Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, April 29, 2009
Life Dear Ms. Gallagher
Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM
I have a good friend here in Seattle who for years has been writing the most amazing letters to right wing blowhards and sharing them with a small group of gays. I love reading them because they're the kind of thing I just do not have the patience to do. Get logical with Maggie Gallagher in a private e-mail asking her to change her mind on gay marriage? To me, it's a lose-lose: I waste my time and she gets what she wants, which is attention and a feeling that people care what she thinks.
But my friend believes in making personal appeals to these types, and I really admire him for that. On days like yesterday, when he gets Maggie Gallagher to write him back—not to agree with him, not even to be nice to him, but at least to write him back—I start to think that maybe he's right. Maybe these types can be reached, argued with, and, ultimately, persuaded. (Or maybe Maggie Gallagher just can't resist an opportunity to be Maggie Gallagher, no matter the medium or format.)
His e-mail:
From: XXXXSent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Subject: If I may.
Hi there Maggie,I'm curious about a couple of things.
If I may:
I'm gay and live in WA State. If WA State made it possible for me to marry my partner (which, I'm not entirely sure I would yet, but...) please tell me what you think that would do to affect my married or unmarried heterosexual neighbors?
I really fail to see how it would affect ANYONE but me, my partner and my legal rights. SO, please tell me what I'm failing to see?
And, if you choose to quote the Bible or claim your religious beliefs will be lessened, I'm Jewish. So, again, you and your organization getting in my business is somewhat curious to me, since I don't have the same religious beliefs as you do.
And the notion that marriage equality is damaging the institution of marriage...again, I don't understand how my marriage or another marriage between two people who love one another would do that. ("Gay" marriage or "same-sex" marriage doesn't seem the correct term - is it "African-American" marriage or "Asian" marriage, no, it's marriage...please use that term going forward...marriage equality).
And you quote the statistics in interviews I've read that 2/3 of the United States is against marriage equality. Did you know that a similar statistic can be found for interracial marriage circa 1967, when that was made legal nationally? I'm sure you do know that; isn't really prudent to mention that though. And, in some states in the South, I'm sure that interracial marriage is still not a favorite of folks.
Tyranny of the majority over a minority.
Oh, and yes, I was born gay. Had these feelings since I can remember. Never was interested in woman in a sexual way. I find it interesting that people (like Miss Prejean) think I would CHOOSE to be discriminated. Just can't wrap my brain around that one.
So, If I may...please tell me your thoughts.
Thanks
And her reply:
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009Subject: Re: If I may.
From: maggiegallagherXXXX@XXXXXX.com
To: XXXXX
Hey XXXXX can you imagine how many times I've answered this question?So sorry to unload on you. . . because I do appreciate your taking the time to share your views. But have you read anything I've written on this? YOu can go to www.marriagedebate.com and read much of my answers.
I'm sure you won't agree. People don't on an issue like this.
But I do try to explain myself!
Take care,
Is it raining out there? Or are you East of the Cascades?
Maggie
It's always "Well read this, or go here"
Not ONE time will they tell you how it will hurt heterosexual marriage and we all know why....
It doen't affect it one damn bit.
She even took the time to think about WA state!
jeeeezzzz!
Maggie Gallagher isn't the one that needs convincing. She's already made up her mind and if she's tops in an organization specifically AGAINST marriage, she's not gonna change her mind.
It's the fence sitters that need convincing. The people who don't ever talk about it and don't really care or think about it one way or another, but at the polls, are easily swayed by right wing propaganda shit like "they want to take your rights away!" THOSE are the ones who need convincing.
David Dark has a bit in his new book where he talks about Fred Friendly who "famously observed that it was the job of the journalist to create a pain in the audience’s minds, a pain so intense that it can only be relieved by thinking. " Extend that job description to any bearer of story, any bearer of witness, and we have a strategy for winning this battle.
I don't think closted people belong to the LGBT community, covertly or otherwise. They avoid being identified as gay, lesbian bi, or trans, and are actually members of a shadow community all their own. That they occasionally interact with people who are out is incidental.
This is obviously my own opinion. I wonder what other LGBT people think. Are closet cases members of our community?
Thanks for mentioning that because it shouldn't be underestimated: People like Maggie Gallagher make their living running the anti-gay industry. Trying to reason with her--as if someone like her is capable of compassion or empathy--is also asking her to give up her career.
Forget it. You'd have more luck with the creature from Alien.
Each person gets to draw that line for themselves and I'm curious about how people make those decisions. Any care to share?
A person can be capable of articulating the reasons for her beliefs without being required to do so anytime anyone demands it.
Given the topic I assumed that said person was a policymaker or other such influential figure. If they are going to let their beliefs guide or inform their decisions they had better come clean anytime anyone demands it.
If you were just talking about normal citizens, then sure, I agree. I wouldn't expect my grandmother to want to share her beliefs on poly- bi- bestial- babyfur relationships with me, nor would I really want to hear them. (Disclaimer: I seriously doubt/hope she has any such beliefs)
Feminism, birth control, and no-fault divorce have had much, much more impact on breaking down the traditional meaning of marriage and the dissolution of the two-parent, opposite sex family. The more of her stuff I read, the more I think she and her allies are wishing they could put the genie that has emerged over the last 50 years back in the bottle if only we keep the gays from getting married.
1. fear that their church will have to (legally) perform gay weddings
2. fear that god will remove blessings to america for indulging in sin
3. belief that marriage is a mirror of god and to distort that would distort the view of god (this is why some of them favor civil unions but not marriage)
4. belief that a child is best served by having both a mother and a father
5. devaluing the word marriage devalues those who are married (for example, if harvard gave degrees out to everyone, a degree from harvard would soon mean nothing significant)
6. fear that their children will brainwashed into thinking gay marriage is okay
7. fear that you will not be able to speak out against the homosexual lifestyle without committing a hate crime
8. fear that if being gay is made easy that more (maybe their kids) will choose that lifestyle - remember, maybe think it is just a choice
9. fear that more people will just get married to take advantage of the tax incentives
10. belief that things that are really wrong and/or "creepy" shouldn't be legal (And, okay, maybe some things are so creepy that they ought to be illegal just, you know, because.)
11. belief that government endorsed marriage is for the purpose of gaining the benefits not of relationships but of what a "strong family" contributes to society, and that those benefits are not found in same-sex families (including health, longevity, education, procreation, etc...)
for some of these, there may not be a direct effect on another's marriage, but still a strong indirect effect. examples of this might include a less godly nation, less moral community, slippery slope issues, free speech issues, etc... not only that, "justice" isn't always sought after for oneself, but also for others (think of the children).
it's tough, because you never know which type of person you are talking with when the issue pops up. sometimes, they don't even know!
it's fun to just dismiss them, and about half of them cannot seem to offer a coherent response if you ask them why.
but it's also important to understand there are actual "reasons" - even if they are flawed. it's by addressing these reasons that you can address the larger picture.
more than that, though, is just having them meet some nice gay folks. that seems to do more to change someone's mind than anything else.
Those are indeed the arguments I hear. I would also add the disease argument.
The redefinition of marriage will encourage aberrant behaviors which will then result in the spread of diseases.
A "double-opposite" marriage is a fourgy or the FLDS, I think.
Also, Prejean and other bigoted, irrational incoherent fools like her deserve a good, hard swift kick to the buttocks. If your marriage is in the toilet, it isn't the gays fault...unless your husband got scooped up in one of those park trolling stings. Then one gay man (and an undercover cop) is responsible for your marriage being in the toilet...not all gays or all gay men.
1. It changes the definition of the words "marriage," "husband," and "wife." People will have to use modifiers if they want to make the distinction between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages. A woman will now have to say, "I'm married - to a man."
2. Gays are unprepared for the ramifications of marriage. a) they like the idea of being financially independent, whereas heterosexuals are wired to want to share their resources; b) they are okay with polyamory, but in some states, adultery is a crime.
3. It makes enforcing responsibility for childcare legally impossible, since there is no "presumption of paternity." Her assertion is that when a gay spouse bails and leaves the other with the kids, the law cannot force the the abandoner to pay child care, because he/she is not the actual parent.
4. It sanctifies gay couples, and married straight people have to then share that sanctity, which is now lessened because it includes gay people.
5. Marriage is for making babies, and gay marriage trivializes that crucially important aspect.
6. The next generation isn't for gay marriage because they are less bigoted; they are for gay marriage because they are too young to understand how it hurts marriage, and too young to resist brainwashing by the left.
If gay marriage is legalized what excuses will remain for discriminating against polygamists?
Those that find themselves in the gutter were put there by people like you. So we get up, dust ourselves off, and work to be treated fairly. Remember the Golden Rule.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS