Laura's Letter

Letter to Michael...
I think that you spent too much time on my incorrect use of the word prejudice. I see what you are saying and I think the words oppression (as you used) and discrimination (treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit) would be better words to use, so I will from now on.

You said "There are crimes against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation but it nothing on the scope or scale as the institutional disenfranchisement and terrorism against blacks." Yes, it appears that the LGBQT community has not had to face the same tragedies of blacks (or jews for that matter), but that doesn't mean they haven't suffered - I know gay people who have been kicked in the head while being called queer, threatened and even raped. And it certainly doesn't mean that any injustice they experience is right just because it may or may not have been as intense as the injustices faced by the black community--and I'm not saying you were suggesting such.

"You could argue that this Proposition is be the first step in that direction but this is a heavy burden of proof (but a noble undertaking to attempt)." Yes I do, but that is not my main argument, nor can I prove that in any way, nor do I try to use that as my argument.
When I say ALL people should be treated equally, of course I am not talking about "active murderers, children and acknowledged enemies of the state." I think you are getting hung up on the words I am using, language can be a tricky thing and I find myself being hindered by it more than being helped by it. "The ideal is equal rights for all responsible persons." - Yes, lets talk about that!

You said "When it comes to the social and legal benefits given to married couples (social acceptance, tax status and the like) I do not believe that these are rights that the married population deserves outright. Those blessings are not a right acknowledged but a reward given by society for perceived merit. The state for holds the position that marriage (what is being called "traditional marriage) is beneficial to society and therefore is granted certain benefits." Perhaps the state does, but that does not mean it views gay marriage as NOT being beneficial to the state. In fact a common stereotype is that "gays" have lots of money and therefore the state and economy would probably benefit from same sex marriages for obvious reasons. But the reward for what? Being straight? Perceived merit-what does that mean? That straights have a perceived merit that gays don't? Perceptions are not reality.

"When the state or voting population..." Actually it was only the voting population that decided this issue. The state had decided that same-sex marriage was legal since banning it would be unconstitutional..."decides that homosexual unions do not deserve the exact same legal status (which marriage provides and civil union only partly provides) they are not pre-judging homosexuals but post-judging them." Yes they are post-judging them! That was my point, thank you for making it for me :)

"The statement is that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality." Wow, first off, the term "homosexual" is considered offensive (http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay039s-anatomy/200810/the-terms-homosexual-and-the-n-word) just fyi. But this is the heart of the matter that we're getting into. This is where I think it is wrong to believe that being gay means you are not equal to others (ie. straights), but that's my OWN belief. I understand that. People can think blondes are better than brunettes, ice cream is better than cake (I do), even think whites are better than blacks, but LAWS cannot be made on these discriminations, prejudices, bigotries, whatever word works best. Making a law as such, would be oppression.

"To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression." Why is it disappointing? How is it not oppression?

"The logical next step in this letter is to go over the rational (rather than emotional) reasons that homosexuality is considered to be lesser than heterosexuality." OK, lets hear them. Some I already have heard and I don't know if this is what you have in mind to bring up: -The bible says...- I don't mean to be rude or inconsiderate towards your faith or anyone else's, but it doesn't matter what the bible says in the eyes of the law. Or at least it shouldn't, church and state are separate. -Gays can't procreate- No, but they can provide loving households to children in need. Also, that argument implies that marriage is a contract entered into to procreate, when in reality many straight couples do not procreate because they can't, don't want to, or for other personal reasons. To say "but they CAN" isn't always true, because some people cannot.

Once again, whatever you or anyone else believes or feels, when it comes to the law, the law can't discriminate. Its in our constitution, I'm not making this stuff up.

Another big part of my argument is that some people are not born "man" or "woman" they are intersexed. Its our society that FORCES these people to pick a side. But I would argue to a man of faith, that these people were made "as God made them" and are who they are. What I've learned is that gender is not as clear cut as most of think it to be. What about those who get sex changes? Who do they marry? Do they get a "Marry Anyone You Want Free" card?

Basically I see 2 solutions- marriage goes back to the churches and the state only deals with legal contracts OR all responsible, consenting adults can get married.

Sincerely,Laura