Mainstreaming for Gays
Re “Gays: Assimilated and Asexual?” Commentary, Jan. 26:
I wholly agree with Patrick Moore’s point that gays are rushing into a burning house if they think that marriage will solve our problems with straight society. In fact, many straights would rather burn down the house than let us in. This issue is a can of worms, creating a great social divide and a states’ rights crisis. The debate forces us to reconsider marriage itself -- a social institution securing the ownership of property and children. Marriage also implies certain rights, expectations, norms, restraints, privileges and responsibilities, which our leaders claim falsely that all gay people want. I, too, fear that if we are expected to marry this will become an uncomfortable norm for the rest of us. Not all gays have a stake in a marriage contract, and it is possible that we operate as well or better without it.
As a fairly typical lesbian, I have been in eight different relationships and was sure glad I didn’t have to drag my partners and myself through a messy court proceeding with all the attendant public shame and mutual recrimination when it was time to say goodbye. We threw furniture, shed tears and divided the property, all without the help of lawyers.
But, of course, the civil rights argument holds some weight for many gays -- those who have children and want the protection and spelled-out rights (to health insurance, etc.) that a civil union provides. Perhaps a partial solution to this knotty social dilemma would be to differentiate between marriage and civil unions and make civil union or domestic partnership an option open to all. Those who want to keep marriage a sacred heterosexual rite could confine their peculiar ceremonies to a church where the rest of us don’t have to watch.
Sue Carroll Moore
Ojai
*
Moore has echoed my thoughts on the hetero-normative act of marriage that is being espoused relentlessly within the gay community. While I support equity and believe marriage should not be denied a specific group of taxpayers, I personally believe that many folks, straight and gay, should not be forced by social norms or coercion to marry.
The gay community should take a good look at the larger picture and realize that what we bargain for today may still be there when we wake up from our slumber. Is it not possible to have more than one love of a lifetime? Will marriage make me a better person? Do I need to participate in a tradition that can only be seen as failing? Times have changed since marriage was constructed. We don’t live on sprawling lots of land that we can share with our next-door in-laws. I would caution the gay community to not pay the price of those who would rather not follow a path that appears nonviable. Perhaps by judging the recent portrayals of hetero-reality television and a pop princess, the whole idea of marriage is not so serious anyhow.
Sam Morris
Los Angeles
*
Moore is disturbed that recent TV shows do not present the go-for-broke sexuality associated with the fast lanes of gay society. The TV producers apparently figured that their gay characters would be more acceptable without all that. Duh.
Moore feels that this treatment is imposing “heterosexual standards” on gay morality. To the contrary, such treatment is not heterosexual at all, but the way society treats all forms of pleasure. No pleasure is admitted into the realm of morality without submitting to limits of some kind. Society will accept homosexual behaviors to the extent that they are seen as contributing to mutual love and assistance.
The fact that TV writers help us see people making choices about their homosexual behaviors is certainly a great leap forward. Whatever one thinks about homosexuality, one is always free to make choices about one’s behavior. And choice is what morality is all about.
William H. DuBay
Costa Mesa
*
Gay activist Moore has shot himself in the foot. He says that what gay men want is not traditional marriage but social approval for an irresponsible lifestyle, the use of socially approved media to spread that lifestyle and social obligation to preserve those who live “the life” from its deadly consequences.
If this is true, Moore has just tossed the all-important argument “We’re not hurting anyone” out the window and left those who believe as he does standing in a very cold and unfriendly draft.
Sylvia Alloway
Granada Hills
