More eloquent than I

Orson Scott Card recently wrote an article that articulated better then I ever could the idea of tolerance.  It also gave me hope.  We should stand up for what we each feel convicted by.  That is part of the democratic process.  In particular if we truly are tolerant of each other.  I am going to put that parts that apply to tolerance here, but if you like read the whole thing.

…Tolerance implies disagreement — it means that even though we don’t agree with or approve of each others beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren’t being tolerant, we’re being uniform.

It’s uniformity or submission these former friends wanted, not tolerance at all.

It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs. But I believe that if we could only be friends with people who never disapprove of something we do, we will end up with “friends” who either don’t know us very well, or don’t care about us very much.

…Even if we fail to overturn the current legal movement toward gay marriage, we can treat our opponents politely and kindly, even when they do not extend the same courtesy to us.

…We do not think that any belief system, whether it calls itself a religion or not, should be imposed on other people by law — we won’t impose ours on them, and we won’t let them impose theirs on us or our families.

I hope this gives you some idea of what tolerance really is.  He goes on to talk more about why it is good we have this initiative on the ballot.  Regardless of how it passes it is important the people have an opportunity to have a say.

Instead, we believe that as long as we are citizens of a free country, changes in the laws and institutions of our society should be made only by common consent, after a free and candid discussion.

We would never try to force our beliefs on an unwilling majority, and we hope that our opponents on this issue will have the same respect for democracy and the Constitution.

In fact, I believe that even those who absolutely believe in gay marriage should join us in opposing any law that is forced on an unwilling majority by the dictates of judges. For those that are wise will recognize that once judges are given such power, that power has as much chance of being used against them as for them.

These judges are not unique.  I think other servants of the people have tried to do similar things.  Trying to say they is above the law or the law doesn’t apply to them.  Thank goodness out country has check and balances.  Vote yes to 8.  It is one way we can make sure to keep those checks in place.



  1. abbyearth said

    One of my favorite yes on prop. 8 blogs (including yours 🙂 is

    Keep up the great job on your awesome blog!!

  2. prop8discussion said

    as i’ve studied this issue, i’ve realized that the state really does have a responsibility to protect its children.

    France took a year studying the issue BEFORE they decided. They rejected same-sex marriage because of the rights of children.

    Every child has a right to a mom and a dad. This is how they grow and learn best. While homosexual parents might be really good people, they can’t equal a mom AND a dad.

    society has an obligation to provide this basic and natural/biological right to its children.

    there is a cool discussion going on here:

    and here:

  3. […] views on tolerance surrounding Gay and Lesbian Marriage is right on track with my own beliefs.  Busy with Conviction posts this excerpt (among others) which describes what tolerance […]

RSS feed for comments on this post

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: