SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A DIALOGUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT

This article provides an Example Dialogue on how we, as moderate and progressive Christians, might effectively talk with our more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ (“Christian Right”) on same-sex marriage, while leaving each other whole and with goodwill at the end of the discussion.

For a print-friendly version of this article, please click here to view this document using the Adobe Acrobat reader.

The Example Dialogue is excerpted from the author’s syllabus entitled: Let’s Dialogue With The Christian Right—A syllabus of strategies, moral values, and Biblical citations (hereafter referred to as “Syllabus”). The Syllabus explains the underlying framework, rationale, and strategy in dialoguing with a member of the Christian Right on “hot button” topics such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research. The Syllabus is intended to stimulate discussion and additional research on this topic, and is suitable for use in workshops and small group discussions. The Syllabus will be available for free downloads from www.micahscall.org in Summer 2007. The anticipated table of contents is in the Appendix.

2. LANGUAGE OF MORAL VALUES

A rational discussion with our brothers and sisters on the Christian Right on “hot button” topics can be emotionally explosive and damaging to family relationships and friendships, if not approached with the recognition of and sensitivity to the other side’s deep religious convictions. This is why we often studiously avoid such discussions with friends and family.

We take the approach here that any such discussion on “hot button” topics must be based on a common set of moral values. Because as Christians we are disciples of Jesus and acknowledge him as Lord, as our Lord, Jesus’ teachings must be our supreme moral guide. Jesus’ teachings are the “lens” by which we scrutinize our actions and decisions. Therefore, Jesus’ teachings are the backbone of the Example Dialogue below. A more detailed discussion of Jesus’ teachings as our supreme moral guide (along with a catalogue of Jesus’ teachings) is provided in the Syllabus.

3. RULES FOR NONCONFRONTATIONAL DIALOGUE

Below is a set of nonconfrontational dialogue rules. They are similar to those rules espoused in marriage counseling sessions to deescalate potentially confrontational dialogue between spouses. Here, we have modified the rules to deescalate a potentially confrontational dialogue with a member of the Christian Right on “hot button” topics. More discussion of these rules is in the Syllabus.

· Rule 1: It Is Not about Winning. Set your expectations at the beginning of the dialogue that it is not about winning.

· Rule 2: Engage in Active Listening. Use an expression like “I understand that you believe _________” to communicate to the other side that you have been attentive to and understand what they are saying about their beliefs and values.

· Rule 3: Use “I” Messages. Respond by using an expression like “I feel (or believe) that ____________,” which is a nonaccusatory and nonjudgmental way to express your beliefs and values.

· Rule 4: Listen for Underlying Primal Concerns. Try to understand the other side’s primal concerns that perhaps lie beneath the camouflage of rhetoric (e.g., simply citing a Biblical passage as authority, when fear of foreigners is an underlying primal concern). If we can understand the other side’s primal concern, we may be able to deal with it and make more progress in the dialogue.

· Rule 5: Establish Common Moral Values. Try to establish a common set of moral values based on Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Golden Rule, justice, righteousness, compassion, sharing abundance, mercy, reconciliation, forgiveness, tolerance, accepting the outsider, peacemaking, and stewardship) and then pursue the discussion from this common set of moral values.

· Rule 6: Pose Thoughtful Questions. Pose thoughtful questions that flow naturally from the common set of moral values, which may cause the other side to reflect and rethink his/her position. We emphasize thoughtful questions, as opposed to assertions, because they tend to elicit a less defensive response. Thoughtful questions are the agency of conversation and dialogue.

· Rule 7: Illuminate a Moral Dilemma. The key is to attempt to illuminate a moral dilemma, based on posing a countervailing set of moral values based on Jesus’ teachings, exposing unconsidered facts, exploring unappreciated consequences, probing inconsistencies, and/or dealing with primal concerns.

· Rule 8: Seek Agreement on Sub-Issues: Although we may succeed in illuminating a moral dilemma, very likely that moral dilemma will not be resolved during this one encounter. Rather than pushing for resolution of the moral dilemma, it may be more appropriate to shift gears and try to come to some understanding and agreement on a set of sub-issues.

The above rules can make possible a nonconfrontational framework for dialogue that will leave everyone whole and perhaps cause a person on an opposing side to rethink his/her position, either during the dialogue or after reflection. These rules set the context for the Example Dialogue below.

Much of the information underlying this Example Dialogue on same-sex marriage is from: Jack Rodgers, Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006; hereafter referred to as “Rodgers.”) Rodgers is Professor of Theology Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and was Moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Biblical Passages on Homosexuality. In Chapter 5, entitled “What the Bible Says and Doesn’t Say about Homosexuality” (Rodgers, pp. 69-90), Professor Rodgers meticulously disputes the Biblical passages that the Christian Right cites to condemn homosexuality. The Biblical scholarship employed by Rodgers is very sophisticated, relying on an analysis of the original underlying text, interpreting the text within the context of the surrounding text and similar texts, and interpreting the text within the context of the history and culture of the times. Although, we will not use these arguments in the Example Dialogue (for the reasons given below), we provide here a brief synopsis of some of Rodgers’ arguments to indicate the thrust and nature of his arguments. Admittedly, the above synopsis of Rodgers’ arguments does not do justice to his detailed and sophisticated scholarship. The reader is referred to Rodgers (especially Chapter 5) for a more complete exegesis of the Biblical text allegedly condemning homosexuality.

Rodgers argues that Leviticus 18:22 ("You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” RSV) refers to the Old Testament purity codes. Within the context of the purity codes the term “abomination” is more accurately translated “ritually unclean.” (See Rodgers, p. 72, where Leviticus 20:13 is addressed also.) According to the purity codes, one is ritually unclean if he/she has eaten pork, and Gentiles are ritually unclean because they are uncircumcised. But Jesus often ignored the Old Testament judgments that people were ritually unclean, and he accepted Gentiles as his disciples.

Also, Rodgers argues that the term “homosexuals” in I Corinthians 6:9, (“Do not be deceived; neither idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of God.” RSV) was mistakenly translated from the original Greek. The underlying Greek word translated as “homosexuals” more accurately refers to economic exploiters of sex, such as those involved in prostitution, pimping, or sex by economic coercion. (Rodgers, p. 74.)

Additionally, Rodgers argues that Romans 1:26-27 (“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” RSV) should be read within the context that Paul was preaching against idolatry—the worship of things or passions instead of God. Rodgers goes on to argue that the term “unnatural” should more accurately be read as “unconventional.” According to the strict gender role boundaries of Paul’s time, women should not play an active role in sex, and men should use women to fulfill their sexual needs. Hence, conditioned by the strict gender role boundaries of his time, Paul viewed sex between women and between men as unconventional. Rodgers explains that the term “shameless” is associated with the Jewish language of purity and, because this term was familiar to his audience, applies it here to describe sexual activity outside the strict gender role boundaries of his time. Rodgers contends that Romans 1 should be interpreted as condemning idolatrous behavior—the worship of things or passions instead of God, e.g., condemning erotic passions if they become excessive and out of control, interfering with the worship of God. (Rodgers, p. 76-79.) Rodgers concludes that: “Paul’s condemnation of immoral sexual behavior [in Romans 1] is not appropriately applied to contemporary gay or lesbian Christians who are not idolaters, who love God, and who seek to live in thankful obedience to God.” (Ibid, p. 79.)

We cannot hope to replicate Rodgers’ arguments in the context of a dialogue with a member of the Christian Right—nor do we want to! If there are disputes among Biblical scholars about the meaning of these texts, how can we as laypersons hope to dialogue in an intelligent manner about the underlying issues of these texts? Besides, members of the Christian Right will probably hold steadfast to their literal interpretation of the Bible, making any textual arguments pointless. In the Example Dialogue below, we simply acknowledge the other side’s Biblical support for his/her position, and through the dialogue place his/her position under the scrutiny of Jesus’ teachings. Because we are Jesus’ disciples and we acknowledge Jesus as Lord, his teachings must be our supreme moral guide.

Caveats: The Example Dialogue below is an illustration, not a prescription. The dialogue is in skeletal form and missing after each thoughtful question is the implied admonition to listen to the other side’s response, and if the response is not what you expect, invite further explanation and discussion. To be thoroughly prepared, you should be ready to discuss in greater depth Jesus’ teachings and facts presented in the Example Dialogue. Citations to supporting Biblical text and facts are provided. Also, there are more arguments presented here than can be discussed in a single conversation, and you may not feel that all the arguments are equally compelling. Use only the ones that you feel most confident in discussing and that you believe are the most compelling. In addition, consider reordering the Example Dialogue arguments in a manner that makes more sense to you. Of course be prepared to deviate from your plan depending on the other side’s response.

Depending on the circumstances, you might consider deviating from the emphasis on thoughtful questions and using a different mix of assertions, explanations, and questions. Furthermore, your dialogue should be supplemented, where appropriate, with your own personal examples, anecdotes, and arguments not covered below. In sum, you will need to customize the Example Dialogue to your personal style and spontaneously adapt your dialogue to the situation.

Active Listening

1. I understand that your position on same-sex marriage is based on several passages in the Bible, particularly Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Is this correct? [Substitute in the preceding, the particular Biblical passage cited by the other side as supporting their stance against gays and lesbians.]

2. Based on this Bible passage, you believe that gays and lesbians are unacceptable in the sight of God. Is this correct?

3. Based on this Bible passage, one could say that gays and lesbians should be denied rights of marriage because their marriage would pollute and destroy the institution of marriage. Is this your belief?

4. I feel differently based on my reading of the Bible. Is this a subject matter you feel comfortable in talking about—sharing our different points of view?

5. Are you familiar with the story of Noah and the flood?

6. After the flood, Noah’s son Ham accidentally went into his father’s tent and saw his father sleeping, drunk, and naked. Ham told his brothers and when Noah found out what Ham had done he was angry and cursed him and all his descendants, saying, “Cursed be Canaan [Ham’s son]; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” (Genesis 9:25, RSV.) Are you familiar with this story of Ham’s curse?

7. Are you aware that this Bible passage was used as a religious justification for slavery? Some assumed that African Americans were descendants of Ham and somehow could justifiably be discriminated against.

8. Also, this Bible passage played a role in a religious justification prohibiting an African American from marrying a white person.

9. As late as 1948, 40 states outlawed a marriage between an African American and a white person. (Rodgers, p. 94.)

10. This prohibition against interracial marriage was finally overturned in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia. (See “Loving v. Virginia,” Wikipedia, at www.wikipedia.org.)

11. Do you know of interracial marriages? How do you feel about such marriages?

12. Do you feel the institution of marriage is threatened with interracial unions? Apparently, earlier in our history, some people thought so.

13. Are you familiar with the Genesis story telling how God made Eve out of Adam’s rib? (Genesis 2:21-22.)

14. Because Eve was created from Adam, this passage has been used as religious justification for the idea that women are somehow inferior to men.

15. Are you familiar with the Genesis story of the fall of man—where the serpent convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and she then convinced Adam to do the same, causing God to eject them from the Garden of Eden? (Genesis 3:1-24.)

16. Because Eve was tricked by the serpent—causing the fall of man—this passage has been used as a religious justification for the idea that somehow women are not as smart and savvy as men.

17. Are you aware that up until 1920—when the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted—these Genesis stories were used as religious justifications for denying women the right to vote?

18. Did you know that these Genesis stories were also used as a religious justification for denying women their civil and property rights in marriage? As late as the early 1900s, the marriage laws in some states denied woman the legal right to ownership in her own property—if a woman inherited property it became the property of the husband. (See Rodgers, p. 94.)

19. Do you feel the institution of marriage was threatened by giving women control over their own property in marriage?

20. I wanted to share this history to illustrate how Bible passages in the past have been used to deny legal rights in marriage to African Americans and women.

21. I understand that you believe that marriage should be strictly defined as between a man and a woman. Is this correct?

22. As we have discussed, earlier in our history, marriage was defined as between a man and woman, but with the important constraint that they must be of the same race.

23. Also earlier in our history, marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman, but with the important constraint that the woman had no property rights in marriage.

24. Would you agree that the definition of marriage, and constraints upon marriage, have not been static, but have evolved over time?

26. I understand you also believe that same-sex marriage should be illegal because marriage is for purposes of procreation. Is this correct?

27. If a man and woman do not want to have children (perhaps they are two career-oriented professionals) should they be allowed to marry?

28. Should two divorced persons who already have children and want no more children be allowed to marry?

29. Should a widow and a widower who don’t want any more children be allowed to marry?

30. Is it fair to impose a procreation standard on gays and lesbians that we don’t impose on heterosexuals?

31. I understand that you believe that if we allow same-sex marriages the institution of marriage will be destroyed. Is this correct?

32. Are you aware that one-third of American children live without their biological fathers? (Rodgers, p. 102.)

33. Did you know that cohabitation—living together without being married—has been practiced at one time or another by 25 percent of born-again Christians? (Rodgers, p. 102.)

34. Would you agree, based on these statistics, that if the institution of marriage is disintegrating, it is not caused by gays and lesbians?

35. I understand that you believe that if we allowed same-sex marriages family values would be eroded.

36. Are you aware that in the 1990s, born-again Christians had a higher divorce rate than non-Christians? (Rodgers, p. 103.)

37. In fact, Professor Brad Wilcox, a Christian sociologist who specializes in family issues points out that conservative Protestants are more likely to divorce than the general population. (Rodgers, p. 103.)

38. Today about 8 percent of coupled households are made up of unmarried heterosexual partners. (Rodgers, p. 102.)

39. Would you agree, based on these statistics, that if there is an erosion of family values, it is not caused by gays and lesbians?

40. Let’s examine same-sex marriage from the point of view of Christian moral values. This may allow us to understand how and why we have a difference of opinion. Is this agreeable?

41. As Christians we acknowledge Jesus as Lord—would you agree?

42. Because Jesus is our Lord, we believe his life and teachings must be our supreme moral guide—would you agree?

43. As Christians we believe that Jesus is the Son of God—would you agree?

44. Would you agree that since Jesus is the Son of God, his teachings should take precedence over other Biblical writers who are of less stature than the Son of God?

45. Because Jesus is our Lord, when confronting a complex moral issue, we should ask ourselves “What would Jesus do based on his teachings?” Would you agree?

46. Would you agree that Jesus expects us, as his followers, to abide by his teachings?

47. One of his teachings is that we should treat others, as we would want to be treated—often called the Golden Rule. (See Matthew 7:12, adapted modern language.) Are you familiar with the Golden Rule?

48. Jesus taught that the Golden Rule is the essence of all the moral codes and teachings in the Old Testament.

49. Are you aware that all the world great religions teach some form of the Golden Rule as a fundamental moral value?

50. Would you agree that as one the most fundamental moral codes and teachings in the Old Testament, the Golden Rule should be one of our fundamental moral values?

51. Would you engage in a thinking exercise with me, applying the Golden Rule to the question of same-sex marriage?

52. Do you know anyone who is gay or lesbian? In what context—are you friends, acquaintances, or coworkers?

54. Are you aware that statistically speaking, same-sex relationships are just as stable as heterosexual relationships? (Rodgers, p. 91.)

55. Did you know that there are 1,049 federal rights, benefits, and privileges conferred by marriage and, depending on the state, there are as many as 400 additional state-level legal benefits of marriage? (Rodgers, p. 102.)

56. If you were standing in the shoes of a person in a same-sex relationship, especially with children to care for, wouldn’t it be understandable that you would want these extra federal and state benefits conferred by marriage to protect and provide for your family?

57. If you were standing in the shoes of a person in a same-sex relationship, how would you feel if you and your family were deprived of these benefits?

58. If you were standing in the shoes of a person wanting to legitimize a same-sex relationship, how would you feel about being denied the right to marry?

59. Jesus asks us to treat others as we would want to be treated. Does this give us some insight on what we think Jesus would do when asked about same-sex marriage?

60. Are you familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the Samaritan had compassion and helped an injured traveler lying on the road but the priest and Levite ignored the injured person?

61. Are you aware that Jesus commands us to “go and do likewise”—meaning he expects us, like the Samaritan, to have compassion on others. (Luke 10:37, RSV.)

62. What should be our compassionate response to gays and lesbians who want to have their relationship recognized as a marriage?

63. Are you familiar with Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in which he says, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy?” (Matthew, 5:7, RSV.)

64. We have obtained mercy through God’s grace—even though we are undeserving sinners. Wouldn’t God expect us to show mercy to others, including gays and lesbians?

65. Are you familiar with Jesus’ command, “Judge not, that you be not judged.”? (Matthew 7:1, RSV.) Jesus is teaching us about tolerance for those who are different.

66. If Jesus teaches us tolerance, should we not be tolerant of gays and lesbians?

67. Do you think that Jesus’ teachings on tolerance indicate that he would accept gays and lesbians? If so, do you think Jesus in his compassion would want gays and lesbians to have the same legal protections and benefits as other committed couples?

Jesus Accepted and Associated with Outsiders and Outcasts

68. Are you aware that time and time again, Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for associating with sinners and the outsiders in society? Jesus responded to these criticisms saying, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Luke 5:30-32, RSV.)

69. Are you aware that Jesus associated with a leper—one of the most extreme outcasts of his day because they were grossly disfigured, sometimes appeared to have rotting flesh, and were thought to be extremely contagious? Recall the story where Jesus ate and dined with Simon the Leper just before his death and a woman poured costly oils on his head. (Mark 14:3)

70. Are you aware that in Jesus’ day, the Gentiles were considered outsiders because they were unclean and did not adhere to Jewish laws and rituals?

71. Are you familiar with the dispute in the early church regarding whether Gentiles could become Christians because of their unclean status?

72. The Apostle Peter argued that Gentiles should be welcome as Christians, saying that in God’s sight there is neither clean nor unclean. (Acts 15:6-11.)

73. Would you agree that we are fortunate that Jesus accepts us (“Gentiles, unclean outsiders”) to be his disciples?

74. Would you agree that because Jesus accepts us—the outsider—we should also accept the outsider?

75. Does Jesus acceptance of the outsider apply to accepting gays and lesbians--why or why not?

76. Are you aware that in a 2005 study, a researcher identified genetic areas that appear to influence whether a man is heterosexual or homosexual? (Brian S. Mustanski, et. al., “A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation,” Human Genetics, Volume 116, Number 4, March 2005, pp. 272-278.)

77. Another more recent 2006 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences indicates that in some cases sexual orientation of boys may be established in the womb. (Anthony F. Bogaert, “Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation,” Proceedings National Academy of Sciences USA, June 28, 2006, 10.1073/pnas. 0511152103.)

78. If sexual orientation is established before birth, does this change your stand on gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage?

79. Are you aware that in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association established a policy of no longer classifying being gay or lesbian as a mental illness? (Rodgers, p. 98.)

80. In 1975 the American Psychological Association took a similar position. (Rodgers, p. 98.)

81. In 1993 the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics rejected the practice of counseling to try to change sexual orientation: “Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated…having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.” (Rodgers, p. 100.)

82. In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association together agreed that “the research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality.” (Rodgers, p. 98.)

83. More recently, in a primer for principals and educators on sexual orientation of youth, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers collectively agreed that they “do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through ‘reparative therapy’ [psychotherapy aimed at eliminating homosexual desires] and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.” (“Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth, A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel,” APA ONLINE (American Psychological Association, Public Interest Directorate), at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/just thefacts. html, 3.)

84. It is worth noting that the associations mentioned above represent 477,000 health and mental health professionals. Almost all health and mental health professionals condemn the practice of trying to counsel homosexuals for the purpose of changing their sexual orientation.

85. If sexual orientation cannot be changed by therapy, does this change your stance on gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage?

86. Are you aware that Jesus accepted differences in sexual orientation?

87. Jesus accepted eunuchs for the way they were, explaining to his disciples: “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:12, RSV.) Jesus understood the differences in sexual orientation and accepted these differences.

88. In Jesus’ time, eunuchs “were commonly known to engage in homosexual behavior” (See “Eunuch,” Wikipedia, at www.wikipedia. org, emphasis added.) Because Jesus knew that eunuchs were homosexuals, when he accepted them, he also accepted their gay orientation.

89. If Jesus accepted those with a different sexual orientation, should we withhold our acceptance?

90. If Jesus accepted those with different sexual orientation, might this make a difference in your view of same-sex marriage?

91. I understand your objection to same-sex marriage is based on various Bible passages that you interpret as prohibiting such marriage. Is this correct?

92. Are you aware that the Pharisees (the rigid moralists of Jesus’ day) constantly questioned why Jesus was breaking various long-held Sabbath moral laws: (1) Healing on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-14); (2) Jesus allowing his disciples to pluck grains [work] on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-7); and (3) Jesus allowing his disciples to eat with unclean hands (Mark 7:1-7.)

93. Also, the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by bringing to him an adulteress, and asked if him the woman should be stoned according to Moses’ law. Jesus said those without sin should cast the first stone, and all the woman’s accusers left. (John 8:4-11.)

94. Jesus sometimes ignored the moral laws of his time when they prevented him from being compassionate, merciful, and doing good.

95. Are you aware that because Jesus did not rigidly adhere to the moral laws of his time, the Pharisees began to plot is death? (Matthew 12: 14.)

96. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus would want us to accept gays and lesbians rather than abiding by a strict, literal interpretation of Bible passages condemning gays and lesbians. Would you agree?

97. Would you agree that the issue of same-sex marriage is very complex, with many competing moral values, facts, and consequences to be considered?

98. I believe the way to look at the question is to ask: What would Jesus do based on his teachings?

99. My stance on same-sex marriage is based on the following considerations: (a) based on the Golden Rule, I believe Jesus would ask us to treat gays and lesbians as we would want to be treated; (b) Jesus’ teachings on compassion, mercy, tolerance, and acceptance of the outsider compel us to not judge, but to grant same-sex relationships equal protection under the law; (c) Jesus was about doing good and being merciful, rather than being rigidly confined to the dictates of religious laws; and (d) I believe that Jesus accepted the eunuch’s difference in sexual orientation and loved the eunuch as he loved others.

100. I also believe that (a) the legal definition of marriage has never been static, but has evolved over time to allow interracial marriages and women’s property rights, and the time has come to expand the legal definition further to include same-sex marriage; (b) same-sex marriage will not accelerate any of the erosion of marriage that is now happening without same-sex marriage; and (c) because many gays and lesbians are born with their sexual orientation and can’t change, it would be unfair and unloving to punish them by not allowing them to obtain the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

Shift to Agreement on Sub Issues

101. Let’s change gears and talk about another aspect of same-sex marriage. Do you feel comfortable in continuing our conversation?

103. This confers the legal status of marriage with regard to state law, but there are 1,049 federal benefits and privileges not conferred by a state’s recognition of a civil union.

104. When a person gets married in the church, both a civil marriage and a religious marriage take place. The minister acts as the agent of the state to create a civil marriage and as an agent of the church to create a religious marriage. Those who do not want the religious marriage can simply go to City Hall and get a civil marriage license.

105. With regard to marriage are you more concerned with preserving the civil institution of marriage or preserving the religious institution of marriage?

106. Would you consider allowing a civil marriage, recognized both at the state and federal level as a legal civil marriage, but leaving the issue of a religious marriage to the individual denominations and/or churches to decide?

Copyright 2007 by Peter Wong. Permission is granted to MicahsCall™--www.micahscall.org-- permitting free downloads of this article. MicahsCall seeks to build a community of people—locally, nationally, and internationally—who believe in peace, social justice, caring for the environment, tolerance, and compassion, and inclusively welcomes all people of faith and goodwill. Peter Wong is a concerned Christian and an attorney who holds a Ph.D. in engineering. Appreciation is expressed to Carolyn Nicholson who made substantial contributions to its contents and thanks to Sarah Johnson for editorial assistance.

APPENDIX

LET’S DIALOGUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT

A syllabus of strategies, moral values, and Biblical citations.

By

Peter Wong

*************************

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Personal Story

3. The Christian Right Is Not Monolithic in Belief

4. Understanding the Conservative Mindset

5. Language of Moral Values

6. Rules for Nonconfrontational Dialogue

7. Supremacy of Jesus’ Teachings as Moral Values

A. Competing Moral Values

B. Jesus’ Teachings as Supreme Moral Values

C. Ethic of Reciprocity as Embodied in the Golden Rule and Second Great Commandment

D. Jesus’ Other Teachings

E. Jesus’ View of Rigidly Obeying Moral Codes

8. Other Generally Accepted Moral Values

9. Exposing Unconsidered Facts

10. Exploring Unappreciated Consequences

11. Probing Unrealized Inconsistencies

12. Dealing with Primal Concerns

13. Illuminating a Moral Dilemma: Weighing and Balancing

14. Shift to Agreement on Sub-Issue

15. Funneling the Dialogue

16. Abortion: A Complete Example Dialogue

17. Same-Sex Marriage: A Complete Example Dialogue

18. Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Complete Example Dialogue

19. Concluding Remarks