Thank you, Ms. Marion

By STEPHEN WU
Opinion editor

I am so utterly relieved and grateful that Ms. Marion took the time out to pen a response to the latest column regarding Proposition 8.  This is a divisive issue, no doubt, and one that tests the fabric of society and the basic nature of human relationships.Ms. Marion’s life story is extremely compelling and poignant in the deepest and most meaningful sense of the word.  Her personal story is emotive and pulls at the heartstrings; to not be touched and moved by her account is to deny one’s humanity and compassion.  The fact that she did engage in this subject, however, I think underscores that basic civility that exists here at Poly that is so woefully lacking in so many other places.
Particularly when contrasted to the recent militant attacks on churches by gay marriage activists or the rantings of religious zealots, the firm yet polite exchange of ideas in this newspaper provides for a courteous forum that juxtaposes two disparate worldviews.  I think Ms. Marion does herself a disservice by saying that two parties that hold opposing perspectives cannot respectfully disagree, as evidenced here on these very pages.
As I have noted before but think bears repeating, the minority conservative faction at Poly was extremely fearful, more so than I have ever perceived, of voicing support for traditional marriage precisely because of some of the intimations of “hate” or bigotry Ms. Marion alludes to and associates with traditionalists.  From my writing of the last column until a few days after the November Paw Print went to press, I detected an uneasy sentiment directed at right-leaning or suspected conservatives on campus.  Ms. Marion’s article, I think, allows us to discredit the myth that discourse cannot be respectful but contrasting.
Speaking now for myself, I too had deep reservations about writing my last article.  I consulted, at some length, with various editors and advisors, teachers and students, about the merit of even bothering to write the piece.  Knowing the sensitivity of the topic and the overwhelming opposition to my views, I was prepared to censor myself and talk about some bland, mundane topic like taxes or the Obama victory.  I must admit that Ms. Marion’s reaction crossed my mind on several occasions; was I ready to potentially breach my connection with a marvelous teacher of English as well as an admirable human being?
Ultimately, I felt bound to write the column, though, to reaffirm my own belief in the tolerance of the Poly community as well as to reinforce, in myself, the feeling that I would not discard my convictions for expedience or to save face.  I wrangled with this issue for quite a long time, yet I make no apologies for my writing nor do I regret its publication.  I realize that the traditionalist camp is a quickly sinking ship, and in fifty years my position, if by then I still retain the same views, will be all but nonexistent.  The brave new world will churn forward, sweeping away the dusty remnants of the old school and its values.
Ms. Marion dwells briefly on the analysis of my article, and though I disagree with her construal of the judicial system and some of her characterizations of traditionalists, this is neither time nor place to engage in finicky and technical scrutiny.  Suffice to say, after three consecutive newspaper editions hammering for and against Proposition 8 again and again, I am content to let the issue die peacefully.
I do feel compelled, however, to set the record straight on one particular point of some significance.  I took great pains to make clear, or at the very least I had hoped to make clear, that I, and most I believe, think that gays are “fully contributing members of society” that are not viewed as sub-human.  I think Ms. Marion’s argument and explication actually reveal that fact: there is a glaring lack of water hoses in the context of the homosexual movement, and, in general, people do not shun gays in the same derisive manner once reserved for African Americans.
Before I had read Ms. Marion’s response, but equipped with the knowledge that there would be one soon forthcoming, I started writing this piece with the intention of highlighting civility in debate.  I originally wrote, in a somewhat-muddled apology/explanation if she took offense, that “The intent of my column was not and is not personal in nature; it has been and will always be a private stance that speaks to a larger political issue.  If you or anyone feels affronted on a personal basis, I sincerely regret that and ask your pardon.”
I will go one step further now, and say that nobody has the right to doubt Ms. Marion or any gay’s “existence,” “personhood” or “validity.”  Quite simply, marriage is, in my mind, a unique civil right, not human, that is determined by the mores and culture of society.  That said, however, I will be the first person to object to any vilification or slander or denigration of the innate worth and dignity of any human being on this earth.  Should anyone ever assault the integrity, question the kindness, or doubt the genuine affection for her family, of Ms. Marion or anyone whom I have had the privilege of knowing and admiring, I will, with spirit and vigor until my final breath, defend those of sterling character who have done no wrong.