Letter against Gay Marriage

I read this story in the Hartford Courant yesterday. It was in response to the letter from Anne D'Alleva.

This was the response that I sent in to the Hartford Courant on November 14, 2002. If it makes the paper, I'll post the notice in this journal.

Peter R. Kramer writes: (Letters, Nov. 14, 2002) “…there is a fundamental distinction between civil marriage and civil union, which derives from the idea that the ultimate purpose of marriage is to provide stability in a family unit that propagates members of a society.” If that is your idea of marriage Mr. Kramer, you have a very shallow understanding of marriage. If the purpose of marriage is to provide stability in a family unit only for couples to propagate, what does that say for the heterosexual couples who never have children? Does their marriage have less value than those who have children? Having children is not what marriage is about. It is about the commitment that two people make to one another. It is about two people giving their lives to each other. Most importantly, it is about inviting your friends, family, and extended family into your life to celebrate the union that two people have. This will do nothing but strengthen society. And in the end, sex and sexual orientation really do have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Kramer also writes: “It is high time that people recognize that homosexuality is not the product of an immoral, free-will choice. Nevertheless, there is no need for society to adopt the fanciful belief that homosexuality is a normal, healthy, wonderful alternative lifestyle.” Mr. Kramer, do you realize that you contradicted yourself in two sentences? In one sentence you say that homosexuality is not an immoral choice. Then you say that it is not “normal, healthy, wonderful alternative lifestyle”. You can’t have it both ways. I have been with my life partner (dare I say “husband”?) for 27 years. I think that gives me the right to call our relationship a marriage, although I’ve given up on waiting for society to catch up to our relationship. I will say that most heterosexual marriages would not have survived what we have had to deal with. Perhaps society should take a look at that, and stop trying to figure out how it can still kind of give us equality in our relationships, without having to call it “marriage”. Our relationship is what it is – a marriage. Nothing will ever change that.