Newsclipper services send me scurrying all over the Internetiverse, up shadowy staircases, into brightly lit rooms, through mirrored passages and sometimes into rancid larders. Thus it was that I stumbled upon this column spinning the latest complaint from the anti-gay marriage cabal that gay people who are upset about losing battles for their civil rights are sore losers.
That's right: if you can't deal with the fact that people want you to live like a second-class citizen in your own country and not be allowed the legal rights and social privileges of all other tax-paying Americans because you don't fuck the people they think you should be fucking (and let's be honest: this is the only reason people freak out about homosexuality), then something is wrong with you. So get over it.
It's a messed up world, isn't it? And by now, seeing as I'm a sadomasochistic/queer/female/dominatrix person, you'd think I'd have a nice tough hide when it comes to anti-sex rights rhetoric and sexual discrimination. And I do. For the most part. Still, the fundamental injustice of denying people their rights based on what kind of consensual sex they have burns like acid through that hide to the abidingly tender core of my humanism.
I saw this on the Boston Globe's site, regurgitating the same puke about how oppressed minorities should quit whining about getting the shitty end of the American political stick, and my back went up at this unforgivably ignorant ramble.
I think it would be reckless to jettison the understanding, as old as civilization itself, that society has a deep interest in promoting families anchored by a married man and woman. It seems to me nonsensical to claim that men and women are utterly interchangeable, or to deny that children are likeliest to thrive when they are raised by both a mother and a father. I believe that timeless moral standards must not be casually overturned and that doing so is apt to have unintended and unfortunate consequences. And I am sure that legalizing same-sex wedlock would fuel demands for further radical change - legalizing plural marriage, for example.
Naturally, he is "sure" of a lot of things. Of course. They're always sure, aren't they? Unfortunately, in the real world -- that world where facts and evidence and reality aren't viewed as mere inconveniences to the point one is making but actually hold meaning-- he is wrong about all the things he's sure about.
So I indulged in a rare compulsion and wrote him a letter. I have waited about a week now in case he wished to reply and either defend his position or -- preferably -- kiss the ground I walk on for correcting his error and showing him the truth. He's done none of the above so I'm going to go ahead and post my letter below. If he ever gets back to me, I'll share his comments here.
Dear Mr. Jacoby,
I'm not a gay activist, although sympathetic to their cause. I'm a heterosexual, married woman.
I'd like to know if you can prove your assertion that there is an "understanding, as old as civilization itself, that society has a deep interest in promoting families anchored by a married man and woman."
Which civilization are you referring to? How do you date civilization?
Our understanding of marriage as it is today is largely a 19th century construct. For most of human history, families were "anchored" by property and inheritance issues. Marriage as you describe it did not exist when Christ was alive. Government participation in marriage was unknown. Government laws regulating marriage is a late development. A history of marriage is readily available on Wiki to all who care about the facts.
So back up your contention please or educate yourself before lazily spreading myths as basic truths. As an American, you are certainly entitled to your political opinions. As a writer, you owe a duty to readers to do your research.