Several summers ago, while I was living in New Hampshire, new residents moved into the house next to mine. These neighbors, two women, mentioned that they had recently been married. I received them as neighbors, people of good will, deserving of every respect and protection of privacy. They accepted me in the same way.

My new neighbors did not object to living in close proximity to a person known to believe in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Even more to the point, they were willing to live next door to someone whose personhood is not separable from these teachings. I am one of those, of whom there are very many, whose life would not make sense if the teachings of the Christian faith as taught by the church were not true. This state of affairs was not viewed as offensive by my neighbors. We maintained a cordial but respectful distance, one that was respectful of adult privacy.

My neighbors and I disagreed about many critically important things; that is true. But there’s one thing about which we did not disagree; that is, the necessity of “tolerance with principle;”the responsibility of neighbors and community members to frame a common life in spite of very serious disagreements. This necessity of tolerance includes all — I repeat all— disagreements not of a cruel or criminal nature. That level of civility was present in our little town. People believing in a radically diverse fundamental principles lived in close association in peace and tranquility. No one group attempted to force members of another group to act against deeply held convictions.

It was not, for example, thought hateful or criminal to believe in marriage as a union between a man and a woman united as a new, life-transmitting entity, one entailing solemn and serious obligations toward each other and any children who might be born to that union. It was not thought bigoted to believe that children have a natural human right to go to the care and protection of the mother and father from whose union they were born, when this is at all possible.

I did not encounter anyone who proposed the use of force or economic harm to those who hold these beliefs. That this position was vigorously disagreed with and argued against is true; that respectful arguments, not personal insults, were offered in return is also true. But people holding these are venerable beliefs were not attacked as “haters.” People who opposed it were not excluded from civic life.

Meanwhile life went on. Marriages took place and were celebrated by those whose beliefs guided them toward particular arrangements. No one was forced to participate in any way in any of these ceremonies. The participants celebrated freely, each in his or her own way. This was a form of sophisticated civility, toward which we were making progress in recent decades, especially after the Civil Rights movement, until now.

Opinion and editorial writings published this week in The Natchez Democrat use inflammatory and insulting language. The writers seem astonished. They are shocked by the fact that one communal understanding of marriage that has prevailed through centuries of Western civilization should not disappear by court fiat — overnight, so to speak. They appear to believe that the Christian faith is being used as a kind of cover-up; something beneath which one hides in order to deny happiness, to hate and even to harm others. They are, in my opinion, unintentionally proposing a denial of mutual tolerance, kindness and patience with differences. Their thinking would lead to the opposite of their desired goal and would suppress true diversity.

 

Linda Smith

Natchez