As the attorney on the other side of me, D., -- a gay man, also active with HRC -- as he would say, "Too much drama."
George Bush -- despite all the Bush=Hitler rhetoric -- is not a step on the way to Nazism and death camps. Neither is the different votes on the state ballots against changing the definition of marriage.
I'd love to discuss this with you, K., but I can't -- maybe I have my own parallel paranoia -- but I'm afraid that any attempt to try to present another side of this issue would be seen as discrimination and harassment.
So let me break it down here.
First, apart from a very small minority -- the Fred Phelps crowd -- religious conservatives don't want to stone gays. In fact, true Christian teaching affirms the dignity and worth of each and every person. You, K. are made in the image of God. He knows you and loves you.
Were you my enemy, His command to me would be to love you -- but you are not my enemy, you are my co-worker and, I hope, a friend. I admire you. You are a very skilled attorney -- a bright engaging person. Therefore, how can I treat you as less than I would an enemy?
So why were all those states voting on gay marriage? Let's be honest -- it's because some people are trying to change the definition of marriage. Marriage has always meant the union between a man and a woman. (Yes, in some cultures, there have been polygamous relationships which have been classified as a "marriage," but this is an aberration.) Moreover, this attempt to change the definition -- to change the law -- is not being waged in the legislature, the branch of government vested with the power to make and change law. This attempt is being waged in front of judges; taking the power of lawmaking away from the people and their representatives and giving it to arbitrary men and women -- a very small group at that. It's not just about changing the very definition of marriage, it's also about taking the right to vote away from the people and having it seized by judges.
We have seen this happen before with abortion -- now millions of children are being killed every year and there's nothing that can be done to stop it. Once the judges found a "right to abortion" clause in the disappearing ink of the constitution, there was nothing that could be done to change it.
Now, we're seeing it happen again. Four judges in Massachusetts said there was a constitutional right for gay men to marry one another; for lesbian women to marry one another.
The only way to head this off is by taking the action that the voters in those states took last week.
What I would say to you, K., is that if you believe in the rightness of your cause, you seek to achieve it by amending the laws through the legislature. Persuade people. Compromise. Get what you want one step at a time. Legitimately, not through judicial fiat. The way of the judges tyranny, not liberty.
In fact, George Bush, instead of forcing a badge on you, has extended an olive branch to you. The NYTimes reports:
In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning
America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a
civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." . . .
According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions. "Well, I don't," Mr. Bush replied.
He added: "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
In short, there's nothing out there to justify your reaction.