So apparently, Lauren Ashley, who is this year’s Miss Beverly Hills, takes a rather Old Testament view of homosexuality.
Carrie Prejean isn’t the only beauty queen open to expressing her objection to same-sex marriage. Miss Beverly Hills 2010 Lauren Ashley is also speaking out in support of traditional nuptials.
“The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white,” Ashley told Pop Tarts.
“I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life.”
I have to say that I’m very impressed with Miss Ashley, because it’s rare to find people these days who take the words of their sacred religious texts so seriously. However, it appears that Miss Ashley has been remiss in her Bible study, as it’s become apparent that she has missed some vital portions of the Old Testament. In the interest of saving her immortal soul, I believe that there’s a few verses she needs to be made aware of.
1) Deuteronomy 22:5
Here is a photograph taken last year of Miss Ashley. Do you see the abomination that she’s committing? She’s wearing pants–a clothing that only men should wear. For as it says in Deuteronomy 22:5:
A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God.
For the sake of her soul, I hope she stars wearing more modest, gender-suitable clothing.
2) Leviticus 19:19
It’s inevitable that, as part of the Miss California competition, that Miss Ashley will have to participate in the swimsuit competition. Most swimsuits manufactured these days, though, are a blend of spandex and nylon. This poses quite a problem, because it violates Leviticus 19:19, which states:
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
Hopefully, she’ll pick a swimsuit made from one material only.
3) 1 Timothy 2:9-10
Finally, I think that if Miss Ashley truly believes that the Bible shows that God “knows more than we do about life,” then she should heed 1 Timothy 2:9-10:
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
In other words, she should quit the beauty pageant racket entirely and go out into the world and do great things, instead.
Conor Friedersdorf argues that gay marriage does not represent radical change. In essence, he argues that for most people in the United States, marriage is when two people fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. So it’s not a radical shift from those two people being heterosexual to those two people being homosexual.
I agree completely. As I argued last summer, the conservative argument that marriage has “always” been about “one man and one woman” is ridiculous, and the institution of marriage today is already far different than it was just a couple of centuries ago.
In July 2008, hotelier and developer Doug Manchester donated $125,000 to help gather signatures for a proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California. The early money was crucial to getting the initiative—which ultimately passed—on the ballot. At the time, he told The New York Times that he made the donation because of “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church,” which preferred that marriage remain between a man and a woman. Indeed, the Catholic Church has vehemently opposed gay marriage. Then again, it’s also not too keen on divorce.
On Oct. 9, 2008, Manchester ended 43 years, eight months and nine days of marriage to Elizabeth Manchester by moving out of their La Jolla abode. The couple spent the next several months trying to reach a quiet settlement on how best to distribute millions of dollars in cash and other assets. In July, those talks totally broke down, and Doug started playing financial hardball with Elizabeth, allegedly draining the couple’s shared accounts and stealing her mail. On Aug. 6, Elizabeth filed a petition for redress in family court. All of the information in this story comes from those petitions. CityBeat contacted attorneys for both parties, but neither returned calls by press time.
Yes, you read that right. At the same time Manchester was doling out cash to prevent loving couples from getting married, he was in the midst of a divorce. And not an amicable one, either.
Of course, the actions of one Prop 8 supporter don’t actually affect the merits, but I do think that it’s particularly despicable to be “fighting for traditional marriage” in the name of religion while at the same time violating the tenets of one’s own religion by getting divorced.
Thank you, New York Times, for validating the fact that my gay friends and I do, in fact, have real friendships. Though I’m pretty sure I have never gone through the “awkward crush” phase described in the article. Like, ever.
No, I mean ever.
In fact, come to think of it, I’m pretty sure this article was written by someone who has never actually met a gay person.
I am saddened, but not surprised, to report that Orson Scott Card has joined the board of the National Organization for Marriage. A group which brought us this persuasive advertisement:
The only bright spot about this is that I know this is a losing battle. I’m just frustrated that a writer as full of compassion and ethical thought as Orson Scott Card can’t see what’s wrong with this fight.
For more about Orson Scott Card’s views on gay marriage, check out my criticisms here and here.
In his ongoing debate over gay marriage with Conor Friedersdorf, Joe Carter repeats this common canard among opponents of same sex marriage:
Homosexuality, of course, was not invented in the past few decades; it has been an orientation and behavior that has existed as long as man has been on this earth. So why is it that no society or culture has never sanctioned gay marriage? Could it be that all societies and cultures on earth have, until the past few years, been populated with people who are misguided or are —to use the term that has been directed at me for my position —“bigots”?
Nope. The answer is that many different cultures have permitted gay marriage, as I explained awhile back:
Second, it is not even true that marriage between homosexuals is a new concept. Marriage between gay couples have been recorded in Egypt as early as 3,000 B.C. Some Ancient Greek states had legally recognized gay relationships–indeed, the special forces of the Theban army, the “Sacred Band of Thebes,” was comprised solely of homosexual couples.
You can see my original article for more, including the hash I make of this idea that somehow heterosexual, monogamous marriage as we know it today has been around for 5,000 years. It hasn’t been. Polygamy has been accepted in many societies. Extramarital relations have been not only winked at, but sometimes had their status (concubines, mistresses, etc.) enshrined into law. There is not “thousands of years of tradition” behind American conservatives’ definition of marriage–there’s a couple of centuries at best.
Like Conor Friedersdorf, I also fail to see how allowing same-sex civil marriage would undermine religious liberty. “Marital status” is not a protected class as far as anti-discrimination law goes. Not only that, but the law already protects the religious liberty of churches to perform or not perform marriages as they will. Catholic churches, for example, don’t marry people who have been divorced, and there’s no legal problem with that.
And as one of Conor’s commenters wisely points out:
The easy way to determine this is to look at countries that already have gay marriage, and see whether it has caused any loss of religious liberty. If they could find examples where it has, opponents of gay marriage might have a point. I don’t think such examples really exist - Canada in particular has made it completely clear that religious institutions are not required to perform or endorse same-sex marriages - but who knows, I may have missed some.
Newt Gingrich is horrified of the specter of gay fascism haunting the land.
I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion.
The reference here is to the acts of a handful of individual anti-Prop 8 protesters (which, if true, are bad, but they’re hardly the norm).
This is just an appalling amount of ignorance. Two people who love each other and want to get married aren’t doing ONE SINGLE THING to impose their will on ANYBODY. The vote for Prop 8 was a vote to strip people of the right to make their own families. Prop 8 is the oppressive measure. Let’s get that clear.
And while I’m on the subject, doesn’t anybody else find it disgusting that a confessed adulterer who’s been married three times has the cojones to lecture ANYBODY on the sanctity of marriage and traditional religion?
For those of you who don’t remember much about the Bible, here’s a breakdown of what Jesus said about homosexuality and divorce.
# of Times in the Gospels That Jesus Spoke Out Against Homosexuality: Zero. # of Times in the Gospels That Jesus Spoke Out Against Divorce: Four.
How about taking out that plank in your eye, there, Newt?
Jim Henley explains how to do it. It’s not exactly hard, people. And please also note that even an eight-year-old can see how horrible bans on gay marriages are.
