I wrote this hours ago, and I’ve debated whether or not I should post it. This is an incredibly divisive issue, and I’m sure that I will end up on more of those stupid boycott lists because of this, and that’s probably not the smartest business move, considering that I have a book coming out in less than two weeks . . . but I have to stand up for my beliefs, so here it is:
When I heard that George W. Bush had called for an amendment to the Constitution that would effectively codify homosexuals as second-class citizens, I recalled something Howard Dean said recently:
In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it in a shameful way–by dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices, and bringing out the worst in people.
They called it the “Southern Strategy,” and the Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using phrases like “racial quotas” and “welfare queens” to convince white Americans that minorities were to blame for all of America’s problems.
The Republican Party would never win elections if they came out and said their core agenda was about selling America piece by piece to their campaign contributors and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few. To distract people from their real agenda, they run elections based on race, dividing us, instead of uniting us . . .
Dean was right. Just read that again, and replace “racial prejudices” with “sexual prejudices.”
I hate it when I agree with politicians, but John Kerry said what I thought as soon as I heard the news:
“This president can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.”
Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage in any way. I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad. I suppose that it can also be between those people and whatever god they choose to worship, but even then . . . wouldn’t it be stupid for the government to tell couples which god can bless their marriage? And who cares what sex they are?
An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!
That’s right. Even though there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples affirming their love for and commitment to each other, my marriage — my affirmation of love and commitment to Anne — isn’t threatened at all. As a matter of fact, the only people who can really “threaten” my marriage are . . . well . . . the two of us.
And this brings me to the first thing that’s so profoundly upsetting about this entire issue: it’s not about marriage, it’s not about love, it’s not about family, it’s not about commitment. It’s about hating homosexuals. It’s about treating homosexuals as if they are second-class citizens. It’s about dividing this country into those who support discrimination, and those who don’t. It’s about Karl Rove updating The Southern Strategy.
It comes as no surprise to me that, as part of that strategy, George W. Bush wants to take the Constitution, a document that is supposed to limit government and guarantee freedoms to all Americans, away from millions of our fellow citizens who are homosexual. I didn’t buy the “I’m a uniter, not a divider, compassionate conservative” bullshit during the 2000 campaign, and this is just another example of Mr. Bush revealing his true colors. And this argument that it’s a response to “activist judges?” That’s a huge load of crap too. Mr. Bush has a lot of nerve talking about “activist judges,” considering that he owes his presidency to five of them.
Ultra-Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan said it best, I think:
The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens – and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.
Yes, I am shocked that I agree with Andrew Sullivan about anything, but that just illustrates how insane this idea is, and how it transcends political ideology.
Now, I have no doubt that this effort will fail. I believe that it will ultimately backfire on the Bush Administration, and contribute to his defeat in November. The United States just isn’t the Theocracy that Mr. Bush wants to create.
There is a wonderful opportunity here, though, that I haven’t heard anyone talk about, yet: we are now forced, as a nation, to acknowledge and confront the widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians, and I believe that Americans will unite against segregation now, just as we did during the Civil Rights movement.
I believe in America. I believe in the Bill of Rights, and the founding principals of this nation. I believe that goodness, compassion, and tolerance will triumph over hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.
And I am proud to stand up for these beliefs, whatever the consequences.
i’m sure this will take some bashing, but listen up. have you ever stopped to think that maybe it’s not about hate and discrimination? that some people believe in a higher power, that some are willing to take a stand for what they believe in? I believe, along with GWB, that supporting gay marriage would be wrong and would hurt the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. We believe in the Bible and in God. We believe in supporting Israel. We believe in things that would take me volumes to discuss. I don’t hate homosexuals but I don’t support them in their “marriages” and I won’t vote for someone who does.
I am sorry if I am wrong, but from reading this site I feel that you take the democrat flavor of the day and run with it, taking every opportunity to bash Bush. Then all of the comments that I see (in my admittedly limited reading of the comments – full disclosure) support you 100%. Somehow I feel this is more in regards to their “idolization” of Wil Wheaton than a clear understanding of the facts involved. I use the word “idolization” for the lack of a better more appropriate word at this time – no I don’t think they are worshipping you.
I would love to have the chance for a back and forth, academic discussion with you that you would post on your site, weekly or monthly and we could seriously offer our respective sides, me being a GWB-voting southern republican, and you having apparently liberal leanings.
I will admit that what you say often makes me angry, but I want to approach this in a civilized manner. Would you be open to a forum of this nature? Give me a topic and a few days for research and let us produce our arguments.
sincerely,
david dickerson
Maybe Bush and his cronies would be happy if gay people used different words than “wedding” and “marriage” to define their union. Then the definition of the word “marriage” between a man and a woman would stand secure.
I agree with Senator Kerry. Has Dubya nothing else to worry about????
5 million unemployed and he’s pissed about a few folk in SF having a nice day out.
What an asshole.
I have never looked forward to an election so much.
I think Bush got some horrible advice. He is suring up his right wing religious votes by sacrificing all the homosexuals. I think the votes gained won’t outweigh the negative effects in the poll of public opinion. There are far to many people that know gay marriage isn’t going to hurt them. Bottom line homosexuals should be allowed to pledge there love for each other and they can already. They should benefit from financial situations that other married couple benefit from, but the federal government should have nothing to do with this. Even our founding fathers thought that during peace time federal goverment should be limited severly. In this time of war the president should concentrate on more important issues. Really i swear i dont know the man, but i do support this war on terror, i do support the liberation of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam H., but whatever his belief on gay marriage he should have kept it to himself. The amendment idea was just stupid. *All to float the party line and secure right with republican votes.
Oh yeah and I am a libertarian.
JRS
Yeah, Wil!!!
*applause*
In response to a person above, the problem with “civil unions” is that it is still a seperate but equal thing. Unless you want the state to issue “civil union” liscenses to all couples reguardless of gender, it is still descrimination.
Wil,
You couldn’t have said it better. I admire your courage to stand up for what you believe in, even more so when you have a book coming out. Your entries are excellent. I even enjoy the technical ones that I can barely understand.
I think we can all expect great things from you over the years. Looking forward to watching your career grow and grow!
Thank you for standing up and posting what you believe!!!!! Amen! 🙂
Wil —
I think you’re dead on… That was a very impressive entry! Thanks for writing AND posting that.
Nags
Thank you for standing up for what you believe in!!!! Amen! 🙂
See, the problem I have with marriage for men and women and civil unions for everyone else is that you create a subcategory of people. It’s that whole “separate but equal” thing I alluded to before. We don’t have a strong history of affording the same rights to two different subcategories of people. You end up with the ability to give a one set of rights to marriages (say for example, all the benefits inherent in a marriage right now)and a separate set of rights to “civil unions” (say for example, letting the spouse/partner make decesions, but disallowing them inheritance rights). I’d like to think idealistically that this wouldn’t happen, but just by reading my history book, I’m not willing to put my faith in the system. It needs to be called one thing only, or the government just needs to stay out of it all together.
Hey Wil,
I’ve been reading your site for a while now and enjoy it very much. I guess I’m going to have to be the only person to disagree with you on this one. Maybe others disagree too, but just don’t want to say so.
And before you decide that I’m some redneck klansman, I should tell you that I’m a gay guy myself. I also happen to be a conservative Christian. Weird combo, huh? You can’t imagine the conflicts flying around in my head! 🙂
Anyway, just wanted to say that not all gay people think its a good idea to screw around with what God established as the marriage covenant. And I know you could care less about my God, but that doesn’t make Him any less real to me.
God established marriage as something between a man and a woman. Any variation on that is contradictory to God’s plan. As a non-believer, you may be able to dismiss this as non-important, but I don’t see how anyone who considers themselves to be a Christian can see it your way. Since our nation was founded on Christian principles, I think it is great that GWB is taking the stand he has chosen. I don’t believe he will be successful, unfortunately. And as a result, our country will take one more step toward the abyss of sin that has destroyed so many great nations in history.
Anyway, thats the view from one fag. Even though we disagree on this (and most other political points), I still love ya dude! Keep on keepin’ on!
Thank you for having the courage to stand up for what you believe.
Thanks, Wil. As a person in a committed relationship who has chosen not to be legally married because so many people I know and cherish cannot be, it’s great to read someone as well-written as you on this subject. Keep the courage of your convictions, it’s why we come back to the site day after day.
Very well said Wil. I was actually about to post the article from Andrew Sullivan in my LJ because I felt it was very well said.
I cannot believe that anyone, even our jackass president (as much I hate & distrust him) would think to do such a thing. Open discrimination is NOT acceptable. I just hope my fellow Americans can see this.
If they do not, then I think I will move to Canada.
I believe Bush is wrong as well. I believe in God too, but you know what, the Bible is NOT THE LAW! I say let those of any race, religion, sexuality, creed, be bound with whatever makes them happy,and if gays and lesbians want to marry, I say go for it. Wil is right it wont affect the marriage between and men and women, it is they themselves that will break it or make it. Let’s stop finding ways to degrade our fellow americans, let’s rise above these filthy politics and be humans. “All men were created equal”, so does that mean we all should be treated differently, I don’t think that is the context meant to be interpreted by that statement! I am neither republican nor democratic, however it plays no role what level I believe politically, it is the human concept that scares and worries me the most. What have we come too when we can’t have a say in who we marry, who we fall in love with. Today it is is gay and lesbian marriage, tomorrow it might be your marriage or life someone is trying to dictate. Let us end the insane crimes against humanity!!
Wil, I hate to break it to you, but Andrew Sullivan is not an ultra-conservative. He’s conservative on some issues, such as the war, but liberal on cultural issues. You probably have a lot more in common with him politically than you think.
And, since Sullivan is gay, his opinion on the issue is probably more a reflection of his personal life than of conservative ideology.
Please note that I not saying that gays do not have a right to be heard or to be taken seriously on this issue. All I am saying is that because of his personal stake in the issue, Sullivan’s views tend to be different from those of most conservatives.
Now, you may ask, what is a conservative like me (I supported the war, I oppose same sex marriage, etc.) doing reading your blog? Well, for one thing, I’m a Star Trek fan. I’ve met you at conventions, and you seem like I nice guy. You’re a talented writer, and generally enjoy reading what you write, even when you sometimes go off on topics where I disagree with you.
I’m not going to boycott you or try to retract the donation I made to help cure leukemia, just because you happen to disagree with me politically. I’m a reasonable guy, and I know that reasonable people can differ on things.
But it would be nice if you could acknowledge that maybe — just maybe — some of the people who disagree with you about gay marriage might do so out of something other than “hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.”
This doesn’t belong in the Constitution pure and simple. It takes rights away from people. In the history of the Constitution, only one other amendment has ever taken rights away from people…and it also happens to be the only amendment which was ever repealed: the 18th, Prohibition. All the other amendments have either enumerated additional rights (such as granting the vote to blacks, women, and 18-year-olds) or clarified procedural matters (such as the 12th Amendment, fixing the bugs in the way Presidents and Vice-Presidents are elected, or the 20th which changed the day that terms start, or the one clarifying Presidential succession and disability). So a “Federal Marriage Amendment” just doesn’t belong there, purely on grounds of being consistent with what has come before.
Which is not to say that I don’t oppose this idea on moral grounds as well. A member of my family is gay, and I want him to find the same kind of happiness I found in my marriage. How is my marriage, or anyone else’s, threatened if he wants to marry another guy? Because they can’t have kids in the biological way? Neither can my wife; she had a hysterectomy years before I met her, and I knew about it long before we pledged to marry…does that somehow make MY marriage less “legitimate”? Does OUR marriage “threaten” anyone else’s as a result?
Anyway, my other thought is, WTF is Bush doing by proposing this NOW? THERE’S A WAR ON, in case he hadn’t noticed! Worrying about who can get married and who can’t, when there’s still a major threat of Americans getting KILLED by Islamofascist terrorists, is, in my view, morally equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Neither gay nor straight people are going to be too concerned about whether they can marry or not, if they’re DEAD! So, Mr. President, I say, “First things first!”
Awesome Wil! Just wanted to let you know that the Americans who support gay rights have the support of a huge number of Canadians!
I am a pretty conservative person, normally, and agree with everything you wrote. Bush will lose in November and this issue is why; unless he changes his mind between now and then…and even then, he will probably still lose just for coming out in support of this.
I am also in the minority, unfortunately it IS the minority opinion, and have no problem with same sex couples getting married. What’s the big deal? How does it hurt me or my marriage? Will we all turn into a pillar of salt if gay people are treated as equals? How ignorant! I think people who have a problem with same-sex marriages not only are bigoted towards gay and lesbians but also don’t have enough to do or think about so they create problems in their heads. They are unhappy with themselves and with the choices or non-action they have taken and are looking for someone to blame. I say we leave the gay community ALONE, for pete’s sake! Let them live their lives and we should live ours.
Hey I am standing here
I am not beside you
Don’t look for me behind you
Just know
I am standing here
And I am standing here with you
Thank you. Lots. It’s important that people say this.
One of the things I plan to do when I have the gay marriage fight with my father is ask him how his marriage has been destroyed in the past few weeks.
Both sides of this argument have unclean hands. I don’t support wasting political capital on this, because it (amending the constitution) is too much of a hot button issue. But while I would rather get the state out of the entire marriage business, the gay acceptance movement isn’t saintly either.
They are hypocritical; you will hear, “we just want to be able to do the same things as everyone else”, but when that is offered in civil unions, you see clamoring for the word marriage. You hear “we just want to be left alone” and the same person clamors to be first in front of the TV camera.
Bush was provoked into calling for this. His call for an amendment was just as empty as the illegal marriage licenses being granted in SanFran, and nothing is going to come from either of them. But the illegal acts being conducted in SanFran are the very things that will damage the image of gays in America to the point that something like an FMA can be passed.
On top of all of it, this does have the potential to spark a constitutional crisis on the level of Dred Scott for the exact same reasons. You will have one state being forced to recognize a legal status from another state that is patently illegal in that state. At that point, it becomes a federal issue, and we may get an amendment whether we want it or not. And at this point, gay marriage is down 60/40 and doesn’t stand a chance. A constitutional crisis would be the very thing that prompts people like me who just don’t care to support an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The last time, when there was no chance of doing that, we fought a civil war over it.
Amen, Wil!
This is the most disgusting abuse of the constitution in our nation’s history, and it’s nothing more than a political maneuver.
Wil, I know you were reluctant to post this – thanks for doing it. Everything you said was right on target. Tell you what – I’ll buy *two* copies of “Just A Geek” to compensate for any loss in sales resulting from this, ok? 🙂 Cheers – Paul
Wil, you said a mouthful.
Consider me a re-re-affirmed admirer.
I do wish the people who think that marriage has always been one man and one woman wauld read their Bibles. Solomon was a polygamist. Other cultures have had multi-partner marriages over the millennia, such as Ireland (even during the early centuries after its conversion to Christianity, taking multiple wives was allowed by law). Both Christianity and Judaism have polygamous pasts. Islam has a polygamous present. Other cultures just haven’t given two farts in a windstorm about two men or two women sharing their lives together. History says diversity has been noted and accepted. Why some people can’t is an exercise for a psychiatrist, not me.
I live in Oz, and I think that the sooner you Americans dump that poor sad excuse of a president, the better off the world will be. I thought the UN was made to protect the world from people like him!
Well said, well quoted, well done! You took what I was thinking and put it amazingly well, Wil.
One of the big things that bugs me about this issue is how much the conservatives scream about the “sanctity of marriage.” A quick glance at the statistics for divorce, adultery and domestic violence will put to rest any thoughts that heterosexual marriage has some kind of sanctity that can’t be found elsewhere. Marriage in itself is just a symbol; it’s what the couple puts into it that matters. The sanctity they’re talking about comes from love, not marriage.
I agree that the government does not belong in marriage. They don’t get involved with baptism, communion, confirmation… why this particular sacrament? Because sex is involved?
Say no to Bush, kids… anyone who claims to back a reduction in government while at the same time uses the government to impose his own moral standards on the entire populace does not deserve to lead. Bush will leave you alone to live your life as long as it’s a life he approves of. It won’t end here. Use your vote.
Well said! Thank you!
While President Bush has endorsed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, he did leave open the possibility of individual states crafting Civil Union legislation. Some posters here have stated this would be an acceptable compromise. As a gay citizen of these United States, I hearby declare that Civil Unions are completely unacceptable unless they are recognized by the Federal government and given the same standing as marriages.
Back when the “Defense of Marriage Act” was being rushed through Congress in the wake of the ruling from the Hawaii Supreme Court, the General Accounting Office of the United States was requested to document what laws were on the books that were related to marriage. They found over one thousand such laws, laws that gave special rights, privileges, and responsibilities to legally married persons. A summary of the report can be found here (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf) in PDF format. That’s just a listing of the affected areas of the body of law and it goes on for 75 pages. It does not list the text of the laws. That would probable go on for thousands of pages.
When a state, such as Vermont (currently the only state to recognize any form of Civil Union), grants gay couples the right to form Civil Unions, presumably all of the rights granted by that state to married couples now would apply to those joined in Civil Union. (Presumably, but not guaranteed.) However, and this is the big problem, no matter how carefully and completely the legislation is drafted by the states, none of the Federal laws granting rights, privileges, and responsibilities will apply. None.
Unless Congress writes Civil Unions into all of the over one thousand places in Federal law where marriage is current recognized, Civil Unions will continue to be inherently unequal.
I agree with your comments, Wil. I do believe this amendment will have difficulty getting out of Congress. However, if it goes to the States, I think it’s going through quickly.I’ve written my Congressmen and State legislators to voice my opposition to any amendment. I recommend everyone who feels strongly about this to do the same. Make your voice heard.
I just want to add a thought here: I don’t see a problem with people who disagree affirming their right to disagree. Where I have problems is with flamewars and all that crap.
I think that it’s FANTASTIC that people are talking about this, and I realize that some people simply won’t change their minds, and see things the way I do. That’s okay. As a matter of fact, that’s really important.
I just want to make it clear that dissenting opinions are respected, as long as they are presented in a respectful manner.
Like I said, we as a nation need to confront this issue, and if my stupid website can stimulate some dialogue, I think that’s a good thing.
I’m Canadian, and I agree with you 100% and am sure my friends and family have been subjected to my opinion on this many times over. Canada has had the same issues going on for a while now. Ontario has allowed Same sex marriages, but Ralph Klein out in alberta has the same veiw as Bush. I normal have backed Ralph Klein in most of the things he has done for Alberta and have looked past his drinking problem and other such media slashing that has been done, but why is same sex marriages any of the governments concern. Yeah I respect that Bush and Klein have an opinion and that they stand by it but that they are trying to force their opinions on others is unacceptable. The thing that worries me most about it is the fact that the youth of today don’t turn out for voting like they should. That the percentage is down. So the people who do vote, like our parents and grandparents are the one’s who’s has the higher percentage of perticipation in voting and they are the one’s who will most likely have the old school views and closed minded opinions on subjects like same sex marriages.
My hat’s off to you Will and I will defend my reading your blog till my dieing day!
while I consider myself more of a centrist, it blows me away that GW would want to ammend the constitution. That’s just too extreme, especially since his argument for the ammendment is based on his religous beliefs. This will backfire on him. People from all sides of the political spectrum are opposed to this. who cares if gays marry? really? who cares? GW needs to get with the times. This is the type of shit we usually go to war to stop.
Thank you. Very well spoken. I just don’t understand how me marrying my partner (which I will be doing on March 31st at 2pm) will affect any other marriage in the universe. Marriage is a commitment between two people.
Good lord–“ultraconservative”? Do people even *think* for themselves? Sullivan is far from “ultraconservative”.
Otherwise, good post.
I’m with you, Wil. Marriage should never have been part of governments agenda. It wasn’t when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established, and it shouldn’t be now. The problem is, government put their hands into it a long time ago, and now (especially with the tax credit for married couples who were unfairly bearing more of the tax burden) marriage has become a hotbed of political issue. Why? It’s an agreement between 2 people to share responsibility for their household (and children, if applicable). That’s all it should be, as far as the government is concerned.
The problem with Mr. Bush (and most of the’religious right’) is that his religious rhetoric and bible-thumping causes enmity for almost all Christians, whether they subscribe to his agenda or not. And the funny thing is, for most true Christians who subscribe to the Bible’s tenets, most of the Bush agenda flies in the face of Christ’s teachings! As a Christian humanist, I have found it appalling that we became the first strike, take revenge country that would go forth “in God’s name” to eliminate terrorism without so much as adequate proof or support of our neighbors! What happened to “turn the other cheek”? or even better, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who hurt you.” I never heard these teachings of Jesus come from George Bush’s mouth in the months before our invasion of Iraq. And now he want’s to vault us back to the Middle Ages and start denying rights to anyone who’s different? His (supposed) Lord would say that we need to spend time with those who are different than ourselves, and that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”
Yes, I’m a believer in Christ and his Word and teachings, but not in the Pro-War, anti-gay, up with the Corporate Rich Bush religion. And it scares me that so many people who are believers in Christ can support him with such disregard of the facts. Kinda sounds like the Anti-Christ that Jesus warned of, and that takes control in the book of Revelation. Scary.
Keep up the good fight, Wil! I love to read your blog everyday!
Right on Wil; and I’m not saying that out of my “idolization” of you, as David D. would have you think.
What blows me away are the polls, and how in favor of proposed change they are. Unbelievable.
I wish I could be more confident about GWB getting outed in Nov.
I wonder… what he was thinking.
The only people he didn’t alienate today where biggots.
Does he really think that there are THAT many biggots left in this country that he will win the election by doing this and winning their votes?
If by some odd chance he does win this election, what does that say about the american people?
Is there still that much hate and intolerance out there?
I really hope not.
Every post like this that you make increases my respect for you 10 fold..
Keep it up!
An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!
And so is mine. But my mother’s is not. Thanks a million for a well-thought and educational post. As a proud child of a lesbian, I thank you.
I love your site Wil! And I love that you post your opinions not matter what!
I quote from a preceding post:
“But the illegal acts being conducted in SanFran are the very things that will damage the image of gays in America to the point that something like an FMA can be passed.”
Hmmm. I suppose Rosa Parks and those like her did not accomplish anything? Every time a group stands up for equality, the country cries “we’re doomed!” Illegal acts, like those in San Fran must occur for discrimination in the law to be abolished. Ms. Parks illegal act ended with the law siding with her.
Rock on, Wil. The only threat to my marriage is from those idiots in congress.
Couldn’t agree with you more.
Look at interracial marriage. Back in 56 when Virginia and some of the first states started performing interracial marriages, it was basically banned, looked down upon and considered a huge threat to “marriage” and so on. All the same stuff being said now about gay marriage.
Now, I’m free to marry an asian or black or white or whatever. Big whoopie.
Will it take another 50 years before homosexuals are able, as taxpaying, responsible, working citizens in this society, to have all its benefits as well?
You’re absolutely right: This is about discrimination and hate, and I’m glad you and others get it. Hate needs to be left at the curb.
David Dickerson,
I do not know if you will read this, but I feel I need to post it anyway. Your devotion to your beliefs is as admirable as Wil’s is to his. You have approached your argument in a rational fashion, and I think you’ve done it quite a service. But there’s still a problem.
Regardless of whether or not you believe in God – or whether or not any of us do, for that matter – it is not our President’s job to defend that. Our government is supposed to be completely separated from religion. It is not Bush’s job to defend the sanctity of anything. It is completely inappropriate for him to even suggest that.
Yes, this argument has been turned by some into a Left vs. Right issue, but if you stop to think about it, it isn’t. It shouldn’t be a political issue at all. This is not our government’s job. Your church has every right to refuse to marry Gay couples if that is against your beliefs. But our government is not supposed to involve itself in that.
Anyway, I’m glad that you’ve shown the courage to voice your opinion, especially since you knew, beforehand, that it might garner negative responses. What makes our country great is that we have the ability to voice dissenting opinions. (Unless they violate the Patriot Act…) You may all now go back to your regularly scheduled programming.
NWW
Great post, Wil. My best friend works at an LGBT community center in Buffalo, NY (www.pridecenterwny.org), and she deals with the repercussions of unequal rights every day — custody of children, death benefits, insurance coverage, health care, and so much more.
I completely respect everyone’s religious beliefs. But they shouldn’t have anything to do with the law. If a church or religion doesn’t accept same-sex marriages, then that’s fine. But that shouldn’t have anything to do with the legal institute of marriage.
Thanks for taking a stand on this, Wil, and opening it up for discussion.
Bravo, Wil!
Thanks for re-establishing my believe that there actually are Americans with brains. I live in Germany, and everything that I heard and saw comming from America while GWB was usurper of the presidency made me really scared of your country and the people living there.
If those fundamental-christians want to live in a christian theocracy, why don’t they live in the Vatican-State???
I do not care what religion a person has, as long as he or she doesn’t try to make me live according to their religious laws, which clearly are not MY laws. I guess a lot of Americans are with me on this one.
Marriage should be open to all people, no matter whom they love. Is my love second class because I love a woman? I don’t think so.
Marriage has not been invented by the christian church, so, please, to all those fundamental-christians out there: stop acting as if you are the ones who have a right to grant this right to some people and deny it to others.
Wow. Exactly. Abso-freaking-lutely exactly!
Last week I took my ten year old son to SF City Hall to show support for the folks waiting in line to get married. We brought snacks, and chocolate, and water, and other goodies. Mostly we brought smiling faces.
It was fabulous in many, many ways. One unexpected way (sadly) was that he was suitably horrified to see the messages of hate on the protester’s signs. He just plain couldn’t GET it … Good. I’m glad he doesn’t get that.
What you wrote was, as always, incredibly eloquent and to the point, and pertinent.
Your book isn’t going to suffer because of this, Wil. You’re a genuine human being, and those who care about genuine human beings will still be interested in your writings – even the ones they’ll have to pay for. Thanks so much for putting those thoughts into such well-spoken words.
Funny – my marriage hasn’t suffered a bit from the marriages across the bay either!
Oh, yeah. Personally, I support equal rights for all. 🙂 Excellent post, Wil. And wonderful comments, all.
hi wil! i think your career will be okay. now, this is what i feel: i am christian, i believe in the bible, and i believe it is WRONG WRONG WRONG to discriminate against, and reflect hate or disapproval to homosexuals or anyone. i agree with you, politically or legally preventing gay marriage does say it’s okay to relegate homosexuals to second class citizens and that’s unbelievable in this day and time. haven’t americans figured out yet what happens when you do this? hopefully we’ll get it soon!