In response to Alex Anderson’s column on the definition of marriage:

This is bound to come across as though I’m a little angry. I suppose if I had to pick a reason, it would be because I am. Alex, while you may mean well, it’s pretty clear to me where your mind is regarding the definition of marriage and the place of same-sex couples in relation to the institution. Unsurprisingly, it follows with the majority of this country, which places LGBT people squarely below the rest of society.

You write about gay marriage advocates having a “playbook.” Well, at least it’s not an “agenda.” That catchword went out with the ’90s. You associate the view of marriage as a fundamental right as borne uniquely from aforementioned playbook. But that’s not the case, seeing as how Loving v. Virginia described marriage as both “a basic civil right” and indeed, “fundamental.” U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s arguments don’t come copied from gay marriage advocates; they come inspired by court precedent and history, just as it should be.

Next, you use the urban legend of a 50-percent divorce rate as though it were a real statistic. It’s not. You place arguments like these with the gay marriage advocates, despite the fact that divorce rates are higher among many of the same groups that fight against marriage equality than those who argue for it. Remember Massachusetts, that crazy state that allowed gay marriage before it was cool? Yeah, the divorce rate there has actually dropped since opening the doors for LGBT couples. So much for it being “simply” — another word you repeatedly tie to gay marriage advocates — a government-recognized “friendship.”

Speaking of that quote … You quote the author of “Treasure Island” and “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” to summarize how gay marriage activists feel? Seriously? When I stood at Gateway Park just about a month ago for the One Iowa rally, no one bragged about their special friendships. They didn’t talk about government benefits. They talked about raising a family, about commitment and about how their partners so perfectly complemented them.

To infer that gay marriage advocates — the majority of them anyway — truly think of marriage as a temporary and fleeting convenience is to deride and degrade the fight for respect and uphill legal battles LGBT people have been facing for decades. We don’t want some “social construct that allows for public displays of affection.” We want marriage. More than that, we want societal equality. Unfortunately, I’ve not the space or time to explain to you all the ways that has yet to be. So I’ll try to summarize briefly.

I want a world where there’s no need to write in and explain how the context and phrasing of a column exemplifies the subtle discrimination aimed at the LGBT community. I want a world where I don’t have to justify my feelings or desires, just as the majority of our country need not do now. I want to be seen as person first, all descriptors second.

Now, all that being said, it’s possible you chose your words poorly or paired arguments with improper context. If that’s the case, forgive me for reading too much into things. It’s kinda what I do.