“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
2015 SCOTUS Majority Opinion, Justice Kennedy
Five years ago in June, the US Supreme Court issued this momentous decision. This June has contained both a tenacious pandemic as well a desperate plea for truth and accountability. While difference is an unavoidable part of being alive, these differences don’t have to initiate our own tribalistic instincts. In other words, addressing inherent problems is not a zero-sum game.
Contempt is a dangerous vice. Contempt will wreck your relationships and harm your health. Warm-heartedness may not change every heart and mind, but it is ALWAYS worth trying, and it will ALWAYS make you better off. Better, not less, disagreement holds the key to greater harmony.”
Arthur C Brooks
People are complex. Organizations are complex. The vast majority of people and groups with whom we have a relationship are irreducible to a one word assessment. Leslie Knope, a character on the show Parks and Recreation, is an example of this relationship complexity. She loves and strongly believes in something (the town of Pawnee) even while being well aware of its inherent problems. She optimistically works on encouraging the good while persistently fighting the bad. While we may have been taught racist doctrines in the past, we can work to counter those today, wherever we may stand. While me may have heard bigoted and prejudiced teachings before, we can help everyone to listen, learn, and love today.
“If change and growth are not programmed into your spirituality, if there are not serious warnings about the blinding nature of fear and fanaticism, your religion will always end up worshiping the status quo…as if it were God.”
Richard Rohr, Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life
A decade ago, President Obama issued a proclamation to fight “prejudice and discrimination…everywhere it exists.” Most of the time, this challenge involves persistent and quiet work, and it most definitely requires effort beyond a hashtag.
“Any powerful idea is absolutely fascinating…and absolutely useless until we choose to use it.”
-Richard Bach, One
Photo by Ketut Subiyanto
- How do YOU encourage the good and discourage the bad in people and organizations around you?
Wheat & Tares 
I don’t like politics on this blog. But since you opened the door with your Obama reference, I’d like to react. Obama did not support same-sex marriage until May of 2012. He evolved.
Wow, five years with same-sex marriage. It feels like the conversation about LGBTQ+s has changed/progressed so much since then. The dialogue on the bloggernacle has changed. Now no one even brings up how gay marriage is a threat to our society somehow. It just seems dumb. I distinctly remember Ben Huff over on Times and Seasons throwing a fit in reaction to the 2015 ruling about how the Supreme Court justices need to make rulings in favor of the what the majority of the country thinks is right. I remember pointing out, along with several other commenters, that the majority of the country was in favor of gays marrying. What a moron.
Well, that makes the US being about 13 years behind a good part of the rest of the western civilized world. And it has become a non-issue everywhere very quickly. Nice to know the US is finally following the good example set by so many other countries.
I will echo the opening statement of John W above “wow – five years”, but then again, the last few months have really messed with the perception of time – at least for me.
How do I encourage the good and discourage the bad in people and organizations around me? Before I even knew about the backfire effect by name, I realized that in many situations a verbal frontal assault usually isn’t the most effective and it makes people defensive. They are working more on countering your arguments again their belief than listening. I usually look for some part of their position I can agree with or paint in a positive way and if possible complement them about that aspect. Then I will try and bring up a counterpoint. Sometimes I won’t say I support it, but I wonder about it and give supporting information. I am probably not going to change anybody’s mind from one conversation, but I hope that I give them something to think about and then it is up to them.
As an example. I live were a lot of people think wearing a mask is a political statement and they nearly refuse to do so. When I run up against someone spouting that, I say something along the lines of, “I think it is a valid question to discuss if it is government overreach to require mask wearing with the threat of fines or jail time, but even if someone holds that position I can’t understand why they wouldn’t at the same time wear a mask in public to just be a good citizen and think beyond their own health.”
@ josh h 12:45am
Thank you for your comment, Josh. I wrote this post with a very open-ended question as somewhat of a Rorschach test. While politics and current events may be on everyone’s mind, the complexity of relationships extends way beyond politics- fully existing within religious organizations, retail corporations, family members, and other personal relationships. Your point on Pres. Obama is an excellent example of the complexity of individuals. The SCOTUS decision is another example of that, and this topic could be applied to Justice Kennedy, the actions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints before and after this decision, and ultimately, the actions and decisions of family, friends, and neighbors. Since this decision affects many people practically and personally, it is more than simple politics.
So how do you, Josh, with this recognition of the complexity of individuals, encourage the good and discourage the bad in people and organizations around you?
@John W 12:48am
Thank you for your comment, John. I may have missed that T&S piece. It can be an excellent discussion to talk about the role of the Supreme Court – particularly in cases where the will of the majority counters the rights of the minority (not that this case necessarily applies.)
@Arganoil 2:07am
Thank you for your comment, Arganoil. One of the reasons why I find this discussion interesting is that I feel it is important that individuals have marriage rights and responsibilities. Privileges AND problems. The marriage relationship is complex, and this relationship in particular is an excellent place to talk about how one encourages the good and discourages the bad in a partner.
@Happy Hubby 7:53am
Thank you for your comment, Happy Hubby. I agree with you – the last few months have been an eternity that has flown by for me.
Dr. Daniel Kahneman mentioned once that, “No one ever made a decision because of a number. They need a story.” Within business, there is an area called “data storytelling” – the importance of relating numbers and statistics to the individual with the power to make a change. When a new insight isn’t well understood and doesn’t sound compelling, it will have no chance. This ability extends to strongly held personal beliefs as well. I love that you bring up the backfire effect. “You can’t beat a story with fact. You can only beat it with a better story.” -Shawn Callahan
My ineffective default is still to try to “let the numbers speak for themselves.” We humans want to believe that we are rational creatures – but in fact, we are still mostly driven by emotions. “The fool tells me his reasons; the wise man persuades me with my own.” -Proverb attributed to Aristotle
I need to take lessons from you.
JD, Here is the link to the Bem Huff Times and Seasons article: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2015/06/a-nation-divided/
And a relevant quote from Ben Huff:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling mandating same-sex marriage across the Union goes against the democratically enacted laws of a strong majority of the states, and against the constitutions of many of them. It also goes against the deeply held moral beliefs of half its population, and against the moral tradition that originally made democratic self-government possible in the West.”
Huff without doubt has to be one of the biggest embarrassments to the bloggernacle. It isn’t just this, it is about everything he had written is just plain tone deaf and ridiculous. Why he is featured is beyond me. How that guy is a philosophy professor is beyond me as well. I guess you don’t actually have to be smart and understand things to obtain a PhD.
President Trump is the first president to be elected as a pro-gay marriage candidate (and didn’t change his view while in office). He is also the first president to nominate and openly gay person to a cabinet-level position (Richard Grennel). This shows that the narrow-minded liberal view of gays, Republicans, and Trump is simplistic and meant to be divisive (how often do we hear on liberal LDS blogs and also in the leftist/traditional press about Trump’s supposed anti-gay bias)? Reality is much more complex and nuanced than the black/white views so often expressed by liberals.
I live in very close quarters with my father, a deeply conservative man, while I am a progressive. The past few months have been trying–we have argued hotly about protest, monuments, mask mandates, the “COVID conspiracy”, public health policy, our current and the previous presidents, and on and on. I told him I didn’t want our differences to destory our relationship. And he feels the same way. So there have been many times we have had a heated argument, and had to just end the discussion by telling each other that we loved one another and just let the issues be. But as time has gone on, we have practiced seeing one another’s perspective and beginning discussion in a more constructive way, and we are making progress.
I’m glad that you included this part of the SCOTUS decision: “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”
This has been my experience as I struggled to suppress my sexual orientation in order to live with the Church in my life. Eventually I realized that my lonely life was not enough, and that I wanted companionship. The Church forced me to make a choice. I chose life and the possibility of companionship. As long as the discussion was about God, and sin, and tradition, and religious liberty, threre was no place for an empathetic look at the deep loneliness of so many LGBTQ people that has been enforced upon them for the sake of a legal status quo. Our stories do matter. And a fair look at the problem has (in fits and starts) turned the Church into a better organization (with a long ways to go, still). Just shutting our mouths and taking the abuse wasn’t making either party “better”.
THIS is the core of the struggle for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. And I completely understand those who have had enough, and fill the streets with protest to be finally be treated with equal dignity in spite of racial differences. For the most part they DO respect America, and they DO seek to find fullfilment in the American Dream that others have had the opportunity to work for. This is what it is about. And I agree that the “frontal assault” approach, the accusations of racism, bigotry, and oppression close the doors to constructive discussion.
@Arnold 4:05 pm
Thank you for your comment, Arnold. President Trump is an overwhelming example of an individual who cannot be reduced to one thing, in this case, you state that he was “the first president to be elected as a pro-gay marriage candidate.” Pres. Trump’s statements have often been contradictory in general. In this, he has displayed explicit personal disapproval, public social approval, as well as acceptance at best.
Here are a few examples from his own statements:
– February, 2000:Asked by The Advocate for his position on same-sex marriage, Trump said, “I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman. I do favor a very strong domestic-partnership law that guarantees gay people the same legal protection and rights as married people. I think it’s important for gay couples who are committed to each other to not be hassled when it comes to inheritance, insurance benefits, and other simple everyday rights.”
-The Advocate, 2/15/2000
– February, 2011: In an interview with Fox News in February 2011, Trump said he did not favor gay marriage. ‘I’m just not in favor of gay marriage. I live in New York. New York is a place with lots of gays, and I think it’s great. But I’m not in favor of gay marriage,’
-Fox and Friends, 2/14/2011
-June 26, 2015: After the Supreme Court decision bringing marriage equality nationwide, “Donald Trump, meanwhile, called it another example of ‘the Bush-appointed Supreme Court Justice John Roberts’ letting ‘us down.’ ‘Jeb pushed him hard! Remember!’ he tweeted.”
-Politico, 6/26/2015
-August, 2015: When asked by Bloomberg News how would he explain his stance against same-sex marriage to a gay grandchild, Trump responded, ‘Well, it’s the way it is,’ Trump said during a Bloomberg interview with Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. ‘I wouldn’t speak to them at all about it other than they are who they are, and I want them to be happy and I will love them and I will cherish them.’….‘I’ve gone to gay weddings. I’ve been at gay weddings,’ said Trump. ‘I have been against [same-sex marriage] from the standpoint of the Bible, from the standpoint of my teachings as growing up and going to Sunday school and going to church, and I’ve been opposed to it, and we’ll just see how it all comes out. But, you know, if I was ever in that position I’d just have to explain it.’”
-Bloomberg, 8/26/2015
-August, 2015: Asked by the Hollywood Reporter if same-sex marriage was a “dead issue” following the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell, Trump said: “Some people have hopes of passing amendments, but it’s not going to happen. Congress can’t pass simple things, let alone that. So anybody that’s making that an issue is doing it for political reasons. The Supreme Court ruled on it. “
-Hollywood Reporter, 8/28/2015
-January, 2016: Asked on Fox News Sunday “WALLACE: But — but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?” TRUMP: “I would strongly consider that, yes.”
-Fox News Sunday, 1/31/2016
-February, 2016: Trump tweeted: “Lying Cruz put out a statement, “Trump & Rubio are w/Obama on gay marriage.” Cruz is the worst liar, crazy or very dishonest. Perhaps all 3?”
-Twitter, @realDonaldTrump, 2/11/2016
-February, 2016: In an interview with the Brody File on CBN, he was asked if evangelicals could trust him on “traditional marriage,” Trump said: “I think they can trust me. They can trust me on traditional marriage. I was very much in favor of having the court rule that it goes to states and let the states decide. And that was a shocking decision for you and for me and for a lot of other people. But I was very much in favor of letting the states decide. And that’s the way it looked like it was going and then all the sudden out of nowhere came this very massive decision and they took it away. But I was always in favor of states rights, states deciding many issues, not just this, but many issues.”
-CBN, The Brody File, 2/18/2016
-November, 2016, after the election: Pres. Elect Trump stated that his personal views on Same Sex Marriage were “irrelevant.” “These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And I’m — I’m fine with that,” he said.
-The Economist, 11/16/2016
Pres. Bush, Pres. Obama, Sec. Clinton, and Pres. Trump were all not simply one thing. Politics definitely adds another dimension of complexity. For plenty of evidence, just sit in a room with political speech writers, or just watch The West Wing, Madam Secretary, VEEP, or many other political shows.
This is just a small sampling of his statements. Pres. Trump seems to both attend gay weddings, and then voice his support for sole traditional marriage. He seems to have accepted it as “settled” while still personally opposed to it, according to his own statements. While I fully admit that previous Democrats have been equally as ambivalent/calculated in their statements on gay marriage (until polling has shown that it won’t hurt their electability) it’s hardly fair to call Pres. Trump “the first president to be elected as a pro-gay marriage candidate”.
Again, how do you, Arnold, encourage the good and discourage the bad in people and organizations around you?
At this time, when gay marriage is accepted by most people, the church still opposes it.
At this time when it is appearent what a terrible moral problem poverty, and racism are, the church has done very little.
What a shame the church did not invest its moral capital in the real problem.
Credibility again?
As JD points out, claiming Trump is pro gay marriage, is optimistic.
Let’s keep the conversation focused on policies and ideas, rather than shouting at and demeaning other commenters. Sheesh. This is one of those rare times I actually find myself wishing the admins would be a little more strict with the ad hominem attacks.
I didn’t see anyone shouting or demeaning on this one.