Message to a Prop 8 supporter

In a previous post, I mentioned that a fellow Facebooker messaged me about one of the posts I wrote in response to a Prop 8 supporter. The Prop 8 supporter's comments were typical: that homosexuality is a choice, that the definition of marriage has been the same for thousands of years, that marriage is only for procreation and that this is what Loving v. Virginia is about (?!), that same-sex marriage will threaten our survival and undermine our ability to carry on the "race of humans", and that we all have the same civil right, namely, we all have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. (That last one always gets me... just like we all had the same civil right to marry 60 years ago: we all had the right to marry someone of our own race.)

/emote rolls her eyes

Anyway, she said that it was one of the best responses she'd ever read and encouraged me to send it to newspapers. :) I thought I'd share my message for anyone who is thinking of writing their own letters:

[Prop 8 Supporter],

Please read this: http://www.gfcbaltimore.org/GFC_VT_Mom.htm

Herein lies the problem. If you think that sexual orientation is something you can change, then that makes it difficult to argue that people should not be discriminated against for things they cannot change. I don't think you can change your sexual orientation and there is plenty of evidence that "therapy" doesn't work. You can decide to be celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex in order to fit in, but that doesn't change your sexual orientation. Not only that, you are depriving another human being the opportunity to marry with someone with whom they even have a fighting chance of having a fulfilling partnership with, which I don't think is fair. (I'm sure that is another discussion that we can have... how many people have been hurt by sham marriages with people trying to rid themselves of "homosexuality").

The right to marry the person of one's choice is still a choice. But it is not a choice like what to eat for lunch. It is the same type of choice that religion is. It is a spiritual choice. Your heart and mind chooses, and no force of will can change it (or at least it is very hard to change). If someone asked me if I could stop believing in God or whatever higher power I believe in, I would say no way. If someone asked a Protestant if they could be Catholic instead, they are probably going to say no, even if being Protestant was illegal. If someone asked me if I could choose someone other than my husband to be my life partner, my soulmate, I would say no way. If there was a law on the books that said I could not marry him, I would still be with him, even if it meant that I could not have the same recognition, protections, etc. that other couples do. Spirituality and sexual orientation are so coupled, that I don't see how the right to marry is not protected the same way that the freedom of religion is. If I am not sexually attracted to someone, I can't imagine how I can fall in love with them or have any kind of spiritual connection that comes with being in love with someone.

Also, the definition of marriage never meant to me (and many others) what it means to you. It always meant to me that I would be able to marry the person my heart and mind decided would be my life partner, and I hope that everyone has that right and that the families they form have the same legal status and protections the rest of us do. There should be no difference under the law. No religion has to recognize the unions they don't want to, and they don't now anyway, so why does it matter if 2% of the population can now marry each other in a civil contract? It's not going to change anything for the 98% of us, or cause us all to become gay. There will be no shortage of children to carry on the "race of humans". It's not going to threaten our survival. If you are arguing that it will, then that's ridiculous. And in fact, it's going to be much better for all of us, and those reasons have already been documented. Also, Mildred Loving (from Loving v. Virginia) made it clear that she wasn't fighting for the right of black people to marry white people. She wasn't a part of an immutable group of black people who could only fall in love with white people. People told her that she had the right to marry another black person, just not a white person. No, she and her husband were fighting for the right to marry the person their hearts and minds had already chosen. And this was her statement last year (which eloquently states the spirit of their court case and speaks of her stance on same-sex marriage):

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."