To the editor:

I would like to reply to the letter written by Nancy Stanfill-McCarty in the May 27 issue of the Call.

This letter was written in defense of gay marriage and in reply to a letter against same written by Peggy Trefts.

It would be better if we could get away from calling those who oppose gay marriage “intolerant,” along with the sarcasm about the kinds of churches people attend.

Being a gay woman who has been in a relationship for 20 years while being an activist and raising three daughters, I would like to comment on the subject. I am against gay marriage.

I think people need to notice the frame which is put forth for people to think about this issue. The boundaries of this box are very tiny. They are the “rights” of people in love and the sharing of benefits. That’s it. And if that is all one thinks about “love and benefits” many will come to the conclusion that gay marriage should be allowed. In that frame one would feel small and petty to object.

Gay marriage is a radical leftist concept pushed by gay leftist elitists who themselves sneer at the institution of marriage and monogamy. Check out Jonah Goldberg’s article on Townhall.com of Sept. 3.

He writes of a front-page story in the New York Times over last Labor Day weekend about the attitude of many gay men towards marriage. The editor of Fab magazine, a Canadian gay publication, is quoted, “Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ’til death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.”

Challenge and change — the institution of marriage. Does this sound like an ongoing

agenda? Like legalizing gay marriage may just be a vehicle for much more to come? Like a simple “love and benefits” issue?

I am not suggesting that all or most gays and lesbians in a rush to get married are radical leftist activists bent on deconstructing societal institutions.

Many are marrying for love and benefits and also viewing the issue in the tiniest frame possible.

Not all gay people, just as not all heterosexuals, have fully considered the impact of the issue, the monumental cultural shift, and the use of incrementalism as a means of changing institutions to suit whatever activist judges and groupthink leaders can conjure up in order to be front and center on the cutting edge.

And the minute gay marriage is legalized as sure as night follows day — there will be three or more people ready to challenge the idea of only two people marrying using the same innocent sounding “love and benefits” logic. Change the definition of marriage just once and there will be continuous change from here on out until it is completely unrecognizable and meaningless. And that is the goal.

Kate Martin

Oakville