In January, I claimed creationism is inherently homophobic and misogynistic. Not everyone agreed; there was some discussion over whether I’d committed a logical fallacy. But I’ll tell you who hasn’t challenged my argument: creationists. They’re in no rush to admit to being misogynists: they claim their particular brand of paternalistic sexism—’complementarian’ gender roles—is in fact kind to women. But they’re queueing up to admit that their belief in creationism excludes gay people.
Last Monday, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore addressed an anti-equal marriage rally in Texas. He told the audience federal courts had no authority to stop bans on same-sex marriage. His reasoning?
Nothing in the Constitution of the United States, nothing in the laws or precedence of the federal courts give federal courts any authority over domestic policy of family and marriage in the state of Texas, in the state of Alabama, or anywhere else…
No court has authority to redefine what God proposed in Genesis.
That would be the same Roy Moore who in 2010, when campaigning to become Alabama Governor, tried to use the fact that one of his opponents believed in evolution as a campaign smear. The same belief that Genesis must be literally true fuels both Moore’s homophobia and his opposition to science.
Not long before that, Ken Ham had eagerly reminded us he is a horrible bigot:
Homosexual behavior is quickly becoming a norm on television as more and more shows celebrate and applaud it—and as these shows try to normalize such behaviors among our children. Our culture has completely rejected God’s Word as the foundation for its thinking and we are increasingly seeing everyone simply doing what is right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25). Sadly, the secular culture is doing a good job indoctrinating children into accepting its views of morality.
What was Ham’s justification for this? Why, his literal interpretation of Genesis, of course, the same reason he believes dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark:
But marriage did not evolve. Genesis is clear that marriage was created by God, and it was designed to be between one man and one woman for life (Genesis 1:27, 2:24).
Meanwhile, a random fanatic has sent a letter to all nine US Supreme Court Chief Justices, entitled “The Truth of Genesis: A Question of Marriage”, which in its entirety uses creationist arguments to attack marriage equality.
Those who accused me of making a logical fallacy pointed out that I can’t prove causality here. Maybe these people would be bigots anyway (I accept that it’s probable they would). And since it’s possible to believe in a young Earth without being a homophobe, there is no necessary connection.
Well, the above creationists think there is a necessary connection, but I’m not going to defend their view. I accept that, logically, what you believe about one part of the Bible says nothing about what you will believe about the rest of it. You, however, must recognise that creationists are not always the most logical people. People fail to understand the emotional pull of creationism as a support for the Bible. If you discovered that scientific evidence did, in fact, overwhelmingly support the historical accuracy of the book of Genesis, you would look again at the Bible, wouldn’t you? That’s the position I grew up with. I had faith anyway, but my ‘discovery’ that science supported the Bible reinforced my faith and made me take the whole thing much more seriously and literally.
True, logically speaking, Genesis 1-2 could be partially correct just as easily as it could be entirely true or entirely false. Logically, the truth of Genesis has no bearing on the truth of the Gospels or Paul’s letters, written centuries later in a different country. Logically, you could believe the Bible is the Word of God without being a creationist (if you take Genesis as metaphor), and you could be a creationist without believing the rest of it. But emotionally, creationism made the whole Bible seem unquestionable, homophobia and all.