Not many defenders of 'Defending marriage'

_{I sympathize with the letter writer of March 6 (“Dubious protection”) who longs to hear a cogent argument why same-sex marriage threatens traditional heterosexual marriages like her own. She will not hear one from American politicians, clergymen or editorialists. Nevertheless, there is a cogent argument to be made.
 
Most proponents of same-sex marriage assume that the number of heterosexual marriages will remain constant after legalization, because the number of heterosexual men and women is constant. This assumption is based in turn on the premise that human sexual orientation is fixed, a premise contradicted by considerable historical evidence.
 
In classical Athens and Renaissance Florence, and probably Renaissance London as well, men had gay sex in far greater numbers than current statistics on homosexual identity would predict. Indeed, a 1996 study published by Oxford University Press demonstrates with extensive documentary evidence that between 1432 and 1502 nearly half of Florentine males were officially cited for having homosexual relations.
 
The historical evidence suggests, in other words, that in addition to the question, Do homosexuals choose homosexuality?, we need to ask a second question, Do heterosexuals choose homosexuality? In practical terms, can we be certain that same-sex marriage is not a sufficient incentive for some percentage of straight women to marry lesbians, while enjoying no-strings heterosexual relations with men as opportunity arises? The parenting and other domestic responsibilities are sure to be more equally shared! Likewise with straight men, although with different rationales to be sure.
 
Until we can answer these and similar questions with more authority than we can muster now, it is hard to see how same-sex marriage is not at least potentially a threat to traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I realize how sensitive this matter is: I would almost rather not write than hurt feelings needlessly. But surely it is imperative for us to address this most fundamental question about the relationships of men and women fearlessly and with the clearest-eyed view possible.
 
Nick Cariello
Chapel Hill
 
---------------------------------------------------------}

It is sad the author of the March 6 Point of View “Defending marriage” actually believes her freedom will suffer if North Carolina fails to pass the Defense of Marriage Act. Marriage should be prohibited when it has obvious detrimental effects on society, such as those that could result if family members wed. The majority should never deny the civil rights of minorities by means of a popular vote. It a shame the author wishes to deny others the very right she reserves for herself.

Gale Kerbaugh
Raleigh
    
---------------------------------------------------------

 In response to the March 6 Point of View regarding a constitutional amendment (SB272, HB 361) regarding defense of marriage:

All good Christians, when they take their marriage vows, promise to honor their vows until “death do us depart.”  We would suggest that the first, and utmost effort for “defending marriage” should be a constitutional amendment to prohibit divorce, retroactively.

Helmut C. and Nancy S. Mueller
Married Jan 27, 1959)

---------------------------------------------------------

Tami Fitzgerald, writer of the March 6 Point of View “Defending marriage,” feels the state of North Carolina needs an amendment banning same-sex marriage in order to protect religious freedom, and she claims thousands of other laws would be affected! Those statements alone are extremely difficult to defend, but one of the most egregious comments made by Fitzgerald is that such an amendment “will protect children from being taught in school that homosexuality is normal, and that same-sex unions are the legal and moral equivalent of traditional marriage.”

It is not part of the North Carolina mandated curriculum that children must be taught homosexuality is either normal or abnormal or that same-sex marriages are or are not the moral equivalent of traditional marriages, so a lack of Fitzgerald’s favored amendment certainly is not needed for those reasons.

The biggest problem I have with her is the use of the term “normal.” What does Fitzgerald mean by “normal”? Does she mean average? Does she mean what is acceptable for her particular biases and bigotry? Homosexuality is not a chosen condition, nor does it depend on a person being molested by a pedophile priest, fundamentalist preacher or any other sick person. People are born homosexual, and so in that sense homosexuality is as normal as being left-handed, having red hair, blue eyes or blood group AB negative. A left-handed, red-haired, blue-eyed person with blood group AB negative is indeed rather rare, but such a person is not abnormal.

My wife and I have been married for almost 48 years. If Rush Limbaugh married Phil Gramm, that would have absolutely no effect on my marriage.  Our marriage depends on our love and devotion to each other.

I suggest if your marriage depends on establishing a law that prevents two people from being married even if they are the same sex then you need to take a serious look at your own relationship, not that of another couple.

Albert D. Robinson
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

The writer of the Point of View “Defending marriage” is being disingenuous when she claims that the Defense of Marriage Act will defend freedoms. Our freedoms become imperiled when our children do not receive an education that is based on fact. Religious groups believe that homosexuality is abnormal and a sin, but their belief is based on books of dubious and unsubstantiated veracity. Religion is based on belief, not fact.

Fact: The American Medical Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973.

Fact: Gay people engage in committed monogamous long term relationships as do heterosexual people.

The writer also says the act will preserve marriage as the millenia old “institution” that is the “safest environment for raising children.”

Fact: Since time immemorial gay people have engaged in and continue to engage in committed monogamous long-term relationships as do heterosexual people without deleterious effects on heterosexual marriage and the population of the human race.

Fact: The ability to bear children is not a factor or requirement of marriage in the U.S. or in N.C., as many infertile people or those who chose not to have children do marry.

Religious fervor should not be legislated.

Freda Kerr
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

The March 6 column by Tami Fitzgerald should have been more aptly titled “Defending bigotry” or “Promoting ignorance.” The fight for marriage equality for gays and lesbians is just that: a fight for legal equality. Nothing more and nothing less.

But the people afraid of equality just cannot help themselves. “The family is under attack,” they yell. “Marriage is being defiled,” they cry. An amendment to the constitution is “necessary to preserve religious freedom,”  Fitzgerald writes. And always, always, the tired canard that somehow our children are in danger if we don’t stop those gay people.

This is hysteria plain and simple, and hateful hysteria at that. No one is trying to harm your family, undermine your marriage or interfere with your right to practice any religion you choose. I have a simple suggestion: If you think that gay marriage is wrong, don’t marry another woman. I think your definition of Christianity is twisted and narrow and wrong. So I won’t go to your church. I would not seek to prevent you from going there, however. And I think you should allow others the same freedom to live their lives according to their own light that you take for granted.

Richard Oliver
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

According to Tami Fitzgerald (March 6th opinion piece), our existing marriage laws are susceptible to constitutional equal protection challenges.  Ironic how Fitzgerald herself would be unable to vote in such a referendum were it not for equal protection. If existing laws cannot support a constitutional challenge, so be it. A referendum to denigrate constitutional protections is unacceptable.

Protection seems to be a central theme of the article, but I am still at a loss for how heterosexual marriages, my own included, are in any way threatened or redefined if homosexual couples wish to legally marry, too. 

Many feel this way, too, so Fitzgerald resorts to scare tactics about school curriculums and loss of religious freedoms.

The Catholic church and the state have long maintained separate views on divorce. There is no precedence for believing that churches cannot hold their own views on marriage.

The well-meaning individuals behind this referendum would do well to take a moment to reflect back to when they chose to be heterosexual.
Oh, wait, they didn’t choose it?  Think again. If you are honest with yourself and set aside irrational fears, you realize (as does science and medicine) that no one chooses to be gay or straight. Honoring core constitutional protections or discarding them — now that’s a choice!

Alan Rich
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

The N&O gets it (editorial, March 8): A constitution or its amendment makes an issue harder for future generations of Tar Heels to decide differently. And then misses it: The change of heart about marriage that you anticipate is opposed to a history of millenniums— a period that has seen a marriage between a male and a female provide humanity its first institution and a cornerstone to the civilizations it has served and survived.

Certainly, a person’s worldview makes a difference on this issue. As a historian, I believe it unwise to redefine marriage, which has served our world for so long and so well. As an American, I accept that there might be other states that decide differently on this issue.

As an N.C. resident, I want to care for all people, allow hospital visits among gays, etc; but I also want a marriage amendment. As a person of democracy, I think our society should still be governed by the morals and principles of the majority, provided they do not trounce on the minority. Let us vote! Most religious people, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, realize that God gives all his children freedom of choice but not necessarily his stamp of approval.

Peter Dubbelman
Cary