Gay marriage letter

Governor Mitt Romney wrote an interesting opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today on the topic of gay marriage. He wrote against it, encouraging civility in the discussion, and then giving states hints on how to prevent this kind of thing from happening to them, and warning against "activist judges." I've been drafting a letter to him and trying to understand where people who are against gay marriage are coming from. Because at this point I really don't understand it. Here goes:

"You write:

'Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.'

We agree here on the importance of marriage to society. It is a fundamental and universal institution, the basic building block of society, and intrinsic to the happiness of coming generations. But denying gay couples the right to participate in this institution will not protect it. An analogy that comes to mind for me is that of protecting the right to vote by only allowing men to vote. Keeping gay couples from marrying will not save the institution of marriage, but it will deprive us of rights, protections and responsibilities enjoyed by the straight majority.

Secondly, you suggest that the Supreme Court Justices acted as activists, without giving the legislature time to speak. In fact, the people have spoken on two separate occasions. First, when we decided to protect individual liberties through the Massachusetts constitution, and second, when a majority of legislators opted not to discuss the constitutional amendment that had been before them last summer.

Governor Romney, it is clear that these are difficult and often ambiguous issues. However, I ask that you will reconsider your stance and recognize the equal rights of gay couples."

Some things I wanted to say but wasn't sure how to keep from sounding sarcastic:

Being on another side of this debate, I find it hard to understand why opponents of gay marriage continually refer to the "defense of marriage." Marriage has particular benefits and responsibilities, but are the benefits and responsibilities of one couple diminished if a larger number of people enjoy those rights? In that case, it might make sense to limit the overall number of people who can marry within the state, so that those who do get a license won't take it for granted. It seems to me, though, that pure numbers do not weaken marriage.

The other reasoning that seems to come forward is that the "defense of marriage" is an attempt to prevent straight people from deciding that it's all right to be gay, and, presumably, switching over. That leaves us with two questions: 1. Can someone choose to be gay (or straight)? Most people do not have conscious control of their sexual desires, or at least not the kind of control that's like flipping a light switch. And why would someone choose to be gay, just because it's an option? Implicit in this strong "defense" argument is that there is something so attractive about going gay that we have to beat it into submission with an amendment to the US Constitution. Either being gay is chosen or it's not, but it can't be some kind of irresistible force and a rational choice at the same time.

The second question, which is more interesting to me is this: 2. If it's possible to choose to be gay, is that acceptable? I say, yes. Being attracted to people of the same sex and acting on those feelings are both morally neutral. Morality comes from how we treat people in the course of sexual relationships, gay and straight. Consensual sex between adults, based on a loving relationship, at the bare minimum, doesn't hurt anybody. In fact, to draw from Mitt, these relationships eventually become the building blocks of society. While it's not very romantic, it is a morally positive attribute--not only do respectful and loving sexual relationships not hurt anybody, they in fact contribute to society.

A final thought. I know several gay couples who have or are planning to have children, and I myself often consider it. Gay couples are building blocks in society now, already. The question is: will folks like Mitt Romney recognize this, or continue to deprive gay couples of the legal protections of marriage, even as we contribute to the well-being of society?

Keep your fingers crossed.

(Also, if you want to send a note to Governor Romney, his e-mail address is:

GOffice@state.ma.us)