It is hard to explain and comprehend how closed-minded and comical Kevin Gillispie's argument is in his column, "Gay marriage does not accurately depict equality" (CT, April 28). Gillispie's argument is founded on the basis that men and women are not equal in society and that in order to validate gay marriage, "you must first prove the interchangeability of men and women." This is simply not the truth, and it is foolish to comprehend that Mr. Gillispie is so narrow-minded to believe this is a valid reason not to legalize gay marriage.
Homosexuals are tax-paying citizens, which should be all the reason to allow them the right to have recognizable marriage. Every tax-paying citizen should have the same rights as all other tax-paying citizens. Opposite sex marriage is recognized by the government, and in some cases, receives tax incentives and larger tax refunds to help support families. It is an injustice that homosexuals are not rewarded the same benefits in their relationships or marriages.
Additionally, it is a joke that Mr. Gillispie refers to Perez Hilton as the "Exemplar-In-Chief", insisting that he represents the homosexual community. He does not. I do not support what Perez Hilton said, and in fact, I cannot stand anything that comes out of that man's mouth. However, if you will refer to Perez Hilton as the representative of the homosexual community, then let us refer to Rush Limbaugh as the representative of the conservative community. Mr. Limbaugh has gone through three divorces, something that I find comical when the conservative community and Mr. Gillispie's argument are based on the importance of opposite sex marriage and the sanctity that it holds.
Finally, Mr. Gillispie goes completely berserk when he switches gears in his argument as he goes off on a random tangent to discuss the rendering of children and why we should not let children live with multiple sets of parents. What Mr. Gillispie's claim is here, I could only guess. But, if it is some shot at children who are raised by homosexuals, then he is making a dreadful mistake. For someone who is basing his argument on science and condemning those who use emotions, Gillispie is falling victim to his own words. There is no evidence that children raised by homosexuals are inferior or different than children raised by heterosexuals. In a University of Southern California study, "researchers found no differences in the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents."
Mr. Gillispie, please stick to the facts and not your opinion. As you say, "Outside the intellectual nursery of academia, nobody cares about your feelings," so please keep your feelings and thoughts to yourself.
Andrew Mertens
Sophomore, history and English
Leave a comment 17 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
ex cons are tax payers, do they deserve the same rights? how about pedophiles? not that they have anything to do with the gay marriage topic, but the tax paying citizen argument is kind of silly. on top of that most people don't pay taxes. like me, i got a tax refund. the gov't paid me! since I didn't pay taxes do I still deserve the same rights?
Reply to this Top
Most people don't pay taxes? Sorry, but are you nuts? Getting a refund means that you overpaid income tax during the year, not necessarily that your tax obligation is $0.
Reply to this Top
The tax issue aside there are more than 1100 privileges and benefits that married couples receive that gay couples do not. I take Andrew's point to be that if a gay person pays taxes he should be able to receive the same benefits as someone who is not gay. Nevertheless, civil rights are not contingent upon the payment of taxes as a cursory read of the Constitution reveals. Well done, Andrew!
Reply to this Top
People who are against gay marriage are so because of religion. However, they know their argument from religion just won't hold up in the public discourse. Therefore, they jump through mental hoops and invent a completely BS argument against gay marriage that isn't based on religion. This is similar to the 'intelligent design' movement. Take heart, because it appears that no one is buying their BS argument either.
Reply to this Top
People on welfare pay taxes. Ha, let me rephrase that... if people on welfare did pay taxes does that mean they are entitled to the same 'rights' as you and me? They seem to get MORE 'rights'; how is that possible according to this articles logic?
Reply to this Top
In our society an equality of rights does not equate to an equality of privileges. Tax breaks are incentives and not rights.
Reply to this Top
Anonymous (11:15 AM) Alot of people get welfare...like corporate tax cuts for businesses, a kind of welfare, and the vast majority of white people who receive all the benefits of their class through the financial aid of their parents while others are forced into debt with loans. You didn't earn your parents money but you still get to use it. Did you think about that? Have you thought about the racial wealth divide and do you actually know anything about welfare. From one white guy to another, allow me to assure you, you do not realize the extent of systemic discrimination in this country. You do not have to ofcourse, since it does not apply directly to you. Look up the Invisible Knapsack friend.
Reply to this Top
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/13683 The link above is a REAL argument against proponents of anti-gay marriage. Read it...it was in the paper yesterday. By the way, there are more than tax cuts with marriage. There are a slew of rights, and privileges, all of which should be granted to any couple wishing to marriage as stated by the 1st and 14th amendment. Religious arguments are invalid due to their glaring inconsistency. 400 state benefits and over 1000 at the federal level. And by the way BRADFORD S. in this country rights ARE privileges. Only a white male heterosexual would think otherwise.
Reply to this Top
Comparing pedophiles, people who exploit and abuse children sexually, to a relationship between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is a disgusting and offensive thing that Christians and Conservatives do far too often. They are in no way related. By the way, 98% of pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL WHITE MEN!!! Looks like we are not the ones with the problem.
Reply to this Top
Rights are privileges; I would agree. All of us who are not laying our lives down in the line of duty each and every day - for us, yes, rights are privileges. We do not earn them with blood like the ones who fight for us and those rights. But what i think you mean to say is 'privileges are rights' -- in this country, they are not.
Reply to this Top
I'm gonna have to disagree there, Bradford. Rights are natural things granted specifically by nature - rights tend to be more abstract, and transcend governmental power. Think in terms of 'what kinds of things can I do whether a government exist to support them or not,' and you come up with the primary examples emphasized by Locke - life, liberty, property - and the expansion provided by Jefferson - pursuit of happiness. There is another type of right, which is referred to as a 'negative right,' which is a sort of implied right by virtue of the fact that governments DO exist - these are the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights which preclude the government from doing certain things. Those include things like speech, free press, religious practice, search and seizure protections, and the like. Privileges, in contrast, are benefits distributed directly by the government which would not otherwise exist without the government to provide them. Think in terms of, say, public education - being educated (with public monies) isn't a right, per se, because it isn't something that could exist without government involvement of some sort - but public education is a privilege because the government provides funds for that purpose and it is something to which every American has access.
Reply to this Top
Also, it would enhance the entire argument if we all stayed away from blanket stereotypes involving "white privilege" and things of that ilk. White privilege is a myth, insomuch as that it's really socioeconomic background from which individuals derive their level of means with which they start off rather than race. There are plenty of well-educated, wealthy black families to go along with the ample number of poorly-educated, hopelessly impoverished white families. Statistics can be and frequently are bent to prove political points, and the idea of a race-based welfare gap is a good example of that - when we talk about economic status, it's really not valid to compare people by arbitrary means (skin color, sexual orientation, etc.); it's really a better comparison to compare by socio-economic status first and THEN by race (if that's the desired outcome), because then you cull out the outliers. Of course, if the only interest is shock value in the statistic rather than deducing WHY certain discrepancies exist, I suppose you could overlook the scientific aspect of these things and just skip straight to the punch line. But that would be the uneducated approach. . . .
Reply to this Top
Kyle, I was only addressing the earlier post that said 'rights ARE privileges' and took the sarcasm too far.
Reply to this Top
It all depends on how you define rights, I reckon. Everyone has their own idea of what rights are. I would think if you had a right to liberty that you couldn't be jailed but that happens anyways. A right to life, well that can be revoked at any time also. If there were some sort of natural rights then there would be some universal acceptance of other peoples' existence, liberty, and property. There is a large acceptance but it is not universal. Rights is just a made up term and they are not granted by nature. Unless it means you have the ability to defend your liberty so naturally you have a right to that liberty.
Reply to this Top
Indeed, might is the authority of "rights"
Reply to this Top
I think that's a bit too literal, anonymous - the fact that these abstract rights can be (and often are) abridged don't make them any less applicable or universal. The main reason I wrote what I did is because there really is no way of conflating 'rights' with 'privileges' since they are two distinct entities - I take issue with people who think they are analogous because the implication is that rights exist because the government provides them, which cannot be the case. Point in fact - if it were the case, then the 9th and 10th amendments would have been unnecessary, because there would be no rights outside of those provided by state and federal governments for the people to have.
Reply to this Top
Excellent letter, Andrew! It is well-reasoned and well-argued. Ultimately, there is no good moral or legal reason to withhold a fundamental right from a valuable sector of American society. By the way, gay marriage, like voting and housing equality, is a CIVIL right, an opinion which many courts and legislative bodies have upheld.
Reply to this Top