A solution to gay marriage?

I saw this picture in an email from the HRC. All I could say was “are you kidding me?” But I was definitely thinking “how sad and scary.”

OK. So, I am wondering if the people who make those signs have read the entire chapter of Leviticus 20. And if they have, what do they think of the lists of all the many things that would fall under that same “solution”?

Here is some more on the “solutions” for various infractions from Leviticus:

Homophobic fundamentalists often quote two particular verses that seem to be against gay people. These two verses, both of which appear in the book of Leviticus, are . . .

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)

and . . .

“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)

Below, we’ll take a look at other scripture verses that are in the exact same book (Leviticus) as the above verse. This exercise proves that those preachers who are so enthusiastic about quoting the book of Leviticus to affirm their personal prejudice against people who are gay or lesbian become awfully quiet when it comes to other verses that appear in the very same book.

Remember, this isn’t about faith whatsoever. It’s about people who have pre-existing anti-gay prejudice in their hearts. They choose the Christian Bible as the tool with which they attempt to affirm and legitimize that pre-existing prejudice.

Sadly, the truth is that they just don’t like gay people.

“For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)

Imagine what would happen today if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. Fundamentalists explain this verse away, saying that it is part of the Old Levitical Holiness Code and is not meant to be taken literally.

But the above verse is just a mere 3 verses before Leviticus 20:13, one of their favorite anti-gay scriptures which, of course, they do choose to apply literally.

It’s just incredible, isn’t it?

Fundamentalists change their entire methodology of scriptural interpretation when it suits their purpose, even when dealing with verses that are a just couple of sentences away from each other!

“If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people.” (Leviticus 20:18)

Imagine what would happen today if we deported every man and woman who had ever had sex together while the woman was having her period. Fundamentalists decline the opportunity to take this verse literally, which is merely 5 verses after Leviticus 20:13.

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44-45)

Did you ever wonder where racist, uneducated people in the 19th century got the idea that slaves were just property and not people? Directly from the above verse, which fundamentalists do not, of course, take literally.

“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” (Leviticus 19:27)

“Bible-believing” fundamentalists never preach against the evils of shaving, as they do not take this verse literally for our day. Of course, they most certainly would do so if they had a personal bias against shaving, but apparently, they do not.

“…and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.” (Leviticus 11:7)

As you can see, the book of Leviticus also prohibits the eating of pork (a swine is a pig). Of course, fundamentalists do not choose to use this verse to preach against eating pork. Sadly, however, they have no problem abusing the Bible to condemn gay and lesbian people. Remember, it’s about their personal prejudice against gay people, not about a true desire to understand what the Bible actually says.

“…do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material.” (Leviticus 19:19)

Farmers in this country almost always grow more than one kind of crop in their fields. In fact, they often must do so for ecological reasons. Fundamentalists do not apply this verse literally. If they were to preach against farmers, there would be an uproar, and rightfully so.

Fundamentalists also ignore the Biblical command to not wear clothes that have two different kinds of material. The shirts that many fundamentalists are often seen wearing must be a cotton/polyester blend, the most common in the United States of America. They may be “Bible believing” Christians, but this is yet another verse that they don’t believe should be applied to today.

An “abomination?”

Fundamentalists also like to use Leviticus 18:22 to justify their anti-gay prejudice. That verse says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an “abomination.” They get the idea directly from Leviticus 18:22. But did you know…

• The Bible says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination:

“But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:10)

“They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.” (Leviticus 11:11)

“Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:12)

PS– I wonder what the atheist’s issue is with same-sex relationships… since they don’t believe in the Bible… let alone God.

Read Full Post »

Goodknight suite prints

Life is a mystery. Both a beautiful one at times, and a disenchanting one at other times.

Since the beginning of 2010 life here has been mostly disappointing and disenchanting. I’ll recap some of it by pointing to this post.

The rest? Well, the youngest teen in our home was sent to spend half the summer with their other biologic parent (at our expense for the 3rd summer in a row) and the sibling of that teen was left behind here… because that out-of-town parent told that teen not to come out. This is the 1st time the two siblings have ever spent more than a day or 2 apart. The teen away from home visiting the out-of-town parent has been treated to a full court press — a veritable full-time red-carpet campaign to be convinced to go live with that parent. Without the older sibling there, the younger is pretty much a “sitting duck” for the manipulation there.

We shall see, near the end of next week, if that young person actually gets on the plane and returns home as scheduled (and ticketed) or if a whole new drama begins in the lives of the two siblings.

Read Full Post »

Re-defining marriage

After Wednesdays landmark decision  to overturn Prop. 8 (California’s ban on same-sex marriage), several news shows highlighted coverage of the legal victory in the Prop. 8 case, and discussed the important move toward full marriage equality in America.

On MSNBC that night, Keith Olbermann replayed his special comment from 11/10/2008 — after Prop. 8 had won that night via “popular vote.” This may be one of the best rebuttals to the “re-defining marriage” mantra.

I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage. If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

…

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace… that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling.  With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

Marriage & Relationship Recognition

GLBT

same sex marriage

domestic-partnership

same-sex-relationships

lgbt

prop 8

proposition 8

Read Full Post »

Majority rule?

I saw this below quote posted somewhere yesterday after the news broke that Proposition 8 in California was overturned:

“9th Circuit Court in California overturns the rights of the people in today’s ruling on gay marriage. Remember the time when a majority ruled in this country?”

And that got me thinking.

So many of our important human rights decisions in America’s history would likely not have ever been made if it had been put to a popular vote–or up to majority rule.

What if, in 1865, the abolition of slavery was put to a vote instead of the 13th amendment being added to the Constitution? What would the outcome have looked like if the Civil Rights Act of 1875 had been put to a majority rule vote? During World War I, blacks served in the United States Armed Forces in segregated units. Pressure to end racial segregation in the government grew among African Americans and progressives after the end of World War II. On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981, ending segregation in the United States Armed Forces. Chances are that such an executive order at that time in American history never would have survived a popular vote by the majority rule. It is not a stretch to imagine what would have happened in the 1960’s if racial segregation was put to a vote instead of laws being passed against it. Such as with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I imagine that if that had been put to a “majority rule” popular vote back then — it never would have happened.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Even if a lot of people within a given State want to, rights are not supposed to be put up for a vote.

“Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” (Prop. 8 Trial)

Based on the evidence at trial, Judge Walker found:

1. “Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.”

2. “California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.”

3. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. …”

4. “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”

5. “The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.”

6. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.”

7. “Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.”

8. “Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage.”

9. “Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.”

10. “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. …”

So, what’s next? That is not exactly clear. This issue will eventually go before the Federal Supreme Court as lawyers on both sides expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court during the next few years. And then eventually (hopefully) D.O.M.A. will be overturned — paving the way for Federal recognition of same-sex unions across State lines.

Marriage & Relationship Recognition

GLBT

same sex marriage

domestic-partnership

same-sex-relationships

lgbt

prop 8

proposition 8

Read Full Post »

Protected: Remember the inner child

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Read Full Post »

Protected: father knows best

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Read Full Post »

Protected: Regards,

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Read Full Post »