Sunday, August 03, 2008

Open Letter To Orson Scott Card

Dear Mr. Card,

I understand your faith-based position on gay marriage. You're entitled to your opinion on that, of course. I even defended that right and suggested that you be treated with tolerance & understanding.

But you do appear to know very little about democracy if you think that gay marriage is the death knell of it.

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

Really? How so?

You're aware that we have a system of checks and balances in our democratic republic? Oh, you're, also, aware that we're not a true/pure democracy?

In a system with checks and balances, "activist judges" don't really pose nearly as much of a threat as you like to suggest. Those checks and balances? Working to make sure gay marriage in California is the will of the people. You must have missed the memo on that.

Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.

It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken.

I find it ironic that you're trying to stand as the champion of democracy, while you're suggesting that gay citizens are committing some sort of crime by fighting for what they believe are their rights.

All citizens have the right to work their way through the system to ask for change. That IS democracy. That is why the voters in California are getting the chance to vote on an amendment: because people raised their voices in protest loud enough to get their representatives to try something.

Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife's children would be his.

Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.

These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government. In most societies through history, failure to live up to these commitments has led to extreme social sanctions -- even, in many cases, death.

What used to be informally protected by the customs of villages and tribes is now supposedly protected by governments and laws.

Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization -- including the custom of marriage.
Yeah. About that: many societies (including some "tribes") actually don't adhere to the monogamy implicit in your argument. In fact, Islam allows for men to practice polygamy. Genius idea to alienate a group that largely agrees with your opinion of gay marriage and homosexuals in general. Love the infighting that can bring on amongst the anti-gay/homophobe crowd. With leadership like yours, gay oral sex will be added to the SAT exam. Maybe one day you'll hear, "but dad...I needed a great score to get into Harvard. What? Well, if you must know, yes...I did cup the balls."

You know what burns me even more? It's what you DIDN'T say.
  • You DIDN'T acknowledge that states' rights exist so that their residents can create the environment they want to live in.
  • You DIDN'T share the fact that you'd welcome a judge overturning Roe V. Wade or allowing school prayer. In fact, your side of the argument has been salivating at getting the right judges on the Supreme Court in hopes of doing just that.
  • You DIDN'T exactly tell the truth when you said that kneeling and praying in front of abortion clinics is illegal. Now, perpetually kneeling and obstructing the sidewalk might be. I can't find anything so far that actually says kneeling and praying is illegal. But you do realize that there's a history of threats and acts of violence against abortion clinics and their employees, right? And that many large public gatherings are subject to restrictions and/or require a permit, right?
You're a hypocrite who exaggerates and spins stuff in an attempt to mislead people into supporting your stance.

PS - You're better when you write stuff that is recognized as fiction, rather trying to get creative with "facts".

Hugs and kisses,
Kevin Huxford


  1. Bravo, Kevin. Could not have said it better myself. And I have tried.

  2. Thanks for the compliment, sir!

    And hey...who knew I was so popular in Hagerstown? Two people that read my page are from the same area?

    It's settled: SCHWAPP!!!CON will be held in the smallest gymnasium in Hagerstown! ;)

  3. I'm delighted to hear that you are such of a fan of the will of the people! So, now that the people of California have voted and their voice has been heard, will your side let this rest? Or, will you support the idea of escalating the issue to the court system in an effort to overturn the will of the people?

    California residents are trying to create the environment they want to live in. Perhaps you will be moving to Massachusetts??

  4. Moving? I'm in Virginia and not in need of a change in laws to be married.

    But it is my understanding that there are enough absentee ballots still out there that it isn't completely over. And they do have a point that changes to a constitution have to start in the legislature and then be approved by the people. We'll see how it goes.


It is preferred that you sign some sort of name to your posts, rather than remain completely anonymous. Even if it is just an internet nickname/alias, it makes it easier to get to know the people that post here. I hope you all will give it some consideration. Thank you.