Less Shouting, More Talking

An open letter to Richard Mouw
Dear Mr Mouw,
In response to your article in Newsweek Feb 9 ???Less Shouting, More Talking???
Sure let???s talk, since you had asked about my vision of a ???flourishing pluralistic society.??? Let me share that with you. It would be a society in a transition- very much like the fad of cigarette smoking in this country- once a very popular pastime- which now has been regulated, and relegated, and become no longer socially acceptable. It is frowned upon, and even illegal in some places. Historically the transition took decades to reposition cigarette smoking in the mind of a society where it had once been considered the norm. But of course, we had very good reason to do this- public health was at risk. So laws were enacted by our government to protect the general public from cigarette smoke.
Similarly I envision a transition with the fad of heterosexual coupling- yes, a very popular pastime indeed- which now must become regulated, and relegated. But of course, we do not have to have any particularly good reason to do this. Oh, but wait, we do! There is a very good reason- human over-population. It is impacting our planet???s health and placing it, and ourselves, at severe peril. Therefore laws must be enacted by our government to protect the sanctity of our planet from heterosexual marriage. We need to make it NOT legal for heterosexual couples to well, couple. Therefore we need to make it no longer socially or sexually acceptable. It must be frowned upon, and yes, totally illegal. Plus now that the heterosexuals have been scapegoated you can imagine the ensuing animosity, derision, and persecution they will suffer simply because of being heterosexual.
But gee, doesn???t this scenario sound all too similar to what has actually been happening for decades, and without any particularly good reason to the fags? Um, I???m sorry I meant, to cigarettes.
So now, Richard, you had asked where you would ???fit into that kind of society.??? Tell us if you would be voting to ban heterosexual marriage for the sanctity of our planet? Or would you just let it all go up in smoke?? Or would you be thinking that the heterosexual marriage ban was in reality a smoke screen for hetero-phobia???
Sincerely,
JAB

Why We Cannot "Just Talk" Anymore
When certain fundamental freedoms are disallowed to a portion of the population, it is their right and burden to demand remedy, beginning with peaceful action. This has proved insufficient. No sense of injustice or intimation of the shame to be born by future generations has deterred those who would emulate their racist and sexist forebears in the history of our nation's struggle to realize the free society to which it is dedicated. Those who presently oppose equal marriage rights do so on the same poisonous grounds they've inherited from the opponents of black literacy, interracial marriage, and women's advancement. By now we are all well aware of not only of the argumentative weakness but also the danger of the position that tradition alone is cause for opposition to improvement or an excuse for prejudice, whether it be for purposes of disenfranchisement, dehumanization, or simple exclusion. Those who oppose social evolution, or, as the case may be, evolution in any form, deserve to be the first beneficiaries of its intellectual, political, and spiritual enlightenment.

I am always disturbed when I see groups of all varieties protesting on the streets while yelling hateful statements. I wonder what they are trying to accomplish, and why they think that anyone would listen to them.
Trying to make every issue corporate is the wrong approach. It has to be personal. It is easy to disagree with a point-of-view when you are distanced from it. Mouw used the example of Same Sex Marriage. Personally, I have always subscribed to the belief that marriage constitutes one man and one woman joining into a covenant sanctified by God. It seems to me that this is the way marriage was originally defined and that it should stay that way. To change the definition of marriage could open a door to a host of other ideas of what constitutes an acceptable marriage. However, as a human being living on this planet, I can absolutely understand the predicament of a gay couple wishing to make the same level of commitment.
I have a gay relative who would very much like to be ???married??? to his significant other. They live together and share a monogamous relationship - in essence, they ???feel??? married. I also understand the issues associated with the inability to make this civil commitment: insurance coverage, wills and trusts, etc. There is also a lack of accountability that traditional marriage creates. If the relationship ends, there are no divorce proceedings.
Do I have a solution? I regret to say that I do not. But I do understand both sides of the issue. The reason for my understanding is NOT because someone held a sign on a street corner and hurled insults to my opposing view. It is because it became personal, and as Mouw suggested in his column, someone ???talked??? with me.

I was touched by Richard???s Mouw???s essay ??? Less shouting, more talking. I too am saddened by the angry voices of opposing views on many issues including gay marriage. Like many Americans, I am a moderate in my beliefs and struggle to find workable solutions while trying not to compromise my morals. Unfortunately, moderates are being shouted down by the far left and far right. If a person doesn???t have the exact same beliefs as the far left, the first thing they do is hurl ugly names like homophobic, bigot and racist. Just ask Rich Warren who has given millions in fighting Aides but also opposes gay marriage. When President Obama picked him to lead the prayer at the inauguration some who opposed his views carried angry signs, stomping down the street, shouting nasty words. Of course, we have the other side, the far right, which is just as bad. If a person doesn???t agree with them, they???re labeled anti-American, anti-Christian, socialist, communist, wishy-washy, the list goes on and on. Unfortunately the moderate???s voices are being drowned out by these two opposing groups.


I too am against gay marriage. Do I think gay people are bad? Of course not, but I do believe in traditional values, some sense of order in our country. However, I would support civil unions. I think it???s ridiculous that someone who has been with another person in a monogamous relationship regardless of same sex doesn???t have the same rights as I do. But that of course is never good enough for the far left. There is no compromise with either group. The far left will scream I???m a bigot, the far right will call me anti-Christian. One thing is certain. Although we don???t need to stoop to the levels of these two groups by engaging in shouting matches and name calling, we do need to speak up. Their first tactic will be to call us names but if we don???t stand up for what we believe in these two groups will succeed in silencing us forever.

It may not make you a fundamentalist, but it sure makes you a bigot.

It may not make you a fundamentalist, but it sure does make you a bigot.

President Mouw and fellow listeners,

I am a graduate from the School of Theology at Fuller and a mother. I had President Mouw as an instructor the year he was installed. It is nice to hear a familiar voice in the media. I'm sorry to say though that I can't imagine this very busy man reading all these comments, and it is a shame because there are some well articulated arguments. Maybe one of his assistants or interns will forward a few to him if they have time to read them. Ironic, isn't it?
Still, I'd like to give my opinion on what he has written. I am ashamed that it appears that fear is the primary motivating factor for his position and his editorial. I've heard many good acronyms for FEAR and my favorite is False Evidence Appearing Real. Where is the evidence that society will plummet down to the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah if gay unions were legalized? I certainly do not worry that my two children will end up depraved if homosexuals are allowed to marry. This argument was discussed better than I can attempt to repeat here so you can read this thought out further in earlier submissions.
Jesus was not a person who feared anything. He literally reached out to the blind, the broken hearted, the despised, and the marginalized. He loved unconditionally. Their restoration and healing was, however, conditional but after meeting him most accepted his terms quite happily. Some chose to stay exactly the way they were and rejected his offer of wholeness and blessing. He didn't go running after them or shout at them that they were going to hell. He just continued on offering his love and healing to all he encountered. He saved his anger for the religious leaders who were exploiting and oppressing the people with their warped interpretation of the law and scripture which served to maintain their own lifestyles and positions of power.
I have a God that is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I have a worldview that is unchanging so I am not afraid of a changing world. Clinging to ideals and paradigms shaped by the past is childish. There is NO ideal family, there never has been and never will be! And if we had to be sin-free to get married, there would be no marriages. What I keep coming back to is that the Kingdom of God is not the Kingdoms of this world. We shouldn't expect it to be, nor should we hurt and oppress people in the path of trying to make it into OUR image. President Mouw, I'm not saying lie down and take it if you truly fear for the welfare of your grandkids. In that case I say fight to the end! Don't you dare be gentle and civil. Get angry, passionate and messy if you have to. God be with you. But if it's about position, status, tradition, money, and ego???well, clasp your hands in front of you, close your eyes, nod, and peaceably just continue on in your pride. And be on the look out for Jesus if comes upon you on the road.

An etymology of the word ???marriage???:
1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry).

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw]

Ref: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=marriage&searchmode=none

I found that interesting -- the etymology of marriage is gender-neutral, similar to the meanings to be found in many present dictionaries. The traditionalist view that marriage can only pertain exclusively between a man and a woman must be largely religious in nature. And perhaps many Californians are made naïve by lack of history that the term marriage was always specific for man and woman. The reality now is that same-sex marriage exists (in the guise of civil unions) and that, in fact, marriage of same-sex couples are given ???legal??? (not religious) recognition in at least six countries ??? Canada, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Norway and South Africa.

Proposition 8 (???Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California???) sought to RESTORE the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman (previously, it was already defined as a union between two consenting adults). The need to restore the definition in traditionalist views is treacherously prejudicial -- the proponents do not really gain anything for themselves except for religious gains and also to defy millions of gay people their right to marry (with equal legal recognition), which apparently was pre-existing and already ruled as lawful by Supreme Court. The fundamentalist resistance for the liberal application of the basic civil right to marry could only be influenced largely from and by the religious class to achieve an ambit to perpetuate marriage in a religious confinement. This aspect is a religious invasion to a non-religious constitution.

Sooner than later, Prop.8 initiative will bomb-out as unconstitutional, for another time!

Dear Dr. Mouw,

You have asked for a genuine dialog with "... folks that worry about my views." You've asked, "Can we talk?" You have professed that you "... don't want to impose my personal convictions on the broader population."

Yet you supported a constitutionally questionable proposition that specifically withholds basic rights from a class of people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. You have asked the support of the State of California to overrule my Christian beliefs and those of my denomination, the Unitarian Universalist Association. Many other faith traditions have also taken the position in support of same-sex marriage, and other mainline Protestant denominations are actively wrestling with the issue at this point in time.

Your only defense for your position, which is at odds with your comments above and your plea for a respectful dialog, is that you are guided by your religious convictions and your fears concerning the fate of your children and grandchildren using the tired, intellectually bankrupt argument about a "slippery slope."

You ask, "What is it about people like me that frightens you so much?" Your fear is what frightens me. Your failure of faith that your position can hold its own in a free forum of discussion without using the power of the State of California frightens me. Your intolerance of opposing religious convictions from responsible denominations frightens me. Your willingness to throw other people who differ from your beliefs under the bus frightens me.

If you want to talk, really want to talk about lowering voices, reducing anxiety, or advancing a flourishing pluralistic society, the obvious thing for you to do is either oppose Proposition 8, or as an alternative, support removing the State of California from being involved in the issue of religious marriage. Support the position that the State of California should only set conditions for civil unions and allow each church to make its own determination of who they will or will not marry.

You cannot have this gentle conversation when you have just clubbed those with different views over the head. That is fundamental. Why can't you understand that? Why can't you put yourself in the other person's shoes? Why don't you oppose Proposition 8 and then ask for the gentle conversation?

I am a straight, Christian man, married for 40 years with a wonderful wife and two adult children in their early thirties. I simply cannot see how supporting the wish of two people who want to commit themselves to a life-long, loving relationship in any way diminishes my marriage or threatens the welfare of my children or our society. But then again, maybe I have a much stronger faith than you do -- one that is not bounded by fear or lack of scientific knowledge.

If you want a genuine dialog, please contact me. I'd love to talk with you. It would be a much better conversation if you took your foot

Hi guys, I did some more readings on Proposition 8 so I am posting another comment to categorically opine that same-sex marriage must be upheld and that Proposition 8 is violating an inalienable right under the "equal protection" law.

Redefining marriage at this stage to mean as exclusive union of a man and a woman is a farce because the guise of marriage for same-sex couples has already been institutionalized, de facto, under civil union or domestic partnership laws. To be intently genuine for an inviolable meaning of marriage, it will be necessary that all civil union laws be first repealed and that same-sex partnerships be then banned altogether (unfortunately, I fear this will be a much more regressive and chaotic course). Otherwise, there is really no necessity to redefine marriage pretending as a union of opposite sex only because it will be outrageously bigoted when there will remain a prostituted disguise of such marriage (under civil union or domestic partnership).

Proposition 8 is somehow in estoppel ??? any consequence that would marginalize the existing institutions (same-sex civil unions) will surely have basis and just cause to fight for the inalienable rights that they will be stripped-off.

For as long as civil unions of same-sex couples remain recognized, then, YES to same-sex marriage is the only straight answer!

Dear Richard Mouw,
I'm slow to respond to your "My Turn" article because I really wanted to reflect on my response. As I write there are already 261 comments and most of them are angry and biggoted...one way or the other. I have several points for you to consider, but let me preface them with a compliment. How civil your tone is. Good for you.
1. All of this chatter could so easily vanish if we would simply eliminate the word "marriage" from the governmental/legal process of civil unions. All individuals have the right to join into a legal contract of agreement. Period.
2. Whether someone wants to apply a spritual or religious aspect to the union is a private and personal matter.
3. I would fight to the death for your right to express your opinion.
4. You are by definition a "religious fundamentalist" and you are a danger to our society...and our rights.
5. You asked: "Where do people like me fit into that kind of society?" and "What would you need to hear from us that would relieve your anxiety?" You are kidding, of course. But since you asked, here's the obvious answer. You have a right to all the religious convictions you want, but don't try to apply them to me or society at large. Don't get involved with passing laws that violate the rights of others. Keep your moralizing to yourself. It's not appreciated.It's that basic.
6. My wife and I were married by a notary public and some relatives said some nice spiritual stuff. God wasn't there. Just the ocean and some friends and a desire to officially proclaim love and a committment - a union. God wasn't there because he doesn't exist. My marraige was "straight". But if it was a gay union or a decision to marry a cat, it's really none of your business - or anyone else for that matter.
7. When you voted for Prop 8, you voted for a totalitarian view of government and against human rights.

But, once again, good for you and the civil tone....but next would be for you to truly embrace civil rights. May the ocean be with you.

The only "slippery slope" I see are Christians' first trying to convince and convert unbelievers, to their hatred of them when their attempts prove unsuccessful, to the active persecution of those who do not share their beliefs. This and the quote following it should be required reading for ALL Christians:

"A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might of the majority is behind it.
In the case of a Christian clergyman, the tragic-comical is found in this: that the Christian religion demands love from the faithful, even love for the enemy. This demand, because it is indeed superhuman, he is unable to fulfill. Thus intolerance and hatred ring through the oily words of the clergyman. The love, which on the Christian side is the basis for the conciliatory attempt towards Judaism is the same as the love of a child for a cake. That means that it contains the hope that the object of the love will be eaten up..." --- Albert Einstein, in a letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation.

"Das Wort Gott ist für mich nichts als Ausdruck und Produkt menschlicher Schwächen, die Bibel eine Sammlung ehrwürdiger, aber doch reichlich primitiver Legenden." ---Albert Einstein, in einem Brief vom 3. Januar 1954 an den Philosophen Erich Gutkind, der ihm eine Kopie seines Buches "Entscheide dich für das Leben: Der biblische Aufruf zur Revolte" geschickt hatte. Zitiert im Tagesspiegel vom 15.05.2008.

["For me, the word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible, a collection of venerable, but rather primitive legends." --- Albert Einstein, in a letter from January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Erich Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book "Entscheide Dich für das Leben: Der biblische Aufruf zur Revolte" ("Choose Life: The Biblical Call for Revolt"). Quoted in the May 15, 2008 issue of the German daily newspaper Der Tagesspiegel.]

Two people meet; they enjoy each other's company; they start dating; they decide to date exclusively; they fall in love; they become committed to each other. They decide that they would like to get married. This sort of sequence happens millions of times a year in North America.

In Canada, the couple buys a marriage license, gets married either with a civil or religious ceremony, and instantly obtains on the order of a few hundred provincial rights and privileges and on the order of 1,000 federal ones. Probably 97% are opposite-sex couples; 3% are same-sex couples.

In the U.S.m the opposite-sex couples get married and receive similar benefits. But, except in Massachusetts and Connecticut, same-sex couples are told to get lost. The state government regards them as roommates only, and their children are regarded as illegitimate.

Both types of couples pay taxes to the government. Yet only one type gets benefits and protections for themselves and their children. This is profoundly immoral and unjust.

I don't care whether congregations and faith groups decide to slam the door in the face of same-sex couples and marry opposite-sex couples. That is their right. I recall working in a Unitarian Congregation one weekend five decades ago in Toronto when an exhausted couple came in. They had a marriage license but traveled all over town and were unable to get a minister to marry them, They were of different races. The Unitarian minister interviewed them, made certain that they were mature in their decision and married them on the spot. If a congregation wants to discriminate on the basis of race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, sexual identity, etc, I don't really care. But I am very keen that the government not discriminate.

I would like to see a system where any couple, same-sex or opposite-sex would go to a government office, register their relationship, and receive the government benefits. Then if they wanted to get married, they could try to find a minister, priest or rabbi who is agreeable. Unfortunately, we have allowed the religious and civil aspects of marriage to become entwined with each other.

Regards
Bruce Robinson
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm

There is a world of difference between following God and trying to BE God.