God to anti-gay hatemongers: “Do I know you? For you, do not know me”

Today, I read an article on in the Salt Lake City Tribune titled “Anti-gay hatemongers aren’t doing God’s work.” The article is largely a discussion regarding the Westboro Baptist Church led by the Rev. Fred Phelps. The article’s author, Corey Hodges, explains:

There is no biblical defense for Westboro’s hateful message and insensitive demonstrations. The group’s philosophy and approach are riddled with contradictions. Westboro cannot truly believe in the Bible, which speaks of God’s love, mercy and grace. Jesus vehemently opposed earthly agents of condemnation. He said, in Matthew, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged. … Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye.” Westboro’s hate is a huge plank.

Hodges, a Baptist pastor himself, explains that although the Westboro Baptist Church and its leader have a First Amendment right to the freedom of speech (and to and from religion – I would add), he reminds us:

While Westboro’s actions may be not be illegal, they are immoral and unethical. People of faith must remember that the law cannot be the sole decider of behavior.

In reading the editorial by Rev. Hodges, I feel forced to ask: “What is hate?” and “How is hate manifested in our society?” We need only consider how the United States has responded to Muslims in America and to GLBT Americans to understand how hated is manifested. Hate is a powerful word and as such, is often masked behind other words:

• Some may argue that they speak out against Islam because they feel it is “of the devil.” This is hate.
• Some may argue that gay relationships are abominable in the eyes of God and that they love gay people, but they do not love “the sin.” In fact, the mantra goes “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” This is hate.
• Some may argue that it is “us” against “them.” This is hate.

As a society, we have to stop blanketing hate; we have to stop accepting synonyms for hate, because by such we exercise a silence that allows hate to continue to raise its ugly head in the halls of Congress, behind the guise of a pulpit, and in the words of men of our age who claim to be speaking for God. We must stand and speak in one voice in declaring an end to hate.

When President Obama gave his speech last week declaring an end to military operations in Iraq, I couldn’t help but pray for the day that we may have a similar cry for justice, a similar declaration for the end of hate. We are all called to be prophets of our time by living a life that seeks to be void of hate. We must respond to hate with love, a love that does not judge.

I can only imagine what God might say to those who spew hate: “Do I know you? For you, do not know me.”

Ten Points in Support of Gay Marriage: Christian and Secular Perspectives

I would like to thank an earlier reader who commented on a few posts for inspiring this “list” of reasons for supporting gay marriage. I am confident that it will launch a lively discussion, which is the hope. It will only be through dialogue that we will come to understand each other and hopefully understand the need for equality. As a person commenting on the blog reminded me the discussion becomes “sticky” and “personal,” however, I will make every effort to maintain an appropriate tone so as to ensure that emotion does not overwhelm the content of my response.

First, allow me to begin by asserting a point that I am sure we will all agree on: marriage is a cornerstone of any civilization.

Second, another point I am sure we agree on: the United States is a society that was founded on an unequivocal guarantee of equality for all citizens. An equality that has been all too slow to come to fruition for many segments of American society.

Now, with this in mind, why do I believe gay marriage is a right and why such right is fully inline with standard conceptions of morality?

(please pardon the theological arguments that are largely Christian discussions, as I am a Christian)

1. I believe that God created all men and women, equally, and that his creative force cannot be denied based on the outcome of the uniqueness of His creation.

2. The Old Testament asserts that God created order out of chaos and so I wonder how any segment of God’s creation can be “intrinsically disordered.”

3. The “brotherly bond” that an earlier commentator asserted in her posting (See Gotta Love Texas! posting comments) that existed between David and Jonathan was far more intimate than her statement seeks to convey. One need only reference 1 Samuel 20 to understand the intimate nature of David and Jonathan’s relationship. In the case of David and Jonathan, we have ample cross references to earlier passages of the Bible that further clarify the extent of the relationship between David and Jonathan. Take for example 1 Samuel 18:2: “From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father’s house,” this is directly inline with Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” The fact that Jonathan lives his father’s house and cleaves to David implies a relationship that is very similar to that described in Genesis, further in Ancient society, cohabitation of this type would have constituted marriage. In 1 Samuel 18:20 we read “Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. ‘I will give her to him’, he thought, ‘so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him’. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law” — this therefore implies that David was somehow a son-in-law to Saul twice over (via his son and daughter). Then in 2 Samuel 1:26: “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

4. Christ preached a message of love. I am confused, as a religious studies scholar, because if Christ came to replace the law of the Old Testament and NEVER mentioned homosexuality or anything remotely similar to it in his time among us, then why has it become a cornerstone of particular Christian denominations’ moral teachings? Please remember that these “moral teachings” that churches teach today, are the formulations of man and based heavily on the interpretation of man.

5. 1 Cor. 6:9 states clearly and powerfully: “Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” Please remember the condemnation contained herein “nor abusers of themselves with men” is not a teaching of Jesus Christ, but rather a teaching of St. Paul.

6. There is a point that I find rather interesting. I have read a few entries on your own blog entries (escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com) and I am fascinated by a particular theme in those speaking out against Islam: Those speaking against Islam are provoked to speak out against such because of the injustices Islamic countries (their words, not mine) are committing against woman and other marginalized populations by subjecting people to Sharia law. I wonder, how is the subjugation to Sharia law and the restrictions places upon people any different than the moral law purported by some Christian denominations when they decide to deny GLBT Americans the right to marry? Is that not the imposition of religious law (as viewed by some) on the majority that should only be subject to civil law?

7. There is a clear distinction between religious and civil law. Please see an earlier post on this blog where religious leaders comment on this distinction.

8. Ancient Societies did have highly ritualized same-sex marriage ceremonies and substantial research has been prepared and is evidenced by ample historical evidence.

9. I am confused by the views of some denominations of Christianity which preach a particular morality, but then back-step on such morality with divorce. There has always been a clear teaching regarding divorce both in the Biblical and Ancient legal tradition: Ne inter coniuges divortium fiat. So I wonder how if the Church has evolved in its understanding of divorce, which is clearly not condoned in the Bible, it is not able to experience a similar evolution in its understanding of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. There are more condemnations of divorce and infidelity in the Old Testament and New Testament than the few scattered mentions of homosexuality (NONE of which were made by Christ who came to replace the law).

10. I believe in a society that allows the balance of justice to protect the rights of the minority. With this in mind, I believe that judicial opinions in Loving v. Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail clearly recognize the intrinsic right of every American to marry another person. This is especially clear in Zablocki v. Redhail which asserts the right of all Americans to marriage.

Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

Gotta love it! Texas says don’t mess with marriage

It is quite intriguing how judicial activism is “okay” when it involves fulfilling the agenda of the conservative right! In referring to a court decision that came down in Texas this week regarding granting divorces for same-sex marriages performed in other states. The decision concluded that Texas does not have the power to adjudicate divorces for same sex couples and in a de facto manner ruled that same sex marriages were not valid. National Review and the American Principles Project featured strong statements in support of this Texas decision.

In the National Review article, the author writes:

Where Judge Walker said gays and lesbians constituted a specially protected class, the Texas decision said there really are differences in the classes affected by the marriage laws: “The persons singled out and favored by Texas’s marriage laws, namely opposite-sex couples, have such a distinguishing and relevant characteristic: the natural ability to procreate.”

Where Judge Walker said that the right to same-sex marriage is fundamental, the Texas decision noted that the key right-to-marry case, Loving v. Virginia (invalidating an interracial-marriage ban), “involved a marriage between a man and woman.”

To bad for the “experts” at National Review, the decision in Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1, 1967) does not include the quote “involved a marriage between a man and woman.” In fact, the entire decision does not include a definition of marriage, but rather comments on the right to marriage for all Americans. Although National Review and the American Principles Project might like to portray the decision as a defense of traditional marriage, Loving was in fact a statement in support of marriage being blind to color.

A further U.S. Supreme Court decision that gets far less attention than Loving is Zablocki v. Redhail, which further affirms the right to marriage for all Americans. Interestingly, Thomas Peters at the American Principles Project failed to cross-check the facts presented in Duncan’s article on the National Review.