Less Shouting, More Talking

I'd like it noted that I am a heterosexual male writing the following...

Mr. Mouw seems a respectable gent, and it would be a shame if the following critical comments were taken out of the light in which they are intended. Yes, of course, we need more talking and less shouting... more mutual respect and efforts made to understand the viewpoints of those with different worldviews than our own.

But... by voting for and supporting (in word and print) Proposition 8, a very different statement is being made from the one of tolerance and compassion that Mr. Mouw espouses. He is NOT saying, "I believe that my God would wants marriage to be between men & women only, and I want to educate those around me to understand my God's word so that they will hopefully choose to conform to it."

That is NOT what he is saying. Rather, the real statement is: "There is no God but MY God, and no word that should be listened to or followed, by anyone, but the words (as best we have recorded them) of MY God. Therefore, though I would like to enlighten all others as to the righteousness of MY point of view, I myself choose to enact, politically and legally, the ENFORCEMENT of my views by actively supporting the creation of laws that REQUIRE people to act as I think best."

This is the *actual* statement made by people who vote for Prop 8. One can surround that statement with all kinds of fluffy, gentle and compassionate-listening type tones, but the bottom line is that working to restrict the actions of others ((actions, please note, that have no direct negative affect on anyone else, other than perhaps socio-culturally... no ACTUAL negative effects)) is nothing but fascism (albeit polite fascism).

Personally, I believe that the Bible, while absolutely full of wisdom and valuable human history, has been so misused that the negative ramifications overrides its value. I believe that the Bible (SOME say "the direct word of God"... though, of course, that is a statement of faith) should be put away entirely for a couple of generations. But, just because I believe that this would be a good thing for everyone (not just myself) does NOT mean that I would support the enforcement of the burning or locking away of the Bible.

In other words, it is FINE to have beliefs, and to live by those beliefs, and even to work to "educate" or convince others of the merit of one's beliefs. But that is a completely different thing than FORCING people to accept my beliefs and act according to them, even though they, in fact, do not want to.

How's this for an idea: You let people do whatever they want (as long as it does not involve hurting others or limiting the ability of others to live their lives as they choose), and leave GOD to do the punishing, educating, enlightening, and judging. That way, if you're right, then the evil (or misguided) get what's coming to them; and if you're wrong, then they don't.

There is a world of difference betwe

Your claim that you aren't a fundamentalist is akin to a KKK member that didn't want to extend civil rights to blacks is not a racist,however, your foundation and your reasoning is precisely the definition of a fundamentalist. Your claim that you do not want to impose your personal convictions on others is disingenuous is precisely what you are doing by passing laws that prevent the same basic rights as married couples. If you and your ilk offered and alternative such a civil unions on a nationwide basis that would afford the same basic rights as marriage such as the ability to enter contracts. visitation rights, equal rights under tax laws and every other right that a marriage afford then perhaps your claim would have some merit.
Your proposal that in a broader context that passage of these types of laws would lead to multiple marriages is also without merit. Mostly because the Bible shows numerous occasions where this occurred. The most famous Biblical Figure would be Abraham. Now I am not advocating Multiple marriages but I am not I am also not advocate stoning people for adultery either. If you want to talk about a slippery slope then tell me why we should not worried that eventually other fundamentalist would outlaw all media that shows sex outside the context of marriage. In your own admission you believe that to be wrong. I suspect there are more than a few that would like to codify that also. Well you claim to believe in a pluralistic society. The definition of a pluralistic society is where one does not have to follow another Dogma.
The bottom line is if my gay friends up the street got married tomorrow that would absolutely zero negative effect on your or any of these hatemongers here. Your continued rally cry to "defend" marriage has a direct negative effect on others way of life.

Your claim that you aren't a fundamentalist is akin to a KKK member that didn't want to extend civil rights to blacks is not a racist,however, your foundation and your reasoning is precisely the definition of a fundamentalist. Your claim that you do not want to impose your personal convictions on others is disingenuous is precisely what you are doing by passing laws that prevent the same basic rights as married couples. If you and your ilk offered and alternative such a civil unions on a nationwide basis that would afford the same basic rights as marriage such as the ability to enter contracts. visitation rights, equal rights under tax laws and every other right that a marriage afford then perhaps your claim would have some merit.
Your proposal that in a broader context that passage of these types of laws would lead to multiple marriages is also without merit. Mostly because the Bible shows numerous occasions where this occurred. The most famous Biblical Figure would be Abraham. Now I am not advocating Multiple marriages but I am not I am also not advocate stoning people for adultery either. If you want to talk about a slippery slope then tell me why we should not worried that eventually other fundamentalist would outlaw all media that shows sex outside the context of marriage. In your own admission you believe that to be wrong. I suspect there are more than a few that would like to codify that also. Well you claim to believe in a pluralistic society. The definition of a pluralistic society is where one does not have to follow another Dogma.
The bottom line is if my gay friends up the street got married tomorrow that would absolutely zero negative effect on your or any of these hatemongers here. Your continued rally cry to "defend" marriage has a direct negative effect on others way of life.

Dear Sir, I appreciate your attempt to open the dialogue.Much has been said that frighten both sides.You fear about what your children and grandchildren would be taught.We fear that they will not be taught to respect people despite their differences.You look at us as having made immoral decisions; but do you remember when you decided that you wanted to be heterosexual instead of homosexual?I can tell you that I never made this decision.Why you would think anyone would choose to be different and ridiculed.We just want to live in a world where we are free to live our lives the same as everyone else. We want to go to work and come home to a loving family.We want to support our family and take care of them and see that no harm comes to them because of our love.We do not want schools to promote homosexuality or heterosexuality.Those are personal matters that should be reserved for the home.

Separation of church and state protects you right to practice your beliefs but also protects people from having your beliefs thrust upon them.To answer your question: People like you fit into this kind of society by going about your normal life as you always did.The only difference is that I will no longer have to worry about losing my home if my wife dies or being allowed at my wife's bedside if God forbid something should happen to her.Our schools promote tolerance from racial discrimination.The church once thought it immoral for a black man to marry a white woman.The courts have since made that illegal, yet the churches were never forced to marry people they didn't want to marry and the schools never taught children that they should marry someone of a different race.The only thing they didn't allow was for children to hurt each other by words or violence over these issues.We do not want hate or intolerance taught; but whether you accept your children if God makes them gay is your issue.Allowing us the same rights won't inhibit or change your life.You already have laws protecting your right to religious protection.We just want laws to protect us as well.That is how we view civil law.

Marriage has always changed. Religious interpretations have changed, but we are not asking you to change your views; we just want our tax $ to protect us the same as they protect you.We want to form happy and loving unions with the person we love, to go to work without fear of being fired because of who we love, and we want to know that the law protects us from violent acts against us.This may seem like a lot to you; but I do not understand why.These are things that you take for granted.You have these rights.The law protects you.I pay taxes too.Shouldn't it protect me as well?

Dear Mr. Mouw,

I am responding to your question, ???Can we talk????

The answer is no, and I will tell you why. It is due to the foundation upon which your argument about same sex marriage rests.

Until you, and people like you, realize that denying gays the right to marry treats them as ???less than,??? makes them second class citizens, "separate than," then there is no conversation to be had.

You said:

???While my views about sexuality are shaped by my religious convictions, I know that I cannot simply quote the Bible in arguing for public policy. Not every sin ought to be made illegal. But in this case, the issues go deep. For many of us, "normalizing" same-sex marriage comes down to deep concerns about the raising of our children and grandchildren. What will they be taught about sexual and family values in our schools?

Can't you see how destructive your argument is? Don't you understand that saying being gay is a sin is a non-starter? Don't you know that telling someone that they are a threat to children precludes any more dialogue? You are a deeply religious man who probably believes that hell is as real as London, Paris or New York. And you have started a dialogue by announcing to the people you are talking to that they are going to burn in hell for their sins, "but hey, let???s talk!" I don't think so.

I respect the fact that you, ???have argued that the Bible supports racial justice, gender equality, peacemaking and care for the environment.??? But this does not give you a free pass. If you supported equal rights for women, but discriminated against people of color, I would not pat you on the back and say, ???good job.??? If you looked in the bible and it said to you that you should take care of the poor but enslave people of African descent, I would not say, "Well that's ok, he's good with the poor folk."

This is a fundamental issue about human dignity and respect. Gay people getting married would strengthen our society, not harm it. If you are so strongly in support of marriage I would think that you would be working for a proposition to outlaw divorce. But instead, you focus on exclusion.

I would be happy to talk about this issue with anyone that doesn't start out with the belief that gays are going to hell, and marriage is just a ???touchy issue??? that we can resolve by gays accepting their second class status. Oh, and someone that admits that divorce is actually the most destructive force working against marriage in this county. Then we can talk.

Dear Mr. Mouw,

I am responding to your question, ???Can we talk????

The answer is no, and I will tell you why. It is due to the foundation upon which your argument about same sex marriage rests.

Until you, and people like you, realize that denying gays the right to marry treats them as ???less than,??? makes them second class citizens, "separate than," then there is no conversation to be had.

You said: ???While my views about sexuality are shaped by my religious convictions, I know that I cannot simply quote the Bible in arguing for public policy. Not every sin ought to be made illegal. But in this case, the issues go deep. For many of us, "normalizing" same-sex marriage comes down to deep concerns about the raising of our children and grandchildren. What will they be taught about sexual and family values in our schools?

Can't you see how destructive your argument is? Don't you understand that saying being gay is a sin is a non-starter? Don't you know that telling someone that they are a threat to children precludes any more dialogue? You are a deeply religious man who probably believes that hell is as real as London, Paris or New York. And you have started a dialogue by announcing to the people you are talking to that they are going to burn in hell for their sins, "but hey, let???s talk!" I don't think so.

I respect the fact that you, ???have argued that the Bible supports racial justice, gender equality, peacemaking and care for the environment.??? But this does not give you a free pass. If you supported equal rights for women, but discriminated against people of color, I would not pat you on the back and say, ???good job.??? If you looked in the bible and it said to you that you should take care of the poor but enslave people of African descent, I would not say, "Well that's ok, he's good with the poor folk."

This is a fundamental issue about human dignity and respect. Gay people getting married would strengthen our society, not harm it. If you are so strongly in support of marriage I would think that you would be working for a proposition to outlaw divorce. But instead, you focus on exclusion.

I would be happy to talk about this issue with anyone that doesn't start out with the belief that gays are going to hell, and marriage is just a ???touchy issue??? that we can resolve by gays accepting their second class status. Oh, and someone that admits that divorce is actually the most destructive force working against marriage in this county. Then we can talk.

Mr. Mouw,
I enjoyed how your article really made me think about this one. A few assorted comments:

1. I'm a heterosexual man who is quite attracted to foreign women -- one day if I meet a woman from Lebanon or Spain or Finland or Japan and fall in love, we'd be able to get married and she could get a visa to move here and live with me. I have a lesbian friend in a similar situation, but her partner has had more trouble with a visa, and unfortunately they might have to leave the U.S., for love's sake. Too bad for us, she's a top-notch scholar. Rack up another hit against our economic future!

2. What if you're Germany in the 1930s and you have a gay Einstein working in your physics lab, with a lover in America? What do you do -- allow them to marry and let his similarly brilliant physics partner to move to Germany and help in the nuke research? Or tell him they can take their relationship to another country? Seems like Germany would have had an advantage with gay Einstein and his partner on their side. Effectively kicking him out for being gay or Jewish: bad technological/scientific strategy for the country! Lucky for the rest of the world that Hitler kicked out some bright people!

3. On a less extreme note, here is my early personal experience with these matters. I'm a sappy romantic guy, all about love songs, music, poetry, etc. when I'm in love with some girl. I didn't think very hard about gay couples, and didn't know any of them in conservative Idaho! My experience of love was shaped both by the Presbyterian church I was raised in and by the love songs I heard on tapes, the radio, or played on the piano.

To me, love was defined by songs like "One Hand, One Heart" from West Side Story, or "Your Song" or "The One" or "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John. Great love songs about the deep, committed, romantic love I longed for (and still do!) I had no idea that Elton John, Stephen Sondheim, and Leonard Bernstein were gay or bisexual. I heard those little bits of trivia much later.

I'm a straight guy whose morals and values about love are as strong as anyone's, and I owe much of this to gay artists. Denying the same marriage rights to these guys as to straight men? C'mon! That's like denying communion to the Pope!

FleaFlicker and others seem a little quiet on my question.
Just what DO you call people who voted yes on Prop 8, to discriminate against same sex couples.
I called them bigots, and then added that I do not hate the bigot but hate the bigotry.
Others have cried that my words are dont help "conversation" etc to which I agreed, words do matter.
Words like sinners, sick etc etc......seems the evangelicals like to call names but not be named. Curious.
I was brought up to believe you get the respect you deserve, you get the labels you earn.
So if it sounds like I have no respect for, these Bigots, I am guilty as charged and assert that for those who would write bias into a constitution, no respect is due, the bigot label is earned, and offering "lets talk" after you have voted to deny basic human rights to another is an insult.

My, how I dislike this author's attempt to cloak his belief that it is okay to legislate *this aspect* of his religion with civility of tone. Outrage is completely valid when one group of people is attempting to take legal rights away from another. No one ever quietly and calmly asked for an end to segregation or lynching. Gay rights advocates are not obligated to advocate calmly, either.

As an additional point: No religion that I am aware of defines marriage as a legal arrangement through the state of residence, determining tax status, rights to joint property, child custody, etc. Civil marriage is its own animal, derived independent of religion. As such, it should be allowed to evolve in keeping with secular society.

If the author were to advocate an end to all civil marriages, between heterosexual OR homosexual partners, that would be more logically consistent with his Christian beliefs.

I, too, had concern regarding Prop.8, but ended up voting against it. Who the hell am I to decide what is or should be in someone's heart? Who the hell is Richard Mouw to decide such an important issue for anyone else? And he asks, "what is it about people like him that frightens" those of us who believe in the separation of the church, any church, from policy affecting all of us. Do any of the following ring a bell for you, Mr. Mouw--the Crusades, the Inquisition, Salem witch trials, the Holocaust? Where do people like you fit into a pluralistic society? Believe as you wish, but don't try to force your pap down anyone else's throat! Me thinks you doth protest too much.

And one more thing:

I don???t want to be angry. But I am. I don???t want to be self-centered, but I now have to be. When people are campaigning to take away my rights, I have no choice but to focus my time, energy and money on battling the forces that seem determined to marginalize the LGBT community.

Before Prop 8, I was a gay man who donated time, energy and money to helping the homeless, women-in-need and victims of natural and political disasters. I supported educational, health and human services organizations that worked to improve the lives of those less fortunate. I also gave to a variety of gay organizations.
Now, after Prop 8, I only support organizations and efforts that work to improve the lives of the LGBT community.

Mr. Mouw, after voting for Prop 8 in California, after justifying discriminatory legislation against gays and lesbians, after expressing dismay at our outrage, you now ask, ???Can we talk???? Mr. Mouw, I would love to talk to you and answer all of your questions and all of your fears about marriage equality.

Let???s talk and get to the heart of the matter. This issue has nothing to do with love or religion or politics. This issue is about whether our country upholds its promise of freedom for all or becomes a place where discrimination is now written into the Constitution.

Mr. Muow, let???s have that conversation as soon as possible. You see, as a gay man living in America whose 30-year relationship doesn???t benefit from the 2000+ state and federal rights that you enjoy (and probably take for granted), I have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

My partner and I have worked hard, paid our taxes and simply want to be equal under the laws of the country into which we were born. Now don???t worry, Mr. Mouw, we are not asking your church to change its tenets and we do not expect you to change your beliefs. We simply want a marriage license that will make me equal to my fellow citizens. We???re asking that you simply respect the separation of church and state.

Given the right to marry, my partner and I will still live our same lives. And you will love yours. But with the right to marry, we???ll benefit from those 2000+ rights that give your life an emotional, economic and legal cushion. You can???t tell me that I???m the same as you at tax time but then tell me I???m different when it comes to the rights that grant measurable advantages to married couples. Mr. Mouw, when you make anyone a second-class citizen, you make it culturally and institutionally acceptable to treat us with less respect and less care.

After Prop 8, many in the gay community protested. Some became disruptive. We were called ???hysterical???. Mr. Mouw, you say, ???I refuse to go the margins.??? But you voted to put us in the margins. You sit in a position of luxury. The rights that come with marriage are designed to protect your family and estate. These rights are not written in the Bible. These rights have been granted to you by the state and federal governments. I don???t think our anger is any more ???hysterical??? than those brave Americans who decided to throw a tea party in Boston in 1773.

People ask me, ???why not withhold my taxes in protest???? My answer: that would be un-American. I do not want to be less of an American, I simply want to be equal in America. I still believe that the idea of America has always been evolving in the right direction. In my heart, I believe that with intelligent dialog focused on the Constitutionality of this issue, one day you will vote in support of marriage equality. And who knows, Mr. Mouw, you might even come to my wedding.

Ah yes, the "slippery slope." Slippery slopes work both ways, Reverend. If gay marriage is a slippery slope,then why not legislating any Bible-based morality...ban mixing fabrics, ban eating shellfish, stone adulterers...very slippery indeed.

Instead, Reverend, how about viewing us all as on a level playing field -- then there are no slopes. As a gay man on this level playing field, I simply want the same right you have -- to marry the adult I love. It's so simple when your view is not from a self-constructed mountain. No slippery slopes here!