Driving to work this morning I saw a bumper sticker that said the following: If only closed minds came with closed mouths! However humorous this statement would appear to be, the author does have a valid point; those who are passionate about a subject are not likely to have their opinions swept under the proverbial rug. Likewise, arguments pertaining to the issue of “gay marriage” found in two recent articles by Mary Bonauto (an advocate) and Ron Crews (a detractor) demonstrate how deeply sympathies lie in a controversial subject. Mary Bonauto is the Civil Rights Project Director for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) Organization. In an article excerpted from the GLAD website, Bonauto writes, “Denying the security that marriage can bring only serves to weaken gay and lesbian families and the communities of which they are a part…gay and lesbian couples simply ask that their relationships be given the same respect under law accorded to others, so that they may obtain the security and protection their families need.” Bonauto assumes she is speaking for all “gay and lesbian couples” and plays on the sympathies of her audience (the majority of which are gay marriage advocates) by addressing the concepts of security and family. A seeming authority on the subject of family, Ron Crews is the President of the Massachusetts Family Institute. In an article written for the CQ Researcher, Crews writes that the push for legalizing homosexual marriage is based on a number of myths: the President of the organization says there are three myths, thus it must be so! He writes, “The definition of marriage is based on the fact that all human beings [have]…either XX chromosomes if they are female or XY chromosomes if they are male….only the union of a woman and a man, with immutable XX and XY chromosomes in every cell of their bodies, representing the to halves of the human race, can make a marriage and produce the next generation.” Crews refers to a book written by a psychiatrist, and employs a number of statistics and genetic data to lend credibility to his viewpoint. The articles of both authors (and their organizations) contain valid points when you consider their very different concepts of marriage. Bonauto views marriage as a union between partners in love as a convenient partnership in the eyes of the law and Crews views marriage scientifically as an inevitable union between two natural groups. Both organizations and publications/web sites are very well known; thus, these authors seem to be writing from a more authoritarian and credible standpoint. The advocates involved, as well as their arguments, are seen more clearly when the reader considers their vantage point. I am a romantic; in my opinion, the outdated concepts of marriage and family should be waived as long as there is love in a house. It does not matter if a mother and a father both happen to be male; what matters is if the home environment is a happy one. Laughter still sounds the same and home-cooked family meals still smell the same…it does not matter if both parents have breasts!
Written Fall 2003. All writing (c) comicfairy. Please do NOT steal...Ask & ye shall receive. :)