My Evolution on Gay Marriage

Now that the Supreme Court has heard arguments on two gay marriage cases, that the number of senators publicly supporting it has jumped to more than half, and that public opinion has now shifted decisively in its favor, I thought it might be a good time to chronicle how my own views of gay marriage have changed.

For most of my life as a Christian, homosexuality wasn't even really on my radar. The concept was largely foreign to me. When it did finally trickle into my consciousness, I felt no animosity toward gay people; I just considered it a strange and sinful way of thinking and behaving.

I never held very strong opinions on gay marriage, but the issue came to a head in 2008 with the introduction of Prop 8 in my home state of California. I remember that it was something I went back and forth on, but sadly I ultimately voted in favor. My rationale at the time was that gay people could still have civil unions and get the same benefits without taking on the title of marriage.

At the time, I thought that was enough. My vote on this issue was probably the last truly harmful action I took as a result of my religious beliefs. Though I no longer think that civil rights issues should be put to a majority vote, a small part of me wishes this one would be, just so I and others like me could redeem ourselves.

I didn't think much about the issue again until what was probably late 2010—after I had started questioning my faith, but before I became an atheist. I came across this video by prominent atheist and LGBT blogger Zinnia Jones.

In the first half of the video she rattles off a number of potential disadvantages associated with civil unions, but the second half (starting at 1:30) was what really struck me. If civil unions are identical to marriage in every way but in name, why is there a need to make a distinction at all? What does marriage offer straight couples that they need and gay couples can't have?

My views on gay marriage were already tenuously held, but that video was what solidified them decisively in its favor. At this point, I think it's clear that there are no decent arguments against gay marriage, and that most secular arguments have been propped up in order to disguise religiously-motivated concerns. I'm glad to see public opinion changing so rapidly, and look forward to seeing how each sect and denomination will respond to gay marriage's inevitable acceptance.

No Religious Test

The No Religious Test Clause of the U.S. Constitution says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Yet remarkably, no less than eight of our state constitutions either give theists preferential treatment or single out atheists to deny them the right to hold office:

Arkansas – Article 19, Sec. 1:

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland – Article 37:

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God[.]

Mississippi – Article 14, Sec. 265:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina – Article 6, Sec. 8:

The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Pennsylvania – Article 1, Sec. 4:

No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.

South Carolina – Article 17, Sec. 4:

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee – Article 9, Sec. 2:

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas – Article 1, Sec. 4:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

There are a few things worth noting here. One is that Maryland and South Carolina have overturned their clauses (although they're still on the books). Another is the bias toward classical monotheism baked into the wording: in most of these clauses it's taken for granted that one god exists who's superior to all other beings. A third is that Pennsylvania and Tennessee also focus on belief in "a future state of rewards and punishments"—which throws deists out in the cold along with Taoists, Shintoists and many Jews. Finally, Arkansas' constitution doesn't even allow atheists to testify as court witnesses. But this is Arkansas we're talking about, so maybe we're just lucky there's no law saying we need to be shot on sight.

As bigoted as these provisions are, they're thankfully superseded by the federal Constitution. But that doesn't mean they've never caused any harm. In 1961, Roy Torcaso's appointment as a notary public was revoked after he refused to declare a belief in God. The case of Torcaso v. Watkins went all the way to the Supreme Court, which unanimously struck down Maryland's religious test clause. But that was 50 years ago. Surely we've grown as a nation since then, right? Well, virtually the same thing happened in 1992 when Herb Silverman crossed "so help me God" off of his oath to become a notary in South Carolina. And in 2009 Cecil Bothwell was elected to the city council in Asheville, North Carolina—but not without a group of vocal opponents trying to bar him from office and sending out fliers fearmongering over his unbelief.

It's important to remember, too, that highly-publicized prejudice is not the only form of harm that can come from clauses like these. Although they have no real legal weight, fundamentalists can still use them as ammunition to intimidate would-be public servants. For every atheist who runs for office, how many aspire to but decide against it due to a wall of opposition that's both institutional and societal? Striking these intolerant words from our governing documents wouldn't instantly erase the deep-seated prejudice that Americans have against atheists in politics—but it would be show that we're ready to give them a chance.

Homophobia in the Bible

Yeah! Three cheers for suffocating,
moralistic theocracy!

Murder, slavery and misogyny are all evils which the Bible supports but most Christians today would strongly condemn. In contrast, homophobia and anti-gay sentiment are still rampant within modern Christianity, which makes the biblical support for this kind of bigotry all the more significant. Let's start by examining such references in the Old Testament:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Notice the intensity of the language: few if any words could condemn homosexuality more forcefully than "abomination." And OT law is both unambiguous and gruesome: the punishment for gay sex is death. Apologists (perhaps with a hint of relief) are quick to argue that Jesus rendered this law obsolete, but that's of no consolation to those who were oppressed and killed beforehand. For example:

"Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens. So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground." (Genesis 19:24-25)

In the story, the male population of Sodom tries to rape Lot's male companions—a bigoted portrayal which implies that all homosexuals are depraved monsters. But since everyone in multiple cities is killed, the attempted rape can't be the reason for God's wrath. God is incinerating the inhabitants of these cities for their "sexual immorality," including the horrific crime of... being gay. Jude offers further commentary:

"...as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

The people of Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding cities have "gone after strange flesh," presumably a euphemism for the ostensibly "unnatural" act of gay sex. Jude even takes it a step further: their crimes are worthy not only of death, but of endless torment in the flames of hell. Finally, let's take a look at one more common anti-gay theme in the Bible:

"[T]he law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars..." (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

"...For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind... filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:26-32)

Homosexuality is not merely condemned, but repeatedly associated with truly horrendous acts like kidnapping and murder, not to mention every negative character trait imaginable. In Romans, Paul claims that people who reject God are inclined to commit all kinds of sin, and that homosexuality is thus correlated with everything from boastfulness to deceit to violence. And for good measure, we have another candid pronouncement that gay people deserve death.

Conclusion
As homophobia becomes less acceptable in modern society, it's likely that Christians will try to downplay and explain away instances of anti-gay sentiment in the Bible, just as they did for slavery and misogyny once black people and women began gaining rights. They have no basis for doing so. The Bible quite unequivocally condemns homosexuality as disgusting, immoral, and worthy of death and eternal suffering. No amount of rationalizing or evasion will change that.

Misogyny in the Bible

The way in which the Bible advocates treating women is often nothing short of horrendous. I will examine just a few examples of this treatment here. Let us start with the laws of the Old Testament:

"When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife..."

At this point I'd like you to stop and think about what words should come after this in a just and rational society. I would expect something like "you shall by no means do so, and if attempt to, you shall be severely punished." Instead we find:

"...then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

Some context is useful here: in the previous chapter (v. 13-14) God commanded the Israelites to kill all of the men of the enemy nations. This woman's father, brothers, and male friends would all have been dead. Then she is forced to become the wife of one of the men who killed them. Then, as if this would not already be a living nightmare, she is raped. Yes, the Bible allows the rape of female captives—and it definitely is rape. And just to head off any objections from apologists, I'll lay out here why we know this to be the case:

1. The man is clearly having sex with the woman. The phrase "go in to" is a common Old Testament euphemism for sex, and the precise phrase "because you have humbled her" is used sexually just one chapter later (v. 28-29).
2. "Anah," the Hebrew verb translated here as "humbled," is used in its sexual connotation eleven other times in the Bible. All eleven refer to a sex act that degrades the woman, and at least six refer to rape in particular.
3. There is no reason that consensual sex would have degraded or humbled the woman, so it had to have been non-consensual.
4. Most importantly, no woman in her right mind would willingly have sex with a man who has just aided in killing her family and forced her to be his wife.

Here's an issue that's relatively minor, yet is still indefensible because it's both harmful and completely unnecessary:

"Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. She shall then continue in the blood of her purification thirty-three days. She shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purification are fulfilled. 'But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days." (Leviticus 12:1-5)

Why this discrimination? What is it about giving birth to a baby girl that makes one twice as unclean as giving birth to a baby boy? This arbitrary distinction in the law has absolutely no upside, and would probably have made the Israelites more resentful towards baby girls. This is a suspiciously human law—one that seems far more likely to originate from an ancient tribe with primitive ideas about gender than an infinitely enlightened God.

There are many other instances of inequality and misogyny in the OT, but I want to keep this to a reasonable length. Let's move on to the NT:

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Do Christians ever stop to think about why this should be? Certainly women are no less intelligent. While they may be physically weaker on average, this shouldn't have any impact on a social relationship. And while there is an analogy presented in this verse, it only clarifies the woman's role rather than giving a reason for it. To be blunt, there simply is no good reason. (In case this verse wasn't clear enough, its command is repeated in Colossians 3:18 and 1 Peter 3:1.) And finally:

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

So in summary: women are to be silent in church, they are to learn in silence, they are to be submissive, and they are not to teach or have authority over men.

Why is this? What exactly is shameful about women speaking in church? What is it about women that makes them poor teachers? I wonder why many Christians who think women shouldn't have authority in the church also think it is perfectly fine for women to be mayors, senators, governors, or even president? Surely the office of president is filled with far more problems than a position of authority in the church. If they're going to treat women as second-class citizens, they ought to at least be consistent—especially since the Bible itself portrays female rulers as a bad thing in Isaiah 3:12.

Look at the bizarre non-sequitur rationalization Paul gives in 1 Timothy. Women should be silent and should not teach because Eve came after Adam and was deceived? Paul seems to think that because Eve was deceived, all women are naturally gullible. This is a clear example of the genetic fallacy: drawing a conclusion based entirely on someone's origin. It should make no difference where women came from; they should be judged based on their own merits.

Again, this is just a sample of the misogyny in the Bible—there's plenty more. Of course, apologists try to downplay these instances in any way they can, but if we use their same standard of acrobatic reinterpretation, we can also excuse the rampant anti-woman sentiment in the Quran. With enough leeway, anything can be made to say the opposite of what it originally meant. If we treat the text with any degree of honesty, the image we get is not of a loving God, but of bigoted men who used religion to subjugate women.

The World According to Evangelical Leaders

The Pew Forum has released a survey of evangelical Protestant leaders worldwide, which includes several interesting statistics. First, their opinions of nonbelief:

• 71% of evangelical leaders called secularism a "major threat" to Christianity—the most of any option.
• Muslims beat out the "non-religious" in terms of perceived unfriendliness toward evangelicals, 69% to 45%. But that includes self-described agnostics and even some theists; the results would be different for atheists alone.
• 70% have an unfavorable view of atheists—a higher percentage than for any other (ir)religious group, including Muslims.

These figures are consistent with my previous observation that atheists are the most disliked and distrusted minority in America. Now, here are some other discouraging statistics:

• 52% of leaders think Jesus will "probably" or "definitely" return within their lifetime. Again they show that there's only a marginal difference between them and apocalyptic prophets like Harold Camping.
• 94% believe that winning converts is essential to evangelical Christianity. Helping the needy? A still-high but much-lower 73%.
• 92% have a favorable view of Pentacostals, the denomination most known for "worshipping God" by speaking gibberish and flailing around.
• 84% think homosexuality should be discouraged by society.
• 47% reject evolution entirely; another 41% insist it was God-guided.
• 55% think that "a wife must always obey her husband." Why? Well, because God said so. Isn't that reason enough to treat women as second-class citizens?
• 51% think abortion is not usually, but always wrong—which would include cases of rape, incest, and endangerment to the mother.
• 84% believe they should express their political views. These are the people in positions of authority, and that means those views will inevitably rub off on their congregations.

It always amazes me when people ask why we nonbelievers can't just mind our own business and respect other people's beliefs. These statistics should make the answer obvious: beliefs have consequences. When they're false, they can cause serious harm and even warp our perception of reality. It's only natural to promote reason when this is the result of its absence.

Now that I'm done with that little rant, I'll end on an amusing note: 52% of leaders thought that consuming alcohol is "incompatible with being a good evangelical." Even leaving aside how absurd that is on its face, let's take a look at Jesus' words in Matthew 11:18-19:

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' But wisdom is justified by her children."

Either evangelical leaders don't know their Bible, or they genuinely don't think Jesus himself belongs in their exclusive club.

Who's Really Being Persecuted?

Christians in America often talk about how they're being persecuted, how they're under attack from our culture on all sides. It's a bit hard for me to sympathize with them, given that the proportion of Americans who are Christian is 78%.

Generally when U.S. Christians say they're being "persecuted," they mean that someone disagrees with them, or that they're being portrayed in anything less than a positive light. But there's no indication that such opinions are widespread, or that they often lead to negative actions against Christians. So what group is most hated and distrusted? It's not Jews, Muslims, or even homosexuals.

It's atheists.

And unlike Christians, we have the data to back up this fact. Here are a few statistics that provide just a glimpse into the prejudice nonbelievers face:

• 39.6% of Americans say that atheists "do not at all agree with my vision of American society." The second highest group was Muslims, with 26.3%.
• 61% of Americans say they'd be less likely to vote for an atheist presidential candidate, and 53% would refuse outright even if they were well-qualified. In this regard, being an atheist is significantly worse than having an affair, being gay, or having never held elected office.
• 47.6% of Americans say they would disapprove if their child wanted to marry an atheist. The rate for marrying a Muslim was 33.6%; for marrying a conservative Christian it was 6.9%.
• 58% of Americans don't believe it's possible to be a moral person without believing in God.
• 61% of Americans say atheists have a negative impact on American culture. Coming in at a distant second with 39% were... Scientologists. Yes, atheists scored far worse than a litigious, psychiatry-hating, power-mad, space operatic cult.
• 52% of Americans have a "mostly" or "very unfavorable" view of atheists. The figure for evangelical Christians: 18%.

Clearly American sentiment toward atheists is overwhelmingly negative, but we can also look specifically at how they're treated. For instance, the Boy Scouts accept members from all religions, but don't allow atheists or even agnostics as scouts or group leaders. Religious people often make the baseless claim that "there are no atheists in foxholes"—and people don't take too kindly when atheist veterans make themselves known. Former President George H.W. Bush allegedly said he didn't think atheists should be considered American citizens. This article includes plenty of other injustices against nonbelievers, some of them downright astonishing.

The most notable and recent example of an atheist being persecuted is the case of Damon Fowler. He's a former public high school student who objected to having a school-sanctioned Christian prayer at his graduation ceremony. He was threatened, his parents kicked him out of his home, and the school decided to give the middle finger to church-state separation and go right on ahead with that prayer. In response, atheists online raised over $30,000 dollars to help pay his college tuition.

Often times even government institutions assume a belief in God. In some areas, only religious clergy are allowed to perform marriages. Religion is sometimes given special treatment in the military. In courtrooms, people are asked to swear on a Bible to tell the truth "so help you God." According to the Pledge of Allegiance (since 1954), we're "one nation under God." And "In God We Trust" is printed on our very currency. Who is this "one nation," and who is this "we"? These terms ought to refer to every American citizen. Why don't they include atheists?

Despite the fact that atheists are the most widely disliked major group in America, there is a silver lining. First, the percentage of people claiming no religion jumped from 8% in 1990 to 15% in 2008. (This admittedly includes non-religious theists, but the percentage of self-identified atheists has similarly increased.) And second, research has shown that as the number of atheists in an area increases, religious prejudices against them in that area are reduced—and it's not just a correlation, but a causal link. As atheists slowly become more prominent, they will eventually be more accepted as well. It's only a matter of time.

Slavery in the Bible

Although the Bible discusses slavery on many occasions, it never actually condemns the practice. Christians sometimes claim that slavery in the Bible was more like servanthood than what we think of as slavery, but this is simply untrue. Servants are not held against their will, they are not property, and they most certainly are not beaten:

"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." (Exodus 21:20-21, NIV)

Under Old Testament law, masters were allowed to beat their slaves. Viciously. Ruthlessly. The slave could be collapsed on the ground, covered in welts and bruises, moaning in agony... but it didn't matter, as long as they recovered within two days. And here's the kicker: as brutal and horrible as such a beating would be, the NIV (which sometimes tries to "soften" unpleasant passages) is actually the best-case translation. Many of the more literal translations instead say that if the slave remains alive for a day or two, there is no punishment. In other words, the master would get off scot-free as long as the slave clung to life for one or two days before dying.

Christians rationalize this system by claiming that God was "working within" an imperfect Israelite culture. They apparently forget that God is supposedly omnipotent and could easily have outlawed such a practice if he wanted to. He imposed hundreds of other laws in the Old Testament, whether the Israelites wanted them or not. He God could easily have done the same with the abolition of slavery, and certainly didn't need to let the extreme cruelty described in these passages go unpunished.

Christians also try to justify OT slavery by claiming that it was only a temporary condition, but this applied only to non-Israelites:

"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor." (Leviticus 25:44-46)

And while Israelites can normally be enslaved for "only" 6 years, OT law also provides a loophole that lets Israelites enslave each other permanently. Exodus 21:2-6 says that if a master gives his slave a wife, who then bears that slave's children, the wife and kids belong to the master. If the slave wants to stay with them, he must become a slave for life. The master is essentially holding the slave's family for ransom, and all of this is blithely endorsed by the Bible.

Jesus also implicitly endorses slavery by discussing its cruelty without condemning it. He says in a parable: "And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) While the morality of slavery was the not the point of the parable, the fact that he let this cruelty pass without comment speaks volumes. And then there is this passage:

"Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God." (I Peter 2:18-20)

In other words, the slaves get no credit for enduring beatings if the punishment is "justified"—and regardless of how harsh their masters are, slaves should not try to escape from them. Imagine how slaves in the old South and elsewhere in the Americas felt when they heard this passage (and they probably would have; Christian slave owners often used the Bible to justify slavery). Many slaves who would otherwise have escaped probably continued to suffer due to the influence of a bronze-age book.

Bible says: If this slave is being beaten for his faults... well, that's just to be expected.
But either way, he should lay there submissively for the sake of pleasing God.

In summary, biblical slaves are nothing like servants. According to the Bible they are property, they can be held for life against their will, they can be violently beaten, and they are not to run away even when they are mistreated. This is not a matter of differing cultures, and apologetic claims to this effect would be hilarious if they weren't so despicable. Slavery is undeniably a grossly immoral practice, sanctioned and regulated by the Bible.