thomascwaters.com

While I don’t disagree with the main premise of this opinion- that any discourse on Marriage Equality ought to be civil, there are so many inaccuracies or objectionable portrayals to stop there. So, I’d like to offer some commentary on Mt Talcott’s opinion.

So we should think about and discuss the issue without trying to radicalize, marginalize or insult those who might disagree with our views or arguments.

Attempting to display himself as balanced and open to discussion, this sentiment is expressed, but soon forgotten. within a few sentences we read:

However, “same sex marriage” is not a right; denial of the status of marriage is not discrimination. “Same sex marriage” is a classic dictionary oxymoron.

This serves to radicalize and marginalize his opponents. Something that is by definition an oxymoron, clearly radical. What’s up with that? Additionally, when I look up Marriage in the Webster dictionary, the found definition can and does include same-sex partners.

Admittedly, certain factions have blemished the institution from time to time. Some religions, such as Islam, have treated women despicably; even in America, full equality has lagged.

The history of this statement is problematic as well as the religious bias expressed. It isn’t hard to find mistreatment of women present in all faith backgrounds including Christianity. Some historians would argue that the reason there is a civil component to marriage was to assure the rights of both parties, since prior to that time, the woman was merely a piece of property being passed from the father to the husband. However here is the single most objectionable statement in the whole opinion:

But now — even with past inequalities and present unacceptable divorce rates, domestic violence and breaches of wedding commitments — traditional marriage is the most basic unit of civilized society, worldwide, and most worthy of being exalted and preserved.

The Family has been the most basic unit of society until fairly recent history when the family has been replaced by the individual as the most basic unit. It can be argued that traditional marriage is the start of the family, but the number of families begun outside of wedlock demonstrates this not to be the case at all. Religious traditionalists can argue that children need both a mother and a father, but research doesn’t support that clam, nor does Talcott make it directly, even if that is his intended implication. More interesting it would be if Talcott tried to explain why traditional marriage should b e exalted or preserved rather than simple state that it should. Additionally he implies that allowing same-sex civil marriage would “do something” to traditional marriage such that it would need to be preserved. Yet, this is not the case. The only thing that would change is the special rights traditional marriage would confer. Unless he (or others) can express how those special rights are critical to traditional marriage, traditional marriage preservationists have nothing to worry about. It could be argued that “past inequalities and present unacceptable divorce rates, domestic violence and breaches of wedding commitments” demonstrate that traditional marriage is broken and would be best served with evolved change.

I have friends and relatives who are bona fide homosexuals. I love and respect them as persons and want to help ensure that no right is denied them and no discrimination is perpetuated against them.

Here, Talcott expresses a preference for the traditional man/woman marriage over the value  of the individual. y hope is that where ever he lives, he is a strong and outspoken proponent for nondiscrimination legislation and hate crimes legislation- laws designed to ensure the rights of individual homosexuals.

However, “same sex marriage” is not a right; denial of the status of marriage is not discrimination.

But here is the actual basis of the entire marriage equality discussion. what is and isn’t a right, and therefore, protected or not protected. and yet, it is clearly discrimination. Discrimination, in and of itself, isn’t always a bad thing. It is where these two things, rights and discrimination come into contact that is the important intersection.

Now, all “advantages” of “traditional marriage” are available to homosexuals by contract — or by “civil union” or “domestic partner” agreements.

This is blatantly untrue. While civil unions offer many of the rights and protections, it does not afford all of them.  If it did, this may be a non-issue, all or most states would have allowed civil unions, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But a civil union doesn’t afford same-sex couples with all the rights and protections. Personally, I’m all for civil unions if the civil unions are given all the same rights and protections. My suggestion would be to eliminate the marriage license process, and replace it with civil unions for all couples. Then, churches can perform weddings for those couples that it chooses to recognize.

Homosexuals would be wise to adopt an original description for their relationships within their sexual orientation and with others. Don’t use language already used exclusively and unobtrusively by others. Original ideas will gain more support and respect more quickly.

Except that gay relationships bear a striking resemblance to straight relationships- they are more alike than they are different. My partner and I live across the street from a straight couple that have been together almost as long as we have. ( We will celebrate 10 years together this weekend!) That couple bought their house partly because our house had a rainbow flag. They knew that gays in the neighborhood meant that home values would rise as gays tend to help resuscitate neighborhoods. Over the years we have become fairly close to them, and we are extremely similar! People like Talcott want to portray gay couples as different, but we really aren’t.

Marriage is one of our most venerable and specific words — extant longer than most ancient copyrights. Usurpation and distortion of another’s dance (or words) diminishes your credibility.

This is just hogwash. Marriage has changed significantly over time. In the Hebrew scriptures, it was polygamous in nature. The relationship between the biblical Jonathan and David , displayed more love and emotion than David’s marriage to his wife, and would seem closer to what we call a marriage today. Throughout most of history, marriage provided a way for the elite to protect bloodlines and family wealth, while men frequently had children by slaves and other women, yet did not have to be responsible for them. Betsy Ross and her first husband had to elope because it was not acceptable to her church to marry outside of the denomination. To suggest that marriage is a monolithic entity that hasn’t changed ever, is a fantasy not born out in history.

Those who produce families and perpetuate the species are entitled to different treatment from those who are plain narcissists. No undeserved advantage; no discrimination!

However one of the biggest reasons why gay couples want to be married is to protect their families. They frequently have children themselves or adopt children. To suggest that gay relationships are plain narcissists is silly and not based in reality.

If your cause is “right,” you should avoid sullying it by violating another’s personal freedom or speech.

This too, is pure hogwash. No one’s personal freedom of speech was violated in any way. The truth is that when an individual signs a petition, it is a public document. The No on 8 campaign only made a public document more available than it might be otherwise. This was totally legal. It allowed individuals to decide to financially support those who support the gay rights community and keep our money from those who do not. That is the free market system, nothing more.

Bottom line: Mr Talcott wishes to be perceived as open, gracious, and civil, and yet he is not really any of these things as he misrepresents the issues, history, and context within which this debate on marriage equality is happening. He displays a condescending attitude towards gay people ( I feel sorry for those he considers friends or family) and shows little understanding of gay couples.

Same sex marriage deserves a more civil discussion.