I wonder why we aren't parsing the difference between civil union and marriage. The former is granted by the state, the latter by religion. Civil unions should bestow all the rights of privileges of a legally committed bond. Religions add a clerical component to the civil union, but religious marriage is not, and should not be, an affair of the state.
If we could keep these two concepts separate, I believe religious leaders like Mouw would find it easier to accept the concept of gay unions, while maintaining the precepts of their tradition.
I also wrestle with the issues Mouw presented, but remain "agnostic" on the subject - neither for nor against, and moving more towards acceptance. I really don't understand homosexuality. And it's best not to judge something we don't understand.
More information about text formats