Letter to the editor
Feb. 19th, 2006 12:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mysidThis guy named Jordan Lorence, an attorney for an organization that opposes same-sex marriage wrote a commentary titled "Flawed reasoning on same-sex unions. I won't post it here but you might find it on the internet if you google him. Anyway, when I read it in my local newspaper, it pissed me off enough that I wrote a letter to the editor--my first ever.
My problem, it's too long. The paper only accept 200 words or less. I've edited it down to 274, but I'm having trouble cutting more. Help?
My original version:
In “Flawed reasoning on same-sex unions,” Jordan Lorence posits that love should not be used as an argument in favor of permitting same-sex marriage because, traditionally, love was not a requirement for a marriage. He’s quite right in that point; love as a prerequisite for marriage is a modern concept. Traditionally, marriage was primarily a business arrangement in which a woman became the property of a man. In such a union, different genders were required; a woman as property and a man to own her. I, for one, am glad that I live within a culture in which the concept of marriage has evolved into that of a loving partnership of two equals. And as it has evolved to such, why shouldn’t it embrace any such partnership regardless of gender?
Lorence acknowledges that our current laws penalize same-sex couples in innumerable ways: tax penalties, inheritance penalties, lack of Social Security benefits, etc., but he says that each of these inequities should be corrected separately. This presumes that each of these inequities will be corrected and in a timely fashion, but time and time again we’ve seen that many of those who actively oppose same-sex marriage also actively oppose correcting these inequities. And even in cases where partial solutions exist, they require same-sex couples to navigate a complex maze of legal documents to get just some of the legal recognition that different-sex couples get with a marriage license. It’s a partial solution at best and only available those who can afford the legal advice to help them navigate the maze.
Lorence points out that society has an interest in promoting different-sex marriages because relationships between men and women produce children, and if men are not legally tied to their partners, the irresponsible ones will abandon their partners and their children. If society has an interest in keeping parents together for the sake of their children, then what of the thousands of children currently being raised by same-sex parents? Doesn’t society have an interest in keeping those parents together as well?
Lorence says that same-sex marriage is not inevitable. No, it is not. But it is fair, and right, and an idea whose time has come.
My shortened version:
In “Flawed reasoning on same-sex unions,” Jordan Lorence posits that love should not be used as an argument in favor of same-sex marriage because, traditionally, love was not required for marriage. He’s right in that point; love as a prerequisite for marriage is a modern concept. Traditionally, marriage was primarily a business arrangement in which a woman became the property of a man. I, for one, am glad that I live within a culture in which the concept of marriage has evolved into that of a loving partnership of two equals. As such, why shouldn’t it embrace any such partnership regardless of gender?
Lorence acknowledges that our laws penalize same-sex couples in innumerable ways, but he says that these inequities should each be addressed separately. Even in cases where partial solutions exist, they require same-sex couples to navigate a complex maze of laws and documents to get just some of the legal recognition that different-sex couples get with a marriage license. It’s a partial solution at best and only available those who can afford legal advice to help them.
Lorence points out that society has an interest in promoting different-sex marriages because if men are not legally tied to their partners, some will abandon their partners and their children. If society has an interest in keeping parents together for the sake of their children, then what of the thousands of children currently being raised by same-sex parents? Doesn’t society have an interest in keeping those parents together as well?
Lorence says that same-sex marriage is not inevitable. No, it is not. But it is fair, and right, and an idea whose time has come.
.
My problem, it's too long. The paper only accept 200 words or less. I've edited it down to 274, but I'm having trouble cutting more. Help?
My original version:
In “Flawed reasoning on same-sex unions,” Jordan Lorence posits that love should not be used as an argument in favor of permitting same-sex marriage because, traditionally, love was not a requirement for a marriage. He’s quite right in that point; love as a prerequisite for marriage is a modern concept. Traditionally, marriage was primarily a business arrangement in which a woman became the property of a man. In such a union, different genders were required; a woman as property and a man to own her. I, for one, am glad that I live within a culture in which the concept of marriage has evolved into that of a loving partnership of two equals. And as it has evolved to such, why shouldn’t it embrace any such partnership regardless of gender?
Lorence acknowledges that our current laws penalize same-sex couples in innumerable ways: tax penalties, inheritance penalties, lack of Social Security benefits, etc., but he says that each of these inequities should be corrected separately. This presumes that each of these inequities will be corrected and in a timely fashion, but time and time again we’ve seen that many of those who actively oppose same-sex marriage also actively oppose correcting these inequities. And even in cases where partial solutions exist, they require same-sex couples to navigate a complex maze of legal documents to get just some of the legal recognition that different-sex couples get with a marriage license. It’s a partial solution at best and only available those who can afford the legal advice to help them navigate the maze.
Lorence points out that society has an interest in promoting different-sex marriages because relationships between men and women produce children, and if men are not legally tied to their partners, the irresponsible ones will abandon their partners and their children. If society has an interest in keeping parents together for the sake of their children, then what of the thousands of children currently being raised by same-sex parents? Doesn’t society have an interest in keeping those parents together as well?
Lorence says that same-sex marriage is not inevitable. No, it is not. But it is fair, and right, and an idea whose time has come.
My shortened version:
In “Flawed reasoning on same-sex unions,” Jordan Lorence posits that love should not be used as an argument in favor of same-sex marriage because, traditionally, love was not required for marriage. He’s right in that point; love as a prerequisite for marriage is a modern concept. Traditionally, marriage was primarily a business arrangement in which a woman became the property of a man. I, for one, am glad that I live within a culture in which the concept of marriage has evolved into that of a loving partnership of two equals. As such, why shouldn’t it embrace any such partnership regardless of gender?
Lorence acknowledges that our laws penalize same-sex couples in innumerable ways, but he says that these inequities should each be addressed separately. Even in cases where partial solutions exist, they require same-sex couples to navigate a complex maze of laws and documents to get just some of the legal recognition that different-sex couples get with a marriage license. It’s a partial solution at best and only available those who can afford legal advice to help them.
Lorence points out that society has an interest in promoting different-sex marriages because if men are not legally tied to their partners, some will abandon their partners and their children. If society has an interest in keeping parents together for the sake of their children, then what of the thousands of children currently being raised by same-sex parents? Doesn’t society have an interest in keeping those parents together as well?
Lorence says that same-sex marriage is not inevitable. No, it is not. But it is fair, and right, and an idea whose time has come.
.