The Manners In Which We Live

Rod, I want to believe your winsome ending: Maybe we can compromise, but if we can’t, at least we can reconcile. Yes? You & I both follow Jesus - I know that, you may not. Jesus taught love - love above all, love at all costs, love without boundaries and exceptions. You list a litany of reactions to Prop 8 - these reactions are not loving, not reconciliation embodies. Could you also take the time to list the reactions by those who supported Prop 8 ? Rather than play language games with "bigot", maybe it would be loving to talk about the violence and exclusion that faithful gay & lesbian people experience every day. You list a number of writers & thinkers in your post, many of whom I respect a great deal. Wouldn't it be act of reconciliation to also engage with gay & lesbian writers and thinkers who love the same God and who are grappling with how to live & work thru this moment. I commend to you: James Alison http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng52.html Elizabeth Stuart http://www.winchester.ac.uk/?page=3567 Rev. Eric Lee http://www.sclclosangeles.org/revlee.htm You are lucky to live in Dallas, Rod. Take a few minutes after lunch today and sit down with Rev. Dr. Jo Hudson, who leads the Cathedral of Hope (www.cathedralofhope.com). It is a huge congregation of faithful people - not some acronym or issue or even category. You quote someone who you seem to respect talking about a culture war. This is what I have learned from Jesus and Scripture about war. Love wins - it always wins, it won in the garden, it won in the desert, it won in the manger, it won on the cross, it won from the tomb. Take some time today, Rod, to stop questioning someone's soul or judging someone's faith - take some time to reach for the love that Jesus commands us to. Rod, I want to believe your winsome ending: Maybe we can compromise, but if we can’t, at least we can reconcile. Yes? You & I both follow Jesus - I know that, you may not. Jesus taught love - love above all, love at all costs, love without boundaries and exceptions. You list a litany of reactions to Prop 8 - these reactions are not loving, not reconciliation embodies. Could you also take the time to list the reactions by those who supported Prop 8 ? Rather than play language games with "bigot", maybe it would be loving to talk about the violence and exclusion that faithful gay & lesbian people experience every day. You list a number of writers & thinkers in your post, many of whom I respect a great deal. Wouldn't it be act of reconciliation to also engage with gay & lesbian writers and thinkers who love the same God and who are grappling with how to live & work thru this moment. I commend to you: James Alison http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng52.html Elizabeth Stuart http://www.winchester.ac.uk/?page=3567 Rev. Eric Lee http://www.sclclosangeles.org/revlee.htm You are lucky to live in Dallas, Rod. Take a few minutes after lunch today and sit down with Rev. Dr. Jo Hudson, who leads the Cathedral of Hope (www.cathedralofhope.com). It is a huge congregation of faithful people - not some acronym or issue or even category. You quote someone who you seem to respect talking about a culture war. This is what I have learned from Jesus and Scripture about war. Love wins - it always wins, it won in the garden, it won in the desert, it won in the manger, it won on the cross, it won from the tomb. Take some time today, Rod, to stop questioning someone's soul or judging someone's faith - take some time to reach for the love that Jesus commands us to.

"giving aid and comfort to the enemy" If I may, since I have no stake in this particular dispute: referring to people who disagree with your policy preference as "the enemy" isn't really going to get you very far. "Reconciliation" or mutual respect when such terms as "enemy" and "war" are used seems hardly likely. Yes, the people who attacked the worshipers were horribly wrong...but such an act is hardly representative of homosexuals ( or prop 8 opponents) generally any more than violent Black Panthers were of black people, or the National Guard was of the military generally at Kent State, or the fanatics who bomb abortion clinics are representative of pro-lifers. Attaching a mutual feeling to a group of people--irrational anti-Christian animus, as seems to be your thesis--to an entire group of people (prop 8 opponents) is blindly foolish. I believe there is a certain amount of resentment that the opponents probably feel, but you'd feel the same way had your side lost. But painting them all with the same brush, as you accuse them of doing to you, serves no one. "<i>giving aid and comfort to the enemy</i>" If I may, since I have no stake in this particular dispute: referring to people who disagree with your policy preference as "the enemy" isn't really going to get you very far. "Reconciliation" or mutual respect when such terms as "enemy" and "war" are used seems hardly likely. Yes, the people who attacked the worshipers were horribly wrong...but such an act is hardly representative of homosexuals ( or prop 8 opponents) generally any more than violent Black Panthers were of black people, or the National Guard was of the military generally at Kent State, or the fanatics who bomb abortion clinics are representative of pro-lifers. Attaching a mutual feeling to a group of people--irrational anti-Christian animus, as seems to be your thesis--to an entire group of people (prop 8 opponents) is blindly foolish. I believe there is a certain amount of resentment that the opponents probably feel, but you'd feel the same way had your side lost. But painting them all with the same brush, as you accuse them of doing to you, serves no one.

Shorter Dreher: please be courteous to us while we impose our values on you. Shorter Dreher: please be courteous to us while we impose our values on you.

"We no longer possess a belief that marriage has a purpose beyond itself," --You are allowed to believe whatever you like. The question at issue is, should gays be permitted to marry, or not? You can digress into the psychology and etymology of "protest," or you can address that issue. It's obviously much easier to engage in pop psychology than to formulate a rational position. [PARAGRAPH BREAK HERE!] "It was impossible, for me at least, to watch those scenes without thinking of the white segregationist mobs," --Wildly errant comparison. Whites had enslaved, tortured, persecuted, discriminated against blacks for generations, while in a position of massive power. Not so gays vs. straights (well, or at least people who work to persecute gays, who as we know tend to be closeted gays, ie Haggard, Foley, Craig, etc.). Oh, and they weren't "peaceful black dissenters," they were protesters, FYI. [PARAGRAPH BREAK HERE!] "while protecting religious freedom" -- There is no threat to religious freedom. The Mormons opted not to consider blacks fully human until the late 1970s. That is their right. Do whatever you will regarding gays in your religious lives. That is your right. That's not at issue. "We no longer possess a belief that marriage has a purpose beyond itself," --You are allowed to believe whatever you like. The question at issue is, should gays be permitted to marry, or not? You can digress into the psychology and etymology of "protest," or you can address that issue. It's obviously much easier to engage in pop psychology than to formulate a rational position. [PARAGRAPH BREAK HERE!] "It was impossible, for me at least, to watch those scenes without thinking of the white segregationist mobs," --Wildly errant comparison. Whites had enslaved, tortured, persecuted, discriminated against blacks for generations, while in a position of massive power. Not so gays vs. straights (well, or at least people who work to persecute gays, who as we know tend to be closeted gays, ie Haggard, Foley, Craig, etc.). Oh, and they weren't "peaceful black dissenters," they were protesters, FYI. [PARAGRAPH BREAK HERE!] "while protecting religious freedom" -- There is no threat to religious freedom. The Mormons opted not to consider blacks fully human until the late 1970s. That is their right. Do whatever you will regarding gays in your religious lives. That is your right. That's not at issue.

Quite right - gone is the old world where one could hide behind rules and norms to hide their weakness. In the old days, everyone knew their place is society; everyone was given a blueprint on how to live - a blueprint that provided protection for weaklings. This article show clearly how homophobia is born out of fear. These weaklings miss the good old days when the world was small and neat and everything was on order - you just had to play your part according to the script - and your security was assured. And those who refused to play according to the script - an independent women, an openly gay person - were severely punished, because whenever someone played outside the script, it terrified the others - it was the terror of losing control of their petty little worlds that ensured homophobia and misogyny. To the homophobe, heterosexuality represents order and homosexuality represents chaos. In chaos there are no rules, and the weak cannot survive in chaos. For the weak to survive, they need to establish rules and make sure everyone obeys the rules, so that the rules can be used to punish any independent, strong, person. In the old days you could cover your insecurities by laughing and threatening at a homosexual or a woman - it was acceptable practice, but no longer. Now those rules are gone and the fear and terror of those like the author are exposed. Yes, gone are the days when men were men, women were women, and fags knew their place. Quite right - gone is the old world where one could hide behind rules and norms to hide their weakness. In the old days, everyone knew their place is society; everyone was given a blueprint on how to live - a blueprint that provided protection for weaklings. This article show clearly how homophobia is born out of fear. These weaklings miss the good old days when the world was small and neat and everything was on order - you just had to play your part according to the script - and your security was assured. And those who refused to play according to the script - an independent women, an openly gay person - were severely punished, because whenever someone played outside the script, it terrified the others - it was the terror of losing control of their petty little worlds that ensured homophobia and misogyny. To the homophobe, heterosexuality represents order and homosexuality represents chaos. In chaos there are no rules, and the weak cannot survive in chaos. For the weak to survive, they need to establish rules and make sure everyone obeys the rules, so that the rules can be used to punish any independent, strong, person. In the old days you could cover your insecurities by laughing and threatening at a homosexual or a woman - it was acceptable practice, but no longer. Now those rules are gone and the fear and terror of those like the author are exposed. Yes, gone are the days when men were men, women were women, and fags knew their place.

By the author's standards, my father's second marriage at the age of 45 to a woman twenty years his senior is wrong and immoral, as they could never have children of their own. Never mind that they are both people of deep faith and very much in love- their gamble on happiness was futile and wrong-headed. I'd love to hear him attempt to explain such thinking to their faces, though. By the author's standards, my father's second marriage at the age of 45 to a woman twenty years his senior is wrong and immoral, as they could never have children of their own. Never mind that they are both people of deep faith and very much in love- their gamble on happiness was futile and wrong-headed. I'd love to hear him attempt to explain such thinking to their faces, though.

I have some questions for anyone who supported Prop 8: if the issue is solely about protecting the sanctity of the institution of marriage, where is your outrage at the fact that married, heterosexual couples are allowed to get divorced in this country? Why aren't you fighting for laws, or ballot initiatives, that would take away the right for people to get a divorce? How is a 50 percent divorce rate less of a threat to the institution of marriage than gay people being allowed to participate in it? Are you afraid that by issuing the same kind of condemnation and judgment against a wider swath of our population, i.e. divorced Americans, maybe you would see even more people protesting outside of Mormon temples and Catholic cathedrals than just a bunch of angry gays? Same thing with the "we're protecting children" argument... why aren't you championing laws that would take children away from single-parent households; or deny heterosexual people who cannot/will not have children the right to get married? It isn't the spiritual beliefs of "traditionalists" that's the problem here; it's the hypocrisy. Straight people do all sorts of things that break down these institutions, yet you shrug your shoulders, sit on your hands and do nothing. But when it has to do with gay people, you're indefatigable. I have some questions for anyone who supported Prop 8: if the issue is solely about protecting the sanctity of the institution of marriage, where is your outrage at the fact that married, heterosexual couples are allowed to get divorced in this country? Why aren't you fighting for laws, or ballot initiatives, that would take away the right for people to get a divorce? How is a 50 percent divorce rate less of a threat to the institution of marriage than gay people being allowed to participate in it? Are you afraid that by issuing the same kind of condemnation and judgment against a wider swath of our population, i.e. divorced Americans, maybe you would see even more people protesting outside of Mormon temples and Catholic cathedrals than just a bunch of angry gays? Same thing with the "we're protecting children" argument... why aren't you championing laws that would take children away from single-parent households; or deny heterosexual people who cannot/will not have children the right to get married? It isn't the spiritual beliefs of "traditionalists" that's the problem here; it's the hypocrisy. Straight people do all sorts of things that break down these institutions, yet you shrug your shoulders, sit on your hands and do nothing. But when it has to do with gay people, you're indefatigable.

This article is interesting to me because it highlights a problem that I expect to face as I go home to spend the holidays with my conservative family. I am a straight married woman, but I believe strongly in the rights of two consenting adults to marry, regardless of gender. My family, who are Christians like I am, but who read the Bible in a way with more focus on Paul than on Jesus in some areas, believe that gays need to get back into the closet. I don't believe that they're bigots, but I do believe that they are profoundly misguided, in a way that is representative of many opponents of gay marriage. Their objection to homosexuality is that "The Bible says it's wrong," although interestingly they also all voted to give a woman authority over them in the recent election. Their objections to gay marriage are that you can't legitimatize sin in any way, and the fallacious argument they've been spoonfed that gay marriage will inevitably lead to homosexuals marrying packs of wild dogs in every church across the land. It's _hard_ to have an argument with people who refuse to rise above this level of discourse, and it's hard to believe that there isn't some underlying emotional problem behind the stubborn refusal not only to change their minds, but to engage in reasoned debate. I would never call my family bigots, but to an extent, I can understand the frustration and alienation of those who would look at people with the same attitudes as one large block, and see no way to reach them. This article is interesting to me because it highlights a problem that I expect to face as I go home to spend the holidays with my conservative family. I am a straight married woman, but I believe strongly in the rights of two consenting adults to marry, regardless of gender. My family, who are Christians like I am, but who read the Bible in a way with more focus on Paul than on Jesus in some areas, believe that gays need to get back into the closet. I don't believe that they're bigots, but I do believe that they are profoundly misguided, in a way that is representative of many opponents of gay marriage. Their objection to homosexuality is that "The Bible says it's wrong," although interestingly they also all voted to give a woman authority over them in the recent election. Their objections to gay marriage are that you can't legitimatize sin in any way, and the fallacious argument they've been spoonfed that gay marriage will inevitably lead to homosexuals marrying packs of wild dogs in every church across the land. It's _hard_ to have an argument with people who refuse to rise above this level of discourse, and it's hard to believe that there isn't some underlying emotional problem behind the stubborn refusal not only to change their minds, but to engage in reasoned debate. I would never call my family bigots, but to an extent, I can understand the frustration and alienation of those who would look at people with the same attitudes as one large block, and see no way to reach them.

Rod, Have you read Sullivan's response to your piece? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/modernity-f... I am a Christian like you but have come to believe that fighting the culture wars has cost the church its soul (and its ability to reach the culture with the gospel). As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with Sullivan. Scott Rod, Have you read Sullivan's response to your piece? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/modernity-faith.html I am a Christian like you but have come to believe that fighting the culture wars has cost the church its soul (and its ability to reach the culture with the gospel). As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with Sullivan. Scott

(Sorry for the double post)I do have to say that I find your characterization of the Castro video distressing and offensive. It is the opposite of reconciliation to rub salt in a wound, to go into an area populated by gays who have just had what they truly understand to be a civil right torn away, then to begin praying, in essence, that they will all just go away. That is, as I understand it, the majority response of Christianity to homosexuality. It's a boogeyman created by Satan to tempt people, but the people can simply choose to not be that way, and the effectual, fervent, prayer of the faithful will help that happen. How is it surprising that people who were marginalized and stripped of a humanizing right would want a confrontation with those who would come to where they were and pray against them? I think that any acts of violence on either side in this dispute is unwarranted and misguided, and that the vandalism people have engaged in is wrong, but to compare the people who have just been beaten with the stick of 'separate but equal' with the men who enforced that same unjust standard in the last century seems breathtakingly wrongheaded. (Sorry for the double post)I do have to say that I find your characterization of the Castro video distressing and offensive. It is the opposite of reconciliation to rub salt in a wound, to go into an area populated by gays who have just had what they truly understand to be a civil right torn away, then to begin praying, in essence, that they will all just go away. That is, as I understand it, the majority response of Christianity to homosexuality. It's a boogeyman created by Satan to tempt people, but the people can simply choose to not be that way, and the effectual, fervent, prayer of the faithful will help that happen. How is it surprising that people who were marginalized and stripped of a humanizing right would want a confrontation with those who would come to where they were and pray against them? I think that any acts of violence on either side in this dispute is unwarranted and misguided, and that the vandalism people have engaged in is wrong, but to compare the people who have just been beaten with the stick of 'separate but equal' with the men who enforced that same unjust standard in the last century seems breathtakingly wrongheaded.

The strangest thing about Dreher's argument---as well as Tony Perkins', and that of many other anti-gay marriage crusaders---is this: I wish they were as concerned about the meaningful loss of religious liberty at stake for believers as many of us believers are about the legal difficulties same-sex couples struggle with. The question is simply: What loss of religious freedom? No one---no one, absolutely no one---has ever insisted that churches must perform same-sex marriages. I understand that the battles over desegregation left the... shall we say, passionately religious... very nervous about the government forcing them to accede to a new order (one should never forget that contemporary religious right was formed, not in the battle over Roe v. Wade, but in the battle over desegregating Bible colleges, which is how Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson became famous). But it's a red herring. Bob Jones continues to ban interracial dating, and there's no legal challenge possible, because they're a private institution. It is true that churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage may---and this is a very unlikely proposition---lose federal government contracts to provide charity services. But are you really arguing that Prop 8 will cut you off from federal funding, something conservatives aren't supposed to trust anyway? It's these kind of bizarre arguments that really get you tarred as a bigot---when you make a case so incoherent on its face, it's hard not to suspect there's some unnamed motive lurking in the closet (no pun intended, perhaps). If the argument is simply one from tradition, then George Pugman is quite right---gay marriage is the absolute least of your worries, and pouring money into the fight against it, rather than the fight against no-fault divorce, or a 3-divorces-and-you're-out law, is rather like fighting the USSR by shutting down beatnik coffeehouses while defunding the Air Force. The strangest thing about Dreher's argument---as well as Tony Perkins', and that of many other anti-gay marriage crusaders---is this: <I>I wish they were as concerned about the meaningful loss of religious liberty at stake for believers as many of us believers are about the legal difficulties same-sex couples struggle with.</I> The question is simply: What loss of religious freedom? No one---no one, absolutely no one---has ever insisted that churches must perform same-sex marriages. I understand that the battles over desegregation left the... shall we say, passionately religious... very nervous about the government forcing them to accede to a new order (one should never forget that contemporary religious right was formed, not in the battle over Roe v. Wade, but in the battle over desegregating Bible colleges, which is how Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson became famous). But it's a red herring. Bob Jones continues to ban interracial dating, and there's no legal challenge possible, because they're a private institution. It is true that churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage may---and this is a very unlikely proposition---lose federal government contracts to provide charity services. But are you really arguing that Prop 8 will cut you off from federal funding, something conservatives aren't supposed to trust anyway? It's these kind of bizarre arguments that really get you tarred as a bigot---when you make a case so incoherent on its face, it's hard not to suspect there's some unnamed motive lurking in the closet (no pun intended, perhaps). If the argument is simply one from tradition, then George Pugman is quite right---gay marriage is the absolute least of your worries, and pouring money into the fight against it, rather than the fight against no-fault divorce, or a 3-divorces-and-you're-out law, is rather like fighting the USSR by shutting down beatnik coffeehouses while defunding the Air Force.

Since most of those in the nation who ARE legally allowed to marry don't seem to share the kinds of values Rod talks about either, yet get to call themselves married, I am offended, and find their marriages to be a distortion of my own beliefs & a threat to how my own marriage is perceived. I have been married over 25 years to my high school sweetheart, my equal, best friend and co-parent to my four children, so I think our way is the best in terms of perpetuating the kinds of values that hold our society together. I also worry others might think we are like other couples who DON'T hold our values, again a threat. Therefore I am now proposing that the following marriage-types also be outlawed. Marriages between: People who have been married to the same person for years, but by choice, never had children. People who are married more than twice, and divorced more than once, and aren’t raising children. People who are married, but who’s spouse is not their best friend and closest ally, and who take all their intimacy and deep personal issues outside the relationship. People who stay in a loveless marriage only because it financially benefits them to share the income of their spouse. People who are gay and are married to someone of the opposite sex in order to hide their homosexuality from the world and gain the benefits or legal status of marriage. People who get married to obtain citizenship. People who love their spouse, but screw around on them--short and meaningless or long-term and meaningful screwing around—either one. People who don’t screw around on their spouse, but don’t love them either, and spend most of their relationship time ignoring, withholding from or abusing their spouse. People who say their religion doesn’t allow divorce, and so live in separate households. If anyone wishes to add to this list, please feel free to do so, understanding that I may not approve. Since most of those in the nation who ARE legally allowed to marry don't seem to share the kinds of values Rod talks about either, yet get to call themselves married, I am offended, and find their marriages to be a distortion of my own beliefs & a threat to how my own marriage is perceived. I have been married over 25 years to my high school sweetheart, my equal, best friend and co-parent to my four children, so I think our way is the best in terms of perpetuating the kinds of values that hold our society together. I also worry others might think we are like other couples who DON'T hold our values, again a threat. Therefore I am now proposing that the following marriage-types also be outlawed. Marriages between: People who have been married to the same person for years, but by choice, never had children. People who are married more than twice, and divorced more than once, and aren’t raising children. People who are married, but who’s spouse is not their best friend and closest ally, and who take all their intimacy and deep personal issues outside the relationship. People who stay in a loveless marriage only because it financially benefits them to share the income of their spouse. People who are gay and are married to someone of the opposite sex in order to hide their homosexuality from the world and gain the benefits or legal status of marriage. People who get married to obtain citizenship. People who love their spouse, but screw around on them--short and meaningless or long-term and meaningful screwing around—either one. People who don’t screw around on their spouse, but don’t love them either, and spend most of their relationship time ignoring, withholding from or abusing their spouse. People who say their religion doesn’t allow divorce, and so live in separate households. If anyone wishes to add to this list, please feel free to do so, understanding that I may not approve.

"Traditional marriage" was built upon a tradition of homophobia. (Or, at least, a tradition of misunderstanding homosexuality.) "Traditional marriage" was built upon a tradition of homophobia. (Or, at least, a tradition of misunderstanding homosexuality.)

"I don’t want them to suffer. I wish I believed gay folks felt the same way about us religious believers who sincerely, and not out of animus, hold to an ancient and venerable understanding of marriage, one that wasn’t questioned until practically yesterday. I wish they were as concerned about the meaningful loss of religious liberty at stake for believers as many of us believers are about the legal difficulties same-sex couples struggle with." [PARAGRAPH] Rod, why do you assume that supporters of gay marriage are NOT concerned with loss of religious liberty? The same constitutional rights that guarantee religious liberty are those which are compromised when minority members of society are treated like second-class citizens. [PARAGRAPH] Marriage is not merely a religious sacrament; it is, in our culture, a primary rite of passage to adulthood. It signifies commitment, responsibility, and is the basis for the social family unit. Declaring to a person's face that they should not be allowed to undertake this responsibility is to declare that person a permanent child--to declare that by virtue of your religion, you know better than they do what is good for their lives, their families, and their responsibilities. It is insufferably patronizing, and it is a gross violation of boundaries. [PARAGRAPH] This patronization and boundary-violation is the essence of bad manners. It is fine to agree to disagree about religious practices; this may be done in a perfectly civil manner. But declaring that your religious practices give you the right to dictate someone else's most serious and personal decisions is not only rude, but a greater threat to religious freedom than gay marriage could ever be. "I don’t want them to suffer. I wish I believed gay folks felt the same way about us religious believers who sincerely, and not out of animus, hold to an ancient and venerable understanding of marriage, one that wasn’t questioned until practically yesterday. I wish they were as concerned about the meaningful loss of religious liberty at stake for believers as many of us believers are about the legal difficulties same-sex couples struggle with." [PARAGRAPH] Rod, why do you assume that supporters of gay marriage are NOT concerned with loss of religious liberty? The same constitutional rights that guarantee religious liberty are those which are compromised when minority members of society are treated like second-class citizens. [PARAGRAPH] Marriage is not merely a religious sacrament; it is, in our culture, a primary rite of passage to adulthood. It signifies commitment, responsibility, and is the basis for the social family unit. Declaring to a person's face that they should not be allowed to undertake this responsibility is to declare that person a permanent child--to declare that by virtue of your religion, you know better than they do what is good for their lives, their families, and their responsibilities. It is insufferably patronizing, and it is a gross violation of boundaries. [PARAGRAPH] This patronization and boundary-violation is the essence of bad manners. It is fine to agree to disagree about religious practices; this may be done in a perfectly civil manner. But declaring that <i>your</i> religious practices give you the right to dictate someone else's most serious and personal decisions is not only rude, but a greater threat to religious freedom than gay marriage could ever be.

This seems to be the your problem, sir: "The momentum is toward experience and emotions and feelings. People are saying, 'I feel, therefore I am.' This is how more and more people are deciding what is real and right and true." Wrong. The momentum is towards the realization that what has been called "tradition" has always been based on "I feel, therefore I am [right]". The idea that marriage is procreative, that marriage is romantic, that marriage is about property alliances, or whatever, all of that is based on what the population feels at any given time. Right now, anyone who says that marriage is based on procreation is completely full of it. Marriage is all about romance and family [with or without children] - the whole soul mate + sex thingy. The trads don't think homos are capable of that, and why? Well, it's a feeling, a feeling they have, which informs their opinion at the expense of all empirical evidence to the contrary. This seems to be the your problem, sir: "The momentum is toward experience and emotions and feelings. People are saying, 'I feel, therefore I am.' This is how more and more people are deciding what is real and right and true." Wrong. The momentum is towards the realization that what has been called "tradition" has always been based on "I feel, therefore I am [right]". The idea that marriage is procreative, that marriage is romantic, that marriage is about property alliances, or whatever, all of that is based on what the population feels at any given time. Right now, anyone who says that marriage is based on procreation is completely full of it. Marriage is all about romance and family [with or without children] - the whole soul mate + sex thingy. The trads don't think homos are capable of that, and why? Well, it's a feeling, a feeling they have, which informs their opinion at the expense of all empirical evidence to the contrary.

PHOTOS Prop 8 Protest St. Louis, MO (11-15-08) <a href="http://moon-shadows.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-8-protest-st-louis-mo-11-15.html">PHOTOS Prop 8 Protest St. Louis, MO (11-15-08)</a>

Here is your solution, if you are brave enough: Privatize marriage. Make all unions civil unions in the eyes of the law. Require that they be between two, unrelated individuals -- yes, the incest taboo and the polygamy taboo still stand, much to the consternation of some who think that the acceptance of homosexuality means the acceptance of everything, which it does not. If there are children involved, have a body of law that governs custodial issues, etc. If a particular religion won't perform a same-sex marriage, as long as this refusal carries no legal force I will be very surprised if churches find themselves under serious assault from the public or civil authorities over it. Will some people complain? Yes, of course. There are 300 million people in this country, and there will always be someone(s) complaing about something(s), some of which complaints will be valid. Still, I think there is a consensus, including among atheists like myself, that what happens in church stays in church, as long as it really does stay in church. Homosexuality isn't nearly as vital an issue as the orthodox Christians make it out to be. It is an offshoot of the breaking of the link between sex and reproduction made possible by efficient, mass-produced contraception. And contraception, in turn, is an offshoot of the industrial revolution and the materialism that necessarily accompanied it. You have lost the battle against contraception, just as your forefathers lost the battle against materialism. You still have your churches, but if you try to impose them on the world then you can expect an argument. Here is your solution, if you are brave enough: Privatize marriage. Make all unions civil unions in the eyes of the law. Require that they be between two, unrelated individuals -- yes, the incest taboo and the polygamy taboo still stand, much to the consternation of some who think that the acceptance of homosexuality means the acceptance of everything, which it does not. If there are children involved, have a body of law that governs custodial issues, etc. If a particular religion won't perform a same-sex marriage, as long as this refusal carries no legal force I will be very surprised if churches find themselves under serious assault from the public or civil authorities over it. Will some people complain? Yes, of course. There are 300 million people in this country, and there will always be someone(s) complaing about something(s), some of which complaints will be valid. Still, I think there is a consensus, including among atheists like myself, that what happens in church stays in church, as long as it really does stay in church. Homosexuality isn't nearly as vital an issue as the orthodox Christians make it out to be. It is an offshoot of the breaking of the link between sex and reproduction made possible by efficient, mass-produced contraception. And contraception, in turn, is an offshoot of the industrial revolution and the materialism that necessarily accompanied it. You have lost the battle against contraception, just as your forefathers lost the battle against materialism. You still have your churches, but if you try to impose them on the world then you can expect an argument.

About the show trials, et al.: First off, the assaults in San Francisco were wrong, even if the prayer group was intentionally provocative. (If civility, which implies candor, is more than a throw-away line for you, then you could surely admit that much.) The people in the neighborhood should have either ignored them, or in inimitable S.F. style, organized a Laugh-In. Instead, they took the bait. Dumb, dumb, dumb, Castro Street! Don't you recognize an obvious setup when you see one? As for a "blacklist," you, Rod Dreher, curiously (!) overlooked the letter sent by Yes on 8 forces to business contributors to No on 8 demanding contributions to their side, at the risk of retaliation. Retaliation breeds (hmm ... how?) more retaliation: The theatrical director and the cafe owner have got a bunch of gay customers and colleagues who were hurt and offended. This wasn't an ordinary issue to gay people. They had a civil right removed. I think you can expect a backlash; or, to put it differently, the answer to free speech is more free speech. What this ought to tell you is that Americans react badly to having their civil rights reduced or eliminated. We take our freedom seriously. It is not just some word in a textbook somewhere. Even if you don't agree with a particular civil right, this should give you some consolation. I think your side would find a great deal of support if there was a deal on gay marriage and then someone tried to force this or that church to perform a ceremony under penalty of law. Don't believe me? Then try your own little Tolerance Experiment: Write a proposition that would convert all marriages to legal civil unions; open up civil unions to same-sex couples; and specifically give churches sole discretion over who they marry. See what happens. Gay people will take that deal in a nanosecond; your trouble will be within your majestic churches, where fear, loathing, and outright hatred of gay people runs rampant. About the show trials, et al.: First off, the assaults in San Francisco were wrong, even if the prayer group was intentionally provocative. (If civility, which implies candor, is more than a throw-away line for you, then you could surely admit that much.) The people in the neighborhood should have either ignored them, or in inimitable S.F. style, organized a Laugh-In. Instead, they took the bait. Dumb, dumb, dumb, Castro Street! Don't you recognize an obvious setup when you see one? As for a "blacklist," you, Rod Dreher, curiously (!) overlooked the letter sent by Yes on 8 forces to business contributors to No on 8 demanding contributions to their side, at the risk of retaliation. Retaliation breeds (hmm ... how?) more retaliation: The theatrical director and the cafe owner have got a bunch of gay customers and colleagues who were hurt and offended. This wasn't an ordinary issue to gay people. They had a civil right removed. I think you can expect a backlash; or, to put it differently, the answer to free speech is more free speech. What this ought to tell you is that Americans react badly to having their civil rights reduced or eliminated. We take our freedom seriously. It is not just some word in a textbook somewhere. Even if you don't agree with a particular civil right, this should give you some consolation. I think your side would find a great deal of support if there was a deal on gay marriage and then someone tried to force this or that church to perform a ceremony under penalty of law. Don't believe me? Then try your own little Tolerance Experiment: Write a proposition that would convert all marriages to legal civil unions; open up civil unions to same-sex couples; and specifically give churches sole discretion over who they marry. See what happens. Gay people will take that deal in a nanosecond; your trouble will be within your majestic churches, where fear, loathing, and outright hatred of gay people runs rampant.

John Gardner wrote: "The theatrical director and the cafe owner have got a bunch of gay customers and colleagues who were hurt and offended. This wasn't an ordinary issue to gay people. They had a civil right removed. I think you can expect a backlash; or, to put it differently, the answer to free speech is more free speech." Very well. Gays were hurt and offended. It still remains that their response was largely bigoted against white Mormons. It's easy to pick on a very old Mormon, who you know is not going to do anything. There are no protests against black or Hispanic churches on anything near the level of what is going on with Mormons. One can use nebulous notions that Mormons contributed to ads that supported Prop 8, in opposition to ads that opposed it, and thus, they should be pilloried to an extent greater than the rest of the population. Apparently free speech rights are only acceptable when it supports a liberal cause and opponents must simply not bother making a counter argument in the paid media. But, this overlooks the reality of those large blocs that actually did vote for Prop 8. And it wasn't Mormons. America reveres Martin Luther King. It doesn't have as much affection for Malcom X. It has none for Black Panthers. Assuming everything is legal, gay activists now are closer to the Black Panthers than they are MLK. MLK protested and boycotted companies/institutions. But, his was a gentle and noble endeavor. He convinced people. He didn't shout them down. I don't think MLK would have ever approved of same-sex marriage--it just isn't the norm in the black church, or amongst blacks, in general. But, there is something to be said for his tactics, which were civil and determined. There is nothing similar with gay activists tactics. It is all anger and vitriol, which is easier than being civil and composed. So, be a Malcolm X or Black Panthers. It's your right. Just don't think America won't find it ugly. Because it will. John Gardner wrote: "The theatrical director and the cafe owner have got a bunch of gay customers and colleagues who were hurt and offended. This wasn't an ordinary issue to gay people. They had a civil right removed. I think you can expect a backlash; or, to put it differently, the answer to free speech is more free speech." Very well. Gays were hurt and offended. It still remains that their response was largely bigoted against white Mormons. It's easy to pick on a very old Mormon, who you know is not going to do anything. There are no protests against black or Hispanic churches on anything near the level of what is going on with Mormons. One can use nebulous notions that Mormons contributed to ads that supported Prop 8, in opposition to ads that opposed it, and thus, they should be pilloried to an extent greater than the rest of the population. Apparently free speech rights are only acceptable when it supports a liberal cause and opponents must simply not bother making a counter argument in the paid media. But, this overlooks the reality of those large blocs that actually did vote for Prop 8. And it wasn't Mormons. America reveres Martin Luther King. It doesn't have as much affection for Malcom X. It has none for Black Panthers. Assuming everything is legal, gay activists now are closer to the Black Panthers than they are MLK. MLK protested and boycotted companies/institutions. But, his was a gentle and noble endeavor. He convinced people. He didn't shout them down. I don't think MLK would have ever approved of same-sex marriage--it just isn't the norm in the black church, or amongst blacks, in general. But, there is something to be said for his tactics, which were civil and determined. There is nothing similar with gay activists tactics. It is all anger and vitriol, which is easier than being civil and composed. So, be a Malcolm X or Black Panthers. It's your right. Just don't think America won't find it ugly. Because it will.

While I disagreed with your particular take on gay marriage--like most of those who commented, it seems--I did appreciate your call for more love &/or civility between the sides, in the hope that with a bit more of both, we can exchange yelling AT one another for listening TO one another. Respect for & understanding of our fellow citizens has the potential to change this country for the better, if it actually catches on. Name-calling & labeling each other, whatever the issue, is getting us nowhere... If that's hopelessly naïve, count me in. While I disagreed with your particular take on gay marriage--like most of those who commented, it seems--I did appreciate your call for more love &/or civility between the sides, in the hope that with a bit more of both, we can exchange yelling AT one another for listening TO one another. Respect for & understanding of our fellow citizens has the potential to change this country for the better, if it actually catches on. Name-calling & labeling each other, whatever the issue, is getting us nowhere... If that's hopelessly naïve, count me in.

David Ahmad, there is nothing "bigoted" in the gay response to the Mormon organization, which has provided at least 80% of the financing and personnel to all of the anti-gay marriage movements in various states. The Mormons finance hatred, and they should expect to be condemned by a freedom-loving people whose rights they have successfully taken away, for the time being. The Mormons are free to do these things, but their free speech begets someone else's. Those Christians who believe that the exercise of free speech by gays is unacceptable suffer from a lack of understanding of the nature of freedom. This is understandable, because at root the Christian church, along with its temporary non-Christian allies, the Mormons, are at war with individual freedom, and seek to capture civil law and use it to impose their mixture of aesthetic preferences and superstitions upon the population at large. This effort is doomed; not only did the margin of defeat for gay marriage shrink by 20 percentage points in eight years, but the youth are four-square against you. It will take some time, but this is not a contest you will win. David Ahmad, there is nothing "bigoted" in the gay response to the Mormon organization, which has provided at least 80% of the financing and personnel to all of the anti-gay marriage movements in various states. The Mormons finance hatred, and they should expect to be condemned by a freedom-loving people whose rights they have successfully taken away, for the time being. The Mormons are free to do these things, but their free speech begets someone else's. Those Christians who believe that the exercise of free speech by gays is unacceptable suffer from a lack of understanding of the nature of freedom. This is understandable, because at root the Christian church, along with its temporary non-Christian allies, the Mormons, are at war with individual freedom, and seek to capture civil law and use it to impose their mixture of aesthetic preferences and superstitions upon the population at large. This effort is doomed; not only did the margin of defeat for gay marriage shrink by 20 percentage points in eight years, but the youth are four-square against you. It will take some time, but this is not a contest you will win.

You wrote, "a small group of Christians peaceably praying on a street corner". For the good of all and in the words of your Lord and Savior, peaceable Christians (Matthew 6:5-6), "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth; they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” No one of a sound mind comes into someone's home, The Castro-a neighborhood we have constructed as a safe-haven from the stings we have born over our lives mostly from "peaceable Christians”, after having voted to take away a constitutionally founded right then prays out loud for us "to be delivered from a demonic lifestyle". Our grand Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence supplied a scriptural device by surrounding these folks with a curtain to block out their offensive prayers and shenanigans. The Christians then invited confrontation thinking they were somehow being cursed. No, simply providing privacy for your prayers. Will these peaceable Christians aka hypocrites return to our neighborhood this evening? Are Fred Phelps’ church and family near by? Who is sparking a confrontation? Stay at home and pray so that your Father, who is unseen, will reward you. You wrote, "a small group of Christians peaceably praying on a street corner". For the good of all and in the words of your Lord and Savior, peaceable Christians (Matthew 6:5-6), "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth; they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” No one of a sound mind comes into someone's home, The Castro-a neighborhood we have constructed as a safe-haven from the stings we have born over our lives mostly from "peaceable Christians”, after having voted to take away a constitutionally founded right then prays out loud for us "to be delivered from a demonic lifestyle". Our grand Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence supplied a scriptural device by surrounding these folks with a curtain to block out their offensive prayers and shenanigans. The Christians then invited confrontation thinking they were somehow being cursed. No, simply providing privacy for your prayers. Will these peaceable Christians aka hypocrites return to our neighborhood this evening? Are Fred Phelps’ church and family near by? Who is sparking a confrontation? Stay at home and pray so that your Father, who is unseen, will reward you.