The Bible Belt's Real Threat To Marriage: Divorce

According to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bible Belt has a divorce problem:

Of the 14 states reporting divorce rates for men that were much higher than the U.S. average -- ranging from 10.0 to 13.5 per 1,000 -- most were in the South. They included Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.

In contrast, men in the Northeast divorced less than the national average. Five of the nine states that had divorce rates for men significantly below the U.S. average -- ranging from 6.1 to 8.5 -- were the Northeastern states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey , New York and Pennsylvania.

The same was true for Southern women. Nine of the 14 states with divorce rates for women above the U.S. average, ranging from 10.7 to 16.2, were in the South. They included Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.

By comparison, four of the 10 states with below-average divorce rates for women, ranging from 6.0 to 8.9, were in the Northeast: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

Let's take a look at the maps:

It's pretty clear from these maps that the Bible Belt states (and others, to be fair) have a problem staying married.

If I remember correctly, it seems that most folks in these Bible Belt states feel that that they need to ban same-sex marriage in order to protect marriage.

Let's have a look at the status of same-sex marriage in the US (orange and red denotes constitutional amendments banning same-sex civil unions and marriages, respectively):

Looks kinda familiar, right?

Of course, we all know that the Bible Belt is the most religious section of the United States, as detailed in this map depicting US religiosity by state:

Again, looks pretty familiar, right?  Do these highly religious folks not realize that their Bible forbids divorce?

The data is quite telling. While certainly there are many factors to consider when making correlations (i.e. people in the Bible Belt marry at younger ages than their Northern counterparts), this data underscores the blatant hypocrisy associated with much of the Bible Belt's religious, anti-LGBT population.

While their religion dictates that they discriminate against gays and lesbians, they don't seem to care what the Bible has to say about divorce and re-marriage. Or perhaps they choose to believe that the anti-divorce stuff in the Bible belongs in that pile of stuff that we don't follow anymore. But the anti-gay stuff? Totally still relevant.

Funny how they pick and choose based on their own circumstances.

While they claim that the real threat to marriage is allowing same-sex couples to marry, we can clearly see that the real threat to marriage is divorce.

That Old Refrain: 'Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman As Designed By God'

Since Amendment One's passing in North Carolina, I have seen dozens of letters which support my assertion that this vote was all about religion.

A letter in today's News & Observer states:

The passing of Amendment One was a protection of marriage, which God created. Many people are upset with Christians wanting this protection. Marriage is and always was between a man and a woman. Christians get their direction and information from the Holy Bible. God did not leave his creation without direction. When people try to take matters into their own hands (or definitions ) they get themselves into problems. Many want to do just what they want to do. They will not listen to instruction.

Variations of this letter have appeared in countless newspapers across the country to support anti-LGBT sentiment.

These folks can repeat this refrain over and over -- and they certainly have the right to say (and believe) it -- but the fact of the matter is that this refrain is historically wrong, and a terrible basis for legislation.

How is it wrong?

Well, let's break it down:

'Marriage is and always was between a man and a woman'
Sorry, folks, but you are not allowed to start the timeline at the point in history that helps make your case. If you ate a dozen donuts, you can't say you only ate 4 just because you didn't like how the first 6 tasted.

Marriage has absolutely not always been between a man and a woman. Over the course of human history, marriage has been defined as between a man and several women, a man and an adolescent boy (Greece), a man and a man, a woman and a woman, every woman in the community and every man in the community (Oneida Colony, New York, 1848), etc., etc.

The point? Marriage has evolved over time, and will continue to evolve until mankind is extinct. When you say that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, you are, quite simply, lying.

'God created marriage'
Did God create marriage? First of all, which god are you referring to? Aa? Anubis? Bahloo? Ceros? Cronos? Fu Xi? Horus? Kōjin? Mamaragan? Mars? Odin? Ra? Saturn? Sōjōbō? Thoth? Vesta? Wen Zhong? Yama? Zaraqu? Zonget? (I could list hundreds more, but you get the idea.)

Your god no more created marriage than any of these gods created marriage. In fact, we know for a fact that marriage existed prior to the emergence of monotheism. How is it that thousands of years of marriage existed before the emergence of the god that created it?

Humans evolved. Religion evolved. Marriage evolved. Humans will continue to evolve. Religion will continue to evolve. Marriage will continue to evolve. It's pretty simple.

When people such as the above letter writer start explaining that the 'Christian Bible' explains this or that about marriage, it might behoove those people to realize that one of our most important rights as Americans is that we can practice whatever religion we choose (and that includes the right to not practice one at all). I should no more expect your rights to be defined by my religious beliefs than you should expect my rights to be defined by yours.  Freedom of religion does not mean that you are free to restrict the rights of others who do not accept the claims of your religion.

It doesn't matter what the majority of Christians believe. What matters is that each American should not have his or her rights defined by a particular set of religious beliefs.

The refrain is getting old. Please feel free to start framing your argument in secular legislative terms moving forward. (Good luck with that.)

NC Amendment One Sample Ballot

Here is the Amendment One referendum as it will appear on your ballot when you vote on May 8 (you are registered to vote on May 8, right?).

You know what to do.

Please share with your friends, neighbors, and family.  Make sure they are registered to vote on May 8, that they are not confused by the wording, and that they understand the harms that will be done to many North Carolinians (not only homosexual couples), if this amendment passes.

Redefining History: The Myth Of Marriage As Religious Union Between Man & Woman

Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum (Egypt)

One of the most common arguments against marriage equality is the claim, "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

We also hear time and again about the "sanctity of marriage," and that marriage was designed by God, and is therefore a religious institution.

These notions are simply not true. Anyone with a basic knowledge of human history would know these claims don't float.

Let's have a quick look at some examples from history which shed some light on how marriage has been defined, and re-defined, over time:

Pre-500 BCE

• Abraham (founding forefather of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) had his wife Sarah sleep with both the Egyptian Pharaoh and the Semitic King Abimelech for political positioning and increased riches. Unable to provide Abraham with an heir, Sarah encouraged Abraham to marry her Egyptian slave as his second wife (polygamy), which resulted in the son Ishmael.

• A wife was considered her husband’s property. Marriage was used to strengthen a family’s financial or political position.


5th Century BCE thru 1st Century BCE

• In Athens, “Marriage was respected as an institution that provided progeny and good housekeeping; it was not expected to fulfill one’s longing for a soul mate.” The ideal union was considered to be between an adult man and an adolescent boy.

• Marriage was a contract made between the bride’s father (or brother) and the groom.

• Toward the end of this period, “Roman marriage laws began to require the consent of the bride and groom.” The requirement for mutual consent between the bride and groom began spreading throughout the Western world and helped to change a wife’s position from a piece of property, like cattle, that could be given by the father to her husband.


1st Century CE thru 14th Century CE

• The early Christian church was hostile to marriage, believing that marriage and family were distractions from the path to salvation. To remain single and celibate was the ideal.

• Nero married two men, Sporus in 54 CE, and Doryphorus in 68 CE.

• Same sex weddings took place in increasing numbers over a period of time, but were outlawed in 342 CE.

• Basil I, founder of the Macedonian dynasty, entered into three same-sex unions, first with Nicholas, a monk of the church of St. Diomede; then to John, son of a wealthy widow in Achaia, Greece; and then later to the Emperor Michael. After Basil entered a formal union with Nicholas it was reported that “they rejoiced in each other.”

• “Canon law made two changes that were to have long-term effects. First, the church pressured individuals to marry in the presence not only of witnesses, but also of a priest, and to perform this ceremony ‘at church.’ Second, it downplayed the need for parental consent, and foregrounded the mutual will of the intended spouses as the major criterion in the making of a valid marriage. This revolutionary doctrine would endure and flourish over the centuries.”

• Love preceding marriage began to take hold in Europe, when previously affectionate feelings or familial devotion was expected to develop after marriage.


15th Century CE thru 18th Century CE

• Although mutual consent and love preceding marriage had taken hold, marriage retained elements of its former status as a property arrangement. Once a woman was married, her husband became her legal guardian. Her husband legally owned all the property she brought to the marriage.

• Governments and Churches in greater Europe successfully enforced a rule requiring church ceremony to validate a marriage beginning in the 16th century. This requirement came to England a bit later in, in 1735.


19th Century CE

• 1801 Murray Hall, a prominent Tammany Hall politician in New York, was posthumously discovered to have been a woman. Hall dressed in men’s clothing, lived as a man, and was married twice, both times to women. Hall also voted in elections, which was illegal for women at the time.

• The Oneida Colony in upstate New York, founded by John Noyes in 1848, cultivated a form of group marriage called "complex marriage" in which theoretically every woman was married to every man. The community also practiced "scientific breeding" in which potential parents were matched by committee for physical and mental health.

• If a woman worked outside the home, everything she made belonged to her husband. Her children also belonged to her husband. If she divorced him, he kept all of her earnings and their children, even if he was a drunkard who beat her.

• Biawacheeitchish, also known as Pine Leaf and Woman Chief, became a renowned war and camp leader among the Crow Indians. She dressed as a man when she went to war and had a number of wives.

• Henry James’ novel The Bostonians contained themes of feminism and led to the coining of the term “Boston Marriage” to describe romantic friendships between women, which often included holding hands, cuddling, sharing a bed, and making open expressions of love for each other.


20th Century CE

• Sephardic Jews in the Middle East maintained the right to polygamy until an all-inclusive ban was pronounced in the mid-twentieth century, after the formation of the State of Israel.

• 1967 In Loving v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. The court’s decision was based on the due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• In 1969 in California, Troy Perry presides over the "holy union" of two women, Neva Heckman and Judith Belew — the first public same-sex marriage ceremony in American history.

• 1989, Denmark – The first government-recognized same-sex union in modern history takes place.


Dawn of the 21st Century CE (2000s CE thru the present)

• 2000, Vermont – Vermont became the first state in the U.S. to grant civil unions to same sex couples. Civil unions are intended to grant all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, although they are not recognized by the federal government. The legislation that created civil unions came about as a result of a state Supreme Court decision, in which the court ruled that denying marriage rights to same sex couples was unconstitutional discrimination.

• 2001, The Netherlands – Same-sex marriage becomes legal for the first time in modern history.

• 2003, Belgium – This country became the second to legalize same-sex marriage.

• 2003, Massachusetts – The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples should have equal rights to marry under the state constitution. Their decision is based on the grounds of due process and equal protection).

• 2005, Navajo Nation – Joe Shirley Jr., Navajo President, vetoed a bill by the tribal legislature that banned same-sex marriage on the reservation.

• 2005, Connecticut – The Connecticut state legislature became the first in the U.S. to pass civil unions legislation without pressure from the courts.

• 2005, Spain – Same-sex marriage became legal.

• 2005, Canada – Our neighbor to the north becomes the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage..

• 2006, Arizona – The state’s voters become the first to reject a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

• 2006, New Jersey – Under circumstances similar to those in Vermont in 2000, the New Jersey state legislature enacted civil unions in response to a state Supreme Court order that same-sex couples be granted the same rights as married couples.

• 2006, South Africa – Same sex marriage becomes legal.

• May 15, 2008 , Sacramento – California Supreme Court issued a decision striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Noting that the state’s domestic partnership law falls short of full equality, the ruling also holds that any discrimination based on sexual orientation must pass “strict scrutiny,” the same standard that applies to race and gender (In re Marriage Cases). Chief Justice Ronald M. George, an appointee of Gov. Pete Wilson (Dolan), writing for the majority stated that “An individual’s sexual orientation – like a person’s race or gender – does not constitute a legal basis on which to deny or withhold legal rights” (In re Marriage Cases).

• May, 2008, New York – Following an opinion by legal counsel, Gov. David Paterson directed all state agencies to begin recognizing same-sex marriages that are performed in other jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, California, and Canada.

The source of the above information, Labmda Archives San Diego, has not updated their timeline in a while, but you get the idea (I have also edited out numerous entries for the purpose of this post). It is important to note that marriage laws in the US, and elsewhere, continue to be challenged, and altered. Right now we are in the middle of several high profile same-sex marriage battles, including California, New Jersey, Washington State, North Carolina and elsewhere.

The point is this: Marriage has not always been a union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, marriage has not always been a union designed, or endorsed, by God or the church.

Here's the big one, folks: Marriage predates monotheism. Fact. In other words, marriage predates the God of Abraham -- the same God who supposedly designed marriage.

Marriage has been evolving over the course of human history, and it will continue to evolve until humans no longer walk the earth. Marriage has been re-defined over and over, and will continue to be re-defined.

To characterize marriage as "the union between a man and a woman as designed by God," is, quite simply, to freeze the definition of marriage at the point in human history that suits your idea of what marriage should be -- with total disregard for how marriage came about, how it evolved, and how it will inevitably continue to evolve.

Pope: Gay Marriage Is A Threat To Humanity

Via Reuters:

Pope Benedict said Monday that gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined "the future of humanity itself."

He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper "settings" and that "pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman."

"This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," he said.

So, I suppose this means that the Pope doesn't think gays are human?

And how exactly does gay marriage undermine the family?

Because the child abuse rate is at 0% in lesbian households?

Because same-sex parents raised this kid?

Because 21 studies of children of homosexual parents uniformly found no systematic differences between children reared by a mother and father and those raised by same-sex parents?

Because the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association have all issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights?

Pray tell.

David Barton & The Religious Right Want Women To Be Respected Like They Are In The Bible

Via Right Wing Watch:

On a Believers Voice of Victory episode that aired today, David Barton told televangelist Kenneth Copeland that women are most elevated in a society that has “conformed to the Scriptures.” Citing Religious Right activist Rabbie Daniel Lapin, Barton said that the Bible is actually the basis of women’s rights, while in “Islam” and secular societies like France and “the Norwegian countries,” women have fewer rights and less respect. Perhaps Barton should read The Handmaid’s Tale before arguing that women will prosper in a society run strictly according to biblical law.

For those unfamiliar with Barton, you can learn more than you'd care to know in this profile by The People For The American Way:

Newt Gingrich promises to seek his advice and counsel for the 2012 presidential campaign. Mike Huckabee calls him America’s greatest historian, says he should be writing the curriculum for American students, and in fact suggested that all Americans should be “forced at gunpoint” to listen to his broadcasts. Michelle Bachmann calls him “a treasure for our nation” and invited him to teach one of her Tea Party Caucus classes on the Constitution for members of Congress. State legislators from around the country invite him to share his “wisdom” with them. Glenn Beck calls him “the most important man in America.” Who is this guy?

This guy is David Barton, a Republican Party activist and a fast-talking, self-promoting, self-taught, self-proclaimed historian who is miseducating millions of Americans about U.S. history and the Constitution.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Read the full report for a complete picture.

Barton is not the only high profile conservative Christian figure (or organization) to favor a Biblical view of women. The recent Republican onslaught of Draconian measures against women's health is rooted in Biblical law. Michele Bachmann's "submission" to hubby Marcus has obvious Biblical ties. Constitutional lawyer and conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly believes women cannot be raped by their husbands. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins seemed to think that it might be okay for Sarah Palin to run for office, since an elected official is not a spiritual leader. Christian bookstores yanked Gospel Magazine off the shelves because its cover featured (gasp!) female pastors. A full-page ad ran in USA Today affirming that a "wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." The affirmation was signed by Mike Huckabee, Franklin Graham, TD Jakes, Tony Evans, and others.

So, if Barton and others believe that Biblical law is such a great source of guidance on the treatment of women, maybe we should look a little closer at how the Bible handles women's rights:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” - Genesis 3:15-16

And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. - 1 Timothy 2:14-15

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. - Deuteronomy 25:11-12

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. - Matthew 5:32

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house. - Deuteronomy 24:1

If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to have the force of law for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses. - Numbers 27:8-11

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. - Leviticus 12:1-5

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. - Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. - Exodus 21:7-8

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Sometimes I wonder if folks like Barton have actually read the Bible. Anyone who has spent any amount of time with the scriptures knows that the Bible is probably one of the last books you'd consult for guidance on women's rights.

I have yet to see a modern secular justification for barbaric, oppressive treatment of women. A society that chooses to comport to ancient scripture on matters of human rights is a society based on male dominance, misogyny, and injustice.

A Reminder: Why We Don't Vote On The Rights Of Others

*figures from Public Policy Polling.