GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE

It is with great sadness that I announce that I feel I must withdraw from openly supporting man-woman marriage in the United States. I recently learned quite a bit of disturbing information that makes it impossible for me to continue supporting a movement I no longer respect. I have not yet decided when or even if I will write about why I’m ending my participation in this debate.

I’d like to thank Maggie Gallagher of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy who got me started with blogging at MarriageDebate.com and encouraged me to create my own blog, which ultimately became GaysDefendMarriage.com. I’d also like to thank the dozens of commenters, both those who agree with me and those who disagree, who have made this Web site a true place of conversation rather than just another pro-man-woman-marriage site.

In case you’re wondering:

1) I do not advocate that people give time or money to the Proposition 8 campaign in California.

2) People should vote their consciences on the ballot measure. I’m not a California voter, but if I was, I’d probably hold my nose and vote yes, though I can’t be sure.

Have a good summer, everyone!

-David Benkof

Please note that GaysDefendMarriage is on what will hopefully be a short hiatus while I investigate new information that may cause me to re-evaluate my approach to some of the issues discussed on this blog. People are welcome to continue to comment on previous posts, although I will not be posting anything new or responding to comments until the hiatus is over.

A June 10 report in the Health section of the New York Times headlined “Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage” has led proponents of same-sex marriage to trumpet the news that same-sex marriage may actually be good for marriage as a whole. Comments about the article at the Web sites and print editions of the Human Rights Campaign blog, Marriage Equality News, the Washington Blade, the Volokh Conspiracy, the Huffington Post, Seattle’s The Stranger, and the comments section of this very blog have treated the article as the smoking gun that proves gay marriage is good for America after all.

It’s clear that the alleged differences pointed to in the article, that same-sex couples are “far more egalitarian” and “have more relationship satisfaction” are intended to show that admitting gay couples to the institution of marriage will help marriage altogether. Other very real differences that while perhaps beneficial, would clearly have no influence on straight couples, like the fact that lesbian couples often find their menstrual cycles in sync, or that gay couples frequently share an entire wardrobe of clothes, were not mentioned.

Now, if the experts cited in the New York Times article are reliable on ways same-sex couples are different that make gays look good, surely they are reliable on the ways same-sex couples are different that make gays look, well, less good. All three of the experts directly quoted in the article, Dr. Sondra Solomon, Dr. Esther Rothblum, and Dr. Robert W. Levenson have written other studies that the “marriage equality” movement would surely prefer nobody find out about.

For example, Solomon and Rothblum did a 2005 study together examining the attitudes toward sexual fidelity of couples that entered civil unions in Vermont - a status that provides all state benefits of marriage. More than 50 percent of the male-male relationships reported having arrangements with their partner that allowed for sexual activity outside the relationship. Do “marriage equality” advocates believe that Solomon and Rothblum’s findings about egalitarianism will spill over to the entire society but that their findings about sexual infidelity will not?

In addition, Levenson participated in a 2003 study that stated that compared to married male-female couples, both gay and lesbian couples reported more autonomy and more frequent relationship dissolution. I guess it’s possible that California same-sex relationhips have become more stable and interdependent now that the exact same rights and benefits the state grants are called “marriage” instead of “domestic partnership,” but I doubt it.

Now, it’s possible that some people want marriage to be more egalitarian as well as less monogamous and less stable. Personally, I want none of those things. As an Orthodox Jew, I expect any marriage I enter into to have a fairly traditional division of roles. But surely the expectation of the “marriage equality” activists in publicizing the article citing these experts is that undecided voters who want marriage to become more egalitarian should support same-sex marriage. My response is that their expectation is fine, as long as those voters also want marriage to be more sexually open and more likely to dissolve.

The other options are for gay-marriage activists to withdraw their argument based on the Times article, or to come up with some explanation why these academics are trustworthy in some of their research, but fraudulent in other parts of their research.

I’d like to close by citing Rothblum one more time. She said two years ago that these days the difference when a state grants marriage or a marriage-like status to same-sex couples is “largely symbolic,” which supports my question why the gay movement is spending millions of dollars on a symbolic issue in California when there are many, many actual and painful problems facing LGBT people, especially in states much less friendly than California, that we could be addressing. I have yet to hear a good answer to that question.

I contacted 20 newspapers with the op-ed piece below, and kept getting the same reaction: it’s good, but it’s too old. Dr. Laura? The West Wing? What decade are you in, anyway?

On the other hand, one of the largest newspapers in California asked me to write for them a more general opinion piece responding to the tiresome, intellectually vacuous left-wing demand “Don’t impose your religion on me!” It should appear some time next week.

So here’s the original “Leviticus traps” piece, which explains why asking an Orthodox Jew “Do you support the death penalty for wearing mixed fabrics?” shows utter ignorance of what Orthodox Judaism is:

When Orthodox Jews and other traditionally religious people discuss our ideas about marriage and other public-policy issues relating to homosexuality, we often run into what I call “Leviticus traps.” Such quasi-arguments suggest that people who follow the Bible are singling out homosexuality for condemnation out of prejudice or narrow-mindedness - because if we really valued Scripture we’d also follow all the other “silly rules” in the Bible.

Perhaps the most famous Leviticus trap was set by President Josiah Bartlet, played by Martin Sheen on the former NBC television series The West Wing. A character (”Dr. Jenna Jacobs”) modeled after radio advice-giver Dr. Laura Schlessinger (an Orthodox Jew at the time) visited the White House and the president confronted her:

Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Jacobs: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.

Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Jacobs: 18:22.

Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it OK to call the police? … Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

This confrontation, which is based on a Leviticus trap in an open letter to Dr. Laura that circulated on the Internet eight years ago, sent gay and lesbian opponents of traditional religion into a tizzy of righteousness and self-congratulation. The problem is, the scene shows zero awareness of the beliefs and practices of Orthodox Jews like me, Dr. Laura at the time, and presumably Dr. Jacobs (a Jewish name).

Because Orthodox Jews believe not only that the written Torah (the first five books of the Bible) is divine, but that God gave an oral Torah as well, which has come to be written down in rabbinic literature such as the Talmud and the Midrash. Orthodox Jews believe male-male intercourse is forbidden to everyone not because we open the Torah, read a verse from Leviticus, and reason out its meaning. Rather, we listen to our rabbis who are experts at the entire Jewish legal corpus, which explains how we should understand the written Torah. All legitimate Orthodox rabbis agree that male-male intercourse - and same-sex marriage - are universally prohibited.

Bartlet’s diatribe dramatizes a made-up death penalty (it’s mentioned nowhere in the Bible) for mixing two threads together. It’s true, Orthodox Jews do not wear garments with both linen and wool - I had to get my new suit approved by a rabbi before I could buy it - but doing so has never been a capital crime. The Biblical prohibitions that do carry the death penalty demanded such a high burden of proof that executions for the violation of Jewish law were rare. I know of no specific case where a Jewish court executed someone for gay sex, for example. Punishments, in Jewish thought, are meant as atonement, not vengeance. Today’s Jews look at each violation’s corresponding punishment as a measurement of the severity of the sin, not a practical plan for disciplining offenders.

In addition, many of the examples Bartlet gave - such as mixing fabrics and observing the Sabbath - are laws that apply only to Jews. In fact, we believe non-Jews are forbidden to fully observe the Sabbath. So Dr. Jacobs’ special condemnation of gay sex actually does make sense, because the prohibition of intercourse between males (and, incidentally, of same-sex marriage) are “Noahide” laws that apply to all human beings. In other words, one answer to “Why don’t you lecture your radio listeners about violating the Sabbath and wearing mixed fabrics rather than just homosexuality?” is “Judaism believes only the prohibition of the latter applies to everyone - and most of my listeners aren’t Jewish.”

The people who set Leviticus traps for Orthodox Jews display a basic ignorance of Orthodoxy. It’s time to have some honest dialogue on marriage and other gay issues, but nobody’s beliefs should be misrepresented or mocked.

I recently received the following E-mail:

Thank you very much for your work. Far too often the defense of marriage as a union between a man and a woman has been associated with homophobia. It is refreshing to see an openly LGBT person of faith argue that same-sex marriage is not a boon for gays or straights. It is especially outstanding to see someone speak prophetically about the problems of the socially marginalized members of our community, especially in prisons. You are a real son of Moses and Isaiah.

We’re in somewhat similar situations. I am a bisexual (Kinsey 2 or 3) person of faith. I’m in the junior reaches of academia, and am doing research in gender studies and intellectual history. I am working on translating my academic knowledge into something useful for popular debate.

Anyway, I hope this doesn’t sound like a strange email, but sometimes we end up in “queer” situations.

In discussions at the comments section about teaching the origin of the universe and humanity several weeks ago I gave the following proposal:

I would personally like to see public schools teach an interdisciplinary unit in 4th, 8th, and 12th grades (say) on the origins of the universe and the etiology of human beings, exploring scientific, religious, philosophical, and literary perspectives. Since the religious content would be “what Jews believe about the origin of the universe” and “what Hindus believe about the origin of man” and the Bible would be studied alongside the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Origin of Species, and other texts, such a unit would be legally considered the academic study of religion, not religious indoctrination, and would thus be constitutional. And it would achieve my goal of having the beliefs of the majority of parents represented, instead of the current system where Darwin is taught and if creation is mentioned it is disparaged.

Even my usual antagonist Mark Barton indicated he could live with something like my proposal. So I’m wondering if we can’t find a similar compromise to public school discussions of marriage in states that pass same-sex marriage (no revision is need in the other states, because nobody’s tring to stop any particular definition of marriage from being taught there). What if we tell teachers not to discuss marriage in any way except in carefully designed units taught in, say, 3rd, 7th, and 11th grades that would introduce legal, historical, anthropological, religious, and literary perspectives on marriage. Marriage in all its manifestations would be discussed, and as much as possible, everyone’s perspectives on what marriage is or should be would be included and respected.

What do people think?

When I told Wayne Besen I didn’t expect him to actually apologize for accusing me of “misleading” people that I’m getting paid for writing op-eds even after he finds out that I am, in fact, getting paid for writing op-eds, I told him I’m aware that “being gay means never having to say you’re sorry.” He responded: “That is a really hateful and ignorant statement. I demand a public apology for such propaganda” which kind of underscores my point. Wayne, in typical gay fashion, won’t apologize even when the facts are clear that he falsely accused someone of lying. Yet he will demand “a public apology” for anyone who criticizes LGBT people, no matter how deserved the criticism.

But I’ve been thinking about it. I’m just as gay as Wayne is. And I’ve never apologized for any of the terrible things gays and lesbians have done in recent years. So I’m going to devote this blog post to apologizing for LGBT misdeeds - not on behalf of the gay community, because I think it’s clear I have a very small constituency here at GaysDefendMarriage.com. But I will apologize on behalf of myself. To my knowledge, no prominent gay person has ever apologized for any of the five things listed below. I’ll be brave enough to be the first, and I encourage other members of our community to join me in having the strength to express regret for hurting innocent people.

In order to keep this post of manageable length, I won’t be able to fully enumerate the LGBT wrongs related to any of the topics below, nor to propose appropriate amends to atone for our misdeeds. But if people are interested perhaps I can do so in future posts.

1) Heterosexual AIDS

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, gay activists insisted that a wave of “heterosexual AIDS” was just around the corner in the United States, even though no data existed proving that was going to happen, and even though HIV spread through heterosexual sex has always been and continues to be a small percentage of the American transmissions of the virus. Out of fear that Americans would not devote energy to treating and curing a disease spread mostly through gay sex and drug use, AIDS activists consciously lied about the size of the miniscule threat to Americans who did not use drugs or have gay sex. As a result, huge sums of money were spent to educate about and prevent a “coming health epidemic” that would never materialize. People made major lifestyle changes to protect themselves from what was essentially a phantom menace. Now, I wasn’t openly gay until 1989, but I do remember raising a ruckus about “AIDS is not a gay disease,” despite the overwhelming evidence that AIDS was, and is, pretty much a gay disease, at least in America. I’m sorry. I was wrong.

2) Sexual Molestation

Whenever a Boy Scout leader is caught diddling young teen Scouts, or a priest is sued for fellating choir boys, the professional homosexuals trot out and declare that most child molesters, including the accused in that particular case, are “not gay.” Oh, please. Most such cases are not pedophiles who equally victimize little boys and little girls. These dreadful predators tend to be ephebophilies - men who are attracted to adolescent boys, and who coerce them into sexual activities that are precisely the same as the ones gay and bisexual men do in bedrooms, bathhouses, parks, and piers with each other. When two penguins or monkeys are found to be engaging in those same activities, the professional homosexuals rush to the microphones and announce the animals are “gay.” If a lizard who can’t speak or count to ten is “gay” when it sodomizes another same-sex lizard, what exactly is “not gay” about a Scoutmaster who does the same thing to a 12-year-old? The fact is, the gay community should apologize for and take steps toward preventing future cases of same-sex molestation. I’m really, really sorry people who enjoy the same sexual activities I am inclined toward have been hurting so many young men and boys.

3) Constitutional Amendments

The LGBT people who pushed the Hawaii and other lawsuits in the mid-1990s were fully aware they might provoke state and federal constitutional amendments to restrict the rights of same-sex couples. Indeed, 18 states now have constitutional amendments barring gay marriage or even civil unions. That means in order to get marginal benefits for same-sex couples in the super-pro-gay states of California and Massachusetts, couples in Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, Ohio, Georgia, and a dozen other states have been sacrificed and now have no reasonable chance of any rights at all barring a Constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court decision implementing same-sex marriage nationwide, two things nobody seriously expects any time soon. I did speak out publicly against the lawsuit strategy in 1996 when I was still a sexually active gay man, but I now regret that I did not do more to stop the selfish, short-sighted lawsuits. I am deeply sorry for the pain I have caused same-sex couples in Houston, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Columbus, Ann Arbor, and many other places who can’t even be sure they can visit the most important person in their lives in the hospital because gay leaders are so cruel.

4) Blocking measures to stop the early spread of AIDS

This is almost never talked about, but while I’m apologizing I might as well lay it all out. AIDS activists in the gay community have made a big fuss about blaming Ronald Reagan and Ed Koch and various other bogeymen for the early spread of HIV, but we should really be pointing our finger at ourselves. The gay obsession with equal treatment and sexual liberation meant that in the early 1980s, when AIDS really could have been slowed, nearly all accepted public health strategies for combating an epidemic were thwarted by a gay community that kept whining about its civil liberties. Well, if there’s an outbreak of West Nile or Ebola or Bird Flu, civil liberties should be the last thing people worry about, because new viruses carry the risk of wiping out huge swaths of the population. In the first years of the AIDS epidemic, there should have been contact tracing - with names - and major sites of transmission, like bathhouses, should have been closed. Even quarantine should have been on the table. Instead we had gay activists declaring that “the government will close the baths over my dead body” - activists who often died soon thereafter. I was not yet openly gay at the time of this tragedy, but I can at least apologize that I haven’t apologized sooner for the fact people like me blamed others for the terrible things we did ourselves.

5) Stonewall Rebellion

Since the early 1970s, I am apparently the only prominent voice in the LGBT community to have criticized the horribly immoral Stonewall rebellion, and especially the celebration of it in gay pride celebrations and the names of organizations like the Stonewall Democrats. But I do not think I have ever apologized for it. During my time as a sexually active gay man I certainly spoke approvingly of Stonewall and I attended at least 25 gay pride celebrations of the anniversary of Stonewall, as many as eight per summer in the mid-1990s. I realize now that the New York City cops and the journalist that the Stonewall rebels nearly murdered were innocent of any wrongdoing, especially since the Stonewall Inn was an illegal mafia-run institution. While violence is called for in extreme cases like torture or genocide, gays faced nothing like that in New York City in the summer of 1969, and nothing more than a little civil disobedience would have been appropriate. It is embarrassing to me that so many LGBT people take such joy in dreadful behavior by members of our community. To New York City cops and to journalists everywhere, I am sorry for what we did to you at Stonewall, and I am especially sorry for pretending like our unprovoked violent attack on you is something to celebrate. I promise never to do it again.

I got an unsigned letter in March from a father who got my E-mail address from a family friend of his. He told me that his daughter, while still keeping kosher and observing the Sabbath, now identifies as bisexual and lives with another woman. He said his daughter knows better than to bring the woman’s name up in his presence, but she does discuss her relationship with his wife, her mother. He asked for reading suggestions and queried “What can we do? How can we help her back on the derech?” (The derech is the “way” of Orthodox Judaism.)

My response is below, with a few translations added in parentheses. I’m not sure I handled it exactly right (and I hate corresponding with anonymous people anyway), but I did my best. Those of you who think I’m an ogre may be surprised.

From the data you have given me, I’m not so sure she’s off the derech. Unlike men, women have no requirement to marry or have children. Women may not have genital relations with other women, but do you really know your daughter is participating in the sexual activities (”nashim hamesolelot“) that are against halacha (Jewish law)? I certainly don’t advise you to ask her. It may make the most sense to have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about her bedroom activities.

As far as I understand it, it is not against halacha for a Jewish woman to love another woman, live with another woman, and even share the same bed with another woman. While it is no doubt deeply disappointing to you as parents that she has not chosen to marry a Jewish man and have children with him, it is a legitimate Jewish choice. You would be mistaken to condemn her for doing something that is not against halacha. I think it is unfortunate that you have made it clear that she cannot talk about the woman she has chosen to share her life with. If she were discussing sexual immorality, I could understand it. But most likely she wants to talk about much more mundane things, some of which include this woman.

The most important thing you can do is express your love for your daughter, whatever her life choices. Particularly given that it appears she’s not flagrantly violating any halacha, I think it would be a mistake to use guilt or other incentives to try to change her behavior. Since she identifies as bisexual, not lesbian, and since female sexuality is particularly fluid, it is entirely possible that she will wind up with a more traditional Jewish family some day. Even if she doesn’t, you should be proud that you have instilled within her a basic religiosity that is expressed by her being, for the most part, shomer mitzvot (Jewishly observant).

The best book on homosexuality and Judaism is Rabbi Chaim Rapaport’s Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View. It’s mostly about men, though. You can also access my pamphlet on the subject by visiting www.isjudaismhomophobic.com.

My guess is I haven’t given you the kind of response you’re looking for. Believe it or not, I am a conservative Republican who opposes same-sex marriage and gay rabbis and thinks the halacha on homosexuality contains tremendous wisdom. But I see no need to demand that people go beyond the halacha with regards to how they structure their bedroom and family lives.

If you have further questions, let me know.

Best,

David Benkof

As part of my ongoing attempt here at GaysDefendMarriage.com to propose ways the LGBT community can move away from harmful, selfish actions like demanding a redefinition of marriage, and toward a more moral, other-oriented vision of gay and lesbian life, I am devoting this blog post to the subject of cleaning up gay pornography.

I was terribly shocked and offended last week when I discovered the many pornographic titles sold to gay men that eroticize prison rape. As far as I can tell, those films have never received any protest from any other gay person or group, even though prison rape is a scandal plaguing our community, which is disproportionately affected by it. Similarly, my Web searches found five categories of gay male pornographic films that are highly problematic.

I am certainly not proposing censorship. But a more moral gay and lesbian community would demand that video companies that serve gay men stop producing such trash, that video stores stop carrying it, and that gay publications stop reviewing it.

This is a serious matter. It’s a basic psychological principle that when a person gets a strong reward, he is more inclined to favor the activity he was involved in at the time. Users of pornography with disturbing content receive very strong rewards, and LGBT people should fight against pornography that tends to reinforce questionable sexual attractions.

1. Anything with the word “boy”

I am fully aware that the actors in the films that use the word “boy” are over the age of 18. But people who watch Daddy’s Boys, Rudeboiz 8, Sauna Boys 3, Seattle Boyz House Party, and Boys Spanking Boys (among many others) run the risk at least subliminally of acting out pedophiliac fantasies. Given the terrible harm that has been done to real boys who have been molested by adult men - not all of whom are gay - I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the adult video companies to replace “boy” with “young adult” or “young man.” Feminist women have been very effective in getting society to call female college students women instead of girls or coeds, so way don’t LGBT people do the same with “boy”?

2. Nonconsensual sex

I found many videos that eroticize forcing straight men to have sex against their will. Some of the videos, like the “Bait Bus” series, ask a straight guy to sit blindfolded while a woman services him - only to find out later it’s really a gay guy. I have no idea if the “straight” guys are really straight, nor if they’re really surprised. The point is, tricking someone into same-sex relations against their will is only erotic to a seriously disturbed person, and I see no reason the LGBT community should cater to such sick fantasies. In addition, there’s a series of “Broke Straight Boys” videos - and again I don’t know if it’s acting or real and I don’t care - in which supposedly heterosexual young men are described as “doing it all for money so they can pay their rent.” If the stars of the movie - either their characters or in real life - literally cannot pay their rent unless they agree to engage in gay sex, that’s hardly consent. It is not sexy, and should not be tolerated by a moral LGBT community.

3. Incest

I know some LGBT people - including at this site - have suggested there’s nothing wrong with brother-brother incest unless you take the Bible into consideration. Even so, the vast majority of Americans oppose first-degree incest of all types - that’s why it’s called a taboo. I found at least 20 videos that eroticize incest, including Brother to Brother, Brother Load, and Twins 3.0. Some of these titles appear to use actors who only look like brothers. Others, especially those featuring twins, certainly use real brothers, some of whom don’t have sex with each other but some of whom do. Is the LGBT community really proud that some gay businesses are paying brothers to engage in incest with each other? I think we can do better.

4. Unsafe

Almost by definition, porn stars have multiple partners. So why do we tolerate the dozens of titles that brag that the sex is “bareback” (without condoms)? We should be concerned about the safety of the actors, but also about eroticizing a mode of sex that could get the viewers killed. Why is a bareback film more acceptable than a film of people playing Russian Roulette? Because that’s essentially what bareback films are. I’m not going to define “watersports” and “fisting” (google them if you have a strong stomach), but such activities are unhygienic at best, dangerous at worst. Why, exactly, do we tolerate them in gay-produced movies?

5. Offensive

Shockingly, gays have found a way to eroticize even the most sensitive of subjects. I find several videos including Black and Bound that eroticize the enslavement of African-Americans. Curious, I searched a few other touchy subjects and wouldn’t you know it - there’s gay Holocaust porn, too. Prominent gay director William Higgins made a film with the innocuous title Carlo and Friends with a sadomasochistic Nazi scene, albeit with a lengthy disclaimer that the film might be “very disturbing” to some viewers. You think? Finally, one would think that gay pornographers would stay away from eroticizing the sex scandals in the Catholic Church, given how many boys had their lives ruined when priests forced them to have gay sex. But no - there’s Our Trespasses, which somehow tries to make the Catholic Church controversies sexy. Is there anything some gay men won’t find erotic with a little music and a little lighting?

Over the weekend, I got an e-mail promoting same-sex marriage from a gay Democrat named Patrick Nailon. We went back and forth on a few topics, and he finally summarized his supposedly air-tight case against the California Marriage Protection Act in three points, which I responded to:

1. By specifically excluding law-abiding, tax-paying, worshiping, honest members of the community specifically because of a difference in lifestyle, Prop 8 is discriminatory, and thus unconstitutional. Marriage has been amended throughout the history of the US to include different colors, which at that time was considered an assault on traditional marriage and interracial marriage resulted in arrests and people having to leave their states. Unconstitutional is wrong.

By now, long-time readers know what I think of the “it’s discriminatory, and thus unconstitutional” argument when applied to a constitutional amendment. No, he wasn’t referring to the federal constitution, and no, he’s probably never heard of the concept of a “revision” (which I’m still waiting to see an expert say would make an amendment unconstitutional). He has this asinine opinion that there’s some mysterious force in our democracy that will overrule a constitutional amendment that he considers discriminatory. As for “unconstitutional is wrong,” I wonder how he feels about the DC gun law, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. Are all laws like that one that restrict gun ownership “wrong” because they’re unconstitutional? And there is no question that in Texas, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and many other states same-sex marriage or anything like it is unconstitutional. Does that mean Patrick thinks it’s “wrong” for two lesbians to marry each other in Dallas, Detroit, Atlanta, or Cleveland?

2. The Constitution of the United States of America specifically allows churches to practice as they will, including the right to marry whom they will. This also guarantees the rights of gays to marry, provided their congregation supports gay marriage. Just as one religion may prohibit eating cows and another allow it, freedom of worship, like freedom of “pursuit of happiness” is a right guaranteed in the US.

Uh, no. Fundamentalist Mormon churches allow polygamy - does that mean the laws must accommodate them? If I started a church that said a man can marry his adult sister, must incest then be legal? The Supreme Court has found Native Americans do not have a constitutional right to ingest peyote - they must get specific legislative permission or face our nation’s drug penalties.

3. The Pledge of Allegiance states that we are a nation of “…Liberty and Justice for all.” With laws that specifically forbid the right of marriage from certain members of the population, these words are a mockery and an insult to the men and women who died to pass down these rights to this and future generations.

Nobody except Patrick draws legislative conclusions from the Pledge of Allegiance. The current version of the Pledge is only 54 years old. And of course Patrick conveniently ignores that part about “Under G-d.”

I told Patrick that his three arguments are so unbelievably weak that I’m actually thrilled. If that’s the best his side can come up with, convincing voters to pass Proposition 8 will be a breeze.

He responded with a lengthy E-mail quoting several of the Lyin’ Kings and silly activists I’ve been talking about at GaysDefendMarriage.com. It also contained several death threats.

I actually hope most supporters of same-sex marriage are more sophisticated than Patrick - we have a few who clearly hold their own when they comment here at GaysDefendMarriage.com. Because debating against someone like him is far, far too easy.