by Sally Jo Sorensen
Marriage equality is the law of the land, but St. Cloud Times Writers Group columnist Cathy Williamson, a landscape architect and home educator whose contributor bio notes that she "loves creativity, people and truth," assures readers that God is still hating on teh gay.
Also that "homosexuals" are few and far between.
Reviving the divine death penalty
Williamson writes in Bible clear on gays, lesbians; Why did residents OK Minn. unions?:
While these and other references paint the picture of God’s norm for marriage, specific teachings reveal God’s negative attitude toward homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22; 20:15: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” and those who do “shall be put to death” for their guilt. I Corinthians 6:9 informs homosexuals that they will not inherit the kingdom of God. In Romans 1, homosexual acts are deemed “contrary to nature, dishonorable passions,” deserving death. Those doing them give approval to those who practice them, thereby heaping up more liability. In I Timothy 1:8-10, homosexuals are counted among the “unrighteous.”There’s just not any indication here that God is pro-homosexual behavior.
The biblical God of love would have homosexuals turn to him for a change of heart, not a change of status.
Yes, I wonder at the abysmal research that supported the promotion of homosexual marriage. But I wonder more that we Minnesotans, well educated and replete with Christian churches, settled for such poor scholarship and skewed biblical understanding. What were we thinking?
Indeed. Bluestem does wonder what a person so concerned with scholarship is thinking when she blends Leviticus 18:22 and 20:15 in a discussion of same-sex behavior. While 18:22 (Revised Standard Version) is related to the topic, here's 20:15:
“‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
That's some scholarship, chapter and verse. Some of Bluestem's friends do date bears, but we're not sure how Williamson might document that, much less punish it. Maybe she had furries in mind.
Both chapters also forbid married hanky-panky while Aunt Flo is visiting, although only the second iteration shares God's prescribed punishment: banishment. Perhaps Williamson can wave the bloody flag of divine law on that one in a future column.
"What were they thinking?" is a rhetorical question, but the "kill the homosexuals" verse from Leviticus (actually 20:13) that she lovely cites did come up in the discussion--and was rejected by Minnesota for Marriage as well pro-equality forces in a memorable episode in the amendment fight. On june 28, 2012, Bluestem posted in M4M disavows Leviticus 20:13 verse used in October letter it promoted on Twitter:
Hacking a person's or organization's social media accounts is strategically stupid stuff, and it's likely that the thimblewit who hijacked Andy Parrish's gmail account (and all the related Facebook pages to which the intruder gained access) will be caught.The culprit deserves what's coming to him or her.
But the bible verse that he or she posted, creating such an uproar, isn't new to Minnesota for Marriage tweets. Back on October 6, 2011, the M4M account tweeted:
And another great letter to the editor today: LTE Support Marriage Amendment http://bit.ly/q7EkLF #mnformarriage
This is the letter from the Austin Daily Herald, Support marriage amendment:
Today a fight is brewing for the Marriage Amendment that defines a marriage as between one man and one woman. People are saying that this amendment means nothing, that it is no big deal because we have laws against homosexual marriage. They are wrong.
We need this Marriage Amendment because if we don’t, then they can get the law changed. This same homosexual group has changed the law in other places such as Iowa and New York. Now they say they want to get the law changed in Minnesota. They plan a massive blanketing of Minnesota by going neighborhood to neighborhood, making phone calls and distributing pamphlets.
This is what the Lord says of homosexual marriage: Romans 1:24-27, Leviticus 18:22-23, and Leviticus 20:13.
And Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version):
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
When M4M deputy campaign director first raised the Facehack issue yesterday, he tweeted that the posting on the M4M page was "garbage":
My Twitter, Facebook, @gmail.com @me.com were all hacked and garbage was posted on the MInnesota For Marriage FB. I won't be intimidated.
The "garbage" was the verse from Leviticus 20:13.
M4M has posted the following statement on its Facebook page (it seems to have been taken down, but Politics in Minnesota grabbed a screenshot):
“We are currently working with Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, and Apple to see who hacked Andy’s account and who posted this message,” reads the message posted on Minnesota for Marriage’s Facebook page on Wednesday morning. “Clearly we would never advocate for anyone to be put to death. We strongly believe that people are entitled to love whomever they choose, but they are not entitled to redefine marriage for all of society.”
While M4M will continue to push for enshrining one version of marriage in the state constitution (the bible suggests other forms), it's good to see the group moving from recommending LTEs quoting Leviticus to taking the position that people can love whomever they want without facing the death penalty.
As for Old Testment passages that note multiple wives(those forms of marriage other than one man, one woman), Williamson writes:
Heterosexual marriages remain the norm as the biblical narrative unfolds, despite that many Bible characters wrongly multiplied the number of wives in the equation.
So the Bible is right, except for those cases where it doesn't fit Williamson's definition of divinely-sanctioned "Edenic" marriage. Okay then: it's the characters in the books' faults, not the author.
Straw man: using outdated Kinsey claims to bash equality
Earlier in the letter, Williamson also commits the signature rhetorical move of the movement to end marriage equality: assert that those arguing first against the amendment, then for marriage equality, made a claim that they didn't, then attack that strawman.
Bluestem dispatched a similar gambit, claiming that amendment opponents claimed they wouldn't support the freedom to marry if the ballot measure failed, in our March post, Draz missed Winona Daily News coverage of campaign against marriage amendment.
Williamson asserts in her letter:
When the legal definition of marriage lay on Minnesota’s table recently, the public was informed that 10 percent of our population is homosexual. That figure came from the faulty mid-century Kinsey report. However, research reported in a 2012 online Atlantic article, “Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are,” puts it closer to 1.7 percent.
During that same time, U.S. Sen. Al Franken informed me that homosexual marriage would strengthen Minnesota families. When asked to quantify that statement, he met me with silence.
That's quite a bait and switch, and we admire Franken for refusing to play Williamson's game of "quantity," however she happened to actually frame it for the senator she was baiting. Apparently, the smaller a minority, the more empowered Williamson feels she is to work to deny it rights.
But if one walks the Atlantic article back to the Williams Institute study on which it's based, we find this sentence at the top of the summary:
An estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual
Williamson's definition of "homosexual" erases all bisexuals, including those who might fall in love and wish to marry a same-sex partner.
But Bluestem recalls that Minnesota United, the coalition that worked first to defeat the amendment, then secure the freedom to marry for all people, didn't much talk about the percentage of Minnesotans who might be LGBTQ. Rather the argument was framed on the very American proposition that the loves between two people, regardless of gender, were no different, and that every single adult should be able to marry the single adult that he or she loves.
Thus, the group didn't turn to Kinsey or even the Williams Institute study that's the basis for the Atlantic article when it came time to "quantify." In those few moments when MU talked numbers, it used the most reliable data available: same-sex households enumerated in the United States Census.
Freedom to Marry notes on its Minnesota page:
GROUPS THAT WORKED ON MARRIAGE:
- Minnesotans United for All Families is a coalition of organizations dedicated to defeating the constitutional amendment that would limit the freedoms of Minnesotans and ban marriage for same-sex couples in Minnesota.
- Freedom to Marry is the campaign to win marriage nationwide for all loving and committed couples.
- Human Rights Campaign is the United States' largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality.
- OutFront Minnesota is the central statewide organization leading a multi-year campaign for marriage in Minnesota.
- Project 515 is a focused initiative with a specific, achievable goal: to ensure that same-sex couples and their families have equal rights and considerations under Minnesota law.
POLLING DATA: A rapidly increasing plurality of residents in Minnesota support marriage for same-sex couples, with 51% of respondents saying they support the freedom to marry, and only 47% saying they are opposed. These numbers affirm that the momentum for state legislators to extend the freedom to marry to same-sex couples in Minnesota is stronger than ever. (KSTP/SurveyUSA, April 2013)
NUMBER OF SAME-SEX COUPLES: According to The Williams Institute's analysis of the 2010 U.S. Census, 10,207 same-sex couples are living in Minnesota, representing 4.9 same-sex couples per 1,000 households.
Just before the law went into effect, Pat Kessler reported in Reality Check: How Many Gay Couples Are In MN?:
Until 2000, the US Census Bureau didn’t even count same sex couples. Now, the government
reports more gay households than ever before, including Minnesota.
It’s TRUE: 13,718 same sex couples reported living in Minnesota in 2010. It’s a 50 percent jump in just 10 years, according to the latest government count.
IN FACT, one study, from the California-based Williams Institute, estimates 54 percent of Minnesota’s same-sex couples are female while 46 percent are male. . . .
The numbers may be under-reported, and it doesn’t reflect how many people may consider themselves gay.
So, where does Minnesota rank?
Approximately 2.9 percent of Minnesota’s 5,379,139 population call themselves gay: that’s below the national average of 3.5 percent.
Washington, D.C. ranks highest with a gay population estimated at 10 percent. North Dakota ranks the lowest at 1.7 percent. . . .
Bluestem suspects that we'll see more Williamson-esque nonsense as the 2014 elections approach in some state house districts. For while the contenders in the endorsement race to be the 2014 MNGOP gubernatorial recognize what a losing proposition repealing marriage equality is statewide, anti-freedom organizations might pin their hopes of ending the DFL House majority and rubbing out equality-minded Republicans with this malarkey.
On the other hand, we've never found telling voters that they're dupes to be a particularly flattering or winning strategy. The Friends of Cathy W can try it.
Photo: The first same-sex couple to be married by Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak in City Hill. Also their cute son. Via MSNBC (top); Cathy Williamson, via St. Cloud Times (below).
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
Comments