A few weeks back the Star Tribune printed one of my letters to editor. The title of my entry was "Marriage is not a Right" which ran in the paper on May 14th. In the event you missed it here is what it said (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/93729454.html?page=2&c=y):
It is time for Minnesotans to recognize that government involvement in the institution of marriage is the problem. Everyone has the right to choose a partner in life. It shouldn't be up to government to determine the makeup of that choice. We need to repeal all aspects of marriage from government and leave it to the religious institutions. It is time to replace the marriage license with a partnership recognition certificate that will give all legal aspects that the current marriage license does.
Why you may be asking yourself am I bringing this up now? It is not to toot my own horn about being published in the Star Tribune rather in response to a piece of mail I received earlier this week. A normal white envelope appeared in my mail box on Wednesday May 26th with my name and address and a return address of American News Center 55401. At first glance I paid it no attention as I figured more junk mail. Thursday I decided to open it. Inside the envelope were two news articles. The first article was "Bonin guilty of four more road slayings" an AP story from Santa Ana, California. The second was "Sordid, gay-on-gay murder ignored in marriage debate" from WorldNetDaily dated January 1, 2010.
As I said, I really gave no thought. Then yesterday I asked my wife if she had seen what someone sent me in the mail. To which she had and didn't make sense. On closer inspection of the envelope she discovered a cartoon with the title of "The lower end of the Behavioral Spectrum". The cartoon depicted a normal man then a queer ape then a queer supporter ape with human head. My wife immediately thought hate mail to which I brushed off. So she did an internet search on the mysterious return address. Come to find out that it is hate mail in response to the letter to the editor posted above.
Here are some additional bloggers that received similar hate mail from American News Center 55401.
http://www.wilderoastcafe.com/diary/2006_01_01_archive.shtml
http://theangrycraig.blogspot.com/2008/03/american-news-center-55401.html
http://blueminneapolis.blogspot.com/2006/05/hate-mail-brought-to-you-courtesy-of.html
I am all for free speech and association. I recognize that with all the freedoms we take for granted we also must accept the fringe elements of every cloth among us. What raises my ire a bit, not much, is the anonymous factor and ignorant message the envelope sent. Personally I do not care who others choose as their life partners. My religious upbringing raises questions about why one may choose a same-sex partner and aspects of the teachings discuss its sin. Regardless of that, we live in a land where freedom reigns, at least for now, and with any free society there will be elements that we disagree with. I have on several occasions discussed the Same-Sex Marriage debate and offered an alternative solution that, I feel, will put the conversation to rest. What is so wrong with removing the "Marriage" license from our Governmental and Legal documents and replacing it with a certificate of partnership?
I understand we have over 200 years of institutional marriage red tape to unwind but the solution seems so obvious as to appease the Religious factions in America while ensuring the basic freedoms that our Founding Fathers intended to exist. No longer will there be an IRS box for marriage, no longer will the doctor's have to discern relations, no longer will we need to debate the sanctity of marriage as it will be preserved in religious ceremonies, and no longer will the Justice of the Peace be used to oversee marriage or any other type of union between two people. Everyone wins, right?
I am a progressive and I agree with you...
ReplyDeleteIf someone asks you why you need to buy a marriage license with the county you sort of step back a second and say "I have no idea!" Maybe its a money making thing, I know divorce decrees are!
If we remove licensing from a governement level, how would someone prove they are not previously married? How would we find out about polygamy? Simple questions, but personally I do agree with you.
Sorry that you got hate mail...
Anon
ReplyDeletePolygamy does bring up an interesting angle to the conversation. Does it really matter though? If a man or a woman wants to marry several people then shouldn't they have that ability? A certification of partnership will still allow the state to monitor potential polygamy as they do with a marriage license.
I guess getting hate mail comes with the territory of putting ones thoughts out there. Thank you though. Let's continue our peaceful, respectful and thoughtful conversation while others wish to bring anarchy to it.
I think the angle against polygamy is the potential for abuse. We've progressed out of the era of women as lesser beings and raised the awareness of spousal abuse, which you and I can agree is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with the certification of partnership, however. It just seems that is what we have now. If we just included gay people in the realm of having a marriage license we would have exactly what gay people are originally asking for.
Anon
ReplyDeleteIn any arrangement of relationship there is the potential of abuse regardless if it's man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, man/several women, man/several men, woman/ several men or woman/several women. If we are to tolerate same-sex relationships then as a free society we must tolerate polygamy.
Just when I thought we were striking a compromise between Religious belief of marriage and same-sex couples getting the same access as married couples you say "I don't have a problem with the certification of partnership however. It just seems that is what we have now. If we just included gay people in the realm of having a marriage license we would have exactly what gay people are originally asking for."
What is your reluctance to transforming the marriage license into a certificat of partnership?
First, sorry received this. I don't often agree with you, and challenge you on a lot, usually anonymously out of ease, but to resort hate mail is deplorable.
ReplyDeleteSecond, you can call it marriage, partnership, civil union, whatever you want, but those that appose it now will appose it then because they believe there is something terribly wrong with those who are gay and object to the very right of them to be together.
For those that think homosexuality is a sin, is a disease that can be cured, and that those who commit it are evil, they won't go quietly over a name change.
Oh, and I think the concern with polygomy is less to do with spousal abuse, and more to do with true capacity to enter into a relationship like that willingly.
ReplyDeleteWe are all adults and ought to be able to enter into what ever arrangement we choose; we can all agree on that, right?
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do understand that those that oppose Same-Sex marriage will still have their beef with any "rights" given to Same-Sex partners. This type of compromise does not allow Same-Sex partners to "marry" yet obtain the same access of "married" couples. It is a good middle ground to the issue between the two fringe factions within the conversation. At least that is my take on it.
I forget the exact wording but isn't the best compromise where both sides come away from the table with some grumblings?
Chris, we've had this conversation before and we're pretty much in agreement. Here's my take:
ReplyDeleteI think the only limitation that government should put on marriage is as follows - you can only hold 1 marriage contract at a time (no polygamy) and both parties must be legally adults at the time they signed the contract.
The contracts should be private and bear no legal ramifications other than what they contain within them. The government would not sanction nor condone any of the contracts but would merely uphold their contents. And there would be no benefits or detriments assigned to any of the contracts by the government.
And I've never understood why religious people are against gays getting married. Hell, if they want to get married let them. That way they'll be as miserable as the rest of us. ;)
ReplyDeleteBut Kevin, the happy love filled marriage of two gays destroys the very fiber that makes two straight peoples marriage unbearable.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't get the objection, either. The world needs less couples who love each other and care for each other, I guess.
The irony is that as a non-christian (I'm agnostic fyi) I find the stance of christians who are against the concept hypocritic when their very teachings tell them to not judge and treat others how they would want to be treated.
ReplyDeleteI guess Jesus meant those things for everyone except gays. Me, I just chalk this up as another reason to not be religious. I put Jesus in my top 5 for people to admire for what they stood for but I can't name a single christian that I'd put in that group. (Jesus was a jew for the record)
Funny how that works.
Mother Theresa?
ReplyDeleteIt definitely highlights the differnece between religion and spirituality.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteAre you refering to the physical Jesus or the spiritual Jesus when you say "in my top 5 for people to admire"?
Physical since I dont' believe in the spiritual Jesus. I'd say that of anyone that taught to not judge others and to treat others as you want to be treated. The trick isn't just to say it though, the trick is to mean it. Jerry Falwell could say them and his highly flawed character would make them less respectable. Of course, in this issue, since the bible is highly glamorized to promote the image of Jesus the persona I'm referencing to is likely not the real person. So perhaps I'm stating that the image that the bible represents of Jesus is the "top 5" that I efer to.
ReplyDeleteAs to Mother Theresa, she didn't so much help the staving people as usher them into gods arms when they died. I'm not so sure I find that as admirable as someone like Ghandi.
There are some that question the physical Jesus and believe the Jesus in the Bible is a combination of physical people. Personally, I see the Bible from a spiritual stand point and the myriad of metaphoric expression within it.
ReplyDeleteIt does beg the question though Kevin, who else rounds out the top 5?
Thomas Hobbes would have had a field day discussing the Sainthood of Mother Theresa.
While I'd prefer not to get into a religous discussion, since you asked:
ReplyDeleteGandhi, Buddha, King, Lincoln, Jesus - in that order.
And to be honest, I'd include most religous leaders that teach peace and understanding over conflict. It would surprise some to know that I'd probably put Mohammad on that list too given what I know and have read of Islam.
Thanks Kevin. I wasn't looking to start a religous discussion just curious as to who the rest of the top 5.
ReplyDeleteHey, this is Maria Baca, a reporter for the Star Tribune. I'm looking into this as it's continued this year. Would you (or any of the above commenters who also received a packet) please call me ASAP at 612-673-4409? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI got this letter too due to letters I wrote about women and pets. I thought this issue appealed to both sides of the aisle. This guy is a coward, and has too much time on his hands.
ReplyDeleteThis Maria Baca doesn't work for the star-trib anymore, so who knows what if anything is being done about it.
ReplyDelete