Internet connection's been down for the past week . . . again. Anyways, I have a few things at home I'll post whenever that's working again, but for now, while I'm at work, I'll talk about work.

The Texan re-ran my gay marriage piece last week, although they didn't mention it to me, which was a little weird since I work about 20 feet from the editor's office. The main reason I'd want to know is so that I could have tracked any Firing Line responses — you know, just to see what the teeming masses think of me. I came across one today. It's a beaut. There are plenty of problems one could nit-pick about that column, but this is not the one I expected:

The problem with gay marriage

Matt Wright's piece on gay marriage ("Dreaming of equality for homosexuals," Nov. 21) does contain some worthwhile arguments, but Wright fails to mention the 800 lb. gorilla readily viewed by those who oppose the measure: By invalidating the fundamental definition of marriage, i.e. that of a man and a woman, the door is opened for anyone to get married. That means that polygamists and polyamorists can no longer be excluded from marriage, and thus the mockery of the sacrament is taken to another level altogether. If a guy wants to marry a man, a woman and a duck, then he will not be denied the ability to do so. He can then legally argue that his "family" is no different than anyone else's.

Sound absurd? It may, and some will undoubtedly point out that my argument is reminiscent of the xenophobes who opposed people of different skin colors entering into the marriage contract. But I am not a racist, nor a bigot. I believe that my stance is genuine, because interracial marriage did not change the basic definition of matrimony; gay marriage does.

Clearly, gay citizens should not live in fear of persecution and enjoy all the rights that any other American would. Marriage, however, is not a right; it is a privilege. And to make the case that homosexuals are being deprived of a basic civil right (and smearing those who oppose that stance as far-right religious zealots) without addressing the above is disingenuous, at best.

Cooper Day
History senior

Well. Okay, as I said on Capps' comments, next time I'll make sure to devote a chunk of my 600 words to the discussion of people marrying ducks. I tell ya, if that's being disingenuous, then I don't want to be ingenuous. More coming soon, hopefully, including thesis first drafts. I know you can't wait!