GOD DOESN'T HATE GAYS, CHRISTIANS DO

FINALLY! A blog post that lets me momentarily indulge my full on "man crush" on Dave Navarro, even if it is just to post a intentionally antagonistic photo. This past week, a political story has been brewing here in Washington State. No, it wasn't a reaction to South Carolina's Congressman Joe Wilson's shocking outburst during President Obama's Health Care speech, nor was it the controversy surrounding the President's speech to America's school children. Both pissed me off, though they don't even come close to the ire incurred by Washington State Referendum 71 initiated by a group calling themselves Protect Marriage Washington. Referendum 71 seeks to repeal Washington State's current domestic partner rights. Yet another hate based agenda, initiated by faith based organizations who have learned from the Mormon's mistakes in California with their blatant endorsement of Proposition 8. Making it extremely vague as to any affiliation with specific denominations so as to protect their beloved Tax Exempt Status which prohibits their direct endorsement of political initiatives or candidates. Yet the Protect Marriage website has legal advice for pastors and churches regarding what they can an cannot say and highlights "talking points" that are without question faith based. It's time that we stop indulging iron age social phobias based in folk tales and regard each human being as truly equal. Even the phrase "sanctity of marriage" often used by anti-gay marriage organizations (and our most recent former president) endorses a religious connotation.

SANCTITY - 1 : holiness of life and character : godliness 2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

Christian fundamentalist/evangelicals find themselves all too often losing the argument that there is necessarily something mentally/physically wrong with homosexuals, so they have begun fighting the movement on a different front. That the treatment of homosexuals as equal citizens, as an equal human being, is threatening their religious liberty. Is the preservation of "religious liberty" a justification for the treatment of a minority group, one that simply opposed their religious beliefs, like second class citizens?

Rick Duncan, a Welpton Professor of Law at the University of Nebraska College of Law writes:

If gay rights laws are enacted, religious persecution follows inexorably. Religious dissenters...are marginalized and stigmatized as “homophobes” and as outlaws... Public school curricula soon reflect the change in the law, and our children are made a captive audience for learning the new social understanding of marriage and family and of unlawful discrimination... In contemporary America, the greatest threat to religious liberty is the gay rights/gay marriage movement...

What if he had written:

If civil rights laws are enacted, religious persecution follows inexorably. Religious dissenters...are marginalized and stigmatized as “racists” and as outlaws... Public school curricula soon reflect the change in the law, and our children are made a captive audience for learning the new social understanding of desegregation and family and of unlawful discrimination... In contemporary America, the greatest threat to religious liberty is the civil rights/interracial marriage movement...

Is there any fundamental difference except for the minority group in question? The religious right loves to cite Biblical chapter and verse as examples of the classification of homosexuality as a sin. Leviticus 18:22 , 20:13 and I Corinthians 6:11 among the most popular. This is where they lose all credibility with me. If you are going to use the Bible as any sort of divinely inspired commandment from your God, don't you have to use it all? Why does it seem that Christianity consistently views the bible as a Vegas buffet. Taking only what they want, and leaving the rest to compost. Just as easily as you can find those verses against homosexual behavior, you can cite numerous examples of biblical endorsement of slavery in both Old and New Testament. Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:20-21, Luke 12:46-47, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2. Not to mention the limitations of woman's rights to speak/teach/preach in I Timothy 2:11-14. Embrace all of it, or none at all. This "ala carte" religion is WAY too convenient.

It's often asked why would two same sex people even feel the need to get married when most of the legal/financial benefits can be reached in other ways. Why is that question any different for gay and lesbian couples than it is for heterosexual couples? I know for myself that my wife and I are married for social validation of our relationship where our parents were concerned. It was a piece of paper and ceremony that in their eyes only endorsed what she and I had already felt. Why is it then perceived as such a danger for same sex partners to want the same social validation? I mean outside of the antiquated religious dogma that drives this discrimination. The idea that the homosexual lifestyle is rife with sexual deviants with multiple fetish behaviors is nothing more than scare tactic and religious propaganda. Heterosexuals have many of the same "deviant" desires and behaviors, thus rendering the concern that such behaviors will suddenly be taught to their children in schools moot. Again, nothing more than dogmatic propaganda. As much as they would love to convince you otherwise, homosexuality is real. It's not a demonic possession of an otherwise heterosexual person. Regardless of what Ted Haggard would like you to believe. The former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is fond of saying he was just a Christian heterosexual with issues. Sorry Ted. The devil didn't make you suck cock.

Then today it was announced that a Federal judge has ordered the State of Washington to keep the names of the people who have signed the petitions to get the referendum on the November 3 ballot private, in fear of them being persecuted or harassed. Bullshit. Plain and simple this is an attempt to keep quiet those specific christian denominations behind the initiative in order to protect their Tax Exempt Status. Shouldn't those attempting to change state law, be open to public scrutiny? the late comedian George Carlin said it best:

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But HE LOVES YOU! He loves you, and He needs MONEY! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!"

So if you live in Washington state, and are a registered voter, read the referendum carefully. It's worded backwards, so a vote to "approve" is a vote to preserve the rights of same sex couples and put a dent in the continuing cycle of religiously endorsed hate in this country.