[This is a public response to Jim Franklin’s public comments on the recent overturning of Prop 8. It was sent to him on Friday, August 13, 2010.]
Dear Jim,
(I hope you don’t mind me calling you Jim.)
As a local champion for Prop 8, I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to have your voice—and the voice of the people—completely ignored by a judge that thinks equality is above the subjective beliefs of a segment of voters.
As empathetic as I am to your cause, though, I’m a bit baffled by your latest argument. Here’s what I gleaned from your interview with ABC 30:
“If two guys can get married—if two women can get married based on their sexual preference—if I were to say ‘I’m bisexual,’ why can I not marry a man and a woman based on the same argument?”
Good question. It gets me thinking, so let’s flesh out (semi-pun intended) this “slippery slope” theory:
If a man can marry a woman, then divorce her and marry another woman, why can he not marry two women, based on the same argument?
Don’t answer that, it’s hypothetical, and the answer doesn’t matter. You know what also doesn’t matter? The state’s definition of marriage. It’s true—God doesn’t care about the paperwork and legalization. He/She (ha ha - get it?) cares about the integrity of relationships, and the accountability found in a faith community. Or something along those lines.
Look, I get it: the slippery slope is scary. But fear of what “could come” as a result of the current ruling is not a valid reason to deny people happiness, or resources and benefits that affect livelihood; in fact, fear is rarely a valid justification for any significant decision. So, instead of risking foot-hold, why not separate your church’s marriage ceremonies from any legally-binding act? If you really want to make a point, how about refusing to sign any marriage license?
Anyway, I’ll let you get back to your radio program now. Let’s hang out sometime soon!
Cheers,
James
PS: I like your screensaver. Did you design that?
