Response: Marriage

The Old Man,

Let me see if I understand your logic:

1. Gay people have higher income and education;
2. Therefore, they must not be discriminated against in any way;
3. Therefore, the gay marriage issue is a red herring.
   

Hmm, I am not seeing how that logic follows. Maybe it would help to apply it to a specific example:

1. Two lesbian women, who were getting married in a California courthouse the morning after Prop 8 passed, were statistically more likely to have higher education and income than heterosexuals;
2. Therefore, they can never be discriminated against for being gay;
3. Therefore, when a state official barged into the room and halted the ceremony, ruining what should have been the happiest day of their lives in front of dozens of family and friends, specifically because they are gay, that was not discrimination;
4. Therefore, the gay marriage issue is a red herring.
   

Nope, still doesn't make any sense to me.

Moving on, you are mistaken that Christian conservatives are my favorite target. Honestly. I have read how, in Egypt and Saudi Arabi, highly orthodox (and presumably quite conservative) Christians are discriminated against, and I wholeheartedly support their struggle for equality. I am simply against social bullying and legal discrimination. It happens that in this country, so-called conservative Christians are preventing gay people from getting married, not the other way around. Some of the people affected are my good friends, friends who have come to our house and spoken with you and Mom for an hour or more, friends who you have described as a "great kid".

Now look at what you wrote in the fourth paragraph: you speak of a group's culture being "impinged on" and "attacked". This is what I was talking about in my original post: you have completely inverted the situation, you call attack "defense" and defense "attack". Specifically, all of the following constitute attacks on the marriage, beliefs, culture, and families of certain groups of people:

• The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Republicans passed and Clinton signed, serves to (borrowing your words) "impinge on and attack the culture and beliefs of a group ... by telling them that they cannot have a rite or belief that is defined other than how the State tells them to define it". I'm amazed that you described DOMA so perfectly, and then applied that description to those seeking to overturn it. Specifically, DOMA serves to deny many benefits including Social Security benefits to lifelong partners.
  
• Many state laws and amendments deny worthy gay couples the right to adopt children.
• Many same-sex partners are forced to pay legal fees and jump through hoops to get some basic protections, and even then they are still sometimes denied the right to visit each other in the hospital when they are sick and dying; and denied custody of the children.
• Focus on the Family opposes school policies to combat bullying, including bullying based on sexual orientation. Even though gay teens are notoriously targeted and bullied at school.
• Preachers bellow that gays are going to Hell.
  

Again, these actions constitute attacks. These actions cannot be compared to non-violent defenses against them. For example, when I simply write words on a page, and those words criticize the attacks and the homophobic ideology which supports them, I am not attacking anyone or being intolerant. I am defending, without violence or coercion, "the culture and beliefs of a group" (using your words) from state- and church-sponsored bigotry.

Let me make my point clear by using a concrete example: when an Episcopelian priest, in an Episcopelian church, oversees the holy union of two people who happen to be same-sex, according to their beliefs and rites; and furthermore, when this union is treated equally under the law as any other between consenting adults; how is this an attack? Who, specifically, has been attacked here, and how?

Seriously. That's not rhetorical. Who has been attacked? How?

And, to continue with this example: when some stranger steps in, and prevents that marriage from being recognized equally under the law because the newlyweds are gay; and when that person publicly calls it sinful and a danger to children, because they are gay; what is this, if not an attack and an imposition -- on the priest, the newlyweds, gay people, transgendered people, their family and friends? If they have one ounce of self-respect are they not entitled to defend their culture, beliefs and values, through non-violent self-expression?

Again, not rhetorical. Is that not an attack? Are they not entitled to stick up for themselves?

You say you support civil unions. Separate, but equal. So far, that principle has worked out like it did last time: we have the separate part. Just not the equal part.

You ended on a promising note: you said "let's stop trying to legislate beliefs and values". Right. So tell conservatives to stop doing it, then.