Letters to the Editor | Casper-Futterman’s article misguided

In Evan Casper-Futterman’s column (“Gay marriage debate provides impetus to critique a troubled American institution,” 4.05.07 issue of The Miscellany News), the columnist asserts that the traditional institution of marriage, with its long and complicated history, should be done away with completely. More specifically, the author of this piece goes into great detail about his dream in which: “Hundreds of thousands of straight couples across the nation relinquish their privilege to marry because they view their own marriages as less sacred considering the historically violent and presently exclusive borders of the institution.”

While the author in this passage appears to be decrying marriage because of its current lack of equal protection for homosexual couples, he is in fact arguing for the destruction of all marriages, not the “co-opting” of “queer identities” that he obviously views the extension of the sacred institution of marriage to include homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. I freely admit that portions of the article were confusing and vague, especially when the author describes a movie that few members of the student body have seen without explaining it fully, and then using the movie’s conclusions to support a “post-colonial perspective” on gay marriage. The switch between Casper-Futterman’s justified anger at the iniquity of the current marriage system and his seeming dislike for marriage in general is both confusing and disturbing. While the author sometimes appears to be angered at merely the hypocrisy of the system, he often callously pigeonholes those who support some form of marriage as “conservative Christians,” which is an unfair generalization unfit for the Vassar campus.

Additionally, the author, despite his lack of resolve in sticking to one central point, appears to call the current gay marriage movement worthless and counterproductive. This is the true harm of Casper-Futterman’s article: He does not understand the importance of marriage to Americans, including and especially many, if not most, Americans of alternate sexual orientations. When he denounces marriage as “less sacred” than is often thought, he crosses a line of moral judgment that causes me great offense as a pro-marriage equality Catholic. His statement that heterosexuals are not as creative as many homosexuals and transgender persons is also extremely offensive and disgusting. The author neither understands the real meaning of marriage nor the importance of the sexual orientation minority’s just struggle for marriage equality. His action of placing “the American family” in scare quotes makes me extremely nervous, as it questions the very idea of family values, not just “traditional family values” as espoused by some individuals, but even more inclusive and progressive definitions.

Casper-Futterman’s article is a testament both to his ignorance about the institution of marriage and his distaste for the gay marriage/marriage equality movement. His article seems to imply that marriage is not a right (in fact he calls it a “privilege” at least once) and he seems ready and willing to deny both heterosexuals and homosexuals their rights as regards to this wonderful institution. At the very least, the author denigrates the struggle for equal rights of many millions of people in this country, and attacks religious and spiritual people the world over, along with many secular persons, who strongly support and fully understand the beauty of the institution of marriage.

—Christopher Binetti ’08