The difference here is substantial. To be clear, I’m not urging people to be satisfied with the status quo. There’s a difference between picking a fight and defending yourself, and I urge everyone in the face of oppression to defend themselves against violence and to live their lives as they see fit regardless of the status quo. The Stonewall riots were a good example of that. But guess what? Harvey Milk is a good example of what I’m talking about. He was a guy who was appalled by the system and worked within it to change it. He didn’t have to physically fight his opponents; he was happy to humiliate their arguments in reasonable debate whilst also befriending them and keeping the door open should they decide to change their mind. That’s what I’m talking about.

That said, there is one side in this issue that routinely espouses that they have “absolute truth” in this issue. This perceived truth, by and large, stems from (1) a deep-seated traditional definition of marriage which excludes homosexual unions and (2) a narrow and specific reading of a Bible which is believed to be literally true. Right and wrong aside, the problem with this kind of worldview is that there is no room for new information to enter and inform its adherents’ opinions. Ultimately, it is the worldview itself that will suffer the most, as it has neglected to build into itself a mechanism for continual growth and evolution in an ever-changing world.

Like David, it troubles me to see gays and gay supporters in my community form an equal and opposite “fundamentalism” in response to this whole Rick Warren shitstorm. By demanding that Rick Warren be silenced or ignored because he represents an opposing set of cultural values, they are effectively allowing themselves to become a simulacrum of the fundamentalists they so vehemently abhor. Hatred, hostility, and all of these other emotional responses (and their corresponding fundamentalisms) are what I *meant* to connect with the “child” in my admittedly flawed analogy.

For me, being an adult means being able to cut oneself loose from reactionary emotions and other egocentric responses in forming opinions, when such measures are called for. My comment was mostly directed at the people I relate to in my community on a regular basis, who (for better or worse) invariably view themselves as both “liberal” and “smarter than” people who are (perceived by many on the left to be) primarily motivated by things like fear and mistrust of the unknown.

As for MLK and Gandhi, I didn’t mean to imply that either of them would or would not support gay marriage today. Those who knew them could probably guess, but obviously we can never know for sure. I meant only to extol them as good examples of freedom fighters who earned the (for lack of a better term!) “moral high ground” by never letting themselves become mirrors of their opponents.

Anyway, thanks for keeping me on my toes. I hope I’ve tidied my position somewhat in response.

There is a problem with this kind of response, however. Assuming that the person on the other side of the table is “small-minded,” a “child,” and not a “thinking person” closes the conversation just as effectively as screaming and attacking. Trying to open up a conversation with someone whose views we have already dismissed is a waste of time. We are not trying to talk, we are trying to teach. That makes us at least as bigoted and self-righteous as the people we deign to instruct.

Like you, I believe gay marriage isn’t a big deal. But I’m willing to be proved wrong. You’d be surprised how people open up to you when you open up to them. And while I’m swapping philosophies and biblical axioms and scientific research with the Prop 8 guy (swapping, mind you, not pushing), if there is an absolute right, and if I’m on the side of the absolute right, then it will come out in that conversation if we are both truly open to one another. Unless we’re willing to risk being proved wrong, we’ll never be proved right.

As you both often mention, there are fundamentalists on both sides. (Believe me, I’ve met plenty of them.) But there are also thinking adults on both sides. I have yet to see any evidence that Rick Warren isn’t a thinking adult just because he espouses a worldview that is not my own. (It’s easy to believe Gandhi or King would have been on our side because we’ve idealized them to be everything we want them to be. If King were still alive and he had voted for Prop 8–didn’t even campaign for it, just voted–would you still consider him a hero?)

Some people are not acting or reacting out of fear. They are simply acting on a different set of assumptions. Sometimes they are thinking adults–just as much as you or I. Maybe more than you or I.

This reminds me a great deal of what my dad (as a family therapist with a cognitive behaviorist leaning) used to say to people whose children were out of control. “You are an ADULT, he is a CHILD.” Children yell and scream to get attention. But when adults do it, it just makes their children lose respect for them. It effectively hands over all the control to the misbehaving child.

Luckily, as the ADULTS in this situation, we have more tools in our toolbox than just yelling and screaming. We have the power to be intelligent and calculating in our actions, and we even have the power to separate our emotions from doing what needs to be done. You are right: turning the other cheek is an excellent tactic. It’s what separates Gandhi and Martin Luther King from Hamas. That doesn’t mean we don’t fight back; it just means that our “fighting back” needs to be sneakier and better conceived than it has been. The intelligent, thoughtful members of society are the adults, the fundamentalists are the children. If we can’t get them under control, it’s no one’s fault but ours.