I protest.

"Too much freedom?"

The Murky News reports "Same-sex marriage foes in Bay Area share ideas." Ordinarily I like the reporting at the Mercury News, but this article just seems to pander to the bigots. It is one thing to simply report the existence and statements of these people, but it is quite another to slant the article to be sympathetic to their bigotry and to provide them a platform from which to preach their beliefs. I think that is what Michelle Quinn, the reporter, intended. At least, the article certainly reads sympathetically.

Unfortunately, the views expressed by those interviewed range from simple ignorant intolerance to outright hatred. For example,

"I have no problem with the union of same-sex couples," said Ilya Vinogradsky, 28, a San Carlos software engineer. "I don't like the word 'marriage' and how it's applied to such a union. Historically, marriage is a union of a man and woman and implies conceiving children."

Not true. "Historically," marriage of homosexuals has been fairly widely accepted. It is only in the last couple of centuries that homosexuality in general and homosexual marriage in particular has become taboo. So this guy isn't necessarily a bigot, he's just ignorant. He should have done a bit of research before demonstrating his ignorance before the world.

Here's another one:

James Staehs, 71, a retired engineer in San Jose, said he and his family oppose gay marriage because of their Christian faith, which he said is at the very foundation of the country. According to the Bible, he said, marriage was instituted by God as a union between one man and one woman created for the purpose of reproduction.

"The gay community is trying to redefine marriage to satisfy their own personal desires, and thereby making a mockery of God's plan," he said.

Well, first, the "Christian faith" is quite certainly not "at the very foundation of the country." While the "founding fathers" may have been deists, i.e. they believed in a God, they were emphatically not Christians, at least not in the way Staehs defines the term. They were the people, after all, who made damned certainly that the separation of religion and government, the "separation of Church and State," was made an integral part of the Constitution. And secondly, it is far too late for gay people to "redefine marriage to satisfy their own personal desires." The heterosexual majority has already made "a mockery of God's plan" with the embrace of divorce in particular, as well as adultery and a number of other activities against which the Chrixtian holy book speaks much more vehemently and repeatedly than it does regarding homosexuality (rarely) or homosexual marriage (not at all). In "defending" heterosexual marriage, Staehs simply ignores his own belief system. He's a hypocrite. And a bigot.

Then there's this one, which gave me the title for this entry:

For Emma Papa, 45, a marketing professional who works from her Alameda home, gay marriage is too much too fast. An immigrant from the Philippines, Papa said she has gay friends but can't support gay marriage, because of her strong Catholic beliefs.

"I try to teach children not to be prejudiced about gay people," said Papa, who has a 14-year-old son and a 25-year-old daughter. "It's not our business. It's good enough they are accepted in our time but to go as far as legalizing, what moral lesson is that giving our children? We already have too much freedom in this country."

I repeat: She said, "We already have too much freedom in this country." Um, just how fucking much is "too much?" As I see it, these days we don't have enough freedom, although Emma here certainly has enough to spew her idiocy in public. One wonders how Emma manages to "teach children not to be prejudiced about gay people" when she has so much obvious prejudice of her own. What moral lesson is legalizing gay marriage giving our children? How about the moral lesson that tolerance is a good thing? How about the moral lesson that everyone is equal and liberty is for all, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. As a Filipina, I would expect Emma to have some clue about this kind of thing, but it's pretty obvious that she has at least two sets of standards, one for herself and one for those of whom she disapproves.

If Emma truly believes that we have "too much freedom," I respectfully suggest that she move back to the Philippines for a few years. If she manages to return to the States at the end of that time, I would then like to know just how much freedom is "too much" in her view.

Then there's "Juliet Stanton, 40, a homemaker and lifelong resident of the South Bay." She says,

… she also tries to put herself in a gay person's shoes. What would she do? "I would not want to go out and upset the norm, whatever that may be. I would want to keep my lifestyle personal."

I suppose that Juliet thinks that interracial marriage should still be against the law then? After all, forty years ago it was the "norm" and it certainly was "upset." Juliet is also an ignorant fool:

Stanton says she doesn't understand the point of legalizing gay marriages. "It's not only upsetting tradition, but many children and families as well. I can understand making a ruckus over getting certain rights, but I don't understand doing this over a piece of paper."

See my comments above regarding "history" and "tradition." As for this only being about "a piece of paper," I'm sure that she knows as well as I do that marriage carries with it a large number of legal rights over and above the important social recognition of the relationship. Things like being able to make life-or-death decisions on behalf of the spouse. Being able to inherit. Being able to truly share legal custody of children. The three listed in the article, "hospital visits, sharing property, health benefits." Many, many others. "Juliet Stanton, 40, a homemaker and lifelong resident of the South Bay," is a bigot.

According to the article, 37 percent of the residents of the Bay Area oppose gay marriage according to "a recent Field Poll." Of course, I don't care if the number is 97 percent. This is a cut-and-dried civil rights issue. Those who are opposed need to give some serious thought (as opposed to knee-jerk reaction) to their opposition with regard to how it compares to the opposition in the fifties and sixties to interracial marriage. Those opposed at that time look simply ignorant and bigoted. History will judge those opposed now in just the same way.