Rebuttal to Al Rantel
Al Rantel is a gay, conservative talk-show host. He wrote an article for NewsMax concerning Gay Marriage. In it, Al Rantel, speaking as a gay, said gays don't really want marriage (meaning, it's all just a liberal ploy). I could not let that go unchallenged because I know it is not true and is in fact harmful to others.
The NewsMax article is "Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage" by Al Rantel, February 11, 2004. The text of the article may be read at by clicking on the link above. Eventually that article may drop off of their list, so this link could be temporary. I have a copy of the full article but don't want to display it here because of copyright consideration.
(June 21, 2004)
I learned about you recently and am happy to discover yet another gay conservative. Or at least I assume you're conservative; I don't know you that well. Anyway, welcome. I hope in time I'll learn more about you. On the first page of your website you wrote, "Don't forget to send Al an e-mail." That's exactly what I'm doing; thank you for the opportunity.
Recently you wrote an article for NewsMax, "Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage," February 11, 2004. I included the text of that article below this email. I suppose several people wrote to disagree with you. I hope you were not overwhelmed with detractors, because I really want you to read this. I hope to bring you more information in the expectation that you will think about it and ultimately change your position.
Your wrote, "who said gays want to get married in the first place?" Well, I did. Let me introduce myself; I am Jerry Brown who lives in Burbank, California. If you ever have occasion to ask, "who said gays want to get married in the first place?" you now have the answer. I hope you never have to ask that question again. Furthermore, in my absence, I have many other gay friends who are saying the same thing. You can ask one of them. Please, lay that question to rest. You now know the answer.
You said about gay families, "If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger." Aren't you blatantly ignoring the fact that our worldwide human society is structured to prevent that from happening? Not only in the United States but worldwide and throughout history, gay marriage has been fought against and legislated against. Wouldn't a more reasonable question be, "How is it possible that although facing overwhelming odds, stable gay relationships still exist in over 1% of the population"?
You said, "the situation is far less stable among gays." The situation being divorce and adultery. For one thing, the heterosexual divorce and adultery rates are such that nobody has any justification to bring that up to a gay person. That is the height of hypocrisy and double standards. Furthermore, even if heterosexual divorce and adultery were non-existent, that still would be a deceitful question because heterosexual laws and social pressure make it impossible for gays to enter into a stable relationship.
Nevertheless, let me introduce you to a few of my friends. As of 2004:
Ron and I have been together for 31 years (March 1)
Reid and Calvin had been together for 62 years until Calvin died.
Ed and Willie, 40 years.
Frank and John, 12 years.
Terry and John, 10 years.
And my other friends have been together for an unknown number of years: Jim and Phil, Dale and Rick, Terry and Wally, and others.
That is only a few in my circle of friends in Southern California. We gays have other such circles in Southern California and also in New York, Seattle, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, San Francisco, and so on. Not to mention Europe.
You also said, "Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?" That is so slanted and untrue. First of all, forget the gay left and activist allies and focus on the latter part of the sentence. Massachusetts justices did not force gay marriage on anyone. That is unlike the heterosexual world who is in fact forcing heterosexual marriage on others. What the Massachusetts justices did - and I believe you know this - is to say the Massachusetts constitution does not forbid gay marriages, and as such other laws which do forbid gay marriages are unconstitutional. How does that equate to forcing people to enter into gay marriage? It does not, of course. You are pulling the same self-serving arguments that the liberals posit.
Besides, aren't conservatives supposed to go by what a constitution says without reading other meanings into it? I agree that the framers of the Massachusetts constitution were not thinking of gay marriage. But what I think you're purposing is exactly the same thing that liberals have been proposing for years: "Let's read the minds of those dead people and decide what they would have said if they knew about this issue today." Your stand is the same as theirs.
I frequently say, there are two types of liberals: those who are completely deceived and those who are doing the deceiving. You, however, have done a magnificent job of self-deception.
You said, "The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall." Perhaps you have missed the last thirty years of scientific inquiry. Being gay is as normal as being short and tall. It should be as acceptable although it is not, just as being black was not acceptable fifty years ago.
Al, I think you have some self-hatred and loathing going on here.
You said, "[The social liberals] want to force others to accept their social view." Although I deplore the liberal methods and agenda, do you have a problem with social justice and freedom for all? Or should that be reserved just for heterosexuals? Should we have stopped at equality before the Civil War? After all, that ultimately forced others to accept a new social view. If we used your apparent social view, we would still be having slavery in the United States. And forget about fighting in World War II. Slavery was just flat wrong, and so is anti-gay laws. It did not matter that slavery was a part of society and thousands of years old, neither does it matter that anti-gay discrimination is a part of society and thousands of years old. It is just wrong.
You said, "a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails." You're living in a cave, Buddy. Our group has offered tremendous indications of a desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails. Only the socially blind, inexcusably ignorant or political-motivated liars would say otherwise.
You said, "Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring." It does more than that. It brings stability, structure and security to society itself. Gay people want to live in a stable, structured and secure environment as much as anyone. And besides that - DUH - gays want to raise children, too.
You finished your article by saying, "Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?" I don't deny that the liberal left are using gays to further their political goals. But to answer your question, Yes. Accepting gays as part of our society, which includes marriage, is a wise and prudent choice for America to make. It is in the same wisdom as giving us the Bill of Rights, in giving blacks freedom from slavery and erasing the difference between black and white.
Al, I don't know what sort of friends you hang out with, but based on your article I would guess your group is narrow and self-loathing. I urge your to break out of that circle and find some better gay friends. Oh yeah, and also learn what the gay community really thinks and wants. In the meantime, quit trying to be a spokesperson for us. You really suck at it.
Best wishes, and good luck.
Read well and be well read; buy a book