My letter to the editor to the Decatur Herald & Review generated responses. Here is one of them.
Listen up Bible believers. I could not possibly care any less about you and your personal religious views or what you “think.” As far as I am concerned no religious leader should ever be required to perform any religious ceremony–weddings or otherwise. They should stay OUT of government and government should leave them alone. It’s bad enough that I am forced to subsidize religion whether I approve or not.
Marriage as determined under the licensing law is a matter of CIVIL CONTRACT. You have no right to determine for me as a gay man with whom I may love or enter into a marriage CONTRACT. Anymore than I have a right to tell you whether or not you can buy a house or a car. If I ever tried to use the power of the government to restrict your right to marry you would be outraged.
I am assuming that the parties to such a contract (as in all contract law) are willing, able and ready to agree to terms. This knocks out the dopey right wing nonsense about marrying kids, dogs or pledging myself for life to a table leg. Do NOT try and force your personal (and aberrant in my view) religious lifestyle off on the rest of us.
Mind your own business. Whether I can or will procreate is none of your business. Straight people have a divorce rate in excess of 50%. That proves you are not stable. Clean your own filthy glass house before you criticize mine.
I recently married my cop boyfriend of 27 years. It was a great wedding. All four of our grown kids were there. One ex-wife showed up and we danced and had a great time. After 27 years I’m betting my relationship has lasted a lot longer than many of your straight marriages. If my getting married ruins yours–TOO BAD. You apparently had little to lose anyway.
In this reply against my letter to editor, there is nothing positive with regard to a “moral component” perspective. It is a matter of civil contract, one’s desire, and the role of government in the affairs of the community. This man married his boyfriend.
From this we can be sure of the following: first, his moral code is only that which he wants and likes. There is nothing that is outside of himself that compels him to behave in a particular way; if he wants, he will. Second, if marriage is a civil contract only, then civil contracts can be altered by the state (community) at will. This moves the moral code from the individual to the community. There is, however, no reason to demand volition from two, when one will do. On what basis should the community demand the volition of two? Only because it wants to; there is no moral obligation on the part of the community that requires them to give attention to another party. If there is, on what basis? Would you say human dignity? That is simply arbitrary. Third, as per the direction of his assertive argument, this justifies polygamy, polyandry, the union of an adult with an arbitrarily declared minor, or two arbitrarily declared minors making a union. If one opposes, on what basis would this be done? The community standard? Arbitrary! Fourth, religious views are aberrant, but not the perspective the homosexual community. Fifth, if “straight” people have a high divorce rate (this is true), then “non-straight” (crooked?) people are not to be judged by a people who fail to live by a particular moral standard they imply (and push) on others.