What if it were Southern Baptists, or Catholics, or....

Listening to the religious right go on about how marriage equality is a violation of their rights makes me want to throw up. They are so full of shit. Not is there no possibility of finally recognizing the rights of yet another marginalized minority not a threat it is in fact these fucking whiners who are the threat. Sadly, our pathetic media still coddles such deceitful hypocritical ignorant assholes.

Showing how disingenuous they are is also very easy to do. Simply replace homosexual with Southern Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox Judaism, or any other conservative sect/denomination. Then see if they still agree with the notion of discriminating on religious grounds.  I am not religious at all but if I were I assume I would still be on the liberal end of the spectrum. I can easily see making a case that supporting in any sense conservative theists as being a violation of my "spiritual" beliefs. By working or serving with conservatives I could easily claim that that makes me an accomplice of evil. Why should I jeopardize my soul by becoming a collaborator with the agents of evil? See how that works? Clearly I should not have to provide any products or services to any religious conservatives. Shouldn't I be able to make a case for my religious freedom? Shouldn't I then be allowed to refuse any and all conservative theists?

NO! And, anyone who thinks this is a valid excuse to harass, persecute, or discriminate is a fucking waste of flesh. Basic civil rights should never be negotiable.

A few of the milder pieces that still made me want to scream include:

"Will the Court protect religious objectors to same-sex marriage?" Religious News Service

"Republicans pivot from gay marriage to religious liberty fight" CNN

Becoming "biblical"

It is nice to see theists occasionally do some research and a bit of basic fact checking. On those grounds I do think Ellin Jimmerson does deserve some credit for her piece "When Did Biblical Marriage Get To Be A Thing?" She even makes a point of distinguishing between what people perceive to be in the Bible versus what's actually in the Bible. However, there is a rather important point that she overlooks. It is somewhat odd since it also relates to the disparity between the perception of what is in the Bible versus what is actually written. Anything can and does become "biblical" when those using the phrase find it convenient. The Bible loans itself quite nicely to virtually any belief individuals or groups choose to hold and endorse. Scriptures as a whole, whether Judeo-Christian or not, tend to alternate among being vague, incoherent, and contradictory. They can always be interpreted in a variety of different ways. It is generally pretty safe to assume that anything that carries the label "biblical" is full of shit.

Anger and Hate not Required

I have no reason to doubt that Michael and Jenet Erickson are generally nice people with no malicious intent. However, it does not make them any less ignorant, self-deluded, or bigoted. This couples opinion piece, "Michael and Jenet Erickson: Being for traditional marriage does not mean being against anyone", would be laughable if it did not represent such a prevalent mindset.

There are two blatant fallacies that dominate the whole thing. There is no universally accepted definition of "traditional marriage" and never has been one. Scripture are full of examples of acceptable marriage practices that would horrify the likes of Michael and Jenet. Even if that were not the case it does not matter in regard to US law. Legislating anything based solely on highly subjective religious interpretations is flat-out unconstitutional.

The second problem is that you cannot claim you are not "against anyone" when you are in fact actively seeking to deny the rights of others. You can believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman but when you seek to deny the rights of others you have gone beyond just believing something. Denying other people the same rights you yourself enjoy is harmful and, yes, it is also bigotry.

A Group of Clergy Deserving Praise

I do not have any problems with the average theist. It is religion as an institution that I tend to distrust and despise. My criticisms are generally aimed either at a specific set of theists or else at the doctrines, policies, and hierarchies of specific religions (or the sects/denominations within a religion). However, I do believe in giving credit where it is due. The 50 clergy noted in the Philadelpia Inquirer's "Methodist ministers defy church at same-sex union" certainly deserve to be commended. It is not merely that they have risked their positions within the church, and therefore their livelihoods. A considerable part of individual clergy's identity is wrapped up in their religious affiliation. Being stripped of their position as clergy and potentially being expelled from the faith itself could be very traumatic. These individuals have shown a great deal of courage and resolve in standing up for both civil rights and for basic human decency. So long as religion continues to exist I am grateful that at least some clergy will put the well being of people above that of religious dogma.

More humanist than religious

Even though I cannot definitively disprove the existence of God or similar supernatural entities/forces. I am certain that at the very least the conservative/fundamentalist interpretation of such things is utter bullshit. I had this reconfirmed to some degree this weekend. I, an atheist, attended a homosexual wedding within the walls of a Christian church. I'm pretty sure that with the size of attendance I was not the only atheist present. I'm certain the grooms were not the only homosexuals there, either. There were no lightning strikes, spontaneous combustion, or earth quakes. No fire-and-brimstone, vindictive type entity could resist such an easy target. Apparently, even in theory, a fundamentalist type deity really doesn't give a shit if same sex marriages occur.

On a more pleasant note, I have to say that the ceremony was one of the most personal intimate ones I have ever witnessed. There was, of course, a considerable amount of religious trappings and rhetoric. However, almost every aspect was catered to the grooms. For example, in place of a second scriptural reading a short story that related to the type of men the grooms are was used. Vows were more like a pledge that focused on their relationship rather than the "marriage as a sacrament" mumbo-jumbo. Basically, it was about their love for each other far more than some bullshit take on why marriage is justified and/or maintained by religion. Despite being officiated by a reverend it was more of a humanist celebration than a religious one. It was beautiful.

Lying for "Values"

I've always found it odd how easily some are able to justify the use of deceit for supposed "values." Then again, when all you've got to work with are lies and fear-mongering what is a self-righteous bigoted asshole to do? Donald Mendell has been answering that one in a new round of absurd TV ads. This time around, however, he's added to his routine. Now he's using the faux-victim ploy.

On top of claiming that extending basic rights to homosexuals (in this instance marriage equality) will somehow negatively impact anyone, Mendell is falsely stating that people tried getting him fired because he has defended traditional marriage. Bullshit. Setting aside that there isn't really any such thing as "traditional" marriage since society has always defined and redefined it, no one tried firing him. An ethics complaint was lodged against him that could have stripped him of his counseling license. Even though the complaint could have had a negative impact on his career it would not necessarily have cost him his job. He also happened to be a teacher. He could have easily continued on teaching. Then, there are the reasons for the complaint, which he also lied about. Appearing in an ad for the anti-gay marriage camp is what brought him to the attention of one of his colleagues at another school. However, there were a number of factors involved. Some of them were debatable while others were not.

Whether Mendell's negative comments about another colleague (not the one registering the complaint) rose to the level required by the Office of Licensing and Registration to revoke his credentials was debatable, the rules of ethics did make the complaint a legitimate one. The code does state, "...treat colleagues with respect and ...should avoid unwarranted negative criticism of colleagues in communications."  He did not have to diss a colleague to make his point. The idea that he was persecuted for his beliefs is nonsense. He was being held accountable for his behavior as it related to others. Another aspect of the whole 2009 affair that Mendell omits is that he identified himself as a teacher and counselor of Nokomis High School. In effect, he gave the impression that he was representing the school. That is not only highly misleading it is grossly unethical. Unless the school administration had chosen to take a position on same sex marriage and then authorized him as spokesperson his presenting himself in such a way was extremely unprofessional. The school could have sought his resignation on that point but it never did. The complaint was dismissed.

There are any number of details in both the 2009 TV ad campaign and in the present one that are either grossly misleading or outright false. Mendell is just one example of the anti-gay scumbags onerous tactics. They have no legitimate argument so they resort to underhanded slimy attacks.

Unfortunately, I couldn't access freely online the few articles that covered the 2009 incident but if you have an interest in them I have listed two of them below.

Monroe, Scott. "Yes on 1 Backer Rebuts Claim."  Morning Sentinel. 23 November 2009

Monroe, Scott. "Same-sex marriage critic fights effort to pull social work license."  Portland Press Herald. 
        23 November 2009

Yes, they are variations of the same story. Each does have slightly different details. Most of the other articles I could find were even skimpier.

Homosexual Rights = Human Rights

Even though I whole heartedly agree with the conclusion Mastin Kipp reaches in his July 31st Huffington Post piece the manner in which he reaches it is ignorant, mistaken, and even belittling. It is interesting that he starts "Why Jesus Loves LGBT People and Gay Marriage Doesn't Exist" by noting some of the contradictions in the Old Testament. That's pretty much where his critical thinking ends. He doesn't seem to be aware that the New Testament is just as loaded with the same level of contradictory crap.

He states, "But as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the Red Letters of The Bible where Jesus preaches against homosexuality. It's just not there. If it is, please show me so that I can stand corrected," and technically he is correct. The New Testament never claims that Jesus talks about homosexuality at all. However, this is misleading and rather disingenuous since Kipp goes on about the New Testament trumping the Old. The New Testament does have Christ making a rather clear statement about that.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5: 17-19)

Basically, the view that the New Testament is compatible with Gay rights since it trumps the Old Testament laws that condemn it is Bullshit. That is, assuming you see scripture as having any relevance to begin with.

Kipp goes on to site another passage from Matthew (22: 40) that refers to Jesus emphasis of two commandments. They are to love the lord and to love your neighbor. They are nice sentiments and I in no way dispute the second but as for this passage being the final word on religious arguments over the permissability of same sex marriage it falls short. He attempts an end run around Matt 5:17-19 by trying to make more out of Matt 22:40 than is actually there*. There are numerous passages where Jesus makes similar claims about other ideas or commandments being the most important. They all can't be the most important. That would pretty much dilute the meaning of each by making "most" a useless word.

No matter how a particular sect or religious individual chooses to interpret scripture it all amounts to basically the same thing, crap. What Kipp doesn't seem to notice about his own arguments is that it is pointless. Religion is not and should not be the basis of either morality or law. I find it highly unlikely that as humans we will ever agree on matters of faith. We have a better chance of working out what is in our best interests without such subjective and superficial garbage. Personally, I think he belittles the fight for equal rights because he seems to equate homosexual rights with a theological debate. Homosexual rights are civil/human rights. Period!

*Note they are both from the same book of the Bible and there are not that many verses in between. I also find it interesting that the passage reiterating the Old Testament laws is first. If you want to interpret, which you have to, I would say that makes the earlier passage more important and the latter more of an afterthought.

Marriage: Religious and Civil

One aspect surrounding the debate on same-sex marriage that is far too often overlooked is that it is in fact not a single topic. The closest I have seen to an acknowledgement that Marriage is not a monolithic institution came from one of the posts on Friendly Atheist. "Is Obama’s Support of Gay Marriage an ‘Imposition’ of His Religion?," does address the issue from two points of view but does so in a slightly round-about way.

I prefer to be more direct. Marriage is two separate but sometimes inter-related institutions. Most, if not all, opponents of gay marriage are arguing from a religious perspective. That would be perfectly fine with me if they kept it strictly within the realm of religion. Unfortunately, they do not. Not only do they not stick to their own sphere they frequently seek to lie and distort the goals of those of us who support same-sex marriage. None of the laws that have been passed or have been attempted have anything to do with religion despite their claims to the contrary. The government can not force a church (or mosque, synagogue, temple...) to perform a gay marriage. All these laws do is provide government recognition of a couples commitment and thereby grant access to a number of rights and privileges.  None of them impact religion.

For most of these narrow minded religious bigots that isn't enough. They want to be able to dictate to the rest of us what they claim to be moral. It is both unnecessary and wrong. If more people would open their eyes and see that religious marriage and civil marriage are not the same thing. Religious people, whether on the left or right, ought to be grateful for the perks civil marriage provides and not seek to impose their faith on anyone outside their own relationship.

Religion in America has always had the right to impose its own rules and standards on how it views marriage and how it conducts wedding ceremonies. That will not change. However, religion should stay out of how government views and conducts civil marriages. I would use my own biases as an example. There are certain types of marriages that I do not believe government should restrict but that I personally find disturbing. Currently, we do not allow polygamy under the law. I have no interest in lobbying for it but I also would not bother to oppose it. In terms of civil law, I do not see any good reason to oppose it. That is assuming that all parties are legal adults, fully understand the circumstance, and are consenting without any coercion or pressure. If the consenting adults involved are fine with it I see no reason to impose my own views on them. Put bluntly, I do not understand and do not want to understand such a warped arrangement. I firmly believe in monogamy. That is my preference and though I think it leads to the best possible relationship I cannot in good conscience enforce my views on others who are in no way harming me or anyone else.

Essentially, I would encourage everyone to view marriage from two separate spheres: religious and civil. I would further suggest that people step away from their own preference long enough to ask some basic questions about marriage. If we can publicly acknowledge the intimate relationship we cherish why should we prevent others from doing so? Would relationships of others impact our own? The answers seem pretty clear to me. There is no reason to deny others the rights and privileges I enjoy. It is also true that what other people do in their relationships can in any way diminish my own.

I would also point out that I do not agree with playing with the label "Marriage."  That does not work. Just changing the name of something does not solve problems.

African-American Clergy vs. Gay Marriage

The May 11th NPR piece on Gay Marriage, "Same Bible, Different Verdict On Gay Marriage", is loaded with all manner of idiocy. Then again, "Same Bible", is in the title. Aside from some of the standard lies, hypocrisy, and sheer ignorance related to the Bible there were a few bits and pieces that stood out. What caught my attention was the section on why African-American clergy tend to oppose same sex marriage. The level of nonsensical reasons given among the barrage of bullshit was impressive.

"But nowhere is this question more fraught than in African-American churches, says Tony Evans. He pastors the 9,000-member Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas. One reason, he says, is cultural.
'The breakdown of the family is the single greatest challenge that we face today,' he says.
Evans and others say the black family is in crisis — a majority of babies, for example, are born to single mothers — and that's why black ministers are often the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage."

The notion that gay marriage would somehow denigrate the institution of marriage as a whole is completely baseless. There are no legitimate studies that have found that gay marriage would have even a slightly negative impact on heterosexual marriage. Even setting aside the fact that there is no objective reason to hold such a position Evans assumption defies even common sense. Single motherhood has no connection to homosexuality or homosexual rights. How could it? It seems to me that many of these single mom's probably did not plan to be single moms. By default, homosexual couples seeking to have children would have to plan. They cannot have children on their own. They would have to adopt or use some type of fertility service (surrogate, egg/sperm donation...). So where's the connection to single parenthood? It is also idiotic to think that a heterosexual couple's relationship is in any way altered by a homosexual couple getting married. Just because two guys get married does not mean my marriage means less. Frankly, I don't give a shit what anyone else (aside from my wife) thinks of my marriage.

Evans goes further in proving what an ignorant asshole he is by trying to insulate his position against a common criticism,

"'The issue of race is not an issue of choice. It's an issue of birth,' he says.
Does that mean that homosexuality is a choice?
'The Bible is clear on that one too. And that is, sexual relationships are to be between men and women within the context of marriage,' Evans says. 'That's not only related to the issue of homosexuality, but adultery, or fornication or bestiality. All of that is proscribed in the Bible.'"

Every year the body of evidence confirming that homosexuality is not a choice increases. It is not a choice and even if by some remote chance it were it would still be a civil rights issue. Since African-Americans had to fight so hard for their own rights you would think they would be more sympathetic to the homosexual community's struggle. Then, there is the biblical bullshit he's throwing around. I have on numerous occasions pointed what a pile of crap that is. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality. So what? It condemns all sorts of things that no one pays any attention to any more (assuming they ever did). It also condones some of the things Evans rails against. I challenge any Bible-thumper to name a single major male figure in scripture who did not commit one or more of the following; incest, adultery, rape, or murder. Not one of them is worth modeling public policy after.

Biblical Marriage

Once again the ignorant narrow minded bigoted assholes have gotten their way. Despite North Carolina already having a ban on same sex marriage they found it necessary to push through an amendment that goes far beyond what is already an unethical discriminatory ban. North Carolina will now by law be able to refuse recognition of same-sex and non-married couples in any way. Worst of all, these pinheads are using a specific interpretation of religion to deny citizens what should be basic rights.

In the CNN video clip Baptist Pastor Baity uses a specific Bible passage to justify this hateful amendment. He, of course, is cherry-picking and interpreting. If he had any intellectual honesty or integrity of any sort he would never have done such a foolish thing. There is no single definition, or for that matter an explicit definition, of marriage in the Bible.

I can think of two Biblical couples off the top of my head that contradict Baity's preferred definition. Adam and Eve are not married in the sense we currently think of marriage. Eve is referred to as his wife but their is no reference to any ceremony and certainly no clergy. Read Genesis 2-4 and you could infer that simply having sexual relations made them husband and wife. No direct mention of marriage is made but it is clear that they have sex.

Then there is one of the Bible's greatest heroes, King David. King. David was a polygamist. In quick succession he marries two women even though he was already married(I Samuel 26:39-44). Even three wives was apparently not enough for this horny champion of God. David has an adulterous affair with Bath-Sheba, arranges for her husband to be killed, and then makes her wife number four (II Samuel 11:2-27). Don't forget David is not one of the villains, he's one of the good guys of the "Good Book."

So lets recap. According to the Bible no religious ceremony or even the involvement of any type of clergy is necessary for there to be a marriage. All you have to do is have sex. If you happen to have a penis you do not have to limit yourself to one partner. You can marry as many women as you like and you don't even have to be faithful. Sorry ladies, there are numerous passages that make it clear if you attempt the same type of behavior all you can look forward to is a painful death.

So much for the Bible endorsing one man and one woman.

Then, of course, there is the issue of religion dictating to government what should or should not be public policy. Religion should have no say in civil marriage law just like government has no say in religious doctrine.

Another religious hypocrit, shocking

I find it interesting that the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, would make this statement, ''The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.'' Apparently he is too blinded by his own self-righteous bigotry to see the hypocrisy. He doesn't think anyone should "redefine" marriage but he is certainly fine with forcing his preferred definition on everyone else.

I do agree that the church has no right to tell the state how to handle civil marriages. This is not, of course, his real aim. I wish it was. If the religious bigots who oppose marriage equality would get it through their thick skulls that we don't give a shit what they do in their places of worship maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone. I doubt it but it is a nice thought.

Sin and Sinner

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Unfortunately, we will be hearing this ridiculous crap a lot more over the next several months. Maine will in all likelihood have a referendum on same-sex marriage. I have already heard various conservatives and narrow-minded theists drag out this old phrase as if it has any connection to reality. Science has a little way to go to definitively prove that homosexuality is biological but the link is very strong. A variety of studies on genetic and hormonal links have already produced a huge body of data that all leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a "choice."

Basically, religion's favorite dodge when it comes to discrimination, persecution, and just being assholes has been pretty well demolished. When it comes to homosexuals you cannot separate the "sin" from the "sinner."  Being homosexual is an innate part of their humanity. If you hate their supposed sin then you hate them. If opponents of gay marriage want to openly admit to being hateful I would be fine with that. It would make it easier to deal with them and their barrage of lies and bullshit.

I, however, am fed up with their denials of reality. If we had a functional media the general public might have a better idea of just how full of shit these purveyors of lies and hypocrisy are.