a form letter says we are hostile towards gays

Many of you may have received similar letters, but if you have not, check this out.

Hello Mr. Johndrow:
Please forgive my responding to your communication with a form letter.
As you may imagine, I’m getting many communications about civil marriage
equality. I want to tell you where I stand on the issue and to explain
the reasoning by which I’ve arrived at this position.


I recognize marriage as an institution central to our civilization.
Civil marriage, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the
sacrament of Holy Matrimony which remains the sole domaine of the
various religions. But even though civil marriage is a purely legal
arrangement, it is still an enduring institution and not to be tampered
with for light and transient reasons. As a country song puts it,
“you’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”
A society that lacks respect for its enduring institutions is prone to
lurch from one trendy ideology to another, and to become rootless and
chaotic. The claim that same sex civil marriage would “change the
traditional definition of marriage” is disturbing, a claim to which I’ve
given much careful thought.


I believe that, all else being equal, tradition deserves the benefit of
the doubt. But, unless one believes that we’ve achieved perfection,
that we presently live in Heaven on Earth, there must be room for us to
reconsider even long standing traditions and sometimes to alter them.
When slavery was abolished in 1867, slavery had existed in English
speaking North America since 1604. It had existed in western
civilization since its beginnings. It was a long established
institution.


Granting women the vote undid the long established tradition of
exclusively male suffrage. It contradicted a tradition of male
supremacy that probably predates the evolution of the human species, and
that has certainly characterized western civilization throughout its
history. In both cases, discernment, critical thinking and the
resulting changes in opinion trumped the power of tradition.


But, at the same time, more enduring traditions not only survived but
were made stronger. Woman suffrage didn’t change the definition of
electoral democracy; it simply broadened the population entitled to
participate. This made our country more democratic, not less. The
abolition of slavery didn’t change the definition of freedom; it simply
embraced a population previously denied freedom. This made our
country more free, not less. And both changes strengthened the
established institution of equality.


So too, I think, with civil marriage equality. The terms of marriage,
the rights and obligations, would remain the same. The only change
would be WHO can marry, not WHAT marriage is. And by rejecting the
tradition of excluding gay and lesbian people, we would again strengthen
our tradition of equality.


Some will not find this reasoning persuasive. They will say that
marriage is one man and one woman by definition. Even if that is so, I
suggest that western civilization has changed the definition of marriage
many times, not who may marry but, more profoundly, what marriage is.


The ancient Greeks debated whether or not women have souls. Socrates
ordered his wife away from his death bed because her sobbing annoyed him
and interfered with his philosophical discourse with his male friends.
This appears quite different from our modern view of marriage as a
mutually loving and respectful partnership.


The Paterfamilias of ancient Rome was a monarch in his own home, to
whose absolute authority wife, children and servants were subject. The
Old Testament describes at least some marriages as committed
relationships between one man and as many women as he could afford.
Saint Paul explains marriage as an unfortunately necessary accommodation
to the human weakness that makes many people unsuited to celibacy.
Marriage is seen as a way of quarantining the sin of sexual intercourse.
Saint Paul also counsels “wives submit to your husbands.”


For much of European histroyalty was a matter of consolidating property and political alliances.
A reluctance to enter into such a union was seen as a dereliction of
duty. As recently as the last century the King of England had to
abdicate his throne in order to “marry the woman I love.”


In the America of the Eighteenth Century, and much of the Nineteenth
Century, married women could not own property, enter into contracts or
retain custody of their own children. The symbolism of today’s wedding
ceremonies is an echo of what was once an actual reality. The bride’s
father gives her away to the groom, transferring his authority over her
to the groom. The groom becomes a husband, the literal meaning of
which is caretaker and master. As recently as the 1980s the suggested
civil marriage ceremony in Vermont had the groom promise to “love,
honor, provide for and protect” his wife, while the bride promised to
“love, honor and obey” her husband.


Domestic violence has long been seen as bad behavior, but until very
recently it was seen as a private family matter. Female victims were
objects of pity and male victims were objects of ridicule. Only
recently has the state assumed the duty of protecting each married
person’s legal rights in the matter. The legal prerogative of a
married man to rape his wife, to “claim his right”, was not abolished in
Vermont till the 1980s.


Each of these reforms has addressed the question, not of who may marry,
but of what marriage actually is. Each reform changed the definition
of marriage, reflecting changes in society’s understanding of human
rights, especially regarding women. Each reform undid a long standing
tradition. Each reform also strengthened our tradition of equality.
Very few people would see any of these reforms as having done harm to
the institution of marriage. Indeed they advanced our enlightened
contemporary definition of marriage as a loving, mutually respectful
partnership between equal partners.


Society’s hostility towards gay and lesbian people is, admittedly, a
long standing tradition. But so once were male supremacy, white
supremacy and any number of other assumptions that have since been
rejected. There may not be unanimity among us regarding homosexuality,
any more than there was unanimity about white supremacy or male
supremacy. But increasingly thinking people have rejected the
traditional negative assumptions about homosexual people. Increasingly
such negative views have come to be seen as prejudices and superstitions
rather than reality. The characterization of homosexual people as
inherently evil, or as “deviant” in anything other than a statistical
sense, is rapidly joining similar propositions such as the belief that
women are incapable of logic, or that black people urinate through their
sweat glands.


That being the case, I can find no justification for continuing to
exclude gay and lesbian people from equal access to civil marriage. I
look forward to voting in favor of same sex civil marriage in Vermont.
Senator Dick McCormack



>>> Lee Johndrow 03/12/09 7:40 AM >>>
Dear representatives of our state:


I am concerned at what is sitting on the tables at both legislative
and senate levels.


I am a business person fighting to keep 2 businesses running and
attempting to move 3 more projects onto the table. One has already
ended up in NH. And in the midst of this we are seeing our government
working on H178/H181. When businesses are working hard to get things
going, this is ridiculous.


I am a father and grandfather. I have been a minister for over 12
years. The experience of those life issues, tells me we are on the
wrong track. As one who has seen first hand what civil unions and
homosexuality has done to families (Including family members.), I am
asking you NOT to vote this in. I have counseled my share of people
involved in this lifestyle and I have seen first hand the confusion
and pain accompanying it. I have watched their hurt.


Please take this season to concentrate on the economy.


Sincerely,
Lee Johndrow