Don't you love it when editorialists claim to appeal to "unadulterated logic and reason" and then base their arguments on incongruous premises arising from their own deluded conjecture? Such was the case with Tom Wilkinson's commentary on gay marriage (Opinion 2, Monday).
Certainly Wilkinson has every right to adhere to the tenants of any belief system he chooses. And when members believe their religion recognizes the only true prophet, seer and revelator now on Earth, I understand their obligation to follow his council. However, it would be nice if they were able to recognize the distinction between faith and laying claim to perfect knowledge of "immoveable truth."
So, while Wilkinson's perceived affiliation with the only direct hot line to God may lead him to trust in his own infallibility, I do not accept his claim to read minds and accurately decipher the real intent of gay Americans. I can only believe that truly "logical individuals" will have regarded his arrogant generalizations as offensive and uninformed.
In a convoluted attempt to explain why same-sex couples can't possibly embrace the desire for lasting commitment, he offers the sad example of heterosexual couples placing little or no value on marriage. So because an increasing percentage of heterosexuals are choosing to cohabitate rather than marry, Wilkinson assails the motive of thousands of homosexuals seeking to legalize their partnerships? How presumptuous of him to impugn the integrity of people he doesn't know or understand.
Robert Parker has clearly staked the greater claim to logic by reasoning that expanding the law to include gays would actually do more to uphold marriage as the only means for couples to obtain community recognition of their unions. Same-sex marriage would not demean the institution of marriage except in the minds of exclusionists such as Wilkinson, who deems gay Americans not worthy to join his club.
Perhaps Wilkinson doesn't see the correlation between withholding marriage from a segment of the population and denying the priesthood to several generations of black males because, in the eyes of his church, practicing homosexuals can never overcome their stain and earn the right to be included in eternal ceremonies. I'm sure Wilkinson is willing to agree that homosexuals have souls as well; it's just that their souls will be damned for all eternity. But for those outside the Mormon church, explanation of doctrine doesn't really matter since only the prejudice is real.
Far more insulting, Wilkinson suggests that allowing gays to marry will somehow damage that institution and then degrades their lifestyle by claiming the courts would be unable to differentiate between same-sex partnerships and those choosing to have sex with animals. He further denigrates gay couples by inferring they have no real emotional bond and couldn't possibly strive for lifelong commitment.
Wilkinson alleges that gay Americans envision marriage only as a useful political tool rather than having any actual desire for committed relationships. How can he not recognize the intolerance and cruelty of such an accusation?
Clearly it is not a rational mind that considers marriage only as a means of "physically creating children" since there are many childless heterosexual marriages and more than 160,000 same-sex couples currently nurturing successful families. A truly logical individual understands that gay partnerships do not preclude offspring any more than a constitutional mandate of one man and one woman will generate greater fidelity to that number.
By claiming to have revealed "immoveable truth" regarding the motives of people that he has never met, Wilkinson has managed only to illustrate that he is deeply ensconced in his own limited thinking. Certainly he has not shown the slightest glimmer of unadulterated logic or reasoning in support of his absurd and unwarranted conclusions.
Sandi Glauser is a Gilbert resident.