It has been about a week since same-sex marriages started in San Francisco, and I have just completed a random spot check on their impact on my heterosexual married friends here. So far, all of them are still together, though one wife has gone to Oregon to visit a sick friend. However, her husband seems pretty confident that she will return. Another couple, oblivious to the fuss, went on a second honeymoon to celebrate their 25th anniversary. My own husband of 40 years said he'll stick around even though the children are all grown.
Unfortunately, I do not have the home phone numbers for Liz Taylor, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Larry King, Liza Minnelli or Britney Spears, so I can only hope that all the wedded bliss up north will not negatively affect the sanctity of their next round of marriages.
Whether one favors or opposes gay marriage, the recent events in San Francisco are quite disturbing. California law is very clear when it comes to a definition of marriage. Yet somehow, the mayor of San Francisco has decided that state law does not apply in his jurisdiction. Do we really want to live in a society where our elected leaders decide willy-nilly which laws do or do not apply? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
When the gay rights movement began to gain strength in the '80s, complaints from opponents were that gays were promiscuous, that they had fueled the growth of AIDS. Now that the fight is for gay marriage or civil unions for monogamous gays, the complaints are that they do not deserve the rights of traditional married couples. What is the problem? Promiscuity? Long-term committed relationships? The problem is that one cannot argue with prejudice. Strengthening all families -- those of straights and gays -- can only strengthen all society.
Employers beware! Watch the back of the line of gay people getting married and you will see the polygamists lining up to marry their multiple wives. Imagine the nightmare of providing benefits to 26 wives and their children.
Nobody will have to lie anymore to get benefits or welfare. No more lying to get full coverage everywhere. Employers and the welfare system had better plan on hiring a lot of extra people to handle the traffic.
Barbara von Diether
Who is fit to marry? Richard Ramirez, mass murderer, can marry; a 100-year-old can marry an 18-year-old; liberated minors can marry; pedophiles can marry; alcoholics and junkies can marry; spousal abusers can marry; Protestants can marry Catholics; Jews can marry Muslims; rich can marry poor; smart can marry stupid; people can marry for money, position, greed or other less-than-loving motives
Re "Just a Love Story," Commentary, Feb. 13: Terrence McNally pleads for "intelligent dialogue" on the issue of gay marriage, but I don't think he's the man for the job. After reading his essay several times, and sifting through the stereotypical thinking, the ad hominem arguments and the circular reasoning (to name just a few of his fallacies in logic), I think I may have distilled his arguments in support of gay marriage into two main strands: (1) It is good because I say it is good, and (2) I say it is good; therefore, it is good.
McNally glibly glossed over too many areas that require careful, reasoned analysis and discussion.
McNally's got it right. When will those who oppose gay marriage realize that their belief can only be rooted in bigotry? No legitimate reason exists to justify opposition to gay marriage. The only one that even comes close is the so-called "tradition" argument. Well, slavery -- and allowing only white men to vote and to marry only women of the same race -- were also traditions.
Most can now agree those traditions were wrong, and I can only hope that someday the man/woman-only marriage tradition will go by the wayside, as those have.