I never argued the “moral superiority” of heterosexual parents. My argument is it is in the best interest of the child when all else is equal to have both a mother and a father. The only people who disagree with that common-sense statement are “marriage equality” fanatics who are offended at anything that smacks of inequality for same-sex couples. But some things just aren’t equal. A lesbian can be a great mother, but she is utterly unequal in being a father.

I urge you to keep saying as loud as possible that your support for “marriage equality” means business owners and teachers must espouse your brand-new definition of marriage instead of their timeless, G-d-given definition because I think the more people who hear it, the fewer people will support same-sex marriage.

And since when have we, as a society, determined that it’s fine for a teacher to tell his/her students only what he/she “believes” is right? If I were a principal and learned that a teacher were espousing creationism only because he believed it was how the universe was created, I’d discipline him for asserting his own beliefs over what he’s been charged with teaching. Likewise, denying a legally married couple a “marital discount” offered to other legally married couples shopping at the same store is patently wrong, discriminatory and defies common sense. You either are legally married or you’re not. You seem to want a separate-but-equal setup that would only harm gays, while protecting a superior status for straight folk. What’s with that?

Your final question truly illustrates the idea of grasping at straws. We live in a heterosexual culture, dominated by millenia of hetero thought and traditions. The very idea of same-sex marriage is only a few years old. How, then, could there have been an example of a “gay person who was forced to espouse a definition of marriage he or she did not believe in”?

The truth is, allowing same-sex couples to marry has no effect on hetero marriages. Period. Why you persist in claiming some sort of nebulous harm is a mystery to me.

You must be new here, which is fine. But I’ve already dealt with much of what you’ve said. Your argument in the first paragraph is something I savaged early on:

http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2008/05/19/bad-faith-marriage-arguments/

And when I talk about having the right to run our business, raise our families, and do our jobs according to our own values, I mean the right for adoption agencies to give even a slight tie-breaker preference to families with both a mother and a father (illegal in Massachusetts) and the right for a teacher to tell her students that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, if that’s what she believes (which most marriage equality advocates have told me should lead to her being disciplined or even fired).

I don’t see how the lack of civil rights laws for gays (which I’m sympathetic to) means gays haven’t been able to do their jobs and run their businesses using their own beliefs about what marriage is. The only case I have ever heard of that even comes close is Robin Shahar, and that was terrible; Robin should never have been fired. Are you willing to condemn to fact that Boston Catholic Charities had to close down or use values relating to parenting the Vatican did not hold? Can you give another example of a gay person who was forced to espouse a definition of marriage he or she did not believe in?

Though I can’t imagine why you would ask such a question, the answer, though it hardly needs to be stated, is that OF COURSE, I would advocate that people “like you” continue to have the right to run your life, hold your job and operate your business consistent with that belief (with the latter, though, you’d be governed by the same U.S. and Florida civil rights protections that govern any other business). If you were operating a church and your faith included a belief that marriage is only one man-one woman, you of course wouldn’t be required to hire someone who practiced a different faith.

This is a time honored legal approach that has been included in virtually every piece of civil rights legislation in the United States banning discrimination based on sexual orientation — the religious exemption clause. I’m surprised that you don’t seem to know about it.

And since when has it been universally OK for gays and lesbians to express their beliefs without government interference? Nearly half of the residents of the U.S. live in areas where it is perfectly OK to discriminate against people in jobs, housing, business, etc., simply and only for the status or perceived status of sexual orientation. That has proved, in practice, to be tantamount to the government protecting the rights of the majority to discriminate against GLBT individuals, resulting in losses of job, families ripped apart, drug and alcohol abuse and even suicide.

Your blog gives aid and comfort to people who feel that scenario is perfectly OK. As a gay guy, you really, truly ought to be ashamed.

Todd

I completely respect your choice to claim that you’re married, even though technically in the state of Florida you are not. I would be appalled if someone tried to use the power of the government to limit your freedom to run your life, your job, and your business consistently with your belief that a man and a man actually can marry each other, no matter what the law says.

What I want to know is: if the Florida Supreme Court implements same-sex marriage, are you willing to openly advocate that people like me continue to have the right to run our lives, our jobs, and our businesses consistently with our beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman?

I have asked this question at least five times, and never gotten an answer – not even a lame answer. Why is it OK for you to express your beliefs without government interference, but wrong for me to do so? If your answer is “Because we’re right and you’re a bigot,” that’s hardly a cogent answer and only causes me to want to fight same-sex marriage harder than ever before.

Do any of the very smart commenters on this blog have an answer to that question you feel proud of?

When African Americans suffered under Jim Crow, they were no less human — just discriminated against by a tyrranical majority that refused to recognize their rights. Like the white segregationists of that era, you seem to be fighting humanity’s progress in nonsensical, pointless and inexplicable ways. If that’s how you choose to spend your time, more power to you. I’ve always subscribed to the philosophy that the best revenge is living well. And I’m certainly doing that.

Finally, the Chronicle, like virtually every other newspaper in America, runs commentary pieces by amateurs all the time (that’s why the Chronicle calls it “open forum,” dude). I spotted yours, and was amused to read your opening: “I argue against same-sex marriage in part because I think the gay and lesbian community barely understands marriage…” What a relief! The millions of gays and lesbians who “barely understand” marriage no doubt will be delighted to know that Benkof is on call to explain it to them.

I don’t know what happened to you in your dating life that has made you so obsessed about monogamy/sexual exclusivity, but I suspect it must have been terribly traumatic. Here’s to you devoting some much needed attention to that and knocking off this lame blogosphere effort to prove that gays and lesbians don’t deserve recognition or protection for the relationships to which millions of us are deeply committed.

Yes, Todd. I recognize that you don’t see the supposed harms I listed as actually harming anyone. Since you are one of the people doing the harm, you are hardly qualified to judge. Shall we ask the generals if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell hurts gays and lesbians? As for my not being “too bright,” I’ll let the frequent posters at this blog decide that – or if you stay here for a week, then you tell me if I’m dumb or not. I promise not to cry.

David: I beg to differ; you gave no legitimate examples of how same-sex marriage cause harm to anyone. With regard to your comment, “If you really mean it that you think gay couples are going to try to shield their children from learning about heterosexuality, please tell me so I can consider reversing my support for same-sex parenting” … sigh. I didn’t say that. Feel free to re-read my original post. And if you didn’t catch the (quite obvious) sarcasm in what I did say, you’re not just a “sucky journalist,” as your friend, Andrea, wrote, but not too bright, either. By the way, I’m sure an anxious world awaits your decision on “reversing your support for same-sex parenting.” (Hint: That’s also sarcasm.)

My hubby and I celebrated 11 years of wedded bliss last week, along with the birthday of our oldest child. Both our kids are quite proud of their two dads. I sure hope Traditional Heterosexual Marriage survives the repeated injuries my family is heaping on that fine institution…

Welcome to the blog! You may be interested that at Fannie’s blog I have been accused of lying about teaching gay history and politics at IGLE. I almost referred them to you as a former board member of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Education.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/fanniesroom/2990289502849043014/?src=hsn

If Hollywood celebrities were not allowed to marry, and the experts said two-thirds of them were in consensually adulterous relationships, and there was a proposal to let them marry, I’d oppose that proposal. But none of that is true, so I have no problem with celebrities marrying.

Your second point is really, really good. I admit that “shoddy” is not an unreasonable description of my weak argumentation in the second half of my piece, which I’m not proud of but I was under deadline and did the best I can. I have given a full response to your point at my main blog. Thanks.