That's a good point, Chad. I've focused on what I see as deficiencies in Being, but there are certainly many good things that come from the show and the staff, and your exchange with Ms. Moos was helpful to you and may be to others. I wish you well with your reconciliations.
In the interest of possibly clarifying the ground for that, here are some points that I've come across in looking into Mouw's beliefs in the last couple weeks that might interest you or others.
About your choice of words, I'd guess Mouw doesn't think anyone "deserves" marriage rights as a theological matter. He's a Calvinist who doesn't put much stock (perhaps none) in the notion of desert of God's gifts, including sexuality and marriage. For him it's a matter of how those gifts fit into God's order for us and how that order should be reflected in secular order.
Mouw recognizes that a pluralistic society, which he favors, cannot simply reflect a sectarian view of what God desires and that we must often work to find compromises. Thus his view on same-sex unions is more complex than might be expected. In response to the Lawrence v Texas decision he said, "I do not oppose sexual freedom for homosexuals, but I worry about the slippery slope." In particular, he has been concerned about the view that a committed relationship is an adequate ground for marriage, which he takes to be a chief argument for same-sex marriage. However, he has more lately said, "Perhaps I can be reassured by the folks that I disagree with about same-sex unions. They may have clearer—and quite sensible—restrictions in mind that would keep us from moving into the anything-goes scenario that worries me. I am willing to listen to the case that they make in response to my expressed concerns."
My impression is that Mouw is doing his best to understand and be open to the views he currently opposes, and doing much better than most who oppose his views, though he may still have some tone-deafness about some sensitive points. Among the examples of slippery slope he has given is the famously sensitive one that a 40-year-old man might be able to claim a marriage right with a 13-year-old boy. The point of course isn't that same-sex unions are like child molestation but that a committed relationship can't be an adequate ground. I suspect he could be satisfied that there are already legal principles in place (i.e. the principles of consent) to prevent that. Some of his other concerns would be harder to get around--any argument for same-sex marriage is bound to lend support to arguments favoring legalization of polygamy, for example. That doesn't particularly bother many people, but I can see why it bothers him (and some feminists opposed to traditional polygamy).
He is attuned in his own way to the sensitive issue of whether homosexuality is normal: "I have often told the story of hearing a conservative spokesman express his views in this way: 'We normal people should tell these homosexuals that what they are doing is simply an abomination in the eyes of God.' When I heard that, I tell my audiences, I wanted to get up and cry out, 'Normal? You are normal? Let’s all applaud for the one sexually normal person in the room!'" Etc.
More information about text formats