This letter in today's (Friday, 2/13/04) "USA Today"
makes the point stated in this thread's subject line VERY
well ---

" 'Defense of marriage' lacks merit "

by Scott Shay, San Francisco

"I keep reading about various groups wanting to defend
marriage. There's even talk of a "defense of marriage"
amendment ro the Constitution.

"I must be missing something. How does forbidding gay
men and lesbians to marry defend anything other than a
prejudiced status quo ("Gay marriage fight nears a peak;"
"Changing the law of the land," News, Wednesday)?

"What exactly is mariage being defended against?
Traditional marriage obviously has a lot of problems, includ-
ing adultery and a skyrocketing divorce rate.

"Also a part of the equation: an increasing number of
couples who choose not to marry and opt to build families
out of wedlock. It is unclear to me how gays and lebians
are contributing to the pockmarks on the face of marriage
or how their ability to marry might ad to current family
problems.

"On the contrary, by definition, allowing gay people to
marry would increase the number of families whith a
married couple as a foundation.

"If conservatives truly want to defend marriage, they
should address the real issues that are causing its decline:
divorce and adultery. A true defense-of-marriage amend-
ment should include a ban on divorce and the criminaliza-
tion of adultery.

"Of course, neither of these two measures would garner
support among religious conservatives, not to mention the
general public, and for good reason.

"I suspect that no one who supports a defense-of-
marriage amendment is truly looking to "defend" marriage
in any real sense. He or she wants to make sure that gays
and lesbians are not treated equally and to disguise discrim-
ination with nebulous talk about marriage defense.

"So why not just call it what it is: a "Discrimination
Against Gay and Lesbian Americans Amendment?"

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

So once again we see the common denominator of
movements of intolerance in the USA manifesting itself:
LACK of relevant supporting FACTS.

And we've seen this many times before, since 1865.

NO substantive facts backed:

-- slavery
-- denying the vote to women
-- opposing the birth-control Pill
-- segregation
-- interacial marriage

And ALL of those movements of intolerance very
appropropriately ended up the *same* way: EXTINCT.

The same fate awaits the remnants of opposition to
safe and legal abortion, and to opposition of **equal**
rights for gays.

One other noteworthy aspect of the demise of all these
movements of intolerance: each time one bites the dust
permanently, America is the BETTER for being rid of it.



-- Craig Chilton