John Irving Supports Marriage Equality in Letter to Edmund White

I don't need to tell you that there are many people outside Vermont who are watching to see what my home state does about the S.115 legislation; I believe that gays, and all Americans committed to equality, are looking hopefully at Vermont right now. As a country, don't we lag behind Europe and Canada on the acceptance of gay people? I am proud of the Vermont Senate for passing this bill by such a commanding margin.

But wait a minute; I mustn't overlook our governor, Jim Douglas (R.). Around the state, I hear rumors that our governor has national ambitions of a conservative kind. Indeed, Gov. Douglas's threatened veto of this important and timely legislation puts him on the wrong side of history; people opposed to gay marriage will soon belong among such dinosaurs as those who stood in opposition to African-Americans in Martin Luther King's time, or those other dinosaurs who once denied equal rights for women. (I know you know about my support of abortion rights — made clear enough in "The Cider House Rules," not only in my novel but in the film I adapted from that book. Well, I feel no less strongly about my support of gay rights.)

My question for Gov. Douglas is: Why should it matter to straight couples if gay couples want to be married?  How insecure must heterosexuals be in order to feel threatened by gay marriage? Civil unions aren't good enough — they're not equal enough! Is Gov. Douglas so deaf to history that he cannot hear the most obvious and painful echoes? To say that civil unions suffice, or that they're good enough for gay people — in lieu of marriage — is akin to telling black people where to sit on the bus, or that they must use separate toilets.

And when people lamely say that marriage was "intended" to be between a man and a woman, we need to remind these unquestioning souls that our founding fathers "intended" a separation between church and state, about which our constitution is very clear. By whom (and back when) was marriage "intended" to be between a man and a woman? That isn't an argument; that is religious dogma, and it has no place in legislation, which is (or should be) about equal justice for all. Heterosexuals are not hurt by gay marriage; to not allow gays to be married hurts gays.

By passing S.115 into law in our state, Vermont will take leadership of an issue that has embarrassed our country in the eyes of the world; by vetoing S.115, Gov. Douglas will demonstrate that he is opposed to equal rights for all. Gov. Douglas should be encouraged to stand on the right side of history, and not stand instead in history's way. But, as I said, the governor may have his own political agenda; he may be thinking beyond Vermont — possibly, he's imagining what Gov. Palin would do!

Gov. Douglas's explanation of his threatened veto is bizarre. He says the legislature shouldn't be troubled by this distraction right now; he says we have more important issues to tackle — namely, the economy. Is he just insensitive to the feelings of gay people, or is he ducking the issue — or both? Is he really saying that gay rights are light fare in comparison to the more serious business of the legislature? As for labeling the gay marriage bill a distraction, the governor's announced intention to veto the bill is what's causing the distraction!

Vermont Senator Dick McCormack (D.) said in today's Rutland Herald that the governor's stated reason for his veto "is based on a complete misrepresentation of the legislative process, and it expresses a smug disrespect for a class of his fellow humans."  (I think you and I would agree with that.)

I've sent emails to certain members of the Vermont House of Representatives — not just thank-you notes to some of my fellow Democrats, but also heartfelt thank-yous and encouragements to a couple of Republicans who support gay marriage. (Among them, my local Dorset member of the House of Representatives, the only Republican I have voted for in recent history. Patti Komline has said she will vote in support of gay marriage and to over-rule the governor's veto of the S.115 legislation; to her I gave the biggest thanks, because I know she must be taking some heat from her fellow Republicans — if not from Gov. Douglas himself.)

It's discouraging, isn't it, how long certain fights endure? I remember how some of my friends in the abortion rights battle thought the issue was over in '73, with Roe v. Wade; I doubted it — mere wishful thinking, as it turned out. And now this gay marriage business. Sometimes it feels that the gay rights battles are only beginning — which is true in one sense, though the struggle itself has been going on forever; this one will continue to be fought long after our lifetimes, you would probably agree.

Well, on that depressing note — I hope to see you soon!



  1. Sam says

    I love both of these men and their writing and my admiration has only grown ten-fold. More people should read these very simple, yet eloquent words. Thank you, Andy, for sharing this.

  2. David Lawrence & Robert Galik says

    Wow, what a letter! John Irving is one more reason we’re proud of our state.

  3. says

    Bravo to John Irving. A straight guy who really gets it. And a very eloquent letter.

    I’ve been watching the streaming video of the House proceedings all afternoon (instead of doing the work I should be doing!). An amendment to put the issue up for a non-binding referendum was, fortunately, rejected. Now the legislators are on dinner break before coming back for a vote. Nerve-wracking day! Needing that 2/3 majority–it will be very very close, I suspect. If anyone wants to watch, it’s expected to start up again soon:

    We had people commenting from as far away as Finland this afternoon!

  4. mwsutton says

    Wow. This is a beautiful letter. Thank you, John Irving and thank you, Towleroad, for reprinting it.

  5. kane says

    as we all should. this really isnt that big of a deal. lets jus tbe on the right side of history as 99problems put it. then we all can focus on other more important thing. not saying that gay marriage is not important but our economy is dead.

  6. kane says

    as we all should. this really isnt that big of a deal. lets jus tbe on the right side of history as 99problems put it. then we all can focus on other more important thing. not saying that gay marriage is not important but our economy is dead.

  7. says

    I haven’t read an Irving novel since Cider House (I read a few before that) but, as I recall, he wasn’t shy about sexual varieties with a certain sympathy for each character, whatever his/her quirks.

  8. says

    The vote is just in: 95-52 in favor. Not quite enough to override the governor’s veto, but some of the Dem’s may change their vote when the override vote comes up. I wish we’d crossed the 2/3 barrier but we just missed it. So the process continues . . . It will ultimately come down to a few votes. Many moving speeches on the House floor tonight, including some from our gay reps. And a few ignorant speeches. It’s been a long long day.

  9. troschne says

    Yet another reason why John Irving is among my favorite authors! Thanks, Mr. Irving, if you read this blog! Thanks, to you, also, Andy, for sharing it!

  10. Daiva says

    I am really glad to see, that my favourite author ir such a kind and benevolent man.

  11. Giovanni says

    Swoon. I’ve had a crush on John Irving for as long as I can remember so its great to find a little bit of reciprocity in this particular form.