Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsHomosexuals

Divided over gay marriage

Opponents of same-sex unions aren't necessarily religious or politically conservative, and many of them fear how the debate is being shaped.

Style & Culture

March 12, 2004|Roy Rivenburg, Times Staff Writer

Marriage would "rewrite gay life" to conform to outmoded heterosexual notions of love and monogamy, attorney Steven K. Homer warned in 1993. It might also split the gay world into "acceptable" married couples and second-class "outlaws" who face increased discrimination. One thing same-sex marriage won't do, he predicted, is win societal approval of homosexuality. Ettelbrick concurred: "We must not fool ourselves into believing that marriage will make it acceptable to be gay or lesbian."


Advertisement

Yet, that seems to be what the clash over same-sex wedlock has become: a litmus test for whether someone is intolerant toward gays.

"It's like no sane person could possibly have a reason other than bigotry to oppose gay marriage," Blankenhorn says. "It's infuriating."

KROQ's Ryder, who is hardly a stranger to on-air controversy, agrees, saying he's never seen anything like this. "This is not a debate. There's no real consideration of whether I have a valid point. It's just name-calling." He describes the e-mails he gets as "vicious, angry and hateful."

Ryder, like almost everyone interviewed for this article, says he supports gay rights in other arenas but doesn't put matrimony on the list because "the number of people gay marriage would help is much smaller than the gigantic number of kids it would negatively affect."

Blankenhorn says the gay and lesbian community's demand for equal treatment and dignity is legitimate, but wedlock is the wrong tool. The purpose of marriage "isn't to accomplish the goal of equality of people."

It's a tough issue, Parker writes, because "most of us know and/or love someone who is gay" and don't want to deny them "respect and happiness." So "we sit back quietly and watch the reordering of society for fear of hurting a loved one's feelings or offending a co-worker."

But the stakes are too high to remain silent, she insists. Although Parker concedes "it is unlikely that a few thousand married homosexuals will topple civilization," she deems it unwise to rush the idea into law. "Making homosexual unions equal to heterosexual unions ... is not just a small step for equality. It is a gargantuan leap from a natural order that has served mankind throughout civilized human society. We should look long and hard before we leap."

Los Angeles Times Articles
|