The Minnesota for Marriage campaign is claiming that their message on Facebook saying gays should be “put to death” was the result of a hack, but whether or not that’s the case, their messaging elsewhere has been just as hostile and ridiculous. On the Minnesota Pastors for Marriage site, which is linked from Minnesota for Marriage and run by the Minnesota Family Council, several sermons openly and shamelessly describe gay people as the enemy of God himself.

Jim Garlow claims that “Satan is obsessed in destroying marriage, the coming together” of “male and female”. Kenyn Cureton absurdly compares the rise of gay marriage to “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” demolishing a house, and describes homosexuality as “open rebellion against the divine pattern” and a “deceptive perversion”. He later parallels studies by gay researchers to “Joseph Goebel’s Nazi philosophy of propaganda” and says gays are “lost people trapped in Satan’s snare” who “find themselves as slaves” for trying to “achieve freedom from the so-called shackles of biblical morality and traditional institutions”. And John Piper states that “the first way to honor marriage in our day is not to confuse it with the abomination of homosexual or lesbian partnerships.”

So of course Minnesota for Marriage doesn’t want us put to death – they “strongly believe that people are entitled to love whomever they choose”, after all. They just think our love is an abomination and a perversion, and we’re “slaves to sin”, lost, rebelling against God, dupes of Satan, and a lot like Nazis. This is coming from their own website.

By the way, the Minnesota Family Council previously hosted documents accusing gay people of pedophilia, bestiality, and “ingesting urine and feces”.

The Minnesota for Marriage campaign is claiming that their message on Facebook saying gays should be “put to death” was the result of a hack, but whether or not that’s the case, their messaging elsewhere has been just as hostile and ridiculous. On the Minnesota Pastors for Marriage site, which is linked from Minnesota for Marriage and run by the Minnesota Family Council, several sermons openly and shamelessly describe gay people as the enemy of God himself.

Jim Garlow claims that “Satan is obsessed in destroying marriage, the coming together” of “male and female”. Kenyn Cureton absurdly compares the rise of gay marriage to “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” demolishing a house, and describes homosexuality as “open rebellion against the divine pattern” and a “deceptive perversion”. He later parallels studies by gay researchers to “Joseph Goebel’s Nazi philosophy of propaganda” and says gays are “lost people trapped in Satan’s snare” who “find themselves as slaves” for trying to “achieve freedom from the so-called shackles of biblical morality and traditional institutions”. And John Piper states that “the first way to honor marriage in our day is not to confuse it with the abomination of homosexual or lesbian partnerships.”

So of course Minnesota for Marriage doesn’t want us put to death – they “strongly believe that people are entitled to love whomever they choose”, after all. They just think our love is an abomination and a perversion, and we’re “slaves to sin”, lost, rebelling against God, dupes of Satan, and a lot like Nazis. This is coming from their own website.

By the way, the Minnesota Family Council previously hosted documents accusing gay people of pedophilia, bestiality, and “ingesting urine and feces”.

The Marin Foundation received widespread attention from a back-patting post by one of its members, who wrote “I Hugged a Man in His Underwear” after attending a pride parade (an achievement which, honestly, elicited little more than a “so what” from me). While many people were pleasantly surprised to see Christians apologizing for religious homophobia, a closer look at the Marin Foundation revealed that the organization isn’t quite so innocuous, and the impression that they accept LGBT people isn’t all that accurate. A 2006 story about Andrew Marin in the Chicago Reader reports:

Marin may be more comfortable with homosexuality than the average evangelical, but he shares a belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Which invites the question: does he consider homosexuality a sin?

When I ask it, Marin writes the question down on a piece of paper and studies it carefully. “It’s theologically sloppy to say it’s not a sin,” he replies. But he quickly adds that all Christians are sinners, according to Romans 3:23. “We’re all dealing with something.”

In their FAQ, the Marin Foundation won’t give a direct answer to “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?”, instead dismissing the validity of the question entirely:

The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the Christian or the LGBT community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.

Most recently, Marin himself refused to tell pro-LGBT Christian activist John Shore that being gay isn’t a sin. Some people defended this by claiming that it was impossible for the Marin Foundation to answer this one way or the other, because doing so would alienate either the conservative Christians or the LGBT people that the organization is trying to reach out to and bring together. This is a poor excuse, because refusing to say that being gay isn’t a sin is alienating to LGBT people anyway. Marin’s silence indicates that either he does believe that being gay is a sin, or he doesn’t but lacks the courage to say so outright. Both of these possibilities are disrespectful to LGBT people.

The question is so simple that evading it is a reliable sign of dishonesty. If sin is defined as transgressing a binding moral code that’s defined by a deity, then being gay or having a gay relationship is either a contravention of that moral code, or it is not. It is a sin, or it is not. For atheists, this is an especially easy question to answer, because there is no deity to define such a moral code in the first place. In the case of religious believers, if they make any claim to know the content of this divinely commanded moral code in any other context, then asking them how this applies to LGBT people should be fair game. And Marin’s “whatever, everything’s a sin” approach still uniquely stigmatizes gay people in a way that straight people are not.

He does get one thing right: a yes or no answer to whether being gay is a sin really does make it easy to label and judge people and what they believe. What he doesn’t understand is that this is the point. The answer to the question does tell us what they believe – it tells us whether they believe that the almighty creator of the universe, whose powers extend to rewriting morality itself, has decreed that our lives are contrary to its will. There is nothing wrong with simply wanting a clear answer on whether they believe this is the case, and a direct question is only intimidating to people like Andrew Marin who won’t give an unambiguous reply. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

The Marin Foundation received widespread attention from a back-patting post by one of its members, who wrote “I Hugged a Man in His Underwear” after attending a pride parade (an achievement which, honestly, elicited little more than a “so what” from me). While many people were pleasantly surprised to see Christians apologizing for religious homophobia, a closer look at the Marin Foundation revealed that the organization isn’t quite so innocuous, and the impression that they accept LGBT people isn’t all that accurate. A 2006 story about Andrew Marin in the Chicago Reader reports:

Marin may be more comfortable with homosexuality than the average evangelical, but he shares a belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Which invites the question: does he consider homosexuality a sin?

When I ask it, Marin writes the question down on a piece of paper and studies it carefully. “It’s theologically sloppy to say it’s not a sin,” he replies. But he quickly adds that all Christians are sinners, according to Romans 3:23. “We’re all dealing with something.”

In their FAQ, the Marin Foundation won’t give a direct answer to “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?”, instead dismissing the validity of the question entirely:

The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the Christian or the LGBT community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.

Most recently, Marin himself refused to tell pro-LGBT Christian activist John Shore that being gay isn’t a sin. Some people defended this by claiming that it was impossible for the Marin Foundation to answer this one way or the other, because doing so would alienate either the conservative Christians or the LGBT people that the organization is trying to reach out to and bring together. This is a poor excuse, because refusing to say that being gay isn’t a sin is alienating to LGBT people anyway. Marin’s silence indicates that either he does believe that being gay is a sin, or he doesn’t but lacks the courage to say so outright. Both of these possibilities are disrespectful to LGBT people.

The question is so simple that evading it is a reliable sign of dishonesty. If sin is defined as transgressing a binding moral code that’s defined by a deity, then being gay or having a gay relationship is either a contravention of that moral code, or it is not. It is a sin, or it is not. For atheists, this is an especially easy question to answer, because there is no deity to define such a moral code in the first place. In the case of religious believers, if they make any claim to know the content of this divinely commanded moral code in any other context, then asking them how this applies to LGBT people should be fair game. And Marin’s “whatever, everything’s a sin” approach still uniquely stigmatizes gay people in a way that straight people are not.

He does get one thing right: a yes or no answer to whether being gay is a sin really does make it easy to label and judge people and what they believe. What he doesn’t understand is that this is the point. The answer to the question does tell us what they believe – it tells us whether they believe that the almighty creator of the universe, whose powers extend to rewriting morality itself, has decreed that our lives are contrary to its will. There is nothing wrong with simply wanting a clear answer on whether they believe this is the case, and a direct question is only intimidating to people like Andrew Marin who won’t give an unambiguous reply. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

A couple weeks ago, Dan Savage was the keynote speaker at the National High School Journalism Convention, where he discussed social media, anti-gay bullying, and his It Gets Better Project. While addressing the role of religion in homophobia, he said:

We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people, the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document.

He went on to explain how the Bible contains specific instructions about keeping people as slaves, and not once does it prohibit the practice of slavery. While he was speaking, a number of students got up and walked out, to which he responded:

It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-ass some people react when you push back.

Two weeks later, this has now become the latest manufactured controversy of the Christian right. Breitbart.com devoted their entire front page to stories about Dan Savage, accusing him of “bullying high school kids” with a “profane Bible rant”. The gay conservative group GOProud claimed that Savage was “attacking high school students who were offended by his outrageous remarks” and demanded that he apologize. Michelle Malkin accused “the activist left” of “anti-Christian bigotry” for having Savage speak to student journalists, and the president of the Family Research Council called him a “disciple of division and intolerance”. Todd Starnes of Fox News has written a handful of melodramatic stories about the Christian students who were present at the speech. Starnes describes their decision to leave as follows:

Some will say what happened next took courage – but [student Jake] Naman said he was simply following the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Isn’t that just so brave?

Of course, this reflexive outrage at any criticism of the Bible is really nothing new. This January, the National Organization for Marriage demanded that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie withdraw his nomination of a judge who had criticized arguments against gay marriage that appeal to tradition and pointed out that slavery was also a tradition endorsed by the Bible. Clearly, this is something that many right-wing Christians just don’t want people to talk about.

But let’s get one thing straight: The Bible is unequivocal in its support for slavery. This isn’t a situation where there are a variety of conflicting verses that can be interpreted as for or against slavery. In every instance that slavery is mentioned in the Bible, it is never condemned. Instead, the authors of the Bible only address how slaves should be acquired, how they should be treated, and how they should obey their masters. And despite every apologetic argument about how the context of this enslavement of human beings was different from the more modern forms of slavery, the Bible consistently and indisputably endorses the buying and selling of people as the property of other people. If this is wrong, then the Bible is wrong – and if we can choose to disregard the Bible when it comes to slavery, we can likewise disregard it on the topic of sexual morality.

So regardless of Dan Savage’s tone or how terribly offended some Christians were, his underlying point is completely valid. And its impact was only amplified by the incredible sight of devout Christians literally fleeing from the truth about their Bible and their own moral hypocrisy. In doing so, they made his point even better than he did. After all, if you’re so pious that you won’t tolerate anyone speaking ill of your Bible, then how can you be so completely unprepared to face the reality of what it actually says? What the hell kind of Christian are you?

And if this was your reaction as a student of journalism, then what the hell kind of journalist are you? Make no mistake, this was an event where attendance was voluntary. It was not a mandatory school assembly and they were not a captive audience. And while they certainly had no obligation to stay there and listen to him, I have to wonder whether they really understand what journalism is about. Journalists may often have to talk to people with whom they disagree. They’ll find themselves covering events that they find objectionable. Yet these aspiring journalists decided there was no need to listen to Dan Savage as soon as he said something that offended them.

Now, I’m no journalist, but when the Westboro Baptist Church came to my neighborhood, I didn’t run away from them. I walked right up to them and asked for an interview! I consider the human equality of gay people to be fundamentally truthful, but that didn’t stop me. And many Christians consider their alleged “word of God” to be fundamentally truthful as well, yet these journalism students were unwilling even to be in the presence of someone who criticized their beliefs.

Considering what Savage actually said, it’s remarkable that conservatives would call his comments “outrageous”, “bigoted”, “hostile”, and “bullying”. Do they not agree that slavery is bullshit? Because if you think supporting slavery is bullshit, then the Bible’s position on slavery is also bullshit. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. If these particular Christians haven’t yet found a comforting explanation for the slavery, stonings, and other unpleasantness in the Bible, then they should either cut those parts out of the book, or stop being offended when we quote what it says. Why should there be anything offensive about saying that a text which endorses slavery is not the best source of moral guidance? And why should such a book be immune from criticism merely because some people believe in it strongly?

Just because something is part of your religion, that doesn’t mean it can’t be wrong. And slavery is wrong, even if it’s in the Bible. No matter how much these people whine and scream and cry about it, the all-knowing, eternal God of the Bible apparently saw fit to instruct us on who we can buy and sell, whether we can keep their spouse and children as slaves, and how badly we’re allowed to beat them. Complain all you want! It’s still in there. If you have to grapple with the unpleasant realization that even you yourself have ignored the Bible’s antiquated teachings, then great! But that’s your problem – not our fault. You might walk out on us, but good luck walking out of your own mind.