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

My Take On The Orson Scott Card Thing

If you haven't read it yet, Orson Scott Card posted a diatribe against gay marriage up on the Mormon Times.

There's a lot of talk from people suggesting that everyone should campaign against Marvel continuing to do business with Card and that no one should buy his book. And that's their right.

But I'm not sure I'm going to let that influence me.

Now, I'd feel a little easier about that decision if he was just against gays having the right to be married, but be allowed to have some form of legal partnership with all the rights and protection of marriage. The argument can be made that marriage is a religious institution and not something the state really has the right to apply to any coupling they see fit. Personally, I'd make the argument that the state should recognize all marriages under a secular title, rather than a religious one.

But, no, Card has gone much farther than that.

I'm a muslim. As such, I'm taught that homosexuality is a sin. A long time ago, I wasn't sure I'd buy the work of someone who was openly homosexual.

Then I read Phil Jimenez's Tempest mini-series and an editorial he wrote in the back of DC Comics about the passing of an editor he had worked with at the company. Great mini...and then I find out that the writer/artist was openly gay.

A hypothetical suddenly became a real issue. It forced me to search myself and eventually come to a decision to not let someone's sexuality lead me to not support their work. I even shared this event (while it was occurring) with Phil Jimenez via IM and had the chance to meet him at Wizard World Chicago 1997 (or was it 1998? I can never get the year right). I tried to reach out to him to thank him again for the effect he unwittingly had on my life.

I've gone on to have several close friends that happened to be gay. Despite being muslim, I support gay rights, as I believe anyone who values democracy should at least be open to. Which is odd, I guess, because Card seems to feel that the passage of more and more rights for gays is evidence that democracy is dead in this country.

So, I guess I'm saying that I wouldn't shun Card and his work because everyone is capable of change and...well...who knows what might have happened if things happened slightly different in my life? Might I have been a part of his amen corner if things were just slightly off from how they unfolded? Who knows.

Everyone else can react to his opinions however they want. All I know is that if Phil Jimenez had reacted towards me with animosity instead of understanding, I think the chances of my becoming a more enlightened and accepting soul would have been greatly diminished.