New Jersey: Just Say “Yes” To Gay Marriage, and “No” To George Berkin

An Open Letter To The Editor Of NJ.com

To The Editor:

Late Saturday night I came across an “editorial” by George Berkin, titled, “Say no to gay marriage.” I confess, my outrage was palpable, and, reading his one thousand four hundred ninety-one words of ignorance, bigotry, illogic, and just plain, old-fashioned hatred, I slept little and contemplated lots.

I decided, rather than blame Mr. Berkin for his ignorance, I should blame you. After all, you provide his platform. It’s obvious, were he actually someone of any intellect or importance, his only claim to fame wouldn’t be NJ.com – he would have a book, or a talk show, or published works elsewhere, or speaking engagements, or even a large following on Twitter! - something other than a column in your publication. Best I can tell, he was a reporter who got a column, which is more than honorable, yet, in this case, an obvious error in your judgment.

After all, anyone with any logic will tell you that Mr. Berkin’s words, for instance, “I love my dog, but no rational person hears wedding bells for me and Spot” are illogical, and ill-informed.

Mr. Berkin, “traditional” marriage’s self-anointed protector in the Garden State, should be the first to know that, among other things, marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Unless Mr. Berkin can prove that his dog is equally “in love” with him, and can sign a marriage license, and it is to the benefit of society that they be wed, and his dog is of sound mind to make such a decision, and that his dog is a human being, the “man-dog” marriage argument is, as it has always been, fallacious and idiotic.

Speaking of ill-informed and just plain wrong, let’s take his statement, “So-called gay ‘marriage’ makes a mockery of traditional marriage because ‘gay’ sexual relations do not hold to the monogamous behavior that traditional marriages hold to, or strive for.”

Really?

How would Mr. Berkin know what “gay sexual relations” “hold to or strive for?” The fact is that there are millions of gay Americans who desperately want nothing more than a monogamous relationship, “til death do we part.” One that is recognized equally by the state and equal to all other marriages. You can put me down as one.

But perhaps Mr. Berkin thinks that all those “traditional” marriages that are troubled by infidelity are OK. Most recently of note, Tiger Woods’ marriage. Senator Ensign’s. Governor Sanford’s. Oh, so very many more.

But back to you, the Editor. How can you in good conscience allow lies and mis-information to be published, as opinion or not, under your masthead? Mis-information, like Berkin’s statement, “…researchers found that more than 40 percent of homosexuals said that they have had more than 500 sexual partners. Only 1 percent had fewer than four sexual partners.”

Well, those “researchers” are the “Family Research Council.” Any credible scientist or researcher will tell you that those studies are just plain fiction and without merit – and long since disproved. It does your readers and the citizens of your state a true injustice and disservice for you  to allow those lies to be published in NJ.com. Shame on you!

Then there’s his flat-out lie: “…so-called gay “marriage” would destroy religious freedom, because churches would not be allowed to act on traditional (or biblical) standards of sexual conduct.”

(At this point, one is forced to ask if Mr. Berkin is willing to include the decades of priest sexual abuse of children as “traditional (or biblical) standards of sexual conduct?”)

And then there’s this “gem” from your columnist:

“…if a gay marriage law goes into effect in New Jersey, pastors across the state could face legal sanctions if they preach the clear meaning of the text. The sanctions will likely be cast in terms of ‘anti-discrimination’ laws.”

The only way a gay marriage law would force “pastors across the state [to] face legal sanctions if they preach the clear meaning of the [bible's] text” is if they also somehow compelled their congregations into stoning same sex couples. Considering the Church’s lack of ability over the past few decades to compel their congregations to follow less-controversial tenets of the bible, such as forgoing birth control methods, I doubt any pastor who advocated stoning would be arrested, as no one who listen.

The laws of this country, right or wrong, have always supported religion’s “right” to discriminate. Same sex marriage would have no effect on the Church’s right to continue to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community.

Therefore, “Bull,” sir, is all I have to say!

I’ve taken up enough of your time. There is a difference between publishing a wide-range of differing opinions, and publishing lies. You have, time and time again when it comes to Mr. Berkin, chosen the latter. Bottom line: George Berkin’s writings are ill-informed, illogical, and misdirected. You, as the Editor, have no business allowing him a platform to preach his hate to your readers.

Fortunately, it appears your readers are smarter than you: In this one piece, “Say no to gay marriage,” there are as of this writing, twenty-five comments; twenty-three are entirely against George Berkin. Those who believe (as I do not) that marriage should be put to a vote, would surely be voting against George Berkin.

The citizens of the fine state of New Jersey deserve better from him and from you.

God willing, I trust this week they will get it – sadly, not from NJ.com, but from the New Jersey Senate.

Related posts:

1. New Jersey Votes Against Marriage Equality 14-20
2. Anti-Gay Marriage Letters To The Editor: How Many Is Too Many?
3. “Marriage-Lite” Coming To New Jersey?
4. New Jersey Gay Marriage Vote Set For Monday
5. Gay Marriage Will Bring New Jersey $500,000,000

Tagged as: Gay Marriage, George Berkin, Journalism, New Jersey, NJ.com