Biblical Traditional Marriage? As if...

I grow weary of preachers defending discrimination against LGBTQ people. One right wing evangelist who enjoys some notoriety (mostly because of a famous relative) posted on social media today that businesses have a right to refuse service to LGBTQ people if they claim their discrimination is based on their belief in “biblical traditional marriage.” That of course spurred literally thousands to chime in to call same-gender love and attraction sinful and to cheer those who refuse to serve gay customers. I, as you will see below, disagreed.

“Biblical traditional marriage? Would that include Abraham selling Sarah to a king’s harem, or him taking Hagar as a lover? Would that include David’s 8 or so wives (and love affair with Jonathan)? Would that include Solomon’s thousand spouses?  Would that include Adam and Eve who never had a wedding ceremony (who would have conducted it?). Would it include Cain and Abel and their wives (where did they come from?). Would it include Lot’s daughters who were engaged when he offered them to a rape gang? Does biblical marriage include Lot who not only offered his daughters to a rape gang but then had incest with them in a cave? And does traditional biblical marriage mean not serving single parents? Does it mean not serving remarried divorcees? Using “biblical” marriage as an excuse to discriminate against gays is mendacious and disingenuous. You’re entitled to your prejudices, but stop blaming them on God.” (dw)

Californians Facing the Fires Are in My Thoughts

I’m thinking of that old hymn, “Showers of Blessings.” I’m wishing for showers of blessings to fall upon the people who are frightened or injured or dislocated by the fires in California. May the people find the comfort they need. And God bless the first responders!

God Save Us

God deliver us from an imperial president. God bless the dreamers. God comfort and heal Jerusalem and all who call Her holy. God save us from the ravages and rage of fundamentalism no matter which religion it may infect. God restore us to sanity. God keep our hope alive. Amen.

Stop Using “Sodom” Like It’s a Thing

So, SCOTUS is hearing the Colorado Wedding Cake case, where a baker claims to have the right to not bake for gay couples wanting a wedding cake. As long as a baker views someone as naughty or a couple’s love as illegitimate and claims that homophobia is Jesus mandated (which is false, btw), he/she/they should be able to refuse gay people’s cake orders. Obviously, such blatant discrimination is wrong, and hopefully, SCOTUS will make that clear. 

Still, the No Cakes For Homos position has its defenders. Someone on Social Media today in defense of the “Let them eat anything else” view posted, “An entire city was burned to the ground for sexual sin.” I don’t know how cake or religious or civil ceremonies equates to sexual sin, or how not baking a cake will somehow body block to people wanting to do the horizontal mambo. Also, the doomed city wasn’t named in the “sexual sin” post (nor was the date of the supposed occurrence nor the source of the info), but I’m in the religion biz and recognized the Sodom (& Gomorrah) reference from Genesis 19 (a storyin the Jewish and Christian bibles) instantly. When ignorance is employed to defend and promote hate, I often have to offer a counter narrative. It probably does little good, but silence will surely reduce me to drooling in a fetal position somewhere, so for my own sanity, I say something. 

Here was my response:

“Surely you aren’t throwing up the Sodom myth (poor Gomorrah, they never get much mention) as your argument for allowing businesses to discriminate? Sodom’s ‘sin’ wasn’t non-discriminatory bakeries. It was cruelty, inhospitality, and indifference to the marginalized...the Religious Right is more guilty of those sins than most! The attempted gang rape of ‘angels’ (which was foiled by the way, and PS...rape is always bad and is not the same as mutually shared attraction, affection, or even consensual bump and grind) didn’t occur until after Sodom was judged to be unworthy, and it would have been spared if any decent people could be found...it wasn’t destroyed because wedding cakes could be purchased by anyone, but because NO ONE was kind or generous or welcoming (again, starting to get close the Fundies). And, mutual attraction, love, or committed relationships are never mentioned in the story, so ‘gay’ isn’t the issue. Furthermore, the hero of the story is Lot, who at the end of the story sleeps with not one but BOTH of his daughters (after offering them to the rape gang that tried to attack the angels...even Abraham who was willing to kill his own child was a better father!). So, really, no sane person would ever use that terrible story to condemn love or mutual attraction. No, there has never been a city destroyed because of sexual ‘sin’...and even if one had been, that would have NOTHING do with a legal case about commercial discrimination.”

So, you know, stop it. Stop using Sodom likes its a thing. It’s certainly not a moral argument that justifies dehumanizing same-gender loving people.