Less Shouting, More Talking

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

vas20

I think you and an earlier commenter are jumping to a conclusion. All of us are sinners, not just homosexuals. :-) The question for many Christians is whether we would should aspire to some higher standard and encourage others to do so as well.

Some say we can't legislate morality. That is nonsense. Law is codified morality. The question is which things should we codify and how? We have a widely shared value that murder is wrong. We make it illegal. We each bring our moral convictions, regardless of where we got them, into the public square and work to find ways to live together. Some issues require laws. There is plenty we can find in each others behavior that we may personally consider sinful but that doesn't mean we need a law against it. With a great many things we can tolerate each other without having to endorse each others behavior or place it on identical levels of moral legitimacy.

I've given my case below as to why a marriage and a same-sex relationship are different categories. It has nothing to do with whether the behavior is wrong or not. There are legitimate public policy reasons for treating the two circumstances differently.

My understanding is that California already has partnership laws that essentially match the benefits of a marriage status. Why is it so essential to conflate this status with marriage? No one has been denied their right to marriage. Any gay man is free to marry any woman he wants and any gay woman is free to marry any man she wants. If they don???t want to marry, then why not select the union that matches their circumstances?

There is much intolerance from many sides in this debate. From my perspective, one form of intolerance is in those who insist on their revisionist definition of marriage and demonize all dissenters.

Mouw just wants not to be hated or feared. Nothing wrong with that, surely--except that his behavior is at odds with his goal. His disingenuousness at implying that gay marriage sends society down the slippery slope to polygamy is a tired old saw that was no more successful, or accurate, when used in the anti-racial intermarriage argument. And despite his best efforts to claim otherwise, using a religious basis as the litmus test for civil policy is the very definition of religious fundamentalism. What's more fundamental than basic rights under the commonweal?

I was saddened to read this week's My Turn because of the contradictions contained within, which the author apparently does not seem to be aware of. He writes that not all sins have to be illegal- and therein lies the rub. He believes that homosexuals are sinful by nature. Where does one begin a dialogue when one side believes the other is, by nature, sinful? Once we turn the conversation to sin and sinfulness, there is very little wiggle room. This, unfortunately, is a mistake that many homophobic people commit--love the sinner but not the sin. How can we embrace homosexuals when we don't at the very least grant them the same dignities that all other Americans now enjoy? No one is telling those against gay marriage that they have to embrace gay marriage or run out and marry someone of the same sex, that would be imposing on them. Yet, those against gay marriage are very quick to impose their own vision of society on homosexuals by claiming they are sinful and the Bible says only a heterosexual couples can get married. How is that not an imposition? Mouw says that it is not, yet he offers no explanation for how it is not, for how he is not imposing his narrow vision of love and happiness onto millions of people who just wish to live the way all heterosexuals do- free to love, marry if they so choose, but ultimately to be happy. Until the anti-gay marriage folks really understand the contradiction of their own words, there seems to be very little room for conversation.

I almost thought this guy was serious. He wanted to know from the gay community what we wanted to hear from evanglicals. So I emailed. No response. So I guess his question was rhetorical...he didnt really mean it.

I almost took this guy seriously. He wanted a discussion. He wanted to know what the gay community needs to hear from evanglicals who are opposed to civil rights for all. So I emailed him. Not a response. I suppose his question was rhetorical and not serious. Shame.

President Mouw wants to talk, but he refuses to listen. He has chosen to characterize a government action of recognizing marriage as a something that can be or should be informed by religious dogma. If he chooses to make an argument without resorting to cherry-picked biblical claims, then and only then will he begin to talk. Right now, he's just making excuses for why he wants to deny some people the right to a civil marriage. It may hurt his feelings when people point out that his behavior is consistent with that of other bigots who hide behind their religion and their claims about the Bible, but it is his behavior that also makes people react that way.

Marriage is not a contract. It is a civil status. Marriage refers to a civil status that emerges independent of the state???s action. The ???marriage contract??? relates to contractual arrangements between people that accompany a marriage.

Family and children are integral to our historic notion of marriage. Men and women form marriages apart from the state. Children universally come from such unions (at least until recent scientific developments.) Children are the most vulnerable members of society and it has been in society???s best interest to have strong stable institutions (i.e., families) that nurture children. Therefore, the state has enacted ???marriage contracts??? and other laws that solidify and nurture the formation strong and enduring families.

It is irrelevant whether each and every union is capable of producing children and, therefore, a family. To investigate each couple as to their intentions or biological capabilities would invite the state into the private affairs of couples. What we do know is that all children come from male and female unions and, in the societal aggregate, children raised with biological parents do better than children who are not. Marriage and family also facilitates a number of societal issues like inheritance and property issues.

Marriage is about more than a private loving commitment between two adults. It entails the issue of children and family. Same-sex advocates scoff that children have anything to do with marriage and then immediately turn around and insist same-sex couples are entitled to equal adoption and parenting rights.

The appropriateness of same-sex behavior is irrelevant to this discussion. A same-sex union ???family??? does not have the essential qualities to emerge as s family without the interference of the state to artificially create such ???families.??? There are likely very good reasons for the state to provide unions for same-sex persons but these unions are not marriages.

When same-sex unions are equated to marriage it diminishes the unique social good of marriage. It demotes marriage from an independently emerging civil status where people have a natural claim to the nurture and protection of their children, into a pragmatic legal construct that can be altered at a whim by the state. From a civil liberties standpoint, this weakens the barrier that prevents the state from taking direct control of children's lives instead of honoring the nurturing right of parents; those most likely to have an individual child???s best interest in mind.

You can believe whatever it is that you think religion tells you is right or wrong. However that is all your argument is based on. Seeing that our country is based on laws and not religion, then there's not that much to talk about. If you look at legal arguments (not religious ones) , there are only logical arguments FOR same sex marriage.
In the landmark case Loving v. the State of Virginia (which found anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional), the Supreme Court ruled:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
If you apply the race references to sex/gender references it makes it very clear how the law should be applied. The law is there to protect people, in this instance the law needs to stand up for the minority.
The Ninth Amendment also states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So you cannot discriminate against a group of people just because there isn't a law specifically preventing it.
Most importantly, marriage is not a "religious institution"! If it were, I would not be married since I am atheist. Perhaps we should take the church out of marriage all together and make it state regulated instead. I don't know that the church should have the authority to enact a legal contract like marriage anyway.
The point is, you can think same sex marriage is wrong in your view of religion. But religion is not the law.

Fine, let's talk.

Yes, you are imposing your convictions on the wider population. You want your conviction that gay marriage is wrong to ban those who love each other from marrying. That imposes your convictions on them. I really don't understand how it can be seen any other way.

I take exception to your reasoning for why Prop 8 brought out such enormous emotion. You failed to mention that it banned people from marrying their one and only, because it was 'the wrong kind of love' or their marriage might influence children badly. That's why it matters. That's what frightens me about people like you. I'm bisexual, and I can tell you better than most that there's no difference between the way I've loved men, and the way I've loved women. And I'm being told that 'normalising' my relationship would affect children badly. Some of those children are gay, you know. It would make things so much better for them if they COULD be seen as normal. But 'people like you' don't seem to see that. Of course it scares me.

Should you wish to reply - please explain to me why changing the 'definition of traditional marriage' frightens you so. I'd point out that in America, interracial marriage was illegal until fairly recently - and those who argued against it argued about slippery slopes, and about changing the traditional definition of marriage. Changing the definition of marriage for the protection of minority rights, and of love, worked out well there.

Also - I'm British. You might have noticed how polyagmy hasn't been legalised here. Society has not collapsed.

Mr Mouw doesn't seem to realize that his convictions are irrelevant to everyone but himself. He asks for civil talk but is unwilling to be civil; he voted to deny other human beings the right to marry that he enjoys . He wonders why people worry about his views? Can he not see the real slippery slope? What other rights would he like to deny to people other than himself? He also asks, evidently without irony, what place a non-pluralistic view has in a pluralistic society.

Starting with the last, there is no place for evangelicals in America. The two are wholly incompatible. Believe whatever you want. Do not expect everyone else to believe the same things. Mr Mouw evidently thinks he's doing the rest of us a favor by tolerating us. What do I want to hear from Mr Mouw to reduce my anxiety? I want to hear that he will keep his faith to himself. Mr Mouw, it is my deeply held conviction that religion has a deleterious, dehumanizing effect on children. How would you feel if Californians passed a proposition banning you from taking your children or grandchildren to religious services until they are 16 or 18 or 21? Are my convictions enough to dictate how you raise your children? If your first thought was, "Well, that's different." then civil discourse will be impossible because you prevent it. You block it. You deny it.

Mr Mouw sounds irrational. His professed zeitgeist springs from a place so distant from truth that truth cannot be seen. Perhaps if the world was flat then he could see truth's distant glow and be curious, but as things are he doesn't and consequently doesn't even go looking.

What frightens the rational about the irrational is the latter's attempts at corrupting America's values until the country is a theocracy. It seems that only when the irrational can control how everyone lives their lives will they be secure in their delusions. I don't want Mr Mouw making any decisions for me, thank you.

My hope is that evangelicalism is dying and that the passage of Proposition 8 represents a death throe. As evangelicalism loses control over itself then it lets loose the vomit and bile of hate and intolerance. All we can do is clean it up and wait for the last breath.

I'm not sure if I know anyone who is gay or not. Frankly, I'm not nearly as interested in what other people do with their genitals as Mr Mouw seems to be so I've never asked anyone if they're gay or straight or celibate or anything in between. It doesn't matter.

Oh please! Richard Mouw says he want to start 'talking," but starts by preaching the truth as he sees it. Like so many evangelicals, he is not interested in listening. I think communication would be a good thing between both sides but communication requires talking and listening. And, it is clear from Mr. Mouw's references to 'tradional marriage,' selected use of Biblical scripture and his fears of what his chlldren will be taught in school, that he has not been listening to a thing the other side has been talking about. Mr. Mouw really does represent the very "worst kind of fundalmentalism," the kind that preaches and distorts the truth, then cloaks it all in appeals to rationality and fairness. Shame on him.

In ???My Turn??? Richard Mouw asks ???what is it about people like me that frightens you so much????. I can answer his question. I am a gay man in a bi-national relationship. When my partner finishes college he will be forced to leave the country and we will be split up because I can not sponsor him for a green card. Denial of equal rights, civil rights, and/or a lack of basic compassion based on one???s faith should be frightening in a secular society. I find the KKK and our old laws against mixed race marriages frightening too. Go figure. Perhaps Mr Mouw would find the prospect of being wrenched away from his wife frightening as well. Somehow, suggesting "Can we talk?" while the one I love is being torn from me just doesnt cut it. We are talking about the "Civil" Code here and equal rights.

February 5, 2009

Oh boy. Proposition 8. What an emotionally driven proposition. I enjoyed reading Richard Mouw???s essay Less Shouting, More Talking and applaud his plea to have a graceful national conversation about this turbulent topic that reaches every corner of our country, not just California.

If a person chooses to live their life by the words in the bible, it is their right as a human being to do so. And I respect it. Equally and alternatively it is every person???s right to choose not to, and be respected.

It says in the bible, that marriage is between a man and a woman. However this choice, this rule set forth in this one book, has somehow become a law. And regardless of personal or religious beliefs, every person in this free world must abide by it?

So I ask you Richard, why? Does being married to the opposite sex make you a better human being? Does it mean that these married heterosexual people, these people alone, are the only humans on this planet that can successfully teach and instill in our children good values?

The bible and thus you believe that if a person is gay, they are a sinner; that gay people have no right to marriage. Who are you to say? What gives you the right to project your beliefs on other people???s lives? And you wonder (quite obliviously) why people get angry with you. You are bellowing judgment on your fellow human beings for goodness sake! Why do you suppose it is ok for you to project your beliefs on others with varying ideals, and not the other way around? By definition, unfortunately, that spells fundamentalist.

How about this: All human beings have the right to love, to partnership and to marriage. We are all brothers and sisters. We are all equal. No one is more important than the other.

I think the underlying question here is: Why does sexual preference bother you so much? And why do you assume that same sex partners will ruin society? Why are you so scared? Did the bible tell you to be scared? And on top of all of this, honestly, who gave you or anyone else for that matter the right to judge a fellow human being simply because they believe in something different?

There is always going to be someone who is angry at something. There is always an extreme ??? whichever side of an issue you find yourself on. I think the real challenge is looking beyond that and finding a peaceful and respectful place somewhere in the middle. Where you hold on to your convictions and beliefs and live by them, but do so by not projecting them on to your fellow human beings, and respect that they may have a belief and value system different from your own.

By Barbara Fontaine, NY

How can you expect civilized dialogue when there are people out there who want to prevent others from marrying the people they love? It's like bringing back Jim Crowe and telling African Americans "this is for the good of our children. Can we talk?"

Hmm. Annoyingly, my comment was truncated despite being under the character limit and my quotation marks and apostrophes turned into "???" (what I get for copying and pasting from Word), so I'm reposting my submission here: http://butmadnnw.livejournal.com/21483.html