By default, the religious Right's primary rationale behind their refusal to allow same sex couples to marry ( and by futher extention, their reluctance to let them enjoy the same basic rights that any other American is afforded ) is groudned in the ill-informed notion that the bible explicity tells them that same sex couples are an "abomination".
Recently, I saw a fantastic documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So.
Here's the trailer:
The crux of the arguement between the religious Right and those seeking equal opportunity and rights for same sex couples ( gays and lesbians in general, wether they be "married" or not ) revolves around this notion of "abomination".
By it's strict definition, the word "abonimation" means the following:
–noun 1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.
While there are several mentions of "abomination" in the old and new testaments, many of these are no longer seen in the same light or are blatantly ignored as irrelevant.
Recently, there was a wonderful comedic piece done that highlighted this.
To provide biblical context to this piece ( something that the Right, en masse, continually espouse but never provide ) here's some forgotten "abonimations" from the Bible that don't seem to be such a big deal anymore.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
So, cross-dressing is bad
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD but they that deal truly are his delight.
So, do you think that Jesus and his pop are Fox"News" fans?
Recently, Sean Hannity - the good Catholic boy who claims to have never watched porn - advances a lie about Obama's defense budget
More from Media Matters
During the April 8 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity again falsely claimed that President Obama has proposed to "cut not only missile defense, but our defenses dramatically." In fact, the Obama administration has proposed increasing defense spending by billions of dollars over the amount enacted in fiscal year 2009. As CNN.com noted on April 6, "The proposed overall fiscal year 2010 Defense Department budget is almost $534 billion, or nearly $664 billion when including the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Aside from the religious Right's bigotry towards gays and lesbians, their desire to protect the homeland at any cost is another major issue.
Unfortunately, since Hannity cast himself in the role as "true-believer", a lie is still a lie in the "eyes of the Lord".
He that justifieth the wicked,and he that condemneth the just,even they both are abomination to the LORD.
When reading the phrase "justifieth the wicked" I am reminded of O'Reilly's refusal to apologize for his comments surrounding Sean Hornbeck.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed
Leviticus, chapter 11 and references to seafood
Guess that takes care of Red Lobster, and all your other favorite seafood joints.
There's a blatant hypocrisy within the religious Right when they attempt to toss out biblical text in order to defend their positions.
Yesterday, I saw an exchange between HRC President Joe Solmonese and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage debate on MSNBC's HARDBALL.
The video being discussed puts forth several lies and loads of misinformation surrounding same-sex marriage and the "problems" that it would cause. Think Progress has also addressed the fact that the people in the ad are actors, not real people.
Even Dr. Laura Schlessinger - a darling of the conservative movement - has recently told Larry King that she thought same sex marriage was a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.
The question to the religious Right has remained the same, and been just as simple to answer, as it ever has been - what are you so afraid of?
While their answer continually flutters between how they interpret an historical document that has been translated thousands of times over, comes in a variety of lingusitic variation dependeing on your particular preference, and has it's roots in a canonization process that was subject to begin with, as some ancient texts were left out from what would become the "Christian" bible that we all know today.
It is that same revisionism that drives the relibgious Right in all that they espouse.
Last night, as an aside to the same sex marriage issue here, I saw Pat Buchanan and Lawrence O'Donnell get into a heated debate where Buchanan appears ready to blow his top.
The discussion revolves around Notre Dames's invitation to Barack Obama to give the commencement address. While Buchanan sees this as a bad move - due to Obama's views on abortion and what the catholic church believes - O'Donnell brings up the valid point that George W. Bush was allowed to address the school multiple times and he used his power as Texas governor to permit the death-penalty more than any other governor had before.
Buchanan, clinging to his willful ingorance in regards to the Pope's view on the death penalty, continually insists that O'Donnell is the one that has no perspective on the Vatican and the Holy Catholic Church.
In all, the relious Right's desire to espouse and execute Theocratic rule, in virtually any situation where they dane it applicable, is indicative of their inabillity to see that this country was conceived under the separation of church and state.
As the Right loves to use the "founding fathers" statements in an order to prove that they somehow believed in a separation of church and state, it is interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson had quite different ideas than those that have sullied his name and his deeds.
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802)
There have been wonderful discussions in the past that show that many of our "founding fathers" ascribed to a Diest point of view rather than the "Christianty" that is practiced - whether in earnest of convenience - by members of the religious Right.
It is easy to see that our nation has always been more groudned in progressive ideals rather than the religious-regressivism that is continually espoused by the religious Right and those that identify with them.
Theocratic rule within the United States would bring about such a vast and sweeping change to not only the liberal or progressive constituancies in America, but the conservative movement as well. The idea that we could have any sort of advancement within those boundries is far from the truth.
To hear people conservative commentators and pundits speak of biblical text often conjures many questions in my mind - chief of which is whether they actually understand the passages or ideals that they are attempting to discuss. But, isn't that the point of the religious Right and the bible which they claim to hold so dear? It is a mindset who's primary function is to keep it's following ignorant to the world around them.
Those that use the bible as a tool of divisiveness can't possibly have the desire to truly live by each and every word, to create theocratic rule. Their lives would be effected just as much as those which they seem to despise.