In response to Mr. Gatrell’s letter (“Arguments for Gay Marriage Ludicrous” 4/12/04 ):
I do agree that Mr. Gatrell’s arguments about imaginary friends and slippery slopes are ridiculous, but the arguments he uses are utilized exclusively by opponents of gay marriage. Gatrell has eloquently illustrated the argumentative fallacies in constructing straw men to push down a slippery slope rather than challenge any views in support of gay marriage.
Mr. Gatrell claims that the issue is about indecency and behavior. I also agree. I view the treatment of gay couples as second-class citizens to be an indecency. Withholding equal legal standing from committed gay couples is tantamount to delegating special rights for heterosexuals. I consider that to be deplorable behavior for 21st century America.
The slippery slope conjures up extremely unlikely but objectionable consequences as the direct result of legally registering gay couples. The practice of asking “where does it stop?” is little more than a scare tactic designed to appeal to the fears and biases of the audience.
Perhaps the best option would be to follow through with the seperation of church and state and divorce the religious aspects of any marriage from the legal benefits. Eliminate the slope, eliminate the slip. Transfer all civil aspects of marriage to a state-sponsored license and require any couple seeking legal recognition, gay or straight, to apply for one. Then, if the couple desires a religious consecration, they may seek a church willing to perform the ceremonial rites (the Unitarians are one of the few denominations that endorse same-sex commitments).
Everybody wins. Churches would be able to preserve their parochial “sanctity” and use of the M-word. And every adult couple, regardless of sexual orientation, would be afforded the same rights and benefits prescribed by law.
Religious entities would retain the autonomy to exercise their biases over which unions they wish to endorse, but government agencies do not and should not get as much leeway. They should have to provide tax incentives, visitation rights, and inheritance entitlements to all committed couples regardless of gender.
I know that this smacks heavily of “Civil Union,” but if all civil benefits were delegated exclusively to this contract instead of the double-standard currently espoused, then every couple regardless of sexual orientation would be on fair and equal legal footing.
Tim ManwillFreshman, Computer [email protected]
