Dear BTL,
I'm getting fed up and I've started to do something about it. The issue is the mainstream press that, whenever there is a story about gay issues, always does an article that gathers quotes from the "righteous right." Such quotes, of course, rain down condemnation upon us. The problem is such quotes are never challenged.
The example that got me fed up appeared in the online edition of the San Francisco (of all places) Chronicle just a few days ago as part of their coverage of the judge who struck down the ban on gay marriage. This time I wrote a rebuttal letter and mailed it to the writer as well as to the editorial department. It wasn't long before the writer replied to my note saying that the pro and con sides of the debate were featured in separate articles. I responded by saying that the pro-gay article probably did not specifically counter some of the nasty things the right said about us.
I will share some of the arguments used by the right along with my rebuttals in hopes you can also fire off letters to those that print such one-sided articles. Yeah, I know, such letters come after the ones you fire off to the Michigan Attorney General, to the various Michigan congressmen both in Lansing and in Washington, and to Bush, all for their most recent collective hanky-panky committed against us. I could be a full time letter-writer, but I doubt my boss would pay me for it. But public perception is a good chunk of our battle and the religious aspect is a good chunk of public perception.
I'm quite aware that we as a community have felt routinely chased out of the church for a good long time (and it is a struggle for the rest of us to stay in the church) so most of us aren't up on the latest arguments put forth by the church and how to best counter them. I'll start by listing a few of the right's tactics and a possible counter argument. As I hear more, I'll be glad to share them. If you hear an argument against us that you would like a reply to or know a good reply to a standard argument, please send it to BTL. I'm a pretty faithful reader and should be able to reply in a week or two. Missing one chance at a rebuttal doesn't mean I don't want to hear about it. A lot of what they say get recycled many times.
The first argument I'll mention is a real howler and also easily dispensed with. The quote was, "If everyone in the world would follow the same-sex pattern, then there would be genocide." But not everyone wants to. About 95 percent of the population is straight and will stay that way no matter the legal standing of the gay community.
Next is the argument that seems the most damning, but is also easily countered. Leviticus 18:22 (in the Bible) says, "A man must not lie with a man as with a woman. That is an abomination." So is eating lobster. One could ask the speaker how much of the rest of Leviticus he follows (good chance it is none) and why single out this verse? It goes further. Christianity is about a personal relation with God under guidance of the Holy Spirit. Leviticus is an example of how a set of laws does not bring us closer to God because we're more concerned about whether or not we've broken the law than about our relationship with God.
As for the rest of the handful of verses used to condemn us (and there are really only 6 or 7 in the whole Bible), these are lessons in hospitality (Sodom and Gomorrah), have words in the original Greek we don't know how to translate, or refer to such things as rape, not the loving relationships of those seeking marriage. The wider point is that sincere Christians dispute the meaning of these verses.
Then there is the line about "judicial activism" recently upgraded to "judicial tyranny." That's usually followed by a line that the voter should have his say. The speaker apparently has never heard of "tyranny of the majority" a concept attributed to James Madison, one of our founding fathers. It is the judges accused of activism who have been given the job of staving off tyranny of the majority.
Someone will be quoted about marriage between a man and a woman has been define through centuries of tradition. We can respond that like a lot of traditions it needs to be updated to reflect today's understanding. I'm sure those the understood the earth to be flat were also following a centuries-long tradition.
We'll also be clobbered with the line, "A child need both a mother and a father." There have been so many studies of kids of gay parents that the kids are sick of it. Over and over they show what a child needs is a loving, stable home and the gender of the parents makes no difference.
We have a tough battle ahead. I hope we can arm ourselves as completely as possible.
{ITAL Paul Kinney
Westland}
