The Notion of Being Viewed Differently (January 17, 2005)
I was deeply moved by the remarks of Virginia Ramey Mollenkott on your program yesterday. As the mother of a gay son, it is refreshing and reassuring to hear someone like Mollenkott reaffirm the fact that gays and lesbians are human beings with the human need to love and be loved in all its capacities. Listening yesterday, I was reminded of the time when my son and his partner of three years broke up. When he did not want to attend a family party, I asked him if it was because he thought everyone would be asking about him and Dennis and the break-up. He said, no, it was because he knew that no one would ask him about it. He felt that any relationship he might have would never be viewed with the same importance as those of his sisters or his cousins. How wonderful to hear Mollenkott attest so beautifully to the spiritual essence of the sexual union and how that kind of loving relationship, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals, brings us closer to the Divine.

People often ask me how I reacted when my son told me he is gay. I always reply that it was like a light finally shining after so many years of darkness. In an instant, I understood that my son's bouts of depression and suicidal tendencies had been the result of trying to hide an important part of his identity. When he came out, I knew that he was on the road to healing, to becoming whole, and to being who he was meant to be.

Our sexual orientation is an important part of who we are as individuals. Heterosexuals, however, are never wholly defined by their sexual orientation as homosexuals are. When we know that someone is straight, we do not presume to know their lifestyle or their morals. Homosexuals, however, are narrowly defined by their sexual orientation. They are presumed to be all alike, adhering to some lifestyle as well as to some "agenda" that is somehow mysterious and decadent. The present [Bush] Administration has done little to dispel this notion and in many ways has fed into the homophobia that is still all too prevalent.

Thank you again for airing the views of people like Mollenkott. Thank you also for your excellent program. I listen quite often and always find the conversation intelligent and thought-provoking.

Margie Andre'
Wilmette, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)

A Chance for Parental Discussion (January 17, 2005)
Last week I happened to be taking my son to a lacrosse game at 7am so we caught the whole show on gay marriage. My son and I had been arguing about gay marriage for some time — he took the position of strict biblical literalism — 16-year-olds are not into nuance. It was such a gift to listen to the show together. The guests were genuine and compassionate and articulate and thorough. The questions were outstanding. My son has taken his side of the debate down a few decibels and actually considers what I say before responding. Thank you so much.

Sarah Boote
Bala Cynwyd, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Not Fit to Serve (January 16, 2005)
As a gay man and former Presbyterian minister, I appreciated your program on gay marriage. You and your guests are correct that we have not had a meaningful dialogue without fingerpointing and prejudice. I thank you for fostering that discussion on the air. I left my denomination years ago in frustration over the endless ambivalence I observed. On the one hand, I was assured that my gifts of ministry were valuable to the church. On the other, I was not fit to serve as a gay man, albeit a celibate one. Keep the interesting programs coming. I'm so thankful that my station carries SOF.

Chuck Collins
Bettendorf, IA (WVIK, 95.7 FM)

The Vitriol of Christians (January 16, 2005)
I have to thank you for the discussion, and the way both your interviewees spoke on such a topic without rancor and in such a beautifully Christian manner. I would be in the more liberal school, and am part of a preaching team, so have to deal with the topic quite regularly. I hate the vitriol that comes from the lips of professed Christians! I am a Catholic priest. I also love L'Arche and all it stands for, so a big thank you for your program.

Fr. Nick Punch
Webster, WI (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

A Catholic Understanding (January 16, 2005)
I am a practicing Catholic and I have struggled with my beliefs regarding homosexuality. I truly do not believe in gay marriage, but after listening to the program today I understand more about gay unions. I believe our God is the God of love, and I believe He loves each of us regardless of our sexual orientation.

Suzette Ross
Marcellus, MI (Listens via Web Audio)

A Forum of Mutual Respect (January 14, 2005)
I would like to thank you for your wonderfully produced show on the gay marriage debate. I was heartened to hear Richard Mouw's call for dialogue, and acknowledgements of the topic's complexity — and Krista's sensitive questioning kept the conversation fairly balanced.

As a gay man who lives in a major metropolitan area, I have too often characterized conservative Christians who oppose civil rights for gays as uninformed, and self righteous. After listening to your show, I believe that in a forum of mutual respect, and true listening, both sides can come closer to understanding and peaceful resolution.

Kent Martin
New York, NY (Listens via Web Audio)

Leaving Christianity (January 16, 2005)
The whole issue of gay marriage and, in particular, the politicizing of this issue by the Christian Church, has finally galvanized me to do something that I should have done a long time ago, leave Christianity entirely. Even though I am member of the ordained clergy, I can no longer give support to a religion — any religion — which is as dangerous and as disingenuous as Christianity has become.

As if the so-called Evangelicals are not bad enough in their use of political power to try and enthrone their fear and prejudice in the American Constitution and the constitutions of most states, the so-called "Liberal" churches are, in some ways, even worse. The attempt by these churches (in particular the Episcopal Church) to try and be "inclusive" of those who continue in their homophobia in spite of their own actions to affirm the right of GLBT persons to hold membership and positions of responsibility within their denomination reminds me of the same type of attempts to make "comfortable" those members who, prior to 1970, wanted to continue the "Jim Crow" laws and discrimination against African-Americans.

The history of Christianity, it's lies, it's wars, it's attempts to destroy or silence those who do not agree with the "dogma" of the hierarchy, to me far outshines any so-called 'good' that it has brought into the world. When I read the New Testament, I see no commonality between what Jesus taught and what the Christian Church teaches or does in this 21st Century.

Let others talk of the "terrorism" of the fundamentalist members of Islam. I, personally, more greatly fear the terrorism of the fundamentalist Christians in this country, including the one that sits currently in the White House. I can no longer belong or offer any kind of support to a religion which offers nothing but to me or to the people who I care about.

Robert Gray
Fort Lauderdale, FL (WLRN, 91.3 FM)

Depth and Sensitivity (January 16, 2005)
I am a seemingly hundredth generation Episcopalian, whose father, husband, all uncles and one cousin are priests. But when I first heard "trailers" for Speaking of Faith, I was concerned it was a public radio response to dumb down and get conservative and turn away from its elite image, and so opted not to tune it in. But I was intrigued by the program on depression and, tonight, the gay marriage interviews, and so listened to both. I can't say enough how impressed I am by Ms. Tippett's knowledge, interviewing skills, and willingness to disclose very personal and pertinent experience germane to her topics. These bring depth and sensitivity and intelligence to the myriad religious and moral debates in which we find ourselves embroiled. Thank you so much, and be assured I will recommend Speaking of Faith to others.

Laurel Radley
Washington, DC (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Varying Translations of the Bible (January 17, 2005)
I just heard your rebroadcast on the gay marriage issue, and was curious as to why no one brought up the innerancy (or not) of the Bible? If these two Biblical scholars are "reading" the interpretation of the Bible differently (considering it is a 1,700+ year old document that has been translated countless times), why was there was no discussion on different ways to read the Bible? Those passages might actually be translated differently by various Biblical scholars, especially now that we know more about how the translations took place, and other books that "didn't make the cut." Integrity, the gay Episcopalian group has many articles on this issue on their Web site.

Lenny Karle Zenith
Ann Arbor, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)

Marriage vs. Sexual Relationships (January 16, 2005)
Good, thought-provoking program. As my Quaker Meeting considered the question of whether we should recognize same-gender marriages a few years ago, I found myself pondering a point another made: "Why do we keep focusing only on the bedroom?" Reflecting on my own nearly 35 years in a heterosexual marriage, it is clear to me that sex is (unfortunately?) a very small part of my marriage, certainly far less than one percent of the time invested. It is very important, of course, but it's not the most important part. The most important part is the companionship and support my partner and I find in each other. I think this should be the central focus of our discussion of marriage.

Another thought: if we ignore the bedroom for the moment, it would seem that faith calls upon us to support couples in their relationships. If we ignore gender, per se, in the bedroom and focus instead on "sexual sin," (consider, for the moment, homosexual sex as such) why do we decide that the possibility of one form of sexual sin precludes marriage while others (adultery, abuse, etc.) do not? That is, it seems we're denying homosexuals the right to marriage because they might engage in acts we consider sinful, but we don't deny heterosexuals marriage even though they might also engage in acts we consider sinful.

Additionally, I tried, for myself, to define in gender-free language "marriage" in such a way that it allowed all forms we currently recognize as valid but disallows homosexual marriage. I was unable to do it. (We allow sterile couples to marry, for instance, so "procreation" is not the deciding point.) I'll skip further elaboration, except to say that I support the concept that we distinguish church-recognized "marriage" from the state recognized "civil union." We might legally require all marriages to be recognized as civil unions, enabling churches to act as they see appropriate. The state can then define civil union in a way that affords all citizens equal protections and rights, without intruding on the religious domain.

Joe Davison
Wheaton, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)

We're All Broken (January 17, 2005)
I prefer to consider the entire chapter of Romans 1 instead of just extracting a statement about homosexuality from it. There is great hope in the first chapter of Romans, and in the entire Bible for that matter. The hope being Jesus who offers salvation from our brokenness to all who accept it. Aren't we all broken and in need of help from God himself? I appreciate Speaking of Faith very much because I learn a lot through other people's views, opinions, and personal experiences in their spiritual journey.

Jerome Eichenberger
Los Angeles, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)

Evangelical Homosexuality (January 16, 2005)
One of the things that has bothered me, as I age, is the extent to which the public dialogue concerning marriage centers on sex. More than one comedian has gained a laugh pointing out how often good sex ends once couples find themselves married. As bad as those jokes are, I have to say that I can no longer base any intimate relationship upon sex. It is much more important to me to find somebody with whom I can sit quietly, walk with, and share learning.

It happens that I'm neither straight nor gay. It has never been hard for me to be celibate. I know people who are in polyamorous relationships. Others I know have intimate lives that revolve around disciplinary roles, such as those portrayed in The Secretary. What matters most to me, is that they care for each other and can talk about something other than themselves or their sexuality. I have a pleasant memory of being married once to a woman who put me to sleep with great back rubs when she did not wish to have sex. It is those back rubs I miss most when I remember her. It seems to me that we make a mistake thinking that marriage is so much about sex.

What if the notion that marriage is a God-ordained institution is only partially correct? Paul wrote that it was permissible only if necessary to avoid immorality. In this context it was merely a prescription—an accommodation—and if one believes homosexual conduct to be immoral (as Paul clearly felt some heterosexual conduct was) then one should also want the same prescription for homosexuals. It is entirely possible that for them as well interest in sex will dissipate after marriage.

Early Christians were called to a higher relationship: one of community. It is written in Acts that early Christians lived together having all things in common. So, I must suggest that the ideal Christian relationship is something closer to what we see in convents and monasteries. It is also interesting, to me, that if one were to add sex to this model it more closely resembles polyamorous relationships than traditional heterosexual ones.

Still, the Christian faith has never been about the business of condoning sexual relations. It is more noted for calling us to commit to the care of others: widows and orphans, for example. It escapes me how anyone can believe that who they sleep with adds a thing to their virtue, however much they may find God's blessings. The good fortune of being loved is not automatically ennobling.

Certainly, many who marry, in society, have no regard for the church or the sacrament of marriage. How the Christian faith can allow itself to be victimized as an arbiter of morality outside the sacrament escapes me. Whether two people take up the sacrament, the common ministry to one another, is a question separate from civil marriage. For those who think this prescription of the sacrament should be theirs exclusively, I point out the parable of the debtor who after being forgiven his own debts failed to forgive the debts of one indebted to him. Christians worship a God who, when present, tends to set captives free and humble the proud.

It is worth remembering, also, that strife does not originate from a common spiritual source. The Holy Spirit is not known for being a font of anger. Anger and accusation are tools of an enemy who "stands before the throne of God accusing us, night and day." When we feel anger, almost always it is because of politics—decisions regarding divisions of resources and power—not spirituality. Best regards and thank you for a thought-provoking show this evening.

J Fields
Takoma Park, MD (WETA, 90.0 FM)

Gay Marriage and Beyond (January 16, 2005)
Your program on attitudes regarding same sex unions was quite interesting. I have spent years of personal and formal study of sacred texts and scriptures. I am always amazed that those speaking of the authority of sacred text (and in this case, the Bible) make no accommodation for the translations down through the ages of this material. First writing of this oral tradition that is an Eastern communication was in Aramaic. Hebrew is a sister tongue and not the original nor was Greek. It too was a translation by a translator trying to make sense of something based on his understanding of his world in comparison with a language other than his own. Idiomatic phrases and the subtle meanings of names, numbers, locations, etc. do not make it through the translation as they hold no meaning for the audience trying to understand. Each of the original teachings were for specific audiences with specific experiences, histories, understandings, and often carried cultural meanings beyond the key teaching for the protection or politicization of the matters attached.

One can find support and/or condemnation of almost anything if comments are taken out of context. All opinions are those based on our understanding of the world we are in and the path we are on at this time. Add to this the confusion of politics, religion as a business, true spiritual teaching (truth and the self-enlightened interest of those making the historical translations), and we see a need for care in interpreting let alone enforcing scriptural teaching. Our inner connection with God/Truth/Universe often is a more reliable guide. I cannot say with conviction what is meant by any one thing as I was not there when it was said, nor was it said to me directly, nor in my language, nor in my world of expression, nor by someone that has experienced the world as we now know it.

I commend your efforts in facilitation of conversation but do think we need to exchange dictionaries. Are all of our blues talking about the same shade and etc. I also think we need to acknowledge the references we are using are flawed by the same human nature that we recognize as our unique birthright. The meaning I understand is valid for my life; the meaning you understand is valid for yours. Are we both right? Yes. Are we both wrong? Possibly. However, a loving compassionate soul may find a place for both and seek his own truth.

Curtis Beyer
Glendale, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)

Apply for Civil Union Certificates for All (January 16, 2005)
I am a heterosexual advocate for civil humanity. I feel marriage should not be regulated on any level by the government. Marriage is a private religious matter between two people, their families, and their faith. Instead of applying for marriage licenses, a couple, gay or straight, should apply for a Civil Union Certificate. Leave it to the churches to decide who gets discriminated from the religious ritual called marriage. Gay and lesbian couples want the same rights and freedoms as straight couples. We are all Americans and should be protected from discrimination.

Jim Benedict
Cedar Falls, IA (KNSW, 91.7 FM)

Empathy and Testimony (January 17, 2005)
I am a 58-year-old professor of religion at a small liberal arts Baptist college. I commend you on the truly splendid job on the gay marriage issue. The interviews with Mouw and Mollenkott were very well done and Krista focused well on areas of agreement and disagreement. Mouw came off as a much more sympathetic person than I anticipated, while Ms. Mollenkott's dealing with the Scripture issue was pretty lame. Her personal testimony, however, was powerful. I plan to have my students in "Christianity in the Modern World" listen to this (and other programs) and respond. Keep up the good work!

Jack Birdwhistell
Georgetown, KY (WEKU, 88.9 FM)

Overpopulation and the Status of Marriage (January 16, 2005)
Traditional marriage serves to produce, protect, and raise offspring. The tradition deserves social protection and nurturing. However, in our times the greatest threat to humans is human overpopulation. We must have fewer, if any, children. Gay and heterosexual couples who have children should be granted the privilege of marriage. Those who are simply "married" without children should be accorded the status of civil or sacred union. This by no means diminishes the importance of couples committed to one another though they have no offspring. This especially should be encouraged. Yet those who have children deserve the special status of marriage. What the "married" must give up for this status is that their children are not just their own. These children belong to all of us. We all must act accordingly.

Bruce Ackerson
Stillwater, OK (Listens via Web Audio)

Marriage and Religion (January 16, 2005)
I don't believe this whole controversy has anything to do with who or what is right or wrong or what the majority thinks they alone should dictate. It's much more about what makes us unique as human beings which I have always believed to be first and foremost as "compassion" and "forgiveness."

If in fact this is still the land of religious freedom where we are pursuing liberty, then we should continue to uphold what distinguishes us from other forms of government. And that is the right and ability to make our own choices as long as these choices don't hurt anyone else. It's unfortunate, but in our comparatively young form of government the majority is usually wrong mainly because many uninformed people make their decisions upon who or what is the most popular, possibly so they can be on the winning side, rather than coming to an intelligent decision on their own such as which side is the most qualified.

I also don't believe we can hope to retain this culture of freedom for all if we lack tolerance, or if we take it upon ourselves to judge others as if we are the only ones who have a corner on truth. It's impossible to reach a fair and moral judgement on any subject where all the information will never be available. Just because it is written doesn't mean beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's God's truth at all. That's one of the main reasons why we have so many denominations, isn't it? Dogma was written by flawed, sinful, and prejudiced human beings. Even the saints were still just human beings like you and me. Hopefully everyone regardless of their faith, or lack of it, will admit that no one who has ever lived, is living, or will live will ever have all the answers. There is absolutely no perfection in this existence. We can always become better tomorrow than we were today, but perfection is out of the question.

The state of mind we find ourselves in the most has been proven time and time again to shade the meaning of everything we hear and say. Isn't it fair to say that if we're constantly in an adversarial state of mind then we're not thinking with an open mind, especially when it comes to affairs of which there can never be a definitive answer? To make decisions by opinion and not logic is dangerous. We tend to only look for ways to defend our side and convince the other side they're wrong. I prefer to call it having a "sports mentality" where it's common practice to call your opponent any name you please right or wrong. Thanks for the opportunity to speak my mind. Your programs are good food for thought and reflection.

Leland Wagness
Superior, WI (WSCN, 100.5 FM)

An Observation and a Wondering (January 16, 2005)
I was interested in what each speaker had to contribute to this conversation, and each came across as a person with a great deal of integrity. I just wondered if the conversation would have had a more powerful dynamic if the Evangelical speaker in favor of gay marriage had also been a heterosexual.

Janet Cooke
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

A Real Conversation about Gay-Lesbian Marriage (January 16, 2005)
Thank you so much for today's program on gay and lesbian marriage. Both guests were excellent. I am so sorry that people cannot discuss this subject without blame and degradation towards each other, no matter what you believe. As one of your guests said, if you can speak and listen without accusations, it can be a conversation.

Daniel McRoberts
Caledonia, MI (WVGR, 104.1 FM)

Celibacy Is the Answer (January 16, 2005)
To serve God with our entire being means that He is everything and we are nothing. Knowing that God says homosexuality is sin, the response of the truly sincere worshiper is to not engage in that sin. Our feelings and sexual urges are not the issue, doing the Lord's will is the only issue. Celibacy is not impossible, and when the motivator is to please Him, neither is it difficult.

Martin Smith
West Chester, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

A Unitarian Universalist Approach (January 15, 2005)
I believe that "marriage" belongs to the church while civil unions belong to the government. My church, the Unitarian Universalist Association, gladly and happily performs services of union for gay and lesbian couples. I number several of these "married" couples who have celebrated more than 25 years of monogamy among my close friends.

Most importantly gay couples should be afforded all the legal benefits that married heterosexual couples take for granted. In Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Shakespeare writes, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I might be satisfied for the present if those churches that insist that marriage is between one man and one woman who might be politicizing as strongly for the rights of people to civil unions with all the benefits of a church marriage. If you are gay, lesbian, bi- or trans-sexual and want to get married, find the closest Unitarian Universalist church.

Howard Bennett
Warminster, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Not Loving to Me (January 16, 2005)
I don't think that Richard Mouw ever answered Krista Tippet's first question. Richard Mouw seems to be offering homosexuals the same sort of paternalistic condescending "love" and empathy that they offer to "unsaved" non-Christians. I don't buy it. It does not seem loving to me.

Susan Stein
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Repentance (January 16, 2005)
The Lord started his ministry by saying, "I did not come to condemn but to call all to repent." The sexually immoral must come to grips with the idea that we must all repent if we expect to enter the eternal kingdom. Sexual immorality includes all the aspects of worldly behaviors. These behaviors are all pleasures of humanity and have become acceptably practices that are not the calling of those who will be godly. We do not judge ourselves or anyone but the Word of God does judge our lifestyles. I believe that he has the authority to make such judgments, don't you? From his word it is revealed that He has made a way to overcome.

I heard the ending of this program but enough for me to share my thoughts on this issue. I do disagree with your guest that stated that a holy people are not accepting homosexuals as holy. This is not a quote but my understanding of the view of your guest. How could the behavior which is immoral be associated with what is holy? Holy has to do with being set apart.

John Normil
Miami, FL (WLRN, 91.3 FM)

Dealing with Other's Personal Convictions (January 14, 2005)
Your most recent episode aired on January 13th was entitled "Gay Marriage: Broken or Blessed? Two Evangelical Views." I think this title misses the point. We aren't talking about gay marriage. We are talking about what marriage means. In the defense of marriage act, the main emphasis seems to be on defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. I think this definition should become the center of the debate. What is it that people want this definition to imply? Are we to take the Roman Catholic view that marriage, and by implication sex, is only for procreation? What about the many couples that are infertile? Does that make their marriages mean less? Are we trying to say that a relationship between a man and a woman is going to be more successful? Then we must consider the 50 percent divorce rate. Are we saying that the relationship between a man and a woman is more "natural?" Then I would suggest that asexual reproduction is the most successful form of reproduction on the planet.

I believe that the discussion needs to be about relationships between people. I have had a relationship with my partner for 11 years. We share our lives. Yet, when my partner was involved in a terrible crash and was rushed to the ER of a world famous institution, I had to confront the emergency room staff to be allowed to find out about his condition and to be able to help in his care. I had to face the prospect of coming out with every interaction between myself and his caregivers. I had to defend him from poor care because of his caregivers reactions to our relationship.

Legal recognition of our relationship will not end bad care related to a caregiver's personal convictions. It will make it easier for me to help in his care and to make the decisions that people in more traditional relationships seem to take for granted. It is these kind of situations that cry for a remedy in our society.

Dan Low
Highlandville, IA (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Signs of Love (January 14, 2005)
It seems we are chasing another group of people to judge them and say how wrong they are in the name of the scriptures and yet that's what the scriptures tell us not to do, judge others. Anyone of us could have been born into another body: another color, shape, religion, or gender. It's not the shells that we are in but the soul that resides in them that needs love and the housing doesn't or shouldn't make a difference. If two souls find each other and share real love then gender, color, ethic background, or religion shouldn't play a part. We as a community should nurture the love not judge the outer shells.

Teresa Gerber
St. Louis, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

Jesus on Homosexuality (January 13, 2005)
Please ask Prof. Richard Mouw about the consistency of his evangelical biblical interpretation approach. Jesus is not recorded to have said anything about homosexuality, whereas he does speak strongly, even unequivocally, against divorce. Yet I suspect that Mouw would equivocate on this, but not on whether homosexuality is a sin or gay marriage is against God's will.

Jerry Moyar
Naperville, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)

Painful Words to Hear (January 13, 2005)
I just listened to your SOF program on "Gay Marriage." How painful, how very painful to listen to it. As a lesbian and a "practicing Christian," I found it so difficult to hear Mouw's arguments about me. Yes, I personalize it, because it is personal. He seems to attempt to be empathetic, but his willingness to judge others is antithetical to empathy. His empathy sounded hollow to me. He may believe that he is appropriately or accurately interpreting Biblical text, but what he doesn't get is that we can't. How completely arrogant for Mouw to think he actually KNOWS what God believes, what God intended. The Bible may be "God's Word," but it is a Word that people like Mouw interpret prejudicially for their own gain.

While I appreciated your inclusion of Virginia Ramey Mollenkott on the show, you gave Mouw much more air time, and didn't continually ask him to defend his arguments against accepting viewpoints. However, you did consistently ask Mollenkott to defend her viewpoints against the hatefulness of conservatism, despite her explanation of how tiring it is to be subject to that. I would have appreciated equal time and respect for Mollenkott.

Melanie Peele
Hartford, CT (WNPR, 89.1 FM and Listens via Web Audio)

Left from Right (January 15, 2004)
The second subject of today's show is described as an "evangelical lesbian." I have long become accustomed to public radio?s style of presentation, similar to that of the general media's "evangelical right" (What is "evangelical left?"), although this doesn?t make it any easier to leave the radio turned on.

To the point, an evangelical is theologically considered a distinct subset of Christianity which takes the Bible as spiritually inspired, rigorous, but not fundamentalist, in interpretation. To better define this, please do a story on Park Street Church in Boston. This is a church derivative of both the founding of the country and of Protestant congregational evangelicalism. Indeed, it is notable for Harriet Beecher Stowe speaking, a century before black was "acceptable," for secreting weapons for the revolution (perhaps not so Biblical with the present use of mosques), and the starting point of Billy Graham. And interview, or define Graham, too, precisely for his belief and his theology. This will be your "Religion 1A" course, ineffable as it may be, which seems so sorely missing in your program, indeed, from all of public radio when it touches on Christianity.

The "lesbian evangelical?s" dialogue was indeed "simplistic" to borrow the interviewer?s phrase, simply on intellectual theological terms. Every other sentence was contradictory to Biblically based morality and teaching. Without a transcript it is difficult to decry. To one with the background, at least four generations in my family, it is as listening to a sixth grader recite. This pseudo theology is so deeply tragic, and probably stems from the Bob Jones background, considered by evangelicals — and please, do your own research on this — to be a hoax, on the same level as any other TV-based, slick-suited, microphone pacing, "Christian" fund raiser. These are the money changers cast out of the temple.

My alert went up in your first interview, even before he, too, responded to the interviewer?s use of the word "revelation." Such a gracious and articulate man! I did not have the impression the interviewer had a clue as to why this word changed his answer 180 degrees, as he noted. Ask him. Combined with the slant of her questioning to his astute, loving answers, and contrasting so strongly with her giddy flow in the second, it is once again I am so let down by the liberal, almost illiterate-to-the-subject, journalism standards of public radio. What does it take to bring awareness of the spectrum and where you sit? Adding "Faith" to your radio show repertoire because Bush won (so laughably executed by The New York Times on the same timing) and perhaps hearing it in the weekly portion of BBC you don't broadcast, is not rigorous by any standard.

While by no means am I educated or able to write, I hope at least give you a source, a direction of what I speak, with Park Street as a subject. Thank you.

Douglas Hopkins
New York, NY (WNYC, 820 AM)

Homosexual Marriage (January 15, 2004)
I'd like to comment that your argument is not balanced. Why don't you ask real and obvious questions? Why don't you ask your guest about open homosexuals who have changed their lifestyles — married opposite sex and produced children. Doesn't this defeat your point of "born this way" or "what I cannot change?" If all you and your lesbian guest believed in is evolution and natural selection, don't you realize nature would not have chosen homosexuality to perpetuate itself. If you want to use the Bible as the basis of your argument be comprehensive and objective. The Bible nowhere in its pages ever encourages homosexuality.

Finally, marriage is not an American idea, it transcends race and culture. There may have been social injustice in the past in America just as in every part of the world; this is not an argument in favor of homosexuality. Marriage in every known race has always been between a man and a woman, and we would do ourselves a lot of good to keep it that way.

Sanmi Ageloye
New York, NY (WNYC, 820 AM)

Inconsistencies (May 23, 2004)
I am struck by the inconsistencies in the conduct and belief in my own faith (Church of Christ). It is a very conservative religious community historically, and a very conservative congregation that I attend, in particular. I still see people argue over the role of women in the worship service. When I was young, the argument was whether it was right for a woman to cut her hair. (Now there is not a single woman over 70 in our worship who has long hair.)

So the argument in our religious community is not whether there should be gay marriages. Homosexuality is cast as patently sinful and not to be tolerated as a behavior. We have been told by our church leaders that anyone who is homosexual must remain celibate in order to remain faithful to the scriptures. I have a problem with this because they also say that women should remain silent in the worship and that women should not teach men (at least in a public setting). Does this sound Puritanical? This is how it seems to me.

I will likely remain in this congregation as long as my father is living, out of respect for him. There is much good that is done in this church community, but I also see a great deal of intolerance. I think that if Christians are not holding themselves to the teaching that women should not cut their hair, but keep it as a covering, or that women should remain silent in the worship service, then why have we chosen Romans 1 as a text that we are going to beat into Christian followers? Just as no modern American Jew will stone to death a child who curses his father, I think we need to adjust our own personal beliefs and search our beloved scriptures for what is really true, not just what supports our previously held beliefs. When I hear a news story about another legal victory for gays in Hawaii, in Vermont, in Canada, in Massachusetts, I quietly celebrate for these oppressed people.

B. Castleberry
Abilene, TX (KACU, 89.7 FM)

The civil institution of marriage vs the religious institution of marriage (May 17, 2004)
I thought that the program on Sunday was thorough and thought-provoking. However, I think that we have yet to acknowledge one very important thing: marriage is not just one type of institution, and that is why there is such debate about it.

On one hand, you have marriage as a religious institution. I believe individual churches have every right to decide whom they will bless with marriage. I know of churches who not only will refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples but also refuse to marry interfaith couples or couples that are living together. BUT one does not have to marry in a church, because in our country marriage is also a legal institution. One which conveys a great deal of rights and privileges on those that decide to enter it. Tax breaks, parental rights, death benefits, health benefits, making health decisions for loved ones — all of these are benefits that married couples have. Is it right to deny all of these benefits to the gay/lesbian population in our multicultural, pluralistic society? Of course it is!

We as a nation need to realize that freedom of religion means that one religious idea, in this case the idea the homosexuality is ungodly, cannot dictate the laws of a country with many different religious views. In closing I would like to say that I understand certain people's opposition to gay marriage, and I think that churches should be able to decide themselves whom they marry in their own church, but they should not dictate who can marry outside of their church. I also think that religious conservatives have a LONG way to go in loving their neighbors — especially their neighbors that thoughtfully and respectfully disagree with them.

Amy Kelley
Iowa City, IA (WSUI 910 AM)

Disingenuous Statements by Richard Mouw (May 16, 2004)
As an American citizen whom Mr. Mouw earns his prominence by seeking to oppress, I would like to take the opportunity to respond to his completely disingenuous soft logic statements. First, I am happy to say that within five hours of the writing of this email, Mr. Mouw's work to legally solidify second class citizenship for GLBT people will fail and his relevance will be greatly lessened. Tonight at twelve a.m. Eastern Standard Time in Cambridge, Massachusetts one of the very last bastions of legalized bigotry will gratefully end with the nation's first state-sanctioned marriages between same-gendered couples. Despite Mr. Mouw's preferred image as being above the political fray, the failure of his political agenda will bring great joy to the millions of Christian GLBT people who will no longer need to be treated as inferior by their own government.

Second, and the reason for this angry response to Speaking of Faith's program on the gay marriage subject, is that Richard Mouw falsely contended that he is working in the interests of GLBT people by challenging right wing ideologues to have compassion for us while, in fact, he is merely attempting to make the anti-constitutional actions of the far right palatable to moderate Christians.

Let's clarify: Richard Mouw would like us to believe that he can be a voice of reason in this debate by making statements that imply that he cares about GLBT people. I don't believe him. Furthermore, rightfully speaking on behalf of gay people, we don't need his help or patronizing pity. We are taking our rights as Americans against the will of him and his friends. Our hatred for his kind is fully justified in their ceaseless opposition to our fundamental human rights. They are in fact opposed to our very lives and none of his 'bible on his side' rhetoric can mask his intentions.

When GLBT people have TOTAL EQUAL RIGHTS in this county, which we will despite Mr. Mouw's efforts, then he can keep working to demoralize young gay people and we will respect his right to express himself and earn his living doing it because his opinion won't matter.

The most infuriating thing about the interview was how he kept purporting to sympathize with our plight. What makes me feel so strongly that he is the worst kind of hypocritical liar is that he posed the essential question of how it can be fair that a young gay man who has never felt attraction for women to be expected to be celibate for his whole life while Mr. Mouw can go home and get what he needs and then in the patented conservative style be too cowardly to answer it. It does not lend ANY credibility to his position that he asks the question. Without answering it, he makes no honest case that being gay is innately immoral. And despite all of his "we're all broken" seemingly self-abasing statements designed to gain the trust of compassionate moderates, it is absolutely his intention to assign innate immoral social and legal status to us.

As a life-long human rights advocate I look forward to the day that I can turn my full attention to working with Amnesty International to help curb abuses in less fortunate countries, so many of which by the way have been caused by the heartless greed of American conservative interests. Meanwhile my calling is to work for equal rights in this country in order to strengthen the legitimacy of our government and thereby elevate us all. Any Christian with integrity would not allude to work for these goals while being unwilling to answer how their own actions may be working against them.

Andrew Nelson
Minneapolis, MN (KNOW 91.1 FM)

A Right and a Privilege (May 17, 2004)
This whole issue seems to be completley outdated. Everything changes including the way people express their faith; with that in mind, "gay people" should not only have the right but also the privilege of being recognized as "married." If they are in a loving relationship and are life companions, who are we, for that matter, who is anyone to say that they cannot enjoy the privileges of "true" couples? As for the legal aspect, I do not understand where religion should play a part in the civil rights of two committed people!

Kaley Nahgahnub
Superior, WI (WSCN 100.5 FM)

A Blessing… (May 16, 2004)
For a perspective on the issues that is decidedly Jewish, I offer this: Let us first start with a definition. Arrogance: A disease of the soul in which the afflicted says to himself, "I judge us both and I am more important than you." From this point the afflicted can rationalize absolutely any inhumanity, from something as small as not sharing one's candy to genocide.

The First Commandment says, "I, Lord G-d, yours." (Literal Hebrew translation.) G-d is telling us quite simply: "I am G-d, and you are not." So, when we put these two thoughts together in considering the issue of gay marriage, the answer is quite clear: It is not for us to say "no" because to say "no" is to place ourselves in G-d's place and say, "I judge us both and I, the heterosexual, am more important than you, the homosexual. Therefore I reserve for myself and my own a privilege that I deny to you." It is nothing more than arrogance cross-dressing as piety.

Christians say, "Do unto others as you would have done to you" and "love your neighbor as yourself." Jews say it the other way around: "As you would have for yourself, you give to your neighbor." If you would have marriage for yourself, then you must allow others to marry.

The three most important words in Judaism are Tefillah (prayer), Teshuvah (repentance), and Tzedahkah (acts of loving kindness). We pray for understanding of our place in G-d's universe. We put right the wrongs that we commit and that others committed before us, and we love each other as ourselves. With these ideas we come to one inescapable conclusion: Gay marriage is not only blessed, it is a blessing.

Sarah Rosen
Aliso Viejo, CA (KPCC 89.3 FM)

Safe Places for Dialogue (May 14, 2004)
Thank you so much for your program. I was recently at a Community Forum in which we were reminded that "if there is no dialogue, there is no democracy." Our courts, government buildings, schools, and churches are not, in my opinion, safe places for dialogue anymore. Your show is one of the few. I am desperate for dialogue, and I try to never miss it.

Katya Gordon
Chisholm, MN (WIRN 92.5 FM)

Stuck (May 14, 2004)
I am writing to respond to Richard Mouw's comments regarding gay marriage on your program. I am continually frustrated at the context in which arguments for and against gay marriage seem to always take place, that is, from a religious point of view. Richard Mouw expressed on your program that he needed a better argument for gay marriage in order that he be able reconcile it with what he reads in the Bible. The answer, Mr. Mouw, is this: throw away your Bible.

As Americans, we are subject to a constitution which thankfully separates church and state. We cannot continue to argue whether or not gay marriage was sanctioned by God. Why? Because some Americans DO NOT BELIEVE in God, and they are protected by the Constitution of the United Sates of America. Religious arguments simply don't apply in any way to the gay marriage issue, period. I don't care if the majority of people in this country are Christians, Jewish or Muslim. The fact remains that all religious beliefs are irrelevant to the law-making process, and I remind Mr. Mouw that marriage exists as a purely legal institution, even for heterosexuals.

I am sorry if Mr. Mouw is torn up over the issue; I am not. I know in my heart that he is wrong. Wrong for using his biblical arguments against gay marriage, wrong for assuming that gay people don't love as deeply as he does, and that we are not honorable in the way that he seems to think he is. Moreover, I find him reprehensible for continuing to perpetuate homophobia and intolerance, then acting as if he is deeply torn up over the issue as if it were something he had no choice but to do. I wish that your program had countered Mr. Mouw's arguments with better arguments.

Dr. Paul Wyse
Potsdam, NY (WSLL 90.5 FM)

A Loving Relationship for Each Person (May 16, 2004)
I would like to most sincerely thank Ms. Tippett for choosing Mr. Richard Mouw to represent the perspective on the right in this most provocative discussion. It was my first time to hear him, and I felt he did a beautiful job of calling anyone who sees themselves in a position to make a judgement call "to the mat" so to speak on their own humility in the complex arena of human sexuality.

My own struggles with celibacy and loneliness as single heterosexual Christian woman of 35 years cause me to relate to the homosexual who loves God and longs to serve Him through obedience, and in sharing His love with others, while not having been granted the "white picket fence, deluxe happy traditional family" package. We are both conflicted between the design that this very Creator has engineered within the context of this "fallen," imperfect world, and yet His inclusion of absolutes for following specific rules which are in conflict with the situation in which we find ourselves.

It is struggle enough for me to find acceptance and happiness in my current state of never-been-marriedness. At least I can hold onto the hope that Mr. Wonderful will someday come. As one who is highly relational by nature, I cannot bear the thought of a life-long mandatory sentence with no parole of singlehood and celibacy. I do not understand how a loving God could demand this of one He designed as homosexual. Yet I believe that while He is a God of love, He also has not designed the institution of marriage and ordained it for those of homosexual orientation.

In prior years while in a sexual relationship with a significant boyfriend who I hoped may become my husband, I was confronted by married women, including my younger sister by nearly five years who was married at age 20 and had four children at the time, on my lifestyle of sin. Though they may have held the accurate position from scriptures on sexual purity, it was painful to me for them to even attempt to evaluate my situation and offer direction, knowing they would go home and sleep next to their husbands. What loneliness I feel daily in this conflict. How distressing it would be to be told that I must live an entire life of celibacy, or ask God to change my biology.

As one who has struggled for 20 years with depression, I know the frustration of prayer requests for an alteration in my organic brain chemistry, with silence from the Maker as my reply. It must be one of the great mysteries of the faith that this perfect and Holy God requires obedience to seemingly impossible standards in the midst of these situations so incongruent with the original perfect plan He had. For every man and woman He intended a perfect mate for the duration of their fertile mating years, and to live long, healthy, happy lives together, with children as the outcome of this ideal picture of love found in the God-ordained institution of marriage, all before man chose rebellion in the garden.

The mystery continues in that despite His requirement for obedience, He is merciful and compassionate in our frailty and shortcomings, and offers grace and forgiveness instead of punishment and death. Could it be that the reason for the disparity between Christ's actions of compassion toward the harlot and Paul's harsh and direct teachings in Romans are present so that we may have the opportunity to embrace the First and Greatest Commandment, to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, and soul, and the Second, which is like unto it, to love our neighbors as ourselves? That God would expect obedience under such circumstances to me is a great mystery, yet a truth I embrace. That this God, who is the author of love, would give each of us this opportunity to choose love within a context of His absolutes is to me a reflection His nature and His desire for us to learn to love Him, others, and ourselves in practice, rather than words, particularly when it is difficult and we do not understand the entire picture.

It is a mystery to me that God has a measure of intolerance within His boundless grace, mercy, and love. I pray that within the context of this most complex discussion, and the many others that are presented us, we never forget the entire message of the Christian faith, that the purpose of Christ coming to this earth was to demonstrate God's love. Thank you again for the wonderfully enlightening program, and for the fair and balanced representation of the fundamentalist perspective.

Edie Tipton
St. Louis, MN (KWMU 90.1 FM)

Terminology Inadequate (May 16, 2004)
In the discussion of gay "marriage" I find myself uncomfortable with the term "gay sex marriage." In my view it is really a gay gender marriage: sex is not a be-all reason for marriage. Gender just denotes biological orientation and does not carry the baggage of "sex" each time the term is used. Thank you.

Ronald Mattson
St. Cloud, MN (KNSR 88.9 FM)

It's a simpler matter of purpose! (May 16, 2004)
People are born with differences: in appearance, in color, in ability, and even in tendencies. Though your God or mine may have made us or caused us to come to a physical existence with our differences, it must be decided how we will fit into the order of expanding his pattern of creation, or evolution of the universe. That evolving expansion has an order that reproduces everything, and anything that will give more to it's borne environment.

Soil, water, fire, plants, animals, people; all give to and multiply so that it can expand and increase life's force, or the universal spirit. Gays have this expansive spirit's drive that all life has been endowed with however, they lack the functional mechanics of natural reproduction that, until the enablings of technology, could not be indulged. Like so many other disabling discoveries by mankind, so-called "alternatives" to real-life differences, that could be afflictions from trauma in the womb or in life, allow us to run, but will not heal the dark and nagging void that set us apart when we look inside. Whether we use drugs, alcohol, violence, or alternative lifestyles we are aware of our distinction of disordered nature. Though it saddens me that there's less intervention for these "term-intellectuals and technology" junkies, it would be advisable to help them recognize they are not to blame for the delusion they've been allowed to believe.

There's been more thought of money than love towards the terrified mental distortions of the gay community and now that they've gotten their cookie, they're thirsty for some milk. This negligence will cause many tears and will leave many people empty and desolate. How many? Too many! Is that our purpose?

Charles Lee
St. Louis, MO (KWMU 90.7 FM)

Great Discussion… Need More of This (May 16, 2004)
I was listening to the program this morning (Sunday 5/16) on the way to work and really found the interviews with each of the speakers to be the most intelligent and thoughtful public discussion on gay marriage from a 'conservative, Evangelical' perspective that I've heard to date. You should really bring these speakers back together and allow them to have a guided discussion with one another to flesh out the agreements and disagreements on the issue.

I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home and Church (although I do not follow that religious persuasion any longer) and knew gay Christians who were struggling with the facts of their sexuality in the context of the teachings on homosexuality that were commonly taught. I hope that they have a chance to hear more discussions like yours on this topic.

Michael Finley
Doylestown, PA (WHYY 91.0 FM)

The Slippery Slope (May 16, 2004)
Why homosexual marriage will not lead down a slippery slope: Jewish law eventually forbade polygamy because it was considered impossible for a man to treat more than one wife equally. There is no reason to believe that this standard would be affected one way or the other by allowing homosexual marriage.

It's hard to believe that everything Paul said and wrote was divinely inspired. He appears to have suffered much mental anguish in his life. I realize that I'm not Christian, but that is how I see it. The world is now overpopulated. This is a problem that is entirely new and we have never seen before. Maybe homosexuality is nature of G-d's way of adapting to this new situation. Maybe homosexuality isn't so unnatural after all.

Susan Stein
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY 91.0 FM)

We All Have Love to Give (May 16, 2004)
All religions value love and those seeking gay marriage do so out of love, out of the deep human longing to pledge one's love to another, to be with one's community in publicly demonstrating that love and the intention of long-term committment. At a time when the world could use more love and recognition of it, and at a time when heterosexual marriage's failures show up daily in the newspaper, I think it's time we talk and act maturely about marriage between same sex people who love each other.  We are all human, we all have hearts, longings and love to give.

N.L. Ashton
Haddonfield, NJ (WHYY 91.0 FM)

Broken or Blessed (May 16, 2004)
The first speaker had a well-reasoned argument (That is sarcasm, but he deserves it.) We'll ignore the implied insult that I'm not smart enough to say things like three women is a different issue than two women. Let's assume he's right, and I am a moron. That justifies the hospital staff not letting a dying man's committed partner to visit him because the visitor is not married to him? That justifies the female dishwasher's lesbian partner dying of cancer because the medical insurance would only go to a husband. I'm heterosexual, and do not care. However I have yet to hear a good reason why Episcopalians should make the rules for Lutherans. (Think that is irrelevant? Tell me what religion a justice of the peace is.)

William Berry
New Bedford, MA (WCAI 90.1 FM)

Moral Law and Zeitgeist and Gay Marriage (May 15, 2004)
Your show is great! Your guest Richard J. Mouw was well spoken. I have a few thoughts, since your asking us to share…

1. Two thousand to 100, even 20 years ago, this "gay marriage" would never have entered the public debate. The Zeitgeist of the times has blinded our eyes and taken us as a culture to places we by nature would never be. It has sadly changed (slowly through media and many other factors) our very tendencies and predispositions towards sex! Some of us feel so many attractions that are unnatural, and we are, as Dr. Mouw said, a broken people who need help. But we cannot be helped if we refuse it. As many in certain communities have. But thank God there are those who are reaching out for help and thank God for people who are reaching back.
2. Is it a slippery slope for people to claim that gay marriage will lead to polygamy and other sexual practices that are legalized? No. In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. [Pamela Manson, "Appeals Seek Polygamy Right; Green, Holm Challenge Convictions Based on Sodomy Ruling; Polygamists Challenge Convictions," Salt Lake City Tribune, 15 December 2003, p. C1.] That is just the beginning.
3. Why is gay marriage wrong? Apart from the revelations of the Bible (Not to mention the Quran too), I would recommend we take a look at J. Budziszewski's book What We Can't Not Know. In it he argues that natural law or the moral law is something you ?can?t not know.? It is written on the heart of each and every person. According to natural or moral law, morality is comprised of "foundational moral principles" (i.e., the "oughts" and ?shoulds?). Although not comprehensive in scope most people hold to them with very small exceptions. How do you know if something is wrong? You look at three things, 1) is it attested to by the witnesses of conscience? (That would be worldwide in general conscious, not just one fringe of society); 2) is it going with the way things are designed to be?; and 3) does it have natural consequences? You can use all three to build your case as to why homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular is wrong.
4. We as Christians need to be broken before God for our adulteries and sins, and repent before we can condemn others of their sins.
5. A good book on this topic is The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage, by E. Lutzer. (Moody 2004)

Khaldoun Sweis
Chicago, IL (Listens via Web Audio)

What happened to the constitution? (May 12, 2004)
I am grossly disappointed in the American culture. This debate about gay marriage is nothing but a harsh reminder that America is not the land of the free nor a land that truly believes in its people's rights, but rather a land in which it is wrong to be different, and that the First Amendment is not really valued. This is truly a sad period in American history. With that said I would like to elaborate…

In the First Amendment the people are guaranteed an unalienable right that gives them a freedom of religion/beliefs. Under this amendment we are unable to allow one person's beliefs to dictate another person's. With this in mind it must be realized that gay people most likely do not believe that they are destined to go to hell just because they are gay, and since they are guaranteed their own beliefs they cannot be denied their rights. In other words, if the Bible does say that homosexuality is wrong that's great, but thanks to the First Amendment the Bible cannot legally deny people's rights.

To put it into perspective, imagine that instead of Christians protesting gay rights it is a group of Islamic people stating that the Koran says that homosexuality is immoral. If this was the case everyone would have ignored them. In other words we have to keep certain religious sects from trying to control everyone's lives. If we choose to amend the constitution in the proposed way why don't we reinstate slavery? I mean I could really use a nice cheap housemaid that has no rights.

Zach Ditter
Fargo, ND (KCCD 90.3 FM)