Commentary

Letters to the Editor

Page 3 of 3

It takes two: Regarding Dan Savage's September 29 column, "Tradition!"

Whenever the conversation gets down to brass tacks about gay marriage, the first thing out of opponents' mouths has been, "If we allow that, then people are going to marry animals" -- and the exchange is over. Proponents just don't understand that statement!

Walk with me a bit, because I figured it out. To a right-winger, marriage is about having one type of superior, all-knowing male benevolence assisted by a further higher power of masculine all-knowing benevolence, being joined until death to govern the actions of them both, especially over women.

To a gay-rights activist, marriage is about two human adults, including heterosexuals, being joined together in equality until death for the further well-being of them both.

What about the right-wingers? Who are they going to marry if the second idea progresses? Dominance over another adult human being is now discouraged, soŠthey will ask to marry animals. Probably not the ones we eat; eating is dominance enough.

And what would be the answer? Just say this, and it will make them have the same confused look on their faces that the idea of marrying the horse gives us: "Don't worry. We won't let you!"

Lassey Johnson
Golden

KEEP WESTWORD FREE... Since we started Westword, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Denver, and we'd like to keep it that way. With local media under siege, it's more important than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" program, allowing us to keep offering readers access to our incisive coverage of local news, food and culture with no paywalls.