A Letter to the Editor of the Gazette

I read a letter published in the OK Gazette, and it was keeping me awake thinking about it. I believe an argument consists of points that should lead to a logical conclusion, and though it wasn't apparent at first, I now believe the arguments presented failed to do so. Although my own position may be obvious, my response was meant to point out the flaws, not to argue a point. So far, my response has not been published.

When I first read K.A. Straughn's letter to the editor, I was very impressed with its clarity of thought and his ability to express his thoughts without sounding hysterical or bigoted. I am not one of those people (as I am afraid a lot of gay people are) who believes that a dissenting opinion is a form of oppression. Initially I only had a problem with one of his points, which was that gay Oklahomans have the same right to marry as any other Oklahoman. As stated, he is exactly right, but his point doesn't work in real life with real people.

In 1968, the Supreme Court declared that marriage was a fundamental human right. At issue was interracial marriage. Opponents of gay marriage are quick to point out that even if a Chinese man marries a Somali woman, they are still a man and a woman. But on the other side of the argument, this was the first time that the government of the U.S. had acknowledged that love relationships don't always conform to social conventions, such as race, religion, ethnicity or nationality. We believe that the right to marry includes the right to marry a person one loves and wants to build a life with, and not just the passionless right to a legal contract.

From there, some of the other arguments fell apart as well. Polygamy and group marriage were mentioned, but they are to the gay marriage argument what rape and incest victims are to the abortion argument. Yes, they exist, but their numbers are too small to be statistically relevant, regardless of how upsetting and provocative their situations might be. Besides that, there are other issues at stake that have nothing to do with gay marriage. And the comparison with incest and pedophilia is just insulting.

My brother is not married to his wife. That's his choice. I don't understand it (something about not needing the government's approval of their relationship), but it's what they decided was right for them. If he changes his mind, he has that choice as well. I would love to have that choice. My partner and I have been a couple for seven years, and it's aggravating that the gambler and the hooker who got married last night in Vegas have more rights than we do. The argument that giving me those rights would force legal benefits on my brother doesn't work.

So let's suppose that my partner and I do get married. How does it affect those who would rather we couldn't? They would still be allowed to marry, and stay married to whomever they chose. They would still have their Constitutionally protected right to oppose my marriage on religious grounds, and the Constitutionally protected right to say so out loud. Nothing would change for them. Personally I've never understood the phrase "defense of marriage" as related to gay marriage. It seems to me that marriage would need to be defended from those who would wish to devalue marriage, not from those who prize it highly. With skyrocketing divorce rates and courtship and marriage being sold on TV for entertainment, it would seem that ship has sailed.

Among the GLBT community, the "gay agenda," as it is spoken of among those who oppose it, is largely thought of as a conspiracy theory, right alongside of who really shot Kennedy, and how many communists there are in the State Department. I'm sure there are a lot of local groups, perhaps even statewide groups fighting for civil rights, but personally, I've never heard of the one mentioned in the editorial. I and most, if not all, of my friends would probably fall into the "unconscionably uninformed" category. At best, we are a bunch of individuals who want the same thing. We're just lucky to be living in a time where more people are listening. A commentator on ABC said that tolerance has become an American value. As a result, we are finding the freedom to be who we are, organized or not.