This letter is in response to a paid-for political letter in the Coronado Eagle & Journal. Letters to the editor must be 250 words or less, so I'm posting my response here.
In response to “I Am Voting Yes on Proposition 8 Because…” written by Carol Humphrey, published Vol. 98, No. 44 (Oct. 29th 2008). Carol, your first point is “God instituted marriage between a man and woman for procreation and companionship. It has been the traditional definition of marriage since the beginning of time.” First of all, you quote no sources to support this claim. I would assume that you would quote the Bible if you were to quote any source, which brings up a number of issues. I would assume that if you feel that “God instituted marriage”, then you would also feel that the Bible contains “the word of God”. I would thus ask you to define “God”, disprove God’s non-existence, ask how “the word of God” could be translated into any human language, how many discrepancies you would guess could arise from the translation of THAT transcription into a multitude of OTHER human languages, etc. I would also ask you to describe the influence of the institution of religion (not necessarily the personal issues of faith associated with religion) on humans, including the concentration of political and economic power that is inherent to the institutionalization of religion and how that power COULD effect the actual text of the Bible (Council of Nicea), etc. With that aside, you say that “It has been the traditional definition of marriage since the beginning of time.” You are simply incorrect. How do you account for the polygyny (one husband, many wives) of the Machiguenga of lowland South America, or the polyandry (one wife, many husbands) of parts of Nepal, Tibet, and India? Of course, these folks are not God-fearing Christians, so I suppose they do not count. And even if what you said WAS correct, what of the existence of tradition makes it right and good? Certainly our “tradition” of buying and selling living humans as pieces of property was right and good because it was done by generations before, right?
The second issue you bring up is that “In Massachusetts, the courts ruled that parents cannot opt out of discussion or teaching on gay marriage for their school-age children as was promised.” Why is this even an issue? Should not the goal of education be to educate? Of course, public education has another effect: it socializes students. But what is the problem with having “school-age children” being aware of different ways of life? Unless, of course, you have a deep-rooted fear of children becoming homosexuals, which may point to you being homophobic, and is also completely unreasonable. Do you really believe that having children LEARN about a “different” way of life will make them want to partake in that way of life? Surely, school-age children are not filled with an insatiable desire to cut off the scalps of their classmates after learning about the glorious interactions between European settlers and native North American populations.
For your third point, you state “As people who believe in traditional marriage, we will loose [sic] our freedoms. A pastor in Sweden was arrested for preaching about homosexuality from the Bible. A couple in New Mexico was sued and lost for kindly refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding and a United Methodist Church in New Jersey was punished by having its tax exempt status revoked because in keeping with its beliefs would not allow a lesbian couple to be married on its property.” Again, you cite no sources at all for your anecdotes. However, let’s examine them. What freedoms will “people who believe in traditional marriage” lose by there being a legal recognition for homosexual marriages? It seems to me like the pastor in Sweden was in fact the person who lost freedoms by “preaching about homosexuality from the Bible”; he was, after all, arrested. With regards to your anecdote about the New Mexico couple, I found an article at http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547 that I’m assuming retells the story you were citing. The article, which comes from a conservative news source, states, “Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, who co-own Elane Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are both Christians. So when a lesbian couple asked them to photograph their "commitment ceremony" in Taos, the Huguenins politely refused. In response, Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her "sexual orientation." On Wednesday, the Commission found the Christian couple guilty of discrimination under state anti-discrimination laws and ordered them to pay more than $6,000 in costs.” Here we have an interesting situation. Vanessa Willock did not ask this couple to accept homosexuality as right, or to recognize her union as legitimate. She simply asked for the Huguenins to photograph her ceremony. The couple was, rightfully so, found guilty of discrimination, because they ARE guilty of discrimination. They refused to photograph a potential client because they felt that her sexual orientation was not right, and that is wrong. At http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081501.html I found an article in reference to the issue with the United Methodist Church. The article states, “The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination currently forbids those who ‘offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public’ from ‘directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual’ on the basis of sexual orientation. Under New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws the OGCMA [Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), an affiliate of the United Methodist Church] would be subject to prosecution if state officials rule its facilities places of public accommodation.” Again, this is a situation of a group inciting the First Amendment in an incorrect fashion. The couple concerned is not asking for the religious group to recognize or sanctify their marriage, but is rather looking to have equal access to physical property. Of course, by denying access, they are exercising wrongful and illegal discrimination.
Your fourth and final point is as follows: “Where does it end- three people in a ‘loving’ relationship, a brother and sister, a man and four women, a father and daughter? Shouldn’t these people be allowed to marry also?” This is not logical and it is also offensive. To compare a homosexual relationship to an incestual relationship shows no sense of understanding and is blatantly disrespectful, both to homosexuals and to people who may have suffered through an incestual situation.
Sean Burdeaux
[article I am responding to:"I Am Voting Yes on Proposition 8 Because...
1. God instituted marriage between a man and woman for procreation and companionship. It has been the traditional definition of marriage since the beginning of time.
2. In Massachusetts, the courts ruled that parents cannot opt out of discussion or teaching on gay marriage for their school-age children as promised.
3. As people who believe in traditional marriage, we will loose our freedoms. A pastor in Sweden was arrested for preaching about homosexuality from the Bible. A couple in New Mexico was sued and lost for kindly refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding and a United Methodist Church in New Jersey was punished by having its tax exempt status revoked because in keeping with its beliefs would not allow a lesbian couple to be married on its property. If Proposition 8 fails there will be an avalanche of lawsuits against individuals, churches, and businesses here in California.
4. Where does it end-three people in 'loving' relationship, a brother and sister, a man and four women, a father and daughter? Shouldn't these people e allowed to marry also?
For these reasons, I urge you to vote yes on 8.
Carol Humphrey"]
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
thisisnotsean's journal
