Visiting an appartment tomorrow
Hope it's good. x_X
Brian Brown speaks to these people (moderates). He has a master's degree from Oxford, and completed course work for a doctorate in history from UCLA. He shoulders the accusations of bigotry; it's horrible when people say that your life's mission is actually just prejudice. He tries to help people see that opposing gay
marriage does not make them bigots, that the argument should have nothing to do
with hate or fear, and everything to do with history and tradition.
The reason Brian Brown is so effective is that he is pleasantly, ruthlessly sane.
"I have gay people who are friends and family," he says. "We can disagree on all sorts of things and still care about each other." And later, "Of course, I have to take their arguments seriously. This issue is important. Ideas have consequences."
Thanks for writing. I'm sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to you. I was out of the office last week and am just checking email for the first time in several days.
I expected that I would return to some angry emails about this article. To be perfectly honest, I thought they would come from anti-gay marriage conservatives. This is what I thought they would say: "How dare you write such a snide article on Brian Brown."
It's possible to read my piece and come away thinking, "Brian Brown is a nice guy whose beliefs are correct." Another interpretation could be that Brown's "niceness" is precisely what makes him so threatening to the pro- same sex marriage movement. "Nice" does not equal "right" after all. And sometimes apparent sanity is more dangerous than ranting and raving.
I could have quoted several pro- same sex marriage supporters saying precisely this. I interviewed several of them -- Joe Solomese at the HRC was, as usual, articulate and helpful. Ultimately, I thought the piece would have more impact if the reader heard Brian's voice. They could then decide for themselves whether they found his arguments persuasive, or whether they found his "rationality" chilling, absurd and irrational. It's impossible to tell, before an article is published, how readers will interpret the tone of an article. A lot of factors can influence reader's interpretations--the headline, for example (I don't write my own headlines, and had I been in the office I probably would have protested this one).
For better or worse, I try to keep my personal views and biases out of any article I write. But since I've gotten several emails from people accusing me of attempting to carry out a homophobic agenda, you may or may not find this useful: My current partner is a man. Before him, my partner of two years was a woman, with whom I discussed health insurance, kids, houses, and marriage. You can bet that I found the fact that our marriage wouldn't have been legal to be wrong as heck. That doesn't mean that what NOM is trying to do and how they are trying to do it are not important to hear about.
Again, thanks for writing.
Monica
'Sanity & a Smile' and an Outpouring of Rage
The Post recently featured a story by reporter Monica Hesse that ran on the front of the Style section while she was on vacation. The day before returning, she logged on to check e-mails -- and wept.