This was the title of a letter (Worthiness and Marriage) to the editor in today’s San Francisco Chronicle. It was written by Rev. John Malloy, S.D.B. Someone had recently written a piece about the discrimination that gays and lesbians go through when they are denied marriage equality. The good reverend disagrees. Here is his letter:
Worthiness and marriage
Editor — The most ridiculous argument offered for the justification of gay and lesbian marriage is that expressed in The Chronicle’s April 3 article, "Marriage law battle goes to high court:” "The marriage exclusion tells lesbian and gay men that they are less worthy than child abusers or sex offenders, or convicts in prison for murder."
Where is the discrimination? Gays and lesbians have a right to get married to each other! But gays want to be married to gays and lesbians to lesbians. So what is the purpose of marriage? According to the gay and lesbian mind-set, any two people should be able to enjoy sex together, despite the genders involved, and call it marriage.
To effect this, we must change the definition and principle purpose of marriage: union of man and woman and the begetting of children, without which there will be no human society.
Are bachelors and spinsters not worthy member of society? I fail to understand how the changing of the definition and purpose of marriage would make gays and lesbians more worthy members of our society.
Rev. JOHN MALLOY, S.D.B.
SS Peter & Paul Church
1) Malloy used the same old and tired reasons for not allowing gays and lesbians to get married. Oh wait, he claims we can get married–just to members of the opposite sex. So does Malloy want people to be in a sham marriage, where there is no love or sexual desire for each other? Maybe he thinks that would solve the problem, but he is sadly mistaken.
2) Malloy makes a mistake by equating having sex with marriage ("According to the gay and lesbian mind-set, any two people should be able to enjoy sex together, despite the genders involved, and call it marriage"). If that were the case, there would be many more marriages than he could handle. What he doesn’t understand is that love makes a marriage–and sex is a by-product of that love.
2) Malloy seems to think that without straight couples in a marriage, the human race would end. Surely Malloy must know that gays and lesbians have forever had children–some when they were in these sham marriages that Malloy seems to think we can be in and be happy. Children will come regardless, if that is what gays and lesbians want. And I wonder if Malloy thought out his new definition–there are many married people who either don’t want kids, or can’t have kids. Is he going to have them divorced because they are not perpetuating the species as he would like? Maybe he supports the ballot proposal in Washington State that will annul marriages that do not produce children within three years…
3) Bachelors and spinsters are worthy members of society. However, what Malloy doesn’t understand is that these bachelors and spinsters have made their own choice to be un-partnered (and I have to wonder if some of these bachelors and spinsters are actually gay and have been forced into their situation by views like Malloy). Unlike them, I am forced to be legally single, despite being together with my partner for fifteen years. I am forced to be legally single because laws are passed in this country based on religious principles of the majority. This is religious persecution on minorities and this is why I think all of these anti-gay marriage laws need to be overturned. They are based on religious laws and this country, at least the last time I checked, is not a theocracy.
4) As I’ve said before, I don’t feel that Malloy and his other priestly friends have any moral authority to enforce their views on the rest of the population. Christianity has a male god with no female counterpart. It has a male God-Son, who apparently never has sex with anyone, despite the fact that Christ should be fully human. Even the idea that Christ might have human genitals (as witnessed recently with the chocolate Jesus) puts people into fits. The Catholic church does not allow its priests and nuns to marry (and this wasn’t always the case, by the way). This could explain Malloy’s misunderstanding that for gays and lesbians, sex=marriage. If he has made the choice not to love a spouse, then I can forgive him for that misunderstanding. Therefore I don’t feel that they are good examples to be teaching about families or what families are.