Surveying the Anti-Gay-Marriage Testimony

by: ThatTallGuy

Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 09:30:39 AM EDT

I spent a couple of hours yesterday going through all the written testimony submitted at the NH state senate hearing on HB436, on making the marriage laws in NH gender-neutral.  I wondered in particular whether I'd find any arguments against GM that I hadn't run across before.  I have to say that I did -- and not in a good way.

I also saw at least one reason I hadn't heard before in support of GM.  And I got some insights into the testimony process I probably wouldn't have any other way.  Check 'em all out below.

There were 92 pieces of written testimony entered -- 91 different authors.  50 of the submissions were in favor, and 42 were against (including the two documents submitted by the same person.)  The clerk who assisted me said that this was an extreme number, that the typical hotly contested bill generates at most ten pieces of testimony.

Another important point from the clerk:  she said that for bills that generate this level of popularity, emails from out of state are thrown away unread -- and that most senators only care about testimony from their constituents.  So if you write from NH, be sure to include your town if you want to perk up the ears of your senator.

The flip side, she said, is that this is as much a matter of conscience as a matter of representation, so testimony may not have as much effect with this bill as with others.  I took that to mean that several senators have already made up their minds on the subject.  On the other hand, I have seen comments suggesting that senators were surprised at the vitriol from much of the "nay" testimony, and may be reconsidering.  It's worth writing!

On to the texts:

Most commonly cited reasons to oppose the bill:

 15  religion
 11  tradition
  8  gay marriages can't produce offspring
  7  all kinds of social ills (school dropout rate, crime rates, etc.)
  5  raising kids requires both gender parents
  5  liberals/gays are a "special interest group"
  5  immorality
  5  teh gay is curable
  4  law as written will have unintended consequences
  3  will confuse kids to hear about two-father or two-mother families
  3  it's the "gay agenda"
  3  parents' rights to teach kids what they want
  3  civil unions are sufficient
  2  opens door to polygamy, incest, etc. being legalized

Several other reasons were given which were not easily categorized.  For example, is "Homosexuality is not normal" a reference to reproductive ability, morality, religion, or "will confuse kids like me"?

One thing that surprised me was that only 15 of the "nos" actually explicitly cited religion or God or scripture.  While it was the single largest cited reason, I have to say I expected this to be a larger number.  I could interpret this either as 1) that even conservative Americans aren't as bound by religion as they'd sometimes profess, or 2) they know the argument won't work.

Another thing I expected to see more of was that "Civil unions are good enough."  There were a number of rebuttals to this, both citing specifics and the general rule (marriages are recognized by federal law; civil unions are not, and thus only provide protections that state law can enforce.)

On the "yes" side, I was a little disappointed that most of the people speaking out as individuals did so on behalf of themselves or close family members.  While standing up for yourself/your sibling/offspring/guardian is all well and good, I was hoping for more less closely involved people to join the party.  Seventeen submissions were from gay individuals or couples; many more talked about family members they felt deserved equal rights.  Where are the people who do this just because it's right?  Sure, I know a couple of gay people well, both of whom would probably like to get married (and not to each other, either) -- but the arguments I make aren't about them in particular, they're about humanity in general.  The number of straight people swamps the number of LBGT people -- even the number of entirely straight (nuclear) families is surely far larger than the number of families with an LGBT member.  WE STRAIGHTS ARE WAY TOO SILENT.  MAKE SOME NOISE!

One touching exception to that rule, written in a young hand:

Our state's motto is Live Free or Die.  How is this being fulfilled by creating a second-class citizen?  I am an example of what this nation excluded years ago.  I am the product of an interracial marriage.  I assure you, I am far from a "complication" to this nation.

And then there were the outright wackadoodles.  Do y'all remember this guy?

He wasn't the only loon there.  One mother wrote:

Due to the fact that my son raped my other son he is now placed in a long-term placement.  He is now dealing emotional hurt, physical and spiritual hurt.  If this situation were so right, about a potential gay relationship why are both of my sons so badly hurt? ... If this behavior were so right and so moral, then why is he locked up for something to do with a gay relationship.

So gay relationship equals rape.  And presumably, gay marriage equals gay relationship.  Neat.  Listen, lady, I'm sorry that some really bad sh** happened in your family -- but if you can't tell the difference between incestuous rape and a normal relationship then there's something wrong with you.  (P.S. Could that lack of distinction be related to the problem, since, you know, you're their mother?)  

Next?

I am a Catholic Christian and the mother of 6.  I am also pro-life and pro-marriage, meaning one man and one woman.  I was a single mother for many years, and I prayed for a husband.  God granted my prayers, giving me a husband, and we have been married for 26 years...

I don't even know where to start on that one.  Fortunately it's very short -- you just read about half of her total testimony.

I loved this:

I want to close with an analogy.  Those who love the sport of softball may wish it had the same prestige and popularity as baseball.  Maybe they feel they have a right to have their sport regarded as being equal to that of our national pastime.  They might even want to redefine "baseball" to include any sport that uses a ball and a bat, and where people run around the bases.  If baseball were to be so redefined, softball fans might be delighted.  But confusion would eventually reign.  Thousands of books would have to be rewritten.  Those who defend the traditional definition of baseball would someday be accused of being biased, prejudiced, or just plain ignorant...

My girlfriend's first response when I read her this one was "So cricket is baseball too?"  I told her that I think the guy probably had a very America-centric viewpoint.

But Jon Stewart's refutation of this (and most of these other people) is best:

I used to be against gay marriage, until I learned that it was voluntary, and only for gays!