This is a response sent to Mr. Grills and forwarded to me about the article "Gay Marriage: The Worst Idea Since New Coke."

Jeff,

I just found your website and love it! I read the “Gay Marriage: The Worst Idea Since New Coke” and felt compelled to write a response. The following is the letter I sent to Matt Grills, author of the article.

Mr. Grills,

I just finished reading your article entitled, Gay Marriage: The Worst Idea Since New Coke, in which you state that, “I can’t figure out why this is such a big honking deal to Gays and Lesbians.” Then you continue to explain that which you have yet to figure out. How does that work?

You then imply that the reason we are fighting for our right to marry is to gain widespread recognition and acceptance, and if we’d just shut up for a moment, we’d see that we’re already making great progress in that area. Silly us! What were we thinking? You say you don’t hate us, and I believe you. But you do hate that everything has to be about us. What you fail to see is that we are not the one’s making this all about us. That job is being done very efficiently by those who would rather not know of our existence. People like you, Mr. Grills, who think everything would be better if we annoying Gays and Lesbians would just shut up. Out of sight, out of mind.

You characterize us as stomping our feet like whiny children throwing a tantrum might do. Certainly not what an adult would do, especially over something as unimportant and minor as benefits. These are benefits that you enjoy, Mr. Grills. I wonder just how much stomping of feet you’d allow yourself if you were denied them?

But the most troubling aspect of your article is the implication that the only viable people are the one’s who benefit society, and the only benefit one can give to society is progeny. That’s a rather narrow view, don’t you think? Well, it’s obvious that you don’t. I have 3 biological children and I am Gay. How do I determine if I am a benefit to society or a whiny, foot stomping, annoying drain on it? If reproduction’s importance eclipses everything else, why limit marriage to one man and one woman when far more children can be produced by the union of one man and several women. Your logic and reasoning fall embarrassingly flat. As evidenced by your statement that the institution of marriage is, by and large, to be thanked for our survival and social order. Think again, Mr. Grills. Sex is responsible for producing children, not marriage, but let’s not talk about that offensive subject. And social order? How is marriage responsible for that? You seem to think that marriage is a panacea for all that’s good in the world. What about art, music, poetry, science, technology, and love, Mr. Grills? Yes, what about love. Do none of these things benefit society? Must one be married to create art or enjoy it? Do you withhold judgment on music, poetry, or sculpture until you can determine whether or not the alleged artist was married? What happens if you find yourself attracted to a beautiful painting of a woman, then happen to find out it was painted by a gay artist? I can see why you’re so annoyed by us.

You seem to think that all we want is approval. Specifically, approval from straight people. To be liked us so that you will shower your generosity upon us and give us everything we want so that we may finally be happy. No, Mr. Grills. We can’t wait around for anyone to give us anything. We demand equal access to the same rights you enjoy but are denied to us. Rights cannot be given by you, me, or anyone else. How pompous would it sound to say, “I give you the right to live.” Unfortunately, the opposite is not true. Rights can be, and are, taken away or denied as a murderer can take his victim’s right to live.

We don’t care whether you like us or not, but when I die, I want my estate to go to my partner, no questions asked, just like they would to your wife if you died. I’m sorry if that sounded whiny, Mr. Grills. I know how much it annoys you.

I was so hoping to cure the ailing institution of marriage by being able to partake of it, but I see now that marriage is essentially about the other person. But I don’t understand. What other person? Do you mean the other person that I want to marry? That other person? Forgive me if I cannot think of anyone else for more than a few seconds at a time, Mr. Grills. Do you think if I worked very hard and was able to show you that I could think about someone else for, say, one hour uninterrupted, that I would be a suitable candidate for marriage? Oh, does the person I think about have to be a man or a woman, and does he or she have to be the one I’m interested in marrying?

When you say that Gay lifestyles are all about self, how do you know this? Are you an ex-Gay? You say our feelings, orientation, and physical desires are paramount. Please explain how you come to this conclusion. Are your feelings, orientation, and physical desires not important to you? And are you saying that since many straight marriages are ruined by giving ultimate priority to these things, that homosexual marriages cannot be successful because our ability to control ourselves pales in comparison to that of heterosexuals? Why on earth would you think that we would disagree with that stereotypical characterization of us? Please give us some credit. I can assure you, Mr. Grills, that when one of our marriages fails, you will never find, listed on the divorce decree as the reason for dissolution of marriage, the term “whatnot.”

Paul Rivera

Paul Rivera is a writer and a homosexual living in Chicago

Please close window when done reading and check out more article listings.