Skip to main content

Rev Joel Hunter, spiritual advisor to President Obama just appeared on Andrea Mitchell. He said that "God defines marriage". I'm sure others have said the same a million times before and maybe I've even heard it said before. But hearing this clergyman say it just now hit me more intensely than ever just how ridiculous and hypocritical and just plane insane this assertion really is.

No vid or transcript available yet, but all you need to know is the man said, "God defines marriage".

I've got a few questions I'd like to hear asked of Rev Hunter.

Why should an entire nation be expected to subscribe to your particular interpretation of what God has to say on marriage or any other topic?

Oh, and on marriage, why are marriages not currently required by law to be performed by religious officials? Why are non-clergy allowed to officiate at weddings and sign marriage certificates? Or do you  believe civil laws on this should be changed?

Why is your god to be accepted as more authoritative than any other god or interpretation of what god says? Do we have freedom of/from religion or not? Are you not attempting to establish not just Chrstianity, but your specific understanding of it as a government sanctioned religion?

But here's what I'd most like to know, Rev Hunter. Are you really prepared to have congress legislate according to what your God says? If so, then let's make a deal. Just as soon as we're done banning same-sex marriage I suggest we move to ban all US lending agencies from charging interest.

As a gay male, sure, I'll put marriage equality on the table just as soon as you're willing to put charging interest on the table.

Actually, no, you ban interest first, then let's talk about banning same-sex marriage. Yeah, that's better. You'd never put banning interest on the table which leaves me open to telling you to STFU about what god has to say.

Oh, and Rev Hunter? Fuck you, you cherry-picking, freedom of religion-hating piece of shit.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (17+ / 0-)

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:31:40 AM PDT

  •  Marriage is a Legal Union That Was Being Per- (24+ / 0-)

    formed thousands of years before anybody discovered God. You don't go to God for a divorce either, you go to the STATE in order to break your LEGAL contract.

    If the faithful want to differentiate their union from the legal one they can give theirs another name. For example, "banana."

    "Marriage" is already taken, by the state, and whatever the religious call theirs, legally it's going to be called a "marriage."

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:35:15 AM PDT

  •  So what is God's definition? (5+ / 0-)

    Surely God wrote down the definition for him, right?  Does he have it, or what?

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:41:06 AM PDT

  •  God evolves and changes his mind. The (6+ / 0-)

    proof is the New Testament.

    •  Is there NT scripture than speaks specifically (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skylarking, Brooke In Seattle

      against polygamy? If there is, I'm unfamiliar with it. I can see how some may be interpreted as moving from polygamy to monogamy, but they don't, to my knowledge, in no uncertain terms speak against polygamy.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:50:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  nicely done! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC

    I like how the diary got more irate as it went on, ending on a high note.

  •  Ok, Reverend. God defines marriage. (4+ / 0-)

    Whose god?  Only yours?  Convenient then that its your god that defines it, thus requiring us to need you to tell us the will of God.  So, I guess since marriage comes from God, no one needs government issued marriage licenses anymore then, eh Reverend?  And if marriage comes from God, atheists can't get married?

  •  God Has Clearly Defined Marriage (5+ / 0-)

    As between one man and as many women as he can afford.  Like JTinDC, this is the only way God has defined marriage in the bible, New Testament or Old.

    Ezra Klein is my "freebie"

    by Skylarking on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:04:46 PM PDT

  •  OK. I'm just gonna breath and let you channel the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC, liberaldemdave

    outrage today. You have it. I don't have to get all crazed about the stupidity and the evil willingness to scapegoat glbt folk. Not today...

    Poverty = politics.

    by Renee on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:10:29 PM PDT

  •  I heard someone else say a version (5+ / 0-)

    of this nonsense on MSNBC yesterday too (but not on AM's show -- can't abide watching her).

    This preacher man said that God defined marriage in the Bible as between one man and one woman thousands of years ago.

    Funny thing, though. I was raised Catholic, and I remember many, many men in the Bible who had multiple wives -- at the same time! Even the lauded patriarchs!

    And because I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, I don't think it's any church's business to decide who can and cannot legally marry. So what if some Iron Age people had certain beliefs and rituals? This is a different time and place. Why can't people see this? Why should we live our lives by rules that no longer apply to modern society and fear some unprovable "deity's" wrath?

    I'm so sad that so many people in my country have become so ignorant. It's like we are going backwards.

    But I do like your idea about interest. I also think we should bring back the debt Jubilee.

    ;~)

    "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

    by Brooke In Seattle on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:24:29 PM PDT

    •  What I think it's really about is people who can't (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BachFan, liberaldemdave

      handle the idea that any of their kids/grandkids might turn out to be gay and if society says in any way that it's OK to be gay then that undermines their efforts to keep their kids str8. To these people, it really is a "think of the children" kinda thing.

      Too bad they can't see the real damage they do to the children they claim to love when they insist on telling them they have to be someone they are not.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:33:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They're clearly wrong ... as Skylarking points (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC

      out above, marriage (at least in the Old Testament) was indubitably for one man and multiple women.

      "Specialization is for insects." -- Heinlein

      by BachFan on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:38:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like it, but I'd rather go the other way (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    I'd like to lose all those law we have respecting and establishment of religion. In KS there's a church on practically every block that pays no property taxes, so our schools suffer or the rest of us, including non believers, have to pick up the slack. These churches take in loads of cash from their parishioners, but they don't have to account for any of it because of their assumed good works. If they are really doing good works, that should be deductible from church income, along with legitimate expenses. What's left is profit and ought to be taxed like any other business.

    I'd keep loan interest if these hypocritical apostates of American government principles would simply pay their own way. Like their Jesus-dude supposedly said about rendering onto Caesar and all.  

    •  Of course, I embrace the establishment clause. (0+ / 0-)

      I was implying, perhaps too vaguely, that the Right Wing is happy to mix government and religion, but only in so far as suits their purpose at any given moment of their choosing. There's no real religious princple at work here other than using religion to manipulate society for not so religous reasons.

      I fully agree that churches should be taxed.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:57:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  how quickly we all have forgotten... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC

    that the president's reason for opposing marriage equality was because "god is in the mix".

    think on that one a while...while thinking on it, reflect on his opinion that marriage should be left up to the states...in violation of the 14th amendment and the full faith and credit clause of the constitution...30 states have made the decision to not recognize any form of legal union between glbt couples. that, my friends, is what "state's rights", looks like"...and that is what the president still supports.

    •  I think he's lying. I don't think for a second (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      redstatewoes

      Obama actually has had for quite some time if ever had any religious objection to marriage equality. Matter of fact, I think the chances are well above average that the man is pretty darn close to being a secular humanist, aka an atheist.

      But would he stand a chance at re-election if he admitted that? Let's not pretend this electorate doesn't have minimal religious requirements. Consitution doesn't matter. It is what it is. People ultimately vote based on what's important to them.

      The final frontier of civil rights isn't marriage equality, it's open atheism.

      Obama has already taken steps and will continue efforts to repeal DOMA. He isn't going to push for a constitutional amendment to support national marriage equality becasue a. it's a fool's errand at this point in time, and b. there a fair chance the issue may be decided favorably by the Supreme Court in the relatively near future.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:15:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  if ya really wanna drive fundie's crazy: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC

    hit 'em with facts.

    When Same Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
    emph added:

    Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

    These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

    ...and then there's this:

    The Top 8 Ways To Be 'Traditionally' Married According To the Bible

    Photobucket

    •  sorry about the tiny jpg... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JTinDC

      click the link to see the full sized image. some fascinating stuff about "Biblical" marriage, like:

      (paraphrased from .jpg)

      -widows who haven't borne a son are required to marry their brother-in-law (even if he's already married) and bear her dead husband an heir.

      - a virgin who is raped must marry her rapist and he must pay the woman's father 50 shekels for "property loss". (30 shekels was the going price for a slave, so at least she had some value. /snark)

      those are but 2 examples. feel free, no...i encourage you, to use them when a fundy tell you that we have no "right" to change the definition of marriage (especially if they use the term "Biblical marriage"...

      nothing worse to a fundy/evangelical than a christian that happens to be queer. let's just say i go into battle with an advantage over many of them...i've actually studied the bible. ;)

    •  Yes yes yes, Thanks for posting this. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liberaldemdave

      Very important to know.

      Also, King David had quite a bromance with his bestest buddy Jonathan. Was it sexual? Well, he's said to have loved Jonathan more than any woman, so . . .

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:21:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  was it sexual? BWAHAHAHA. surely, you jest. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC

        i know this stuff inside and out. not only do i think that it was VERY sexual, but jonathan's father, saul, had a huge problem with it for a couple of reasons: 1.) they were "flaunting" their queerness for all to see and 2.) he was insanely jealous of his son for stealing david away from him. whether or not there is a sexual link between david and saul is completely up in the air...between jonathan and david it is very explicitly obvious in the narrative.

  •  I don't want to have to study the . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spirit of Life, JTinDC

    damn bible or any other religious text in order to find some little scrap somewhere that might support what should be a basic fucking human right! And I am sick of those texts being used to justify whatever fucked up views of whatever fucked up religious sect that wants to force others to live by their fucking rules!  These people can't seem to live their lives without constantly checking their scripture, what the fuck kind of way is that to live?

    Well, if that is their choice, fine.  I think they're nuts, but fine.  They just can't fucking expect me to accede to their expectations of living my life by those same fucking rules, especially not here, not in this secular country.

    And if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else and start their own fucking Theocracy!

    Too much with the f-bombs?  Oh well, fuck it!

    Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

    by sjburnman on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:52:35 PM PDT

  •  According to the catholic church (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sjburnman

    Gay marriage is an infringement on their religious liberty.  It seems to me pretty odd that a bunch of celebrate old men can decide who should get married.

    After the Republicans burn down the world, they will prove the Democrats did it.

    by jimraff on Wed May 16, 2012 at 05:04:30 PM PDT

    •  I really don't know what there is to celebrate . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jimraff

      about  being celibate.

      Sorry jimraff, I couldn't resist jumping on the misspelling.

      Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

      by sjburnman on Wed May 16, 2012 at 05:19:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  using ipad to add comments (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjburnman

        interesting auto-correct.  

        After the Republicans burn down the world, they will prove the Democrats did it.

        by jimraff on Wed May 16, 2012 at 06:27:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gotcha. The wonders of technology. n-t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jimraff

          Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

          by sjburnman on Wed May 16, 2012 at 06:29:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site