Less Shouting, More Talking

Mr. Mouw, you seem like a very nice, well meaning guy, and I appreciate your zeal for having a conversation about gay marriage. There are a couple of things, however, that have to take place before real dialogue can make a difference. Let me start by saying that I am a heterosexual man, married 20 years with 4 kids; I attend church regularly and do a Bible study/devotion every morning at 5am. (My apologies to the gay community for professing my ???heterosexualness??? and I am certainly not Holier than Thou, but I just want the world to know that not all straight, God fearing Christians subscribe to Mr. Mouw???s ideology ??? Besides, we???re all the same and God loves us no matter what, all we have to do is accept it.) Alright, enough John 3:16 stuff; here???s my point:
As soon as you use the terms ???sacred,??? or ???the Bible says???,??? you cross the line of Church and State. You said yourself, Mr. Mouw, that you can???t legislate the Bible. You can???t force a citizenry to follow one religion???s guiding testament, much less one group???s interpretation.
Secondly, the Religious Right will often try to diffuse the Church/State argument by warning of the ???social implications??? of a gay household and how their children will be raised. The theory states that because they are gay, they will be terrible parents. I think we can all name thousands of straight people who were absolutely awful parents, committing emotional, physical, and sexual abuse that have ruined generations of children. The Right is aware of that, so this is just another mask for what they really think: That homosexual parents will ???teach??? their children to be gay, because they still insist that it is learned behavior.
There will be no constructive discussion until we can get by the Church/State thing and preferential lifestyle misnomer. Oh, and one last thought: I find it interesting that those who support you, Mr. Mouw, insist you have the ???right??? to FEEL this way ??? which you do - but do you have the right to DENY someone else???s right?

Mr. Mouw, you seem like a very nice, well meaning guy, and I appreciate your zeal for having a conversation about gay marriage. There are a couple of things, however, that have to take place before real dialogue can make a difference. Let me start by saying that I am a heterosexual man, married 20 years with 4 kids; I attend church regularly and do a Bible study/devotion every morning at 5am. (My apologies to the gay community for professing my ???heterosexualness??? and I am certainly not Holier than Thou, but I just want the world to know that not all straight, God fearing Christians subscribe to Mr. Mouw???s ideology ??? Besides, we???re all the same and God loves us no matter what, all we have to do is accept it.) Alright, enough John 3:16 stuff; here???s my point:
As soon as you use the terms ???sacred,??? or ???the Bible says???,??? you cross the line of Church and State. You said yourself, Mr. Mouw, that you can???t legislate the Bible. You can???t force a citizenry to follow one religion???s guiding testament, much less one group???s interpretation.
Secondly, the Religious Right will often try to diffuse the Church/State argument by warning of the ???social implications??? of a gay household and how their children will be raised. The theory states that because they are gay, they will be terrible parents. I think we can all name thousands of straight people who were absolutely awful parents, committing emotional, physical, and sexual abuse that have ruined generations of children. The Right is aware of that, so this is just another mask for what they really think: That homosexual parents will ???teach??? their children to be gay, because they still insist that it is learned behavior.
There will be no constructive discussion until we can get by the Church/State thing and preferential lifestyle misnomer. Oh, and one last thought: I find it interesting that those who support you, Mr. Mouw, insist you have the ???right??? to FEEL this way ??? which you do - but do you have the right to DENY someone else???s right?

Stephen
No churches do not have "rights". They do enjoy some protections. PEOPLE have rights.
While it is not expressly written, Americans believe they have a right to freedom of religion. I think so.
Unfortunately those same religions do not understand that we also have a right to freedom "from" religion.
Freedom from YOUR religion being imposed on us all.
But does your religion have rights? You think so? And Exxon has rights?
Relgions are an organization and organization have rules. members, protections, and unfortunately tax breaks.
No. Rights belong to PEOPLE. Even homosexuals.

Thank you for representing so many of us who have struggled with the same conflicts. Why is it Americans forget that the freedoms we enjoy were meant to be equally shared and not limited to one group or another? The right to have the conversation without restricting those on either side of the issue should be how our American constitution and the dynamics of pluralism are worked out. Hatred on either side of this conversation is not only wrong, but unhealthy for our national community. Respect, regardless of agreement, should be equally given so that the right to speak can continue.

Those of you who think piecemeal domestic partner rights, state by state, are enough do not understand how a federal system is supposed to work. You would not tolerate getting married in Minnesota and having that marriage ignored when you traveled to North Dakota. Moreover, because marriage is loaded with rights and privileges at the CIVIL level, it is the only way to truly be fair. Lastly, state by state benefits, while useless beyond the state border, are useless entirely if you are a bi-national couple because the Federal government doesnt recognize your status.

Those of you who think this can work with separate but equal, need to be prepared to support a lot more for it to be truly equal. Right now, for same sex couples, this is all completely NOT equal. And in a society that claims to be the shining light for freedom and liberty, denial of basic human rights and equal treatment should be an embarrassment.

Those of you who think piecemeal domestic partner rights, state by state, are enough do not understand how a federal system is supposed to work. You would not tolerate getting married in Minnesota and having that marriage ignored when you traveled to North Dakota. Moreover, because marriage is loaded with rights and privileges at the CIVIL level, it is the only way to truly be fair. Lastly, state by state benefits, while useless beyond the state border, are useless entirely if you are a bi-national couple because the Federal government doesnt recognize your status.

Those of you who think this can work with separate but equal, need to be prepared to support a lot more for it to be truly equal. Right now, for same sex couples, this is all completely NOT equal. And in a society that claims to be the shining light for freedom and liberty, denial of basic human rights and equal treatment should be an embarrassment.

Can we talk? Of course, according to Mouw, as long as the conversation is kept out of our society, schools, entertainment media and churches. What are we afraid of? Not what he believes, but what he did: he took away the rights of a group of people. Mouw can't invite someone to talk after wronging him and expect that he'll be civil.

I am also a heterosexual male who considers himself an evangelical. I disagree with your position on Proposition 8, and believe that you misstate your own position on the issue. You said that you do not wish to impose your views on others, but yet you voted to do exactly that. There are some people that hold the faith-based view that homosexuality is not acceptable in the eyes of God, while there are others (including some Christians) that disagree. You should understand that you have voted to have the constitution restrict the rights of other people because of your religious views! While you may or may not be correct about whether God approves of homosexual relations, you apparently have chosen to abandon the historic American tradition that calls on government to not show preference for one religion over another. The "slippery slope" concern here is how much control do we now allow people of one religion to have over the rights of others, not whether society as a whole is going to "normalize" something you believe God disapproves of. The discussion here (Prop. 8) is whether we should allow two people of one sexual orientation the same rights as two people of a different sexual orientation, but you confuse the "discussion" by bringing up issues which are unrelated to that subject (like three person marriage). To answer your question, yes, we can talk. But what is it that you really want to talk about?

Yes, our country is based on laws not religion. But every person in this country has the right to vote their conscience. And that conscience is based on teachings they value as true - whether from religion or studies or life experience. So if a person's religion has taught them that same-sex marriage is wrong, then they can vote that way. Just like they can vote against abortion or drugs or whatever it is their religious or moral background has taught them and they feel is important to protect. What gives people the right to project their beliefs on others? When they're asked to vote on it! This is a democracy. By voting Yes on Prop 8 I am not asking anyone to join my religion. But I was asked if marriage should be defined as a man and a woman, and my belief is 'yes'. So i have every right to vote that way.

In California, same-sex couples have the same rights as married couples under domestic partnership. So if the civil rights are there, how is voting 'yes on prop 8' taking away civil rights?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... - fundamental to our very existence and survival! How does a same-sex marriage help with our existence when they cannot procreate? And no, that does not mean that I think heterosexuals who choose not to procreate or are infertile should not be allowed to get married. The ideal still exists even if all parties cannot or will not live up to it.

Bottom line is that Mouw was expressing his viewpoint and asking if there can be a discussion about this topic instead of name calling, finger pointing, and blanket statements about people on either side. Each side comes from different backgrounds, different morals, different attitudes. We may not ever understand each other, but we should at least talk and listen without all the anger to what each other is saying. But anytime this subject has been brought up with me, I am always told I'm ignorant, hateful, and obviously not enlightened. I've never had any one actually listen to what I have to say. They just jump all over me and yell and scream and say a whole lot of nasty things to me. What good does that do? I understand homosexuals who love each other want to be able to visit each other in the hospital. I know they would like to protect their property, keep their loved one in the country. And in California those rights are there. Not nation wide, but that isn't what Prop 8 was tackling. I think Mouw was right on in his article and I wish there were more who were willing to talk and listen and stop the ranting and whining.

mwkruse:
Since marriage is a man-made institution, I'm not sure what you mean by "naturally occurring." Also, the act of producing children happens outside of marriage frequently enough so that the institution can't exclusively, or credibly, be set aside for that purpose, not to mention the not insignificant number of marriages without children, for all kinds of reasons. I would argue that a marriage IS a contract that can be entered into by any two consenting adults, providing they both have the capacity to enter into a contract in the first place, and that there is no intent to defraud. As regards polygamy, Justice Waite, in his opinion in Reynolds v. US (1878) quoted a Professor Lieber: "polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, . . . which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism" which was inimical to equal protection under the law. Waite also cited the preamble to a "freedom of religion" act passed in 1784 in Virginia (this is prior to the adoption of the Constitution): " 'it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' " As polygamy was thus found to fall under such a definition, it was outlawed. Now, if you'd care to argue that the free exercise of polygamy is not an act against peace and good order, by all means, go ahead.

I think that Newsweek is to be commended for letting Richard Mouw have his "turn". What's wrong with "let's talk"?