Copy of Letter to Editor - USA Today
Eric Payne
William Mattox, Jr., a member of "USA Today's Board of
Contributors."
That column, entitled "Marriage Issues Send My Daughter
the Wrong Message," put forth Mr. Mattox's opinion that
polygamous marriages of one man to more than one female
devalued the female, as it sent the message it takes more
than one woman to "equal" one man in a marriage.
He then goes on to state his support for a Constitutional
Amendment imposing the restriction of "marriage is between
a man and a woman, only"... since, if polygamous marriage
devalues a woman, a gay marriage makes a woman utterly
worthless in a "family unit."
Whoa! Hitch the horses to the cart, Ma, gotta get that
back 40 plowed.
What century are we in, anyway? A woman's value is to
be someone's wife? Your daughter(s) can't possibly be
valued as, say, a doctor? A lawyer? How about as a
member of "USA Today's Board of Contributors"?
And you would see even the possibility ofsame-gender
marriage being outlawed... why? To increase the potential
mate pool for your daughters/sons?
A gay man, in this day and age, is not likely to marry
a woman, even to "keep up appearances." Nor is a lesbian
likely to marry a man. But you would prefer the total
and complete outlawing of two people who love each other
to enter into a legal contract of marriage, solely so
YOU don't feel your daughter is somehow being made
"superfluous," or "devalued"?
You say the proposed Amendment has the "reluctant support
of your family."
Does it? Have you asked the members of your family?
After reading your chauvanistic, cavemanesque column,
I question whether their is such support... of if
the MAN of the house has spoken, amen.
Gay marriage devaluing a woman.... sheesh... what a
desperate ploy. Didn't put much thought into what that
argument actually reveals about you, did you?
Eric Payne
846 Sungold Circle
Livermore, CA 94550
925-292-1328
--
This is message #57.
**********
To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
(This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
a topic that interests you, see <http://www.queernet.org> for details.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Eric Bohlman
>On Tuesday, August 21st, an opinion column appeared by
>William Mattox, Jr., a member of "USA Today's Board of
>Contributors."
[snip]
>A gay man, in this day and age, is not likely to marry
>a woman, even to "keep up appearances." Nor is a lesbian
>likely to marry a man. But you would prefer the total
>and complete outlawing of two people who love each other
>to enter into a legal contract of marriage, solely so
>YOU don't feel your daughter is somehow being made
>"superfluous," or "devalued"?
Almost all the anti-marriage arguments have an underlying assumption, namely that sexual
orientation is a free choice and that denying marriage to same-sex couples will provide an
incentive for the partners to turn straight, break up, and find partners of the opposite sex in
order to become married individuals. And this in turn is based on a pair of even more fundamental
assumptions: that marriage is an end rather than a means (i.e., one enters into a relationship for
the purpose of getting married, rather than entering into marriage for the purpose of solidifying
an existing relationship), and that marriage is a purely *individual* thing (i.e. partners are
interchangeable as long as each is capable of achieving the status of a married individual).
And there's yet another fundamental assumption underlying all this, which is that marriage is not
intended to serve the couple themselves, but rather their parents, or "society" or the government.
Of course, for most of human history, this assumption was explicit; nowadays in Western culture we
think of marriage primarily in terms of how it unites the couple and regard the way it also unites
their extended families as a secondary effect, but that way of looking at things is only a few
hundred years old. Previously (and still the case in some places), marriage was seen primarily as
joining the extended families, with the relationship between the couple being only a means to that
end (often they didn't even have a choice in the matter; you might say that marriage was mostly
for the in-laws). Certainly among American fundamentalists there's a strong streak of resentment
against all of modernity, and many of the anti-marriage arguments seem to display a longing for the
Good Old Days when everything was So Much Simpler.
If Mattox is concerned that every gay male marriage (he completely ignores the fact that lesbians
want to marry too, and that it's likely that lesbian marriages would account for a majority of
same-sex marriages) means one less potential husband for his daughter, then one has to wonder if he
thinks it at all important that any potential husband for his daughter actually love her. Does he
think she needs a mate, or does he think she needs a boss?
In fact, my suspicion is that Mattox talks only about gay male marriage and the "devaluation of
marriage" only so he can defend himself on the grounds that he's making a "PC" argument; if he were
to assert that lesbian marriages devalue men, he'd be immediately accused of sexism. It's
transparently phony; one can easily read between the lines and see the latter argument as well.
--
This is message #67.
Bruce Garrett
For what it's worth...here's the one I sent them...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reverend Martin Luther King Jr. once observed that "Shallow
understanding from people of good will, is more frustrating than absolute
misunderstanding from people of ill will." But with so many anti-gay
zealots adopting a kinder, gentler approach to peddling prejudice, it's not
always clear who are the people of good will, and who are not. As
evidence, Witness William Mattox Jr., voicing his "reluctant" approval of a
constitutional amendment to deny same sex couples the right to marry,
claiming not to be a "gay basher" out of one side of his mouth, while out
of the other insisting that the legal recognition of same sex unions will
send his daughter the wrong message, "that the most basic unit of society
can somehow be complete without a woman." In other words, same sex unions
are incomplete.
If Mattox really believes this, then he has never talked with same
sex couples, never witnessed for himself the depth of love and devotion
they share. Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't prejudice a
preconceived judgment or opinion? Gay and Lesbian households Are complete,
in a way that gay people, coerced into entering into heterosexual
marriages, could never be. Mattox would know that, if he could see the
people, for the homosexuals, if he could look at our lives without
prejudice, if he could see the love and devotion of two people for each
other, for the threat he presumes homosexuals represent.
A society that provides for the needs of gay male couples is not
necessarily telling women that their part in a marriage is not necessary,
any more then it is telling men, by recognizing lesbian households, that
their contribution is not necessary. What it is telling its sons and
daughters is that it is love that cements a marriage. It is trust and
honor and devotion and faithfulness that are the bedrock, upon which two
people build one life together. In their fervor to deny homosexual
Americans the rights of marriage, anti-gay activists kick out from under
it, the very things that make a marriage viable: love, honor, devotion,
faithfulness, and trust, replacing them with shallow fundamentalist dogma
that asserts that gender is more important then love could ever be. But if
that were true, so many heterosexual marriages would not be failing now,
and so many same sex couples would not endure, despite the often brutal
hardships they face.
It is not homosexuals that are the threat to marriage, it is a
prejudice so profound and immovable, that it would take from marriage,
everything about it that is wonderful and beautiful and life fulfilling, if
that's what it takes to keep homosexuals second class citizens. Martin
Luther King, Jr. also said that "Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it.
Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love
illumines it." Indeed. Jonesboro, Arkansas. West Paducah, Kentucky.
Littleton, Colorado. Lake Worth, Florida. Santee, California. Mattox
needs to worry more about teaching today's children that love is
irrelevant, then that their gender is.
--
This is message #70.
Sean Robertson
> people, for the homosexuals, if he could look at our lives without
> prejudice, if he could see the love and devotion of two people for each
> other, for the threat he presumes homosexuals represent.
Is the "for the homosexuals" in the second line a typo? It doesn't quite
make sense there.
> Americans the rights of marriage, anti-gay activists kick out from under
> it, the very things that make a marriage viable: love, honor, devotion,
The comma after the "it" should be removed.
Aside from those minor glitches, it's an excelent letter. I look forward to
seeing it published.
--
This is message #74.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
> It is not homosexuals that are the threat to marriage, it is a
>prejudice so profound and immovable, that it would take from marriage,
>everything about it that is wonderful and beautiful and life fulfilling, if
>that's what it takes to keep homosexuals second class citizens.
Can you spell C I V I L W A R ?
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #82.
Bruce Garrett
> Can you spell C I V I L W A R ?
I'll give it a shot. S E P A R A T I S M.
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
From the happy expression on their faces you might
have supposed that they welcomed the war. I have met
with men who loved stamps, and stones, and snakes,
but I could not imagine any man loving war.
-Margot Asquith
--
This is message #87.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
> Chief Thracian <chieft...@runbox.com>...
>
>
> > Can you spell C I V I L W A R ?
>
> I'll give it a shot. S E P A R A T I S M.
Yeah, like the colonies SEPARATED from England into the U.SA.; like
the Jews SEPARATED from Europe into Israel; like the Gypsies,
Palestinians, and Kurds also deserve to SEPARATE into their own home
territories.
So let the Global Gay Community create a SEPERATE country free of any
traces of heterocentric dogma...that we may have our own sanctuary on
this planet, regardless of what else goes on in the rest of the world.
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #101.
Eric Payne
<chieft...@runbox.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:29:18 -0400, Bruce Garrett <bgar...@pobox.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Chief Thracian <chieft...@runbox.com>...
>>
>>
>> > Can you spell C I V I L W A R ?
>>
>> I'll give it a shot. S E P A R A T I S M.
>
>Yeah, like the colonies SEPARATED from England into the U.SA.; like
>the Jews SEPARATED from Europe into Israel; like the Gypsies,
>Palestinians, and Kurds also deserve to SEPARATE into their own home
>territories.
>
>So let the Global Gay Community create a SEPERATE country free of any
>traces of heterocentric dogma...that we may have our own sanctuary on
>this planet, regardless of what else goes on in the rest of the world.
Wasn't it just four days ago, Ezekiel, that you stated you NEVER
called for violence, unless it was to "overthrow (our) oppressors"?
The opinion column which prompted the letter to the editor of USA
Today was just that: One persons' OPINION.
I don't recall reading anything about violence in Mr. Mattox's
opinion; all I saw was the grasping at straws by a person who is
beginning to recognize the way things are is going to change... and he
doesn't want them to.
To be fair, USA Today, should publish a counterpoint to Mr. Mattox's
opinion, rebutting said opinion, but they're under no obligation to...
unless Mr. Mattox were running for public office, in which case the
"fair play" doctring may apply.
Your IMMEDIATE response? "Civil War." True, in that posting you merely
hinted at violence - though I suppose, in the most ethereal realms,
"war" can possibly be waged without the infliction of violence.
In this response, however, while you specifically refer to some of the
most bloody wars ever fought as an example.
But, no.... you never are the first to advocate violence, huh? You
never instigate.
Uh huh.
Sure.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
--
This is message #102.
Bruce Garrett
>>> Can you spell C I V I L W A R ?
>> I'll give it a shot. S E P A R A T I S M.
> Yeah, like the colonies SEPARATED from England into the U.SA.; like
> the Jews SEPARATED from Europe into Israel...
...like the Taliban separated from the world into...into...
...well...into somewhere...
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
A forest bird never wants a cage.
-Henrik Ibsen
--
This is message #103.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
> Chief Thracian <chieft...@runbox.com>...
> > Yeah, like the colonies SEPARATED from England into the U.SA.; like
> > the Jews SEPARATED from Europe into Israel...
>
> ...like the Taliban separated from the world into...into...
>...well...into somewhere...
To persistantly cite only the failures of separatist ventures does not
fairly represent the true history of independent revolutions. If your
examples were the only true ones, we'd still be living in caves eating
mastodon and fucking wild wolves.
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #104.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>Your IMMEDIATE response? "Civil War." True, in that posting you merely
>hinted at violence - though I suppose, in the most ethereal realms,
>"war" can possibly be waged without the infliction of violence.
Or violence can be held to a minimum. When I foresee Civil War, I am
not promoting any form of offensive violence on the part of the
oppressed...in this case, the Queer Family. The violence usually done
in matters of war, are perpetrated by one side..until the other side
is COERCED into adopting violent tactics in order to stay alive.
Like Neville Chamberlain to Hitler, we gays have appealed time and
again, to sanity and respect...only to be spit in the face over, and
over again...including by the highest law of the land. Perhaps your
olfactory senses are damaged...for I can EASILY smell the coffee. Or
perhaps you still haven't awakened!
>In this response, however, while you specifically refer to some of the
>most bloody wars ever fought as an example.
Civil wars are messy that way. Mea culpa, mea culpa!
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #105.
Chief Thracian
wrote:
> And that would be advanced civilization compared, from what I
>hear, to what the killing fields of Cambodia were. Isn't it curious how,
>the more ideological purity is valued, the less human life is.
"Ideological purity" is a matter of balance...where if you go all the
way to purity, you create a fascist state; and where you go the
complete opposite, you have lost all respect for all peoples. So when
things get so unbalanced in either direction, it serves the purpose
quite well, to progress an opposite kind of purity.
Right now, we have the "ideological purity" of heterocentrism so well
developed, that it is about to break forth into a religous war against
gays. Thus, seeking a gay only safe haven--even our own nation--is a
logical opposite that can bring peace, fulfillment, and happiness to a
long-suffering community. Heteros have served us poorly, and have had
many chances under the sun, to prove better. But they fail, time and
time again.
If you're trying to make some kind of point, just cough it up. You
seem mired in muddy concepts and emotional fixations.
---
Hail Athenia, brave new gay nation!
Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #108.
Him
> >traces of heterocentric dogma...that we may have our own sanctuary on
> >this planet, regardless of what else goes on in the rest of the world.
While I agree that equality for gay people is a long way off and that gay
people have been oppressed, I don't think I would want live in such a place.
I'm rather fond of a great many hetero friends and I really like living near
them. And they love me, just as I am. I like the greater variety of people
that I encounter when I include a group as large and diverse as
heterosexuals.
Where do you propose your sanctuary be established and why? What would it
be called? And how would you persuade a country to donate it's territory to
G/L/B/Tr people? ( You DO propose including people other than gay men,
right?) What's the criteria for citizenship - some sort of hazing ritual?
Troy
--
This is message #109.