This is my response to pro football player Chris Kluwe, who has written a widely-circulated rant about the stupidity and hatefulness of all who fail to share his opinion that gay marriage is a good idea . (The Kluwe rant can be accessed at:
The Maryland delegate who wrote to a football-team owner was way out of line, but your response went way beyond the free-speech issues that you properly raised. You seem unable to distinguish between opposition to gay marriage and opposition to homosexuality, and your foul-mouthed comments on the topic are evidence of some pretty strong bigotry on your own part.
I do not hate gays. I do not advocate or practice discrimination against homosexuals with regard to employment, housing, public accommodation, education, or anything else. As for gay marriage, “marriage” is a legal status, conferred by law; marriage is whatever the law says it is, and the country, through its laws, may choose to define marriage however it may wish. The Bill of Rights says nothing about gay marriage; there is no evidence that the Founding Fathers gave it a thought when they drafted the Constitution or the first ten amendments. If the feds or any of the states wish to legalize gay marriage, they are free to decide to do so.
If the country decides that it is in the best interests of the U.S. to legalize gay marriage, so be it. On the other hand, the country is entitled – and it would be wise – to consider evidence that it might not be in our best interest to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex. If, as appears to be the case, there already is available sociology on the topic, let’s take a look at it. If gay-marriage partners tend to raise children who are better adjusted or more developmentally advanced than male/female partners, that would certainly move me toward recognizing gay marriage – though I am not aware of any compelling evidence to that effect, at this point. But if gay marriage tends to promote social outcomes that do not appear to be in the best interests of the survival and prosperity of the country, then why should we shoot ourselves in the foot?
If you do not want to live in a country in which a majority of the population and its legislators do not favor the social agenda that you prefer, fine – go find yourself a country that does. Otherwise, do what the rest of us do: find a way to live with the rules you don’t like, and stop demonizing and swearing at everyone who does not share your views. If you want to raise enough votes to get the rules changed, stop insulting and offending the people whose minds you are trying to change.
Well stated. We all know, have friends who are, and have worked with homosexuals. Additionally, I’ve fired and been sued by a homosexual. None of this is pertinent to the issue of our respective state’s or our nation’s definition of marriage.
I strongly believe that no one should be discriminated against but fail to understand why adherence to a definition of traditional marriage by a state denies a citizen of either due process or equal protection of the law.