Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘HRC’ Category

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.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

As the Prop. 8 trial continues in California it brings same-sex marriage to the forefront of the news in America once again. It makes one ponder the question I know that I have thought of so many times since 2004 when gay marriage started becoming a big political spotlight issue: what are people so afraid of? What it is about same-sex marriage that brings people together on so many levels? What is it about this issue that often times brings individuals together solely for the purpose of striking down any possibility of any relationship recognition for same-sex couples?

If marriage is so special, if it provides a glue and a stability for families and culture… then why not spread it around a little more liberally? You can read/listen to more here about the conservative case for gay marriage.

Time magazine on the conservative case for same-sex marriage:

“Conservatives have long rightly argued for the vital importance of the institution of marriage for fostering responsibility, commitment and the domestication of unruly men. Bringing gay men and women into this institution will surely change the gay subculture in subtle but profoundly conservative ways.”

Here is a Day 4 summary of the Prop 8 Trial.

Update from Day 5 of the Prop 8 Trial.

Read Full Post »

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

Read Full Post »

repeal_domaIt’s official — the Respect for Marriage Act has been introduced and now it’s time to repeal the discriminatory “Defense of Marriage Act.”  Go to www.RepealDOMAnow.org and tell your member of Congress to join on as a co-sponsor.

Suggested letter to our Congress members by the Courage Campaign:

On Tuesday morning, September 15, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced the Respect Marriage Act in Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I applaud this as a step forward and as a constituent I request that you co-sponsor the bill, but I continue to demand full equality.

Like all other Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are guaranteed equal protection by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. But Congress chose to ignore that provision and passed DOMA anyway. Free and equal people do not settle for fractions of equality.

Equal rights are not a “gay” issue. They are about our shared human rights: safety in our schools and jobs, equitable health-care and housing, and protection for our families, to name a few.

DOMA unfairly singles out legally married same-sex couples for inequitable treatment, denying those couples the federal protections and responsibilities that otherwise apply to married couples.

It is time we ended this injustice and began the process of providing full federal equality to all Americans. I urge you to add your name as a sponsor to the Respect Marriage Act today.

Per HRC:

Through DOMA, which was signed into law 13 years ago, on 9/21/96, the federal protect_famsgovernment singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them more than 1,100 federal protections and responsibilities – including Social Security and immigration benefits – that otherwise apply to married couples.  This policy is discriminatory and harmful to families, preventing the government from honoring its legal commitments and the needs of families, even though these couples have assumed the obligations of civil marriage under state law and contribute as citizens and taxpayers.

Per Fox News:

Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia: “Over a decade later, traditional marriage – a principle tenant in our Judeo-Christian values – is under assault more than ever before,” he continued. “This is why I was extremely disappointed to see my liberal colleagues introduce legislation today to repeal the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act.”

dumpdomaThe Respect for Marriage Act, unveiled by Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Jared Polis, D-Colo, has the support of more than 90 lawmakers.

The legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton.

This is the “first step to overturning DOMA,” Nadler said, who called the law (DOMA) “irrational and hateful.”

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Update:

September 18, 2009The Department of Justice filed a motion today to dismiss GLAD’s case Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.
Their motion can be read here: DOJ Motion To Dismiss. Read more about the case.
In essence, although the D.O.J. understand that the administration does not support DOMA, what they are basing their motion to dismiss on is whether repealing DOMA will be “constitutional” or not. Hopefully, this is a small hiccup that will not derail the Respect for Marriage Act.

Read Full Post »

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

Read Full Post »

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

Read Full Post »

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

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »