The Bible As A Voting Guide

Over at Christian Post, there's an interesting opinion piece entitled Why the Bible Is the Best Voters Guide.

Here are a few of the key takeaways from the piece, along with quotes from the op-ed:

Don't Vote For The Kenyan

Civil leaders should be selected from among their own people. People must know the candidate. This is why the Constitution of the United States requires the president must be naturally born in the U.S.

Don't Vote For The Black Guy Who Supports Equal Pay, Women's Rights, And Equality

He must execute justice without respect to race, gender, and national origin, or any other categorical distinction made in society.

Don't Vote For Women

The Scriptures require that we "choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men." The word men used here is not the generic term for "mankind" but rather the word for "male." Everywhere the qualifications for civil leaders are mentioned in the Bible, males – not females – are identified.

Don't Vote For the Guy Who Endorsed Gay Marriage -- But The Mormon Still Makes Us Nervous

The Bible is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman, since "the two shall become one flesh"...This definition excludes multiple wives.

Never mind The Establishment Clause

So before you consult all the other voting guides, make sure you have rightly prioritized the words of Scripture above all the other voices for how you analyze the candidates.

AFA's Bryan Fischer: I Am A "Prophetic Voice" Warning Against The Gay Agenda

On yesterday's program, Bryan Fischer claimed to be a "prophetic voice," stating that America is "going to have to choose between the homosexual agenda and liberty, because we cannot have both."

Watch:

Pat Robertson: Democrats Are The 'Party Of Gays, Godlessness And Whatever Else'

It's gotten to the point that it would be newsworthy if Pat Robertson didn't say something completely insane in his broadcast. He's a broken record of bigotry, senility, and illogic.

That being said, Robertson is downright outraged that the Democratic platform openly embraces marriage equality and the right to abortion.

Robertson, speaking on The 700 Club:

Back in the 1850s or 60s there was a charge that one party was the party of rum, Romanism and rebellion. I don’t know what you label the Democrats now but it’s the party of gays, godlessness and whatever else. I mean, same-sex marriage is in the platform, they want to go along with that as a right, I’m just astounded.
…
They can’t defend it and you ask yourself, you’re going to go before the American people and that’s going to be the face they’re going to present to America. You have insulted the Catholic Church with your rules, you have insulted right-to-work states, you have insulted certain union groups with your stand on the pipeline and now you’re going after God, it makes no sense but that’s what they want to do.

Watch:

'Incredibly Ironic': Equality NC Responds To NC Values Coalition's Cries Of Victimization

This weekend, the anti-LGBT organization known as the NC Values Coalition sent a strange email alerting their donors to Equality NC's latest campaign video.

NCVC's email claims that NC Equality's video, "Payback Challenge," which features footage of an Amendment One supporter shooting holes in an anti-Amendment One yard sign, was a "thinly-veiled threat against supporters of traditional marriage and can have no other purpose than to incite hatred." (See the full email here.)

The email was clearly a classic example out of the Religious Right playbook: the victimizer playing the victim.

I reached out to NC Equality's Stuart Campbell to get his take on the claims.

"We find it incredibly ironic that the NC Values Coalition would condemn Equality NC for recounting the shooting of one of our supporter's signs when they were deafeningly silent during the Amendment One campaign with their condemnation when the actual shooting occurred," stated Campbell.

"This latest attack comes from the same organization that partnered with the anti-LGBT National Organization for Marriage and various SPLC-identified hate groups to support writing discrimination into our state's constitution--an organization that would now, speaking out of the other side of their mouth, attempt to deflect its own hate-filled agenda by calling us "out of line."

Their twisting of the truth demonstrates that the NC Values Coalition will stoop to any level to promote their own agenda of discrimination and division, and that it has never been more important to unite our supporters in our fight for equality."

To learn more about Equality NC and to help them in their fight for equality, visit their website here.

The Bizarro World Of The NC Values Coalition

The NC Values Coalition sent out a fundraising email yesterday that is jaw-droppingly insane.

Let me walk you through it. Here goes:

This week we are reminded that our fight for traditional marriage did not end on May 8th.

EqualityNC has released a very disturbing video targeting our own Tami Fitzgerald and pro-marriage legislators under their "Payback Challenge" campaign. [emphasis theirs]

Let's stop for a second before we get to the crazy part.

Just so we're all clear, Equality NC's "Payback Challenge" is, in their own words, a fundraising drive "dedicated to making strategic investments in key legislative and state races in North Carolina’s primary and general elections." Disturbing stuff, right?

The "Payback Challenge" video's goal is pretty simple. First, it is intended to remind LGBT North Carolinians and equality-supporting allies that Amendment One was very much "personal," and very much "payback," despite the insistence from Tami Fitzgerald and Vote For Marriage NC that it wasn't.  Secondly, the video is to urge LGBT North Carolinians and pro-equality allies to donate to Equality NC who are working to help elect pro-equality candidates in the 2012 election. Horrible, right?

Here's the video, before we move on with NCVC's facepalm-inducing logic.


Pretty effective, right? Sometimes, organizations like the NCVC do all the work for you. All you need is to hold a mirror up to them, and you have yourself all the ammunition you need (no pun intended, seriously).

Okay, back to the hilarious NCVC email:

The video - which can be found here - overlays gunshots and video of a man shooting at an anti-amendment sign with video of NC Values Coalition Executive Director Tami Fitzgerald praising the passage of the marriage amendment on election night.

The video is a thinly-veiled threat against supporters of traditional marriage and can have no other purpose than to incite hatred. [emphasis theirs]

Their purpose is clear and it is distasteful in light of the shooting incident that occurred just a few weeks ago when a volunteer at a Washington DC homosexual rights group walked into the lobby of the Family Research Council and started shooting. This video is innapropriate, and EqualityNC has crossed the line. [emphasis, again, theirs]

We do not expect EqualityNC to agree with us. But we do expect them to communicate responsibly and civilly. We condemn this video and hope that Americans from all walks of life will join us.

Friends, we at the NC Values Coalition will consistently and constantly defend traditional marriage. In spite of their threats.

Please stand with us against their attacks and join us in condemning this disturbing video.

Jessica Wood
Communications Director, NC Values Coalition

Wait, what?

Okay, so let me make sure I understand. The video, which shows an ALLY OF NC VALUES COALITION SHOOTING A RIFLE AT A PRO-EQUALITY SIGN, is a VIOLENT THREAT AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ARE ANTI-GAY. Huh?

(Also, "In spite of their threats" is not a sentence, but let's not quibble over grammar.)

Also, these are very likely the same folks who thought it was silly and overreaching that people got upset when Sarah Palin released a map with crosshairs targeting legislators who voted for Obama's health care bill.

But I digress.

So, back to the email. "Equality NC's purpose is quite clear"? Um, you mean, that they're showing people how hateful and violent your fellow anti-LGBT, "pro-marriage" supporters were in the weeks leading up to the Amendment One vote?

And while nobody on the pro-equality side is condoning the lone act of violence against hate group The Family Research Council, there is nothing -- nothing -- in the video that even remotely suggests that compassionate pro-equality North Carolinians go out, purchase an arsenal, and shoot anti-gay activists and hate group members.

This is what you do, people, when you have nothing but your own religious bigotry. You make stuff up. You project your own hatred, and the hatred of those who share your beliefs, onto your opponents -- opponents who want nothing more than to allow all of their fellow North Carolinians to be treated equally and to not be discriminated against because of their natural traits.

'The Fighter' Boxer Pulls Support From Scott Brown, Fights For Marriage Equality

Micky Ward, the Massachusetts boxer who inspired Oscar-nominated film The Fighter, has delivered a blow to Scott Brown.

“I can’t support Scott Brown. I just can’t do it,” Ward told The Sun of Lowell after agreeing to back Brown, who is up against progressive Democrat Elizabeth Warren. “I found out Scott is anti-union and I’m a Teamster guy. I found out he’s also against gay marriage, and I say, if you love someone, you should have the same rights no matter who you are.”

(h/t Queerty)

Bryan Fischer: Gays Have 'No Business' Being Republican

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Bryan Fishcer of the American Family Association said that gays have "no business" in the Republican Party.

"They have no business being there. Our message is to them is that your home is in the Democratic Party," said Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association, a conservative radio host and a leading anti-gay figure in the GOP.

"These groups are actively working to undermine and subvert the Republican party platform and the principles of the Republican Party," Mr. Fischer said in a telephone interview. "They are undermining the moral foundations of the Republican Party."

It's no matter to him that Log Cabin Republicans support nearly every other party platform from tax policy to gun rights.

"There is no place for the homosexual agenda," he said. "The Republican platform is very clean on the issues of marriage and family and parenting, and these are people that are actively working against the principles of the party."

"The reason they are for gay marriage is that it is an issue of liberty for people to have the freedom to do what they want ... but we oppose gay marriage because it threatens liberty," he said.

He offered two examples of businesses whose freedoms were trumped by what he calls the gay agenda. First, he said several mayors are trying to keep Chick-fil-A restaurants out of their cities because the company's devout Christian owners oppose gay marriage. In another example, he said, the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission fined Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin for refusing to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.

"The gay agenda is a threat to religious liberty. It is a danger to the liberty that the party stands for ... and it's tyranny that's being launched against businesses," Mr. Fischer said.

He said younger members of his party don't see that "because they are young and they are immature and they are unaware of the severe dangers to liberty that is posed by the homosexual agenda."

There you have it, my LGBT friends. The Republican Party does not want you. The Democrats, on the other hand, could sure use your help voting bigots out of office.

Chick-fil-A Parody Ad From Mr. Deity

Mr. Deity's Chick-fil-A parody ad is pretty great.

Watch:

Catholic Deacon Keith Fournier: Chick-Fil-A Boycott Is 'Viewpoint Discrimination'

The Editor in Chief at Catholic Online, Deacon Keith Fournier wrote a piece praising the hordes of 'pro-family,' 'pro-marriage' supporters who showed up to buy sandwiches and waffle fries on Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day.

The Deacon, like millions of Americans who lined up last week, doesn't seem to get it.

He writes:

The massive crowd reflected a cross section of America. They were young, old, middle aged and senior. They were thin, overweight, short, tall, well groomed, sloppy, well dressed, tattooed and of every race and color. There were young Moms with their children in tow, blue collar workers, students and business men and women. Amazingly, everyone was kind, courteous and willing to wait in line. No-one complained and most were smiling.

In fact, you sensed you were participating in something historic by simply purchasing a chicken sandwich. I do not doubt everyone wanted their chicken sandwich, especially after such a long wait. However, they were there, like me, for a reason much more important. They were making a collective statement of support for the Restaurants' willingness to stand up for marriage and family in the face of open hostility, ridicule and threats.

They were standing up for free speech and against political correctness. They were applauding with their purchase the courage shown by the owners of this restaurant. They did not back down in the face of forceful, even hateful, opposition from those who, while claiming to be tolerant have become so intolerant of those who do not agree with them.

Last week I wrote about how this flap is not about free speech, and I still stand by that assertion. (It was pointed out to me by several readers that the threats by elected officials to ban Chick-fil-A from their cities was very much about free speech, and I would agree -- if any of these threats were actually implemented. The comment of Rahm, Menino, et al. amounted to grandstanding and the type of knee-jerk reactions we expect from elected officials.) But the consumer boycott itself, and the outcry against Chick-fil-A has absolutely nothing to do with stifling free speech and everything to do with consumers refusing to indirectly fund hate and intolerance.

While Chick-fil-A Dan Cathy's remarks certainly were inflammatory to those who are in same-sex relationships and those who support equality, his vocal remarks were not the reason for the boycott. Boycotts of Chick-fil-A have been in existence prior to Cathy's comments. Cathy's remarks simply provided a prime opportunity for discussion of Chick-fil-A's substantial annual donations to organizations that perpetually spew hate and widely-dismissed anti-LGBT propaganda.

Fournier continues:

Chick-fil-A has been under assault because their President publicly affirmed their company support for true marriage and the family and society founded upon it. Dan Cathy expressed his deeply held religious convictions to the Baptist Press in an interview and literally - all hell broke loose among some new Cultural Revolutionaries.

Among the most vocal opponents was Carlos Maza of "Equality Matters", a homosexual equivalency activist group. He told the Washington Post that Dan Cathy's position in defense of marriage, along with the contributions made by his family's foundation to pro-life and pro-family groups, "solidifies Chick-fil-A as being closely aligned with some of the most vicious anti-gay voices in the country." That is nonsense. To defend marriage does not equate to being "anti-gay".

The effort unleashed against Chick fil-A was an example of viewpoint discrimination parading as a concern for equality.

Viewpoint discrimination. That's amazing. So, when millions of American citizens became outraged when Michael Richards went on an 'N-word' rant in a comedy club, they were all guilty of "viewpoint discrimination."

When abolitionists focused attention on the inhumane nature of slavery, they were guilty of "viewpoint discrimination."

When Americans decried "miscegenation" laws banning marriage between blacks and whites? Totally "viewpoint discrimination."

Furthermore, when Carlos Maza of Equality Matters stated that the restaurant's policies, donations, and actions "solidifies Chick-fil-A as being closely aligned with some of the most vicious anti-gay voices in the country," he was absolutely correct. If the good Deacon needs any evidence, there's plenty of it on record.

Patterns In Data Realization: Maps Depicting Social Ills Look Eerily Familiar

Update (8/27/13): 
The website PornHub has just released a trove of data on America's porn habits. I couldn't help but notice that, once again, it's THAT MAP. I have added the map to the bottom of this previously-published post.

I'm fascinated by data realizations in map form. They say a picture's worth a thousand words.

I'm not going to make any statements about cause and effect, as we all know that correlation does not imply causation. But there certainly is much to be gleaned from correlation.

The below map has been making the rounds recently. It depicts the largest participating religious groups by county in the United States -- basically which religions are most represented in each county.

As fascinating as it is, it probably doesn't come as much of a surprise:

See that large swath of red across the South? That's the Bible Belt. It has a lot in common with many other maps (some of which have been discussed here before).

Here's a map depicting life expectancies for females, by county:

And here's the same for males:

Here we have a map of religiosity in America, with the darker green depicting the most religious areas:

Here we have a map depicting well-being in America. The lighter areas indicate those areas in which residents report a lower sense of well-being.

Here we have a map depicting poverty in the US. Darker portions of the map indicate higher rates of poverty.

In the below map, we can see the divorce rates for men by state (darker colors indicate the highest rates of divorce):

Here we have the same map for women:

The following colorful map depicts the state of same-sex marriage in America. The darker red states are those which are most hostile towards gay-marriage (see key).

And here we have teen birth rates:

Noticing a pattern here?

Here we have a map of active hate groups:

The following map shows the treatment of evolution in schools, by state:

How about the states accepting abstinence education funds (those in orange denied federal abstinence education funds)?

What about high school diplomas?

And here we have the 2008 presidential election red state/blue state map:

Here's a map showing which states spend the most time on PornHub, the third largest porn video site on the internet. Could it be that the most religious, most conservative, most anti-gay, most anti-evolution, most pro-abstinence education states are also the states spending the most time viewing hardcore pornography?

Again, there are many, many factors that play into each of these maps. There are certainly many complex correlations and causations (and some factors perpetuate others). For example, we know that areas of high poverty will likely (for obvious reasons) experience less well-being, lower rates of education, and lower life expectancies.

The religious and political correlations, however, are more curious.

Do lower levels of well-being and lower life expectancies cause higher rates of religiosity?

Are blue-leaning states more likely to deny evolution? Or are evolution-deniers more likely to vote conservative?

Does abstinence education lead to higher teen pregnancy rates? Or do high teen pregnancy rates lead to more abstinence education?

Are hate groups more likely to be comprised of religious conservatives?

Do lower rates of high school graduates play into higher rates of religious conservatism?

Would an increase in graduation levels decrease the number of religious conservatives, evolution denialists, and hate groups?

Is it offensive to ask these questions? If so, why?

Do you have the answers? Please share.

Stephen Colbert Takes On Chick-fil-A's Anti-Gay Stance

Watch:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

NC Pro-Amendment One Group: 'Stop Bullying' Chick-fil-A!

The North Carolina Values Coalition is the new moniker of the anti-LGBT organization Vote For Marriage NC. If you were signed up to receive their 'pro-family' emails leading up to the May 8 vote, you now are receiving emails like the below, signed by Tami Fitzgerald. Same crap, different name.

In the bizarro-world of the NC Values Coalition, the bullies are not those who aggressively discriminate against others because of their sexual orientation. The real bullies, according to this group, are the those who stand up for kids who are made to feel that they are not wanted, who are told that they are "twisted,""audacious,"and unwelcome.

Here is the latest email from the NC Values Coalition, asking that Bible-loving, anti-LGBT individuals support the August 1 Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day by opening their pocketbooks up to the company that funnels millions into anti-LGBT hate groups.

(Note: a protest against the Appreciation Day has been scheduled for the same day -- a National Same-Sex Kiss Day At Chick-Fil-A.)

Chick-fil-A CEO: We're Not A 'Christian Business,' But We Operate On 'Biblical Principles'

It's a well-known fact (and the source of many barbs) that Chick-fil-A is always closed on Sundays. And it's a fairly well-known fact that the chain is a supporter of anti-gay organizations.

What's the deal with the whole Chick-fil-A Christian thing? And is it okay, as a supporter of equality and church-state separation, to eat their delicious chicken sandwiches?

The short answer? Quite a lot, and no.

Chick-fil-A president and CEO Dan Cathy spoke to the Baptist Press.

"We don't claim to be a Christian business," Cathy said in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, "There is no such thing as a Christian business."

"That got my attention," Cathy said. Roach went on to say, "Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me."

"In that spirit ... [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are," Cathy added.

"But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us."

Most people don't have a problem with the political or religious ideologies embraced by their eateries, so long as it does not affect their dining experience. (And to be sure, many Christians are more than thrilled that companies like Chick-fil-A are vocal about their religious beliefs.)

There are very good reasons why so many businesses go out of their way to stay out of religious and political debates -- they risk alienating a large part of their clientele. Customers at a Chick-fil-A are not likely to see bible verses on the walls, or to be asked by the fry-cook if they know Jesus, but one doesn't need to look too hard to know that Chick-fil-A is an organization deeply committed to promoting Biblical principles. This includes supporting anti-gay marriage initiatives and allegedly discriminating against its own employees who don't share their beliefs.

Cathy is very clear about Chick-fil-A's mission:

Cathy believes strongly that Christians are missionaries in the workplace. "Jesus had a lot of things to say about people who work and live in the business community," he said. His goal in the workplace is "to take biblical truth and put skin on it. ... We're talking about how our performance in the workplace should be the focus of how we build respect, rapport and relationships with others that opens the gateway to interest people in knowing God.

"All throughout the New Testament there is an evangelism strategy related to our performance in the workplace. ... Our work should be an act of worship. Our work should be our mission field. As long as we are stateside, let's don't think we have to go on mission trips by getting a passport. ... If you're obedient to God you are going to be evangelistic in the quality of the work you do, using that as a portal to share [Christ]," he said.

When asked if Chick-fil-A's success is attributed to biblical values, Cathy quickly said, "I think they're inseparable. God wants to give us wisdom to make good decisions and choices." Quoting James 1:5, he spoke of how often he asks God for wisdom.

So, okay, Cathy doesn't necessarily want his employees testifying from behind the register, so what's the big deal? There are a tons of companies with Christian CEOs and Christian values, right? Sure. And this is America, where people are free to believe what they want.

The problem arises when highly successful companies like Chick-fil-A start using their muscle to support initiatives which are discriminatory.

There was a time when the Atlanta college football bowl game, which is now named after Chick-fil-A, was called the Peach Bowl. The annual bowl features teams from the ACC and the SEC. It struggled for a long time. Then 15 years ago the Chick-fil-A organization got involved. It was rebranded as the Chick-fil-A Bowl and has been incredibly successful with 15 consecutive sellouts.

"We are the only bowl that has an invocation. It's in our agreement that if Chick-fil-A is associated in this, there's going to be an invocation. Also, we don't have our bowl on Sunday, either," Cathy said.

So if you attend a Chick-fil-A bowl, you better be ready to pray to Jesus. If you're Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or a non-believer, then, well, suck it.

Chick-fil-A also invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation, which offers scholarships, camps, retreats, and foster homes.

In order to be eligible for a WinShape scholarship, one must sign a contract which includes Christianity-based rules, and commitment to a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle.

Gay couples are not allowed at WinShape retreats.

WinShape gave $2 million dollars to anti-gay groups in 2010, including the gay 'conversion therapy' organization Exodus International, and the Family Research Council, which has been designated a hate group by the SPLC. The company also gave $2 million to anti-gay groups in 2009.

Cathy is absolutely unrepentant regarding his company's support of anti-gay organizations:

"Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.

So, there you have it straight from the horse's mouth.

Many Christians might agree with Cathy in his assertion that Chick-fil-A is not a Christian business. A Christian business might actually refrain from actively contributing to the denial of others' rights.

Gay Marriage Is Inevitable: Pew Data Shows Continued Trend Of Acceptance

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life just released some new data which allows us to view the changing attitudes on gay marriage over the course of the past 11 years.

It's easy for supporters of equality to become frustrated with recent anti-gay marriage legislation (and the promise of more coming down the pike), but it is encouraging to step back and view the changing attitudes over the past decade or so. While a decade seems like eternity when you are being denied the rights that others enjoy, it is a relatively short period of time for such a sea change in acceptance.

While there's a lot of data to pore over, let's take a look at four graphs that provide us with a basic overview of this shift.

2012 is only the second year (2011 being the first) in which Pew recorded a majority in favor of gay marriage.

Take a look:

Due to vocal support for marriage equality in the media, in businesses, on social networks, and even in religious bodies, it is likely that we may have reached a tipping point, in which case we can expect an accelerated rate of acceptance in the coming decade.

We also can expect to see a continued rate of increase of support as millennials age into the working and voting demographic, and as the older generation of politicians, business owners, and clergy members start to, uh, get out of the way.

Check it out:

So, who exactly are these people who are so anti-equality? As they say, sometimes stereotypes exist for a reason.

Let's see:

If you guessed that white evangelicals were the most anti-equality religious demographic, you're right. And lo and behold, it's the 'religious nones' who by and large don't have any problem with the gays marrying. This would be the atheists, agnostics, and those who are religious but simply don't belong to any of the main doctrine-driven denominations.

Also, if you guessed Republicans are the most anti-equality political affiliation, you win a prize.  However, Democrats and Independents aren't exactly the 'live and let live' types as we are often led to believe.

There's more where this came from, but the takeaway should be clear. Gay marriage is inevitable, folks. It's just a matter of how soon, and certainly for many it couldn't be soon enough.

We have seen the future of America. They're young, they're not beholden to antiquated dogma, and they're not scared of the gays.

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.)

How One Dad Is Moving Forward, After Amendment One

The below guest post was written by Matt Shipman, a science writer and father of three who lives in Raleigh. This is his third contribution to def shepherd. You can follow Matt on Twitter at @ShipLives or connect with him here on Google+.  

I wrote, some time ago, about how becoming a father made me a much stronger advocate for gay rights. As a dad, I spend time with my children every day. I see them running around with their friends. Odds are good that some of these kids I see on the playground will grow up to become gay teens and adults. And I have become increasingly horrified that someday someone would want to hurt any of these youngsters because of their sexual orientation.

That paternal, protective instinct makes me reject anything indicating that someone who is gay is somehow less important than someone who is straight. That extends, of course, to “Amendment One,” which passed overwhelmingly in North Carolina on May 8.

The passage of Amendment One has made a lot of people angry. It’s also made a lot of people, including me, incredibly sad. It will be some time before we can fully determine its impact, and there are many outstanding questions regarding what this will mean not only for same-sex families, but for domestic violence protections and unmarried heterosexual couples. No one – and I mean no one – can have any real idea of how these issues will play out.

There is also a great deal of discussion right now about the potential for legal action against Amendment One. I’m not an attorney, so I won’t prognosticate about that either.

All of this uncertainty can leave one feeling powerless. What can I do? If you’re a parent, there is a great deal you can do.

Make sure your children know that you will love them, no matter what. Teach them, by example, how to treat people with compassion and respect regardless of their sexual orientation. And, for those who can’t remember, going through puberty was excruciating. I can’t imagine what it is like to go through that while also fearing rejection from peers or one’s own family because of who you’re sexually attracted to. The least we can do for our children is let them know that they will always have our love and support. Home should always feel safe.

So that’s what I’ll be working on. Loving my kids. Showing them what it means to treat people with respect. Raising them, I hope, to be strong and honest and kind.

Amendment One has me feeling pretty blue right now. But if we, as parents, get this right, I have high hopes for the future.

The Top 10 Secular Legislative Reasons to Vote For Amendment One

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), The Supreme Court's decision stated that the government's action must have a secular legislative purpose.

As voters in NC will be deciding the fate of Amendment One, let's take a look at the ten most compelling secular legislative reasons to vote in favor of the amendment:


1.




2.




3.




4.




5.




6.




7.




8.




9.




10.



Please keep these reasons in mind as you cast your ballot on May 8 to determine whether or not North Carolina will forever restrict the rights of its citizen based on natural traits.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

Wife Of NC Senator: Amendment One Is Necessary ‘To Protect The Caucasian Race’

Sen. Brunstetter, Caucasian

The Amendment One debate has certainly had its share of crazy, but a story reported by Pam's House Blend really takes the cake.

Chad Nance, a freelance journalist covering the NC election, recorded the wife of NC Sen. Peter Brunstetter saying some ridiculously offensive stuff about Amendment One.

Nance said he recorded a conversation with the woman, whose name is Jodie Brunstetter, on video, and that she confirmed that she used the term “Caucasian” in a discussion about the marriage amendment, but insisted that otherwise her comments had been taken out of context by other poll workers.

…Nance paraphrased the remarks, as told to him by those who were present: “During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.”

Nance said he recruited a friend, who works for the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, to witness his interview with Jodie Brunstetter. He said Brunstetter reluctantly acknowledged that she had used the term “Caucasian” and then repeated the statement previously attributed to her, but substituted the pronoun “we” for “Caucasian. Nance said Brunstetter insisted there was nothing racial about her remarks, but could not explain why she used the term “Caucasian.”

Holy shitballs, people. This is what we're up against in NC.

When you visit the polls on May 8, I hope you realize that voting for Amendment One is to align yourself with this garbage.

The Facts About Amendment One

May 8 is upon us, folks, and unfortunately too many North Carolinians are either unaware that there is an amendment vote or confused as to what the amendment would actually do.

The amendment question will appear on the May 8 ballot, and will read as follows:

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

Voters will either vote FOR the amendment or AGAINST the amendment. Seems pretty straightforward, right? That's all part of its design.

Like most referendums and ballot questions, most voters read the wording for the first time while they are in the voting booth. People who have no additional information will very likely be voting for something with which they very strongly disagree.

From a PPP poll in late March (emphasis mine):

The marriage amendment which will be on the ballot during the May 8th North Carolina primary continues to lead for passage by 20 points, but if voters are informed of its negative consequences for the potential future passage of civil unions for gay couples, it would narrowly fail.

58% of likely primary voters say right now that they would vote “yes,” while 38% plan to vote “no.” But at the same time, 51% of these voters support some form of legal recognition for gay couples’ relationships, either full marriage or civil unions. 34% of those folks are planning to vote for the amendment. Because of that, if informed that the amendment would ban both marriage and civil unions for gay couples, support goes down 17 points to 41%, and opposition rises 4% to 42%.

Part of the problem is that voters are not well informed about what the amendment does. A 34% plurality say they are not sure on that question. Almost as many (31%) do know that it would ban both gay marriage and civil unions, but then not many fewer (28%) think it would only ban marriage. 7% actually think it would legalize gay marriage. Those who think it bans solely marriage rights are voting 67-30 for it, so 8% of North Carolinians, while misinformed, are voting against the measure simply because they think it bans same-sex marriage alone. Of course, those who think a “yes” vote actually legalizes these unions are voting by the same margin for it.

This is troubling, and underscores the need for an agressive education drive these next few weeks. More importantly, we need to ensure that people actually go out and vote.

Please visit ProtectNCFamilies.org for downloadable tools, printable information sheets, videos, or to donate or volunteer. We need all the help we can get these last few weeks.

Most importantly, talk openly with your friends, neighbors, family, community & church leaders, and make sure that, no matter how they vote, that they have all the information. This isn't just about marriage. It's about all North Carolinians, gay or straight.