granting such rights is the right thing to do.

There are numerous reasons why gay people want, need, and deserve the right
to marry.  The heart of
the matter, though, is that many of us have been living married lives for
years; the fact that the law
has not yet caught up to that is just an unfortunate, hopefully temporary
situation.  The reality is that
to all outward appearances, many of our relationships are already
marriages.  It is only fair that they be so treated.

Sincerely,

___________________ 

-------------------------------

To the Editor:

It's unfortunate that, given all the real political problems in this country,
any time should be wasted
on preventing anyone from marrying the person he or she loves.  

No less than straight people, gay people form loving, committed
relationships; often involving
parenthood.  Even if they fail to understand that gay people also love, I
wonder if those who oppose our
right to marry stop to think how this denial might affect children's lives.
 For example, if one partner
dies, his or her survivor may have no say whatsoever as to how they will then
be raised.  They could
easily be taken from him or her, and placed in a foster home, even if the
children are so taken
literally kicking and screaming.  

Clearly one need not be able to have children in order to marry.  Many
heterosexuals choose not to, or
cannot, have children; and yet it's clearly wrong for them to be denied
marriage licenses.  So-called
"conservatives" will claim that marriage is just for procreation, but the
fact is that argument is
made only in the context of trying to deny marriage to gay people.  In this
country anyway, arguments
like that just aren't good enough.  Marriage is the right of all people, and
for that to mean anything,
we as gay people have the right to marry the person we love.

Sincerely,

___________________ 

FOOTNOTES********************************

{1}  "Entering Same-Sex Marriages Should Be Right of All," by David Barranco,
in The
Daily Texan, January 25, 1996.

{2}  "Marriage, Law, and Gender: A Feminist Inquiry," by Nan Hunter, in Law &
Sexuality,
Vol 1: 18-19 (1991).

{3}  "Family, Definitions, and The Constitution: On The Antimiscegenation
Analogy," by
Mark Strasser, in Suffolk University Law Review, Vol. 25 (1991), pg. 999.

{4}  The Riddle of 'Man-Manly' Love, by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, trans. by
Michael
Lombardi-Nash, 1994, pg. 540.  (Originally published 1864-1879.)

{5}  "Civil Rites:  Arguments Against Same-sex Marriage Mirror Those that
Kept Races
Apart," by Deb Price, in Detroit News, April 18, 1997.

{6}  Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con, edited by Andrew Sullivan, Vintage,
1997, pg. xx1.

{7}  The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, by William Eskridge, Free Press, 1996,
pg. 110.

{8}  "Unspeakable Unions? -- The Flimsy Case Against Gay Marriage," by
Stephen
Chapman, in The Chicago Tribune, January 25, 1996.

{9}  "Creation and Natural Law," by Jeffrey John, in Sullivan, pg. 78.

{10}  "Heterosexual Relationships Don't Last Either," (Letter to the Editor),
by David
Paquette, in Atascadero News, February 18, 1996.  

-----------------------------------------------------
The Forum on the Right to Marriage (FORM)
Box 8033 JFK Station
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 868-FORM
[email-masked]
HTTP://www.calico-company.com/formboston
America Online:  Keyword: GLCF Library.  New Files -or- Legal Issues -or-
Organizations

Materials available:
Arguments/Letters to the Editor
Flier (new) *
General Quotations
Hawaii Primer 
How You Can Help
Ithaca Primer
Law Chart
Law Review Summary
Legal History 
Legal Summary
Marriage Primer     
Press Kit *
Resources
Timeline   
Wedding Announcements  

*available soon

##############################
FORM is a national grassroots organization primarily
engaged in education and outreach concerning the issue of
same-sex marriage.

FORM provides resources and training to similar locally
based groups throughout country.

FORM exists as well to facilitate and support the efforts 
of individuals, whether legal or legislative, that advance
the cause of same-sex marriage in the United States.

When feasible, FORM will work in concert with gay and
lesbian political groups to optimize organized efforts to
attain same-sex marriage rights.
##########################################
--------(Please print out, cut here, and mailback)-----------

Please help us to begin building the framework for legalizing same-sex
marriage. 

_ Yes, I want to be a member of FORM.  Please
enter my membership at the following level:

    _ Individual ($20.)
    _ Household ($30.) 
    _ Student/Low-income ($10.)

    _ I want to make an additional contribution in the amount of:

       $ _____  
   
 (Please make checks payable to: Forum on the Right to Marriage (FORM), Inc.)

 _ Add me to your mailing list:     
 __________________________________
 __________________________________
 __________________________________

 _ I'm interested in becoming a FORM organizer/starting a chapter in my area.

We hope that you will become involved in FORM.  But the most important thing,
in whatever aspect of gay rights we may be involved in, is that we as gay
people share with those around us the truth of our lives.  FORM's activities
can serve only as an adjunct to individual gay men, women, and young people
willing to reach out and change the hearts and minds of the American people.
Thanks for your interest and your continued assistance in helping to make
marriage a reality for the gay community.  

Please mail to:

The Forum on the Right to Marriage (FORM)
Box 8033 JFK Station
Boston, MA 02114