Less Shouting, More Talking

How does one have an open dialogue with a close-minded person? Supporters of marriage equality have backed our position with studies, information, and well-reasoned arguments. Often all we get back are Bible quotes and comments that translate to "We think same-sex couples are icky and God hates them, so they don't deserve the rights extended to all other citizens."

But in an effort to join in this dialogue, let me address three points.

1) "I voted for the ban. ... Does that mean I want to impose my personal convictions on the broader population? No."

Excuse me, Mr. Mouw, but I don't understand your logic. You do NOT want to impose your personal convictions on the broader population, but you voted for a proposition that imposed your personal convictions on the broader population? No one was about to limit YOU to marriage that goes against your basic biology. (Please don???t bother with the ???Being gay is a choice??? argument. When did you ???choose??? to be attracted to women?)

2) "And, fair or unfair, 'slippery slope' concerns loom large."

I too am concerned - about a different "slippery slope". One of the loudest arguments I hear again and again is "Same-sex marriage can???t be legal because it can't produce biological children" (even though same-sex couples make up the largest percentage of adoptive parents who raise the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents). Now, I myself am heterosexual. However, for many personal reasons, I have no intention of having children when I someday get married to that Special Guy. My roommate has been married to her husband for nearly 14 years but they have no children because she was rendered sterile by post-operative complications.

If we start defining marriage as a ???procreation only??? arrangement, I am concerned that the same people who argue this way against marriage equality will try to invalidate my roommate's marriage and try to deny MY right to marry.

3) Mr. Mouw says that his main concern is the vitriolic shouting that has issued from both sides. As near as I can tell, those who supported Prop. 8 were the ones who started shouting and then got upset when we started shouting back. And we have reason to be shouting - how would you feel if someone voted on your right to ... do anything, frankly? But especially something as personal and emotional as committing your entire life to the person you love most in the world? And what if, even after making that private commitment, you are still denied the right to be by your partner's side in the hospital or to keep your adopted children when your partner dies (because only one partner's name can legally be on the adoption certificate)?

"Domestic partnerships" are NOT equal under the law to "marriage." The meaning of the word "marriage" has already changed many times through the centuries (remember, the Bible promotes polygamy - look at Jacob and Leah and Rachel), s

While Richard Mouw's article is a heartfelt attempt at opening a dialogue, it also exposes the fallacy at the heart of his position, a position based on his belief on what many of us feel is a false authority- the Bible, a collection of contradictory directions and personal agendas that history shows has resulted in as much bad as good. When he says that normalizing same sex marriage raises concerns about how children are raised, he ignores the fact that Christian marriages are no no less prone to disfunction and fracture. What Mouw needs to understand, as many studies prove, is that same-sex couples raise well-adjusted, contributing members of society just as well as fundamentalists can. Perhaps even better- the offspring of same-sex parents are much more open-minded, and accepting. And in today's world, that's a good thing.

Quote: "Religious organizations are being forced to the wall, their rights abrogated and their facilities closed, unless they are willing to perform ceremonies for gay couples."

What an outright lie. Gay marriage concerns only civil benefits such as inheritance, taxes, child custody and insurance. Churches are free to discriminate against whomever they wish.

Page errored, then posted my message twice - moderator please delete one.

I appreciate Rev. Mouw's call for a civil conversation about gay marriage. His concerns deserve a serious reply.

Slippery slope worries are a natural response to some of the rhetoric that is used in support of same sex marriage. Advocates of same-sex marriage often say things like, "Everyone should have the right to marry the people they love." If we accept that argument for same-sex marriage, it is indeed hard to see why we shouldn't accept polygamy for the same reasons.

The real argument for same-sex marriage is different, though. The real argument is that everybody should have the opportunity to have a marriage that isn't a sham. Gay people are by nature unable to have the kind of feelings towards a person of the opposite sex that husband and wife ought to have for each other. We can have these kinds of feelings towards others of our sex. To deny us the right to marry members of the same sex is to deny us the opportunity to have a relationship that is both fully loving and fully socially recognized. By contrast, nobody is polyamorous by nature. People who choose to pursue polyamorous relationships are perfectly capable of having fully loving monogamous relationships.

Rev. Mouw also worries that if gay marriage becomes legal, people who oppose homosexuality will be accused of hate speech. It is not clear whether this is a worry about legal action or about social pressure. If Rev. Mouw is worried that he may be sued or charged with a crime for his opposition to homosexuality, he should stop worrying. In America, free speech enjoys robust constitutional protection, and our First Amendment rights have widespread support from conservatives and liberals alike. Nobody wants to take away Rev. Mouw's legal right to condemn homosexuality in his home, in his church, in his seminary, or in the pages of Newsweek.

If Rev. Mouw is concerned about social pressure, I'm afraid I don't have any comfort to offer. Gay rights advocates want homosexuality to get widespread social acceptance. If we succeed (and sooner or later we will), opposition to homosexuality will be widely regarded as eccentric at best, bigoted at worst. People who are deeply committed to marginalizing us must themselves be pushed to the margins.

And so we must fight. I share Rev. Mouw's hope that we can make the fight more civil.

I was encouraged that Newsweek was willing to print this controversal article, especially when it is unpopular. As a fellow supporter of Prop 8, I appreciate Mr. Mouw's call for civility, something that was largely lacking after the passing of Prop 8.

I appreciate the attempt at discussion -- and that the author tries to explain his case. That being said, the real issue here is between church and state -- I have heard NO ONE defend Prop 8 without a religious justification. There is a clear line between the two for a reason. As a member of an inter-racial couple with many gay and lesbian family members, I know for sure that I can not support a religion (any religion) that promotes discrimination.

Not now, not ever.

And honestly, "fundamentalism" aside? You can't tell people who they can civilly marry, as long as everyone's of age. It's unfair, it's disgusting, and it's just plain wrong.

If you're opposed to gay marriage, then don't have one -- but don't ruin other peoples' commitments out of the mistaken idea that you're somehow protecting your faith.

Your faith has no place in the civil arena.

I'm sorry.

I found this article to be interesting and I appreciate the time the author took to put it out there, and the attempt at rationalization. That being said, I also think he's dead wrong.

This is not a church issue. This is a civil issue about respect for people.

I do not care if churches perform marriages between gays or lesbians. Honestly, I'm not religious and the Catholic church would not have performed my marriage unless I lied and said I was somehow going to find religion.

But people don't vote on church issues. They vote on civil ones.

And honestly? The reason I'm so angry about this issue is that the people who voted for it are trying to hurt people. I have gay family members. They can't marry. That's a dealbreaker for me in terms of religion. I don't buy it when it tries to stifle love. Not now. Not ever.

As someone in an interracial couple, I know that, were the time different, I would be in the same boat as the gay couples currently being oppressed.

While I appreciate the attempt to start a dialogue, the issue is really between church and state. And that's a distinction that needs to stay.

Thanks for listening.

When you say you want to talk about an important matter, it implies that you are ready to listen to new ideas and perhaps, while not accepting them, you have respect for that person's beliefs. To vote no on Prop 8 and then say, "come, we can be reasonable people, let's talk about it" is hypocritical. I have more respect for somone that voted no on Prop 8 and says gays are going to hell thatn some mealy mouth person who trys to appear reasonable but is just as hide bound are my example. America was founded by groups seeking religous freedom and what did the most conservative groups do, once in America, outlaw beliefs they didn't agree with. You don't believe in gay rights, ok, that's fine, but don't impose your beliefs on someone else.

Richard Mouw does not want to talk. He only wants people to agree with him???desperately it seems given his willingness to appear on TV shows and in newsprint???and for people to stop calling him the bigot he is. Despite his claims of supporting diversity and a pluralistic society, he strongly supported Proposition 8 the sole function of which was to deny to one particular group the most conservative, settling, and unifying social institution, the bonds of marriage. This is not a religious issue. Neither Rev. Mouw???s church or any other church is required to administer the sacrament of marriage to persons of the same sex who they regard as living in sin. This is not a sexual practices issue. Gay sex among consenting adults remains legal after Proposition 8. Does he truly think ???family values??? are served by denying the legal bonds of ???family??? to a loving gay couple? Regardless of your personal view of gay relationships, is it a better example to neighborhood children for the gay couple on their block to be married???just like their own parents???or to be merely ???living together???? Or, as I suspect, does it just make one???s own anti-gay biases more defensible when the objects of scorn are forced to continue living ???sinfully outside of marriage??? and therefore more deserving of one???s scorn?

???What is it about people like me that frightens you so much? What would you need to hear from us that would reduce your anxiety? What is your vision of a flourishing pluralistic society? Where do people like me fit into that kind of society????
Mr. Mouw, these very words also come from the mouths of gay and lesbian people. The true problem is not whether you support marriage equality. The underlying issue is that you and others like you use your ???religious convictions??? as an excuse to disparage gay people and to uphold your discrimination. Civil dialogue becomes very difficult when one group feels that their personal worth is judged as inferior to others in your definition of the world.
You ask, ???Are there limits to what we can be asked to tolerate when it concerns matters that violate our convictions???? I believe that my gay son has an absolute and equal right to the same social respect, legal protections and civil rights that his non-gay brothers are given freely. My convictions are firm in the inherent worth and dignity of everyone ??? do they threaten the health, happiness and safety of you and your loved ones, as your convictions do to my son? Do your religion-based convictions supersede my humanity-based ones?
When you look at couples like my husband and me, I imagine that what you see is a heterosexual couple in a familial loving relationship. When you look at my son and his partner of 12 years, what do you see? Is it also a loving couple in a committed relationship or is it an ???unnatural??? sex act? This is where our conversation begins.
When the time comes ??? and it will ??? that people truly understand there is nothing to fear about people who are gay who love each other, the problem disappears.

quote by WTL=JC @ "matthew 19 vs 4-6. have ye not read ,that he which made them from the beginning made them male and female , and said for this cause shall a man leave father and mother , and shall cleave to his wife. and they twain shall be one flesh. wherefore they are no more twain , but one flesh. what therfore god hath joined together shall no man put asunder. mark 10 vs 6-9. but from the beginning of the creation god created male and female. for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. and they twain shall be one flesh. so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. what therfore god hath joined together, let no man put asunder. seems to me jesus put the homosexual view quite well. he never mentioned it. that statements not quoted once, but twice. dont you think he was trying to tell us something? you really should read the bible before you tell us whats said and not said. nice try tho"

Both of these passages imply that a man is going to grow up leave home and meet a nice healthy....you guessed it, WOMAN. Not a man. I read the passage 1 time and was capable of figuring that one out genius, so before you try and offend a man who has obviously explored the bible in its depths, make sure you actually understand the material you are attempting to justify as an arguement for same sex marriage. And what is it that you think Jesus was trying to tell us? I would love to hear your expert opinion on that one.

Mr. Mouw, you wonder why gay people should be fearful of people like you. Well, maybe it's because the church has been in the forefront of every attempt to restrict the rights of gay people, and not just marriage rights, but any civil right. I'll be honest with you, Mr. Mouw, from a purely, long range strategic viewpoint, I doubt it is really necessary for gay people to dialog with you. Oh, your side has won a lot ot battles, but you will surely lose the war. Every societal indicator shows the trends are with the gay community. Within a generation your views will be seen as being on the same level as medieval witch hunting. And the church will lose big time on this. I feel very bad about this because I am a Christian (as well as a gay man), and I see the great things the church has done. I feel bad that the church has chosen to elevate same sex marriage, and caused the damage it has. It will not easily be repaird. Yes, I know in some future time, churches will ask public forgiveness for the hurt they caused previous generations of gay people. We all know the same thing is happening today as the church does public penance for once supporting slavery. But, you know Mr. Mouw, the church will be so discredited by that time, that nobody will care. It's a real pity.

Having read Mr. Mouw's essay regarding his position on same sex marriage, I am struck by how uncomfortable some people are with having their bigotry identified as such. He purports to be "hurt" by being identified as a fundamentalist, which frankly misses the point. The difficulty with people like Mr. Mouw isn't his personal religiosity, it is that he feels justified in preventing or removing other citizens from the ranks of people who enjoy the economic and social benefits of marriage. His rationale, like other bigots before and beside him, appears to be a religious one. His underlying motivation, also like many other bigots, appears to be fear. He reveals his fear in bringing up the spector of polygamy and raising the idea that children may be 'influenced'. Personally, I am not the least bit afraid of the inevitable future that will be brought by social progress. Indeed, I can specifically imagine with great comfort a time when my children's children will be taught that in the past the law discriminated against people based on who they loved and with whom they built families. In the past, people had to fight to keep their children or their homes when their loved one passed away, or to visit their loved one in the hospital. I cannot wait, honestly, for them to learn that this shameful chapter of American history is now over, and once again we as a nation have left bigotry behind.
When Mr. Mouw is ready to have a discussion about the benefits of social justice, and the pride we as Americans take in promoting social justice- I'll be happy to talk with him about how good it feels to leave bigotry behind.
Lara Embry, PhD.

The potential for an open, rational dialogue has already been curtailed by the very bi-line of Mr. Mouw's column: the mention of a positive vote for Proposition 8. In voting for such a measure, a measure that is intended to restrict rights, to take rights away from people, he is demonstrating a lack of desire for the dialogue. He has already made his mind up and the dialogue to which he refers is hardly more than code for "wanting to sell my side of the story." Mr. Mouw has not suggested a compromise or an alternative to allowing gay people to marry, he has not even acknowledged that homosexual people are citizens of this nation, and he has not acknowledged that legal marriage is a separate institution from religious or spiritual marriage. An open, national dialogue about this subject is vitally necessary to our national and private health. An open dialogue can only begin when all sides are willing to listen AND consider the positions of their opponents. Until the "religious right" understands what is implied by the separation of church and state, there will be no rational discussion of the subject. Compromise is not one-sided and people like Mr. Mouw would do well to learn that.

Comment Highlights:

By Black Latino: "As an African-American, I am glad to see that using the bible to justify racism (i.e. The Curse of Ham, etc) is no longer acceptable. As a gay man, I am disappointed that anachronistic theocratic strictures continue to relegate gays and lesbians to second class citizenship in our own country. Thankfully, prejudice against gays and lesbians will no longer be acceptable within a generation. The progress that is being made is inexorable. In the meantime, for those of you who do not think that racism and homophobia is each bigotry, perhaps you should listen to the few of us who understand all too well what prejudice feels like whether it is 'whites only' or 'straights only'. "

Comment Highlights:

By Alex Harman: "You state that your opposition to "normalizing" same-sex marriage is rooted in concerns about the raising of your children and grandchildren. The problem is that those concerns are implicitly rooted in the malignant lie that sexual orientation is a choice. You ask what children will be taught about sexual and family values in our schools. If they are taught that sexual orientation is inherent, that a minority of people are born homosexual, and that their desire is in no way inferior to that of the majority born heterosexual, then they will be taught the truth, and the truth will make them free: the straight ones free of bigotry, and the gay and lesbian ones free of the self-hatred that, along with rejection by peers and parents, so often leads to a psychological illness and even suicide among homosexual youth.

You ask whether you will be allowed to "counter those influences" without being accused of hate speech. The answer is that, if you teach your children that homosexuality is a choice, and a wrong one, instead of an inherent trait about which people have no choice, and a morally neutral one,* then you will indeed be guilty of hate speech, whether anyone accuses you or not."

By lcsf: "I appreciate that Mr. Mouw would like to have a rational discussion without the blinding rage that often clouds the path to a common understanding. In his article he raises the concern that if same-sex marriage were to be made legal, parents would have to worry about what their children would be taught in schools. I would argue that when given the choice between teaching kids that homosexuality is normal and teaching kids that it is wrong, the latter does much more harm than the former. Whether people opposed to same-sex marriage like it or not, many children, including some of their own, will realize that they are gay while they are still in school. Most people will also agree that schools should be safe, discrimination and hate-free environments where kids learn how to interact with other people. To teach that same-sex marriage or homosexuality is wrong or abnormal has the double negative effect of making some children believe that they are wrong or abnormal, and teaching other kids that it is ok to judge someone based on their sexual preference. Our schools should teach young people to be loving (not just tolerant) towards themselves and others - not doing so will only perpetuate the close-mindedness that Mouw is so rightfully trying to combat. The public school system should remain a place where all children - gay or straight - can feel welcome. Even in the case of young children who may just be discovering their sexuality, teaching them that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality will probably save them from inner anguish in the years to come. I wonder how many suicides could be prevented if young people could count on schools to be safe, accepting places to learn, even if

Are you married, Dr. Mouw? For more than 17 years, I have been everything a wife could be to my partner and she to me: I loved her, nurtured her, cared for her when she was sick, cried for her when she was hurting, cheered with her when she was celebrating. But I was not able to call her my wife until July 8, 2008, when I had the privilege, honor and joy of legally marrying her. I don't care what you call yourself - religious fundamentalist or not - it doesn't matter. All I know is you want to take that away from me.