Misguided People

My response to Bryan Fischer’s email to me, 02/11/2007, 7:35am:

Bryan,

I am happy to talk with you about all of these issues, and to share my thoughts with you.

First of all, I don’t hate you. Actually, I absolutely refuse to allow hatred into my life. As you can tell from my letters to you, I am extremely passionate about these issues. It’s not just about marriage. So often, people of your persuasion (anti-gay marriage) just simply do not understand, or, are unwilling to understand, our issues with what goes on in our lives. Let me share “my situation” with you (and I’m not unique in this situation).

Years ago, when I was a freshman in college, in 1974, I met my partner, Kent. Back then, we knew there was a special bond between us. But, we also knew that there was a considerable risk in letting anyone know the relationship we were developing together. We became roommates and over time, our relationship blossomed. Also over time, rumors spread. We were subjected to really quite unspeakable things, from “Christians”, who were condemning us to Hell, to thugs, who just hated us for being “queer”. I will spare you all the gory details of that in this letter, as I’m sure you are really not interested. By the time we graduated, college had become a very dangerous place for us to be.

After college, Kent accepted a fellowship at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. We both moved there. It was a wonderful, but difficult time in our relationship. We struggled financially, and it was the time that our families found out about our relationship. BOTH of our families ended up totally disowning us. So, there were we, totally on our own, at a time where we could have used support from those we thought loved us. It was very tough. And looking back on it today, most couples, gay or straight, would have said, “I don’t need this.”, and would have called it quits. Well, we didn’t. At the low period in our lives together, we had $25 to last us two weeks. We still don’t know how we made that happen, but much of the time, we went hungry. And, we came from families who were not rich, but not poor either. Yet, neither one offered to help us out, even after begging with them.

Today, Kent has reconciled with his parents, who are elderly. They decided at some point that they wanted their son in their lives. My family hasn’t talked to me in the last 25 years. Do I miss them? No, not really. Not anymore. To me, they were all killed in some horrible accident years ago, and I mourned their loss, and I forgave them for ripping my heart out and forcing me to realize that the only person in my life I could really trust was Kent. Today, I tell people, “Water is thicker than blood.” It’s true.

So, we have made our own lives together when absolutely everyone and everything was telling us to call it quits, because of religious issues (our families), or a society that just basically hated us. We hung in there. Today, our heterosexual married friends are divorcing left and right. In the last six years, four of the five heterosexual married couples we are friends with are now divorced. Three of those couples have infant children. To their children, we are “Uncle Bill and Kent.” We love them just as if they were our own. The reasons these marriages have failed, to me, seem trivial next to the things Kent and I have endured.

So, you talk about ....

Millions of heterosexuals are cohabiting instead of marrying, and their reasoning is the same: Marriage is just a piece of paper, and we don’t need a piece of paper to seal our commitment to each other. Homosexuals can make the same commitment, and there are even ministers – like Elizabeth Greene here in Boise – who will perform partnership ceremonies for those who wish. If you want more than that, then what you are really demanding is full society approval for your lifestyle, and that I do not believe a caring society can afford to do.

That’s really very simplistic, for a few reasons.

Marriage in our society isn’t just a “piece of paper to seal our commitment to each other.” If the state and federal government (1,055 rights and privileges given to the institution of marriage not counting those given by the state) had not gotten involved with affording legal rights to marriage, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, that is not the case. For those religious institutions who do not want to marry a gay couple, they shouldn’t have too. In fact, I would be the first in line to argue that they shouldn’t have too, because I actually do believe in the separation of church and state. You should too. Also, if heterosexual married couples are willing to give up all the state and federal rights of marriage, I’ll be more than willing to sit down and shut up about this whole issue. Would you do that, Bryan? No, you would say something along the lines of, “These laws are they to support ‘the family’.” Well, guess what, Bryan? I have a family too. Is your family worth more than my family? Kent and I don’t have children. Are the heterosexual married couples who will never have children worth more than my family?

However, gay couples are denied these benefits of marriage given by our government, because the state and federal government will not allow us to obtain that piece of paper that does far more than simply “seal our commitment”. In the case of Kent and myself, that little piece of paper would tell hospitals, emergency rooms, our family, that we are more than just a committed couple -- we have legal rights afforded to us by the government. Now, many will argue, simply draw up the necessary legal papers needed to deal with many of these legal issues. We have. We’ve done everything in our power to ensure that our wishes are carried out. That means, when we travel anywhere, we have to carry our Power of Attorney, Durable Power of Attorney, Medical Directive, our Wills, etc., with us (heterosexual married couples do not have to do this - in fact, they never even think about it). We have to carry these documents to prove that if something awful happens to us on that trip, that we are more than “legal strangers”.

And here’s the clincher, the papers may not be honored. We are told by our attorney, who specializes in drawing up such papers for gay couples (she has an emphasis on marriage laws and therefore has tried to craft legal papers to deal with as many of these issues as possible), that the state and federal governments, at the end of the day, don’t have to honor those papers. She cited a lesbian couple who had family in Kansas. They couple now live in Connecticut, but traveled there where one of them had family. After entering Kansas, they were in an auto accident. They were taken to an area hospital. One was bruised and shaken. The other had to go into intensive care. But, the hospital, even after being shown these papers, denied her partner access to her bedside. Their lawyer (my lawyer) had to call the hospital and basically threaten them with a lawsuit. She was finally allowed to get in to see her partner, but only after our lawyer intervened. But the point is, our lawyer tells us, “Legally, they didn’t have too. It was all a bluff.” The papers are there to dictate wishes. If they are confronted with a homophobic hospital staff, their wishes will win. The hospital was simply worried about the messy situation that a lawsuit brings, along with publicity. And in a court of law, wills, power of attorney, etc., can easily be dishonored by a homophobic judge who feels that the relationship itself should not be given consideration, especially if there is a state law on the book that allows him to do this because the relationship is “similar to a marriage”, as in Idaho. This, our lawyer tells us.

With marriage, these issues are BACKED BY LAW - not the whims of papers that can be ignored by a court, or judge, or hospital. That is what you are missing. My situation that I live with is this. I have a family who has told me, through my brother, that upon my death, they intend to claim half of my estate, because Kent and I have no real claim to cement what we have in a union. Do people on your side even care about this? You said that marriage to us is simply a piece of paper. There are hundreds and hundreds of legal rights behind that little piece of paper that you and others simply take for granted. To us, it’s not a simple piece of paper, and marriage would allow us to feel as though we were part of the fabric of society.

If you want more than that, then what you are really demanding is full society approval for your lifestyle, and that I do not believe a caring society can afford to do.

A “caring society” would give us this dignity. How is it “caring” to deny visitation to a partner in a hospital who is injured or dying? How is it “caring” for me to have to spend the rest of my life hoping that Kent dies before me, simply so he will not have to endure what my family brings forth? How is it “caring” that if I die, my partner will never have access to my Social Security survivor benefits -- MY benefits that I have spent my lifetime paying into? How is it “caring” that if I die first, he will be saddled with a huge estate tax, because it will be seen by the law as a “gift” that I am giving him, and not part of OUR estate together? Are you really trying to tell me that that is your definition of caring? Because if it is, can you please give me your definition of hatred, so I can compare the two?

We pay our taxes Bryan, and all of that is supported by our taxes. Yet, we have no access to it. By any stretch of the imagination, I don’t understand how you can take these realities, and put the word “caring” into the same sentence.

I agree that hatred and divisiveness have no place in the public dialogue over homosexual rights. Perhaps the place to begin is by agreeing together that disagreement is not hatred. Once we can agree that just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean you hate me, then we have a place to begin genuine dialogue. As long as disagreement is condemned as hatred, there is no longer any room for dialogue. Perhaps gays could contribute to a more civil atmosphere by agreeing with me that disagreement is not hatred.

Bryan, the problem is, all you can see is “.... marriage is one man, one woman...”, PERIOD. You and people like you absolutely refuse to see any middle ground here. Indeed, you wouldn’t even allow for “civil unions”, or “domestic partnerships.” You want us to have NOTHING. Now honestly, how do you think we should respond to that? How would you feel, if I had the power to strip your marriage of any legal rights, to take away all the legal protections of marriage, and tell you, “If you want more than that, then what you are really demanding is full society approval for your lifestyle, and that I do not believe a caring society can afford to do.” How would you feel about that?

Think about that and then tell me which side is being hateful and divisive. You know, if you had advocated allowing gay couples in Idaho to have civil unions with full state legal rights of marriage, I would have bought your argument. But without that, you really lose your credibility with me. You want us to have nothing. Just admit it.

As long as disagreement is condemned as hatred, there is no longer any room for dialogue. Perhaps gays could contribute to a more civil atmosphere by agreeing with me that disagreement is not hatred.

As long as “disagreement” comes in the form of stripping our families of any hope for legal protections, I’m afraid that if you are hoping for a “civil atmosphere” where “disagreement is not hatred”, you are living in Wonderland. This hatred that you speak of, is coming from your side of the fence, not ours.

On a personal note, even though I know that you are trying everything in your power to keep my family from having anything, I’m willing to call you a “friend”. Why? Because I really am a Christian, and that is what Jesus would have done.

Bill

Bryan Fischer’s response to me, 02/10/2007, 11:59pm:

Bill,

It’s unlikely that we will change each other’s minds, but I appreciate the time you have taken to share your thoughts with me.

I have just a couple of responses to your email. One, no one is keeping you from maintaining a committed and monogamous relationship to your partner. You don’t need a marriage license for that. Millions of heterosexuals are cohabiting instead of marrying, and their reasoning is the same: Marriage is just a piece of paper, and we don’t need a piece of paper to seal our commitment to each other. Homosexuals can make the same commitment, and there are even ministers – like Elizabeth Greene here in Boise – who will perform partnership ceremonies for those who wish. If you want more than that, then what you are really demanding is full society approval for your lifestyle, and that I do not believe a caring society can afford to do.

Secondly, you may not wish to marry anyone other than your current partner, but that does not mean that others share your monogamous views. Once the one-man, one-woman threshold is broken, logically there is simply no place to stop. There is no reason to limit a man to one wife, or a wife to one husband, or to refuse to allow couples to marry each other, or a group of housemates to marry each other. Any place you draw the line after abandoning the one-man, one-woman perimeter is purely arbitrary.

I agree that hatred and divisiveness have no place in the public dialogue over homosexual rights. Perhaps the place to begin is by agreeing together that disagreement is not hatred. Once we can agree that just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean you hate me, then we have a place to begin genuine dialogue. As long as disagreement is condemned as hatred, there is no longer any room for dialogue. Perhaps gays could contribute to a more civil atmosphere by agreeing with me that disagreement is not hatred.

Bryan

My response to Bryan Fischer’s email to me, 02/05/2007, 7:10am:

Bryan,

I don’t have that information, since I’m not involved with the Boise parade. But, if you approach those who are organizing the parade (in a non-threatening and non-judgmental way), I think you would find that they do not welcome NAMBLA any more than I do, assuming you are willing to even talk to a gay person, other than through email. There is the issue of free speech and free expression. Can they be barred from participating? Can you get a parade permit and approve or disapprove of the participation of certain groups without violating free speech issues? I don’t know the answer to those legal questions. I do know that in New York City, the St. Patrick’s Parade organizers were able to bar any participation of any openly gay Irish groups from participating in that parade. It was challenged in a court of law, and the gay groups lost their battle. I’m not sure if it is being appealed to a higher court, but this can be a dicey area, legally.

It’s the same issue with the Westboro Baptist Church. They used to picket the funerals of gay men who had died of AIDS. No one seemed to care about that then. Then, to get more press, they are now picketing the funerals of military personnel who have died in Iraq. Now, people care. But, people who want to bar them from being able to picket at these funerals are finding that they are in a very delicate legal area, because even hate speech is protected.

Of course, there’s a lot of irony here. Society didn’t care about Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funerals of gay men who had died of AIDS. Much of the gay culture of the past has been to meet other gay men in seedy places and in secret, because that is basically all that was left to us, without harassment. You could go to a gay bar to meet others like yourself, but there was no guarantee that the bar would not be raided by police and that your name would not appear in your town paper labeling you as a “deviant”, all with the approval of society. That ruined lives and has been the cause of many suicides.

But today, now that things are more open and gay people can claim more of their place in society, we want the one thing that could just possibly cut down the number of AIDS transmissions. We want to be able to have solid relationships with each other and we want protections for those relationships, just like heterosexual married people get. But, now that we want what society has always said we should be doing (committed relationships), that same society is doing everything in it’s power to deny us full participation in society. Is it marriage you are “protecting”? I suppose I could buy that argument, but then why go the further step, as Idaho did, to prohibit civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any arrangement that is similar to marriage? It would seem that many people want us to have nothing what so ever.

The answer I hear from “your side” is that gays are not denied marriage. They are able to marry any one they wish, as long as it’s a member of the opposite sex. How very lame and cruel. I thought that marriage was about love and commitment. Am I wrong? Could I marry a woman? Sure. Would I love her? Perhaps, as a friend, but not as a lifetime partner in a relationship that would be anything other than superficial. Is this what you want? Is this your “sanctity of marriage” that you all talk so much about? Because if it is, you are on mighty thin moral ice.

Bryan, it’s time to stop this divisive and hateful atmosphere that we are all engaged in. I know you are reading this right now and thinking, “I don’t hate gays...”. Well, let me tell you, from my side of the fence, it doesn’t come off that way. We are called pedophiles for being gay. We are told that if gay marriage is allowed, the next thing that will happen is that some will want to marry their dog (the link many religious conservative groups have made to bestiality if gay couples are allowed to marry). For your information, I have two cats. I don’t want to marry either one of them. I would however, like to marry my partner of 31 years, and I would like to know that if something bad happens, that we have legal support we can count on that cannot be challenged in court (spousal rights).

You want to bar gay/straight alliance groups from high schools. These groups tell gay kids that they have options, other than killing themselves, or running away -- and we all know what happens to runaway youth. These alliances gives these kids support and tells them that life can be good, and that their goals can be realized. But many conservative groups turn around and make the claim, “See, homosexuals want your children! They are recruiting!”, when if fact, they know that is not the case.

The list goes on and on. The goodness in me wants to believe that people such as yourself really are good people at heart and that you really do know the truth about gay people and that we are decent human beings who have the same wants and needs that you do. But, you exploit this truth for your own gain (the link of NAMBLA to “homosexual activists” who want to control adoption agencies to promote pedophilia). It’s time to stop this. There is room for all of us. And if Jesus was about anything, he was about love and compassion. For all the Bible versus you can throw at me for what I am (the sticks and stones), it’s interesting to me that homosexuality was so important to Jesus that never mentioned it. NOT EVEN ONCE.

Bill

Bryan Fischer’s response to me, 02/05/2007, 12:25am:

Bill,

I’m pleased to hear that NAMBLA representatives are made unwelcome at gay pride events. Do you know if they will be excluded from this year’s Gay Pride parade in Boise?

Bryan

My response to Bryan Fischer’s email to me, 02/04/2007, 10:45pm:

“Many state laws — including those in my home state of Idaho — currently allow for single adults to adopt children, which has become a pathway for children to be adopted into homosexual households. Since social service agencies in most states do not screen prospective adoptive parents for sexual orientation, a single adult with a homosexual partner is eligible to adopt, and a number have.”

“We only need to look to England to see what can happen when homosexual activists get a grip on adoption practices. There, in the London borough of Islington, a pedophile ring was able to take virtual control of the social service agencies that oversaw adoptions and placed many male children into households where they were brutalized by unending sexual abuse at the hands of sexual predators.”

Bryan,

First, you make the claim that state laws “currently allow for single adults to adopt children, which has become a pathway for children to be adopted into homosexual households”, which you think is a bad thing.

Then you jump right in and say, “We only need to look to England to see what can happen when homosexual activists get a grip on adoption practices. There, in the London borough of Islington, a pedophile ring was able to take virtual control of the social service agencies that oversaw adoptions and placed many male children into households where they were brutalized by unending sexual abuse at the hands of sexual predators.” THAT statement makes a direct link from being a homosexual to the assumption that a homosexual person will be a pedophile. Don’t insult my intelligence.

And finally, I have been at parades where NAMBLA was booed to the point of having to leave for their safety. Who was doing this? Well, the “homosexual activists” and people like me who find what they are disgusting and contemptible. The fact that members of NAMBLA happen to be homosexual has no bearing. The fact is, they are child molesters and, like rapists, their sexual orientation is irrelevant. They should be treated as such. But you, you want to lump them in with all homosexuals, and then turn around and suggest that all homosexuals must therefore be pedophiles.

I love it. You said it. I quoted it. And you turn right around and tell me that you never suggested that I am a child predator; “a pedophile ring was able to take virtual control of the social service agencies...”, because this is what happens when “homosexual activists get a grip on adoption practices”. Unbelievable.

Bill

Bryan Fischer’s response to me, 02/04/2007, 10:27pm:

Bill,

I never suggested that you are a child predator.

Also, you may want to talk to friends of yours who may be homosexual activists, as they often – even here in the Boise – have allowed representatives of NAMBLA to march proudly along with them. Perhaps you can persuade them to withdraw permission from NAMBLA to march in such parades in the future.

Bryan

My response to Bryan Fischer’s email to me, 02/04/2007, 1:47pm:

Bryan,

Perhaps because you are homophobic and discriminatory?

I call a spade a spade, and I will make no apologies for doing that. You have lumped people like me in with a despicable group of people who prey on children, simply because of one small aspect of what I am as a human being. That’s contemptible and IRRESPONSIBLE. Honestly, you should be ashamed of calling yourself a “Christian”.

And no, I’m not a “homosexual activist”. I’m just a person who knows what I am. I’m a man, a Christian, a musician, an artist, a writer, gay, love the arts, love my partner of 31 years, and love cooking and making a nice home for my family.

What I am not is a child predator. That’s reality. I don’t know what fantasy world you live in.

Bill

Bryan Fischer’s response to me, 02/04/2007, 11:51am:

Bill,

I’m not sure you realize that your email simply proves my point – those who advocate for what is in the best interest of children immediately are labeled, as you have done to me here, as “homophobic” and “discriminatory.”

Bryan

God, why do I read crap like this? I suppose I mention this because I see more and more of this stuff coming up all the time from my home state of Idaho. Yes, I know, it’s happening in many states. If you want to get my ire up real fast, just make the assumption that I am a child molester because I’m gay. Totally stupid.

Many state laws — including those in my home state of Idaho — currently allow for single adults to adopt children, which has become a pathway for children to be adopted into homosexual households. Since social service agencies in most states do not screen prospective adoptive parents for sexual orientation, a single adult with a homosexual partner is eligible to adopt, and a number have.

Every child needs and deserves both a mom and a dad. Boys learn what it means to be a man, a husband, and a father by observing their own fathers. Girls learn what it means to be a woman, a wife, and a mother by observing their own mothers. There simply is no substitute for this God-ordained arrangement. [...]

We only need to look to England to see what can happen when homosexual activists get a grip on adoption practices. There, in the London borough of Islington, a pedophile ring was able to take virtual control of the social service agencies that oversaw adoptions and placed many male children into households where they were brutalized by unending sexual abuse at the hands of sexual predators. [...]

All this reveals the danger to which we expose children when we meekly allow ourselves to be intimidated into acquiescence by accusations of homophobia and discrimination. It’s time once again once again affirm, unapologetically and without reservation, that adoption is not about what adults want but what children need. (source)

This is the letter I set to Bryan Fischer. That’s a German name, isn’t it?

Here’s a newsflash for you....

Being gay does not equal being a child predator. As a gay man, I am deeply offended by your article and the implication that gay men are just out there to molest children. Your reasoning is about 30 years too late.

You end your article with this:

“All this reveals the danger to which we expose children when we meekly allow ourselves to be intimidated into acquiescence by accusations of homophobia and discrimination. It’s time once again once again affirm, unapologetically and without reservation, that adoption is not about what adults want but what children need.”

You are exactly right about one thing. It is time to do what is right by children and whether you like it or not, sometimes that may mean putting a child in a home run by two gay men or two lesbians. But wait, you would rather they spend their entire childhood living from one foster home to another facing who knows what, rather than being in a home run by two gay people who care for and support that child.

I know exactly what your agenda is. It’s to demonize decent citizens who just happen to be gay, and lump them all together with child predators. You are careful not to say that, but if we are both honest with each other, we both know what you mean.

Totally disgusting. You are homophobic and you are discriminatory, and hiding behind children will not change that.