Let’s talk about gay marriage. I hope you’re getting as tired of hearing about it as I am. Still, there are some who don’t seem to mind that there have been more than 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq because our president lied to us - or that thousands of children die everyday in Africa from starvation, disease and war - and yet they rail on with their diatribes against gays and lesbians.

There are only five references to homosexuality in the Bible and hundreds and hundreds about loving thy enemy, feeding the poor and taking care of the helpless. Which ones do they focus on?

Leviticus condemns homosexual behavior for males. But it should be noted that, "abomination," the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman.

Yikes! I bet some of our more bibical-literally minded women didn’t know they were right up there with Ellen DeGeneres or Elton John.

Here is an interesting quote from Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong: “There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, ‘This is the word of the Lord?’ When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.”

He also wrote; “Thus it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitudes, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church. Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?

Since I’m tired of writing about the subject, I’ll just reprint this past column.

———

It was with interest that I listened to a recent gathering of area folks and two state legislators. A member of the audience began chastising one of them for not offering more support for a state constitutional amendment denying marriage status to any grouping other than one man and one woman.

A legislator, not wanting to seem lacking in good Midwestern values, pointed out that he had sponsored the bill that made it Iowa law that a marriage could only be between one man and one woman. Then he went on to point to its basis in the Bible.

Besides the point of separation of church and state, his comment brought up some interesting thoughts.

If we’re going by the Bible, it should be noted that a one woman/one man marriage concept would have been an alien concept to many of our biblical figures.

According to an organization called Religious Tolerance, Lamech is the first in the Old Testament to have taken two wives. After him, Jacob, Elkanah and Ashur had two wives, Esau and Rehaboam had three spouses, Abijah had 14, Gideon and David had so many you couldn’t spit in the palace without hitting one and Solomon just got by with 700 wives of royal birth. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeho­achin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

And these guys didn’t even live in Utah.

So if we’re going to go on biblical morals, let's go whole hog and be the first state in the country to reinstate polygamy.

And why stop there? Maybe we also need to create a legal status for concubines. Those Old Testament days were the times of real he-men when I guess a number of wives just wasn’t enough. It’s a wonder they got any shepherding done or found time to sack another heathen city.

In the Bible, Gideon, Nahor, Jacob, Eliphaz, Saul, Manassah and Levite had one concubine, Abraham and Caleb had two concubines, David had a bunch, Rehoboam had 60 and that wise man Solomon came in with 300.

And who says Bill Clinton didn’t study the Bible?

Though called servants in the English translations of the Bible, they were really slaves and could be bought and sold. In Genesis 16:2 it reads, “Sarah said unto Abram ... I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her."

Yikes, the expected duties of a maid at that time would probably not fit into today’s job description for a domestic servant.

Among the people of the Old Testament, women had it pretty rough. Single women were not allowed to leave the homes of their fathers or, if married, the homes of their husbands. They also could not testify in court, appear in public meeting places or talk to strangers. When women left the home, they had to be doubly veiled. There was very little separation of temple and state at that time.

And we thought those Taliban were wacky.

It’s interesting how when people refer to the Old Testament, they pick and choose what they want and ignore the rest. The whole issue of a constitutional amendment proclaiming marriage as a union between one man and one woman is obviously aimed at gays. There are only a handful of passages in the Bible on homosexuals (Jesus didn’t seem to think it was a topic worth discussing) and most are in the Old Testament — which also prohibits the eating of shellfish.

I like some of the questions on a webpage for John Mark Ministries:

• Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies only to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

• When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. The odor annoys the heck out of them. Should I smite them?

• I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

• I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

• A friend of mine feels that although eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, he feels it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there “degrees” of abomination?

• I know I'm not allowed contact with a woman during her period of uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I tried asking but got biffed across the chops for my trouble.

———

It is estimated that there are at least 3,000 references to loving thy enemy, turning the other cheek, aiding the poor and disavowing greed. And yet many good Christians today seem to ignore these concepts — focusing on exclusion, greed and war.

The ones who get so riled up about preserving the sanctity of marriage seem blithefully able to ignore that our government sponsors torture, bombs the innocent, cuts aid to the needy and protects the rich and greedy — all things that were a no-no to Jesus.

Maybe it’s time for them to admit they are not really Christian, but just Old Testament fanatics (on the parts they like).

For those who pick and choose in the Bible, I say read,"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." -Matthew 7:3-5