I’m not in the mood for outrage today. I feel like something a bit lighter, like poking fun at our opponents. Sometimes they really do deserve it. Take the Ruth Institute, which is NOM’s attempt at youth outreach, founded by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse. I’ve already had a chuckle at their youth-oriented slogan (“Making marriage cool again!”), but there’s a lot more fun to be had. For example, their logo, their name, and their rhetoric.
Start with the logo. The words say, “One Man, One Woman, For Life,” so why does the graphic look like an ad for polygamy? I see three men, three women, and no kids. It’s a big group marriage without any offspring. I picture a branding meeting with Morse deciding, “Hey, this graphic is the opposite of everything we stand for. Let’s use it!”
Then there’s the name. Morse says she christened her group after the biblical figure, Ruth. The Book of Ruth is much loved, and in it you’ll find a treasured verse that’s become a traditional wedding vow:
Whither thou goest, I will go,
and where thou lodgest, I will lodge;
thy people shall be my people,
and thy God my God.
But here’s the thing: Ruth said this to a woman, her mother-in-law Naomi, after the death of Ruth’s husband (Naomi’s son).
That’s right. NOM and the Ruth Institute consistently claim that same-sex relationships simply are not comparable to straight ones. But those Biblical words — the words countless straight couples have seen as the perfect expression of marital love — those words were said to a woman by a woman. The woman whose name Morse chose for an “institute” dedicated to smearing same-sex relationships.
And finally, there’s the rhetoric. In Annapolis, during NOM’s “Summer for Marriage” tour, Morse said this about same-sex parenting:
We’re asked to believe that a mother, a biological mother, will have no problem sharing the care of her child with another woman. Moms, do you believe that? No!
Just one problem. The Bible does give an example of a mother who had no problem sharing the care of her child with another woman. Can you guess who it was? Any ideas? It was — wait for it — here it comes — it was…
Ruth.
From the last pages of the Book of Ruth, after Ruth has remarried:
So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.
And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel.
And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him.
And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.
And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
This boy wasn’t just any boy. He was King David’s grandfather. And no biological relation to Naomi.
When you think about it, if you were founding a group for women couples who have committed to each other for life and are raising children together, “Ruth Institute” would be a perfect name. I can’t imagine what Morse was thinking, and I’ve got to tell you, as infuriating and dangerous these NOM people can be, sometimes they just seem…ridiculous.
Actually, as usual, Rob, you’re missing the point.
Ruth was married to Naomi’s son. For all intents and purposes, Ruth was Naomi’s daughter. The hilarity comes in the fact that you are comparing Naomi and Ruth’s relationship, which was one codified, supported, and created by heterosexual marriage and rooted in a strong, enduring, non-sexual love between a mother- and a daughter-in-law, to Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson.
Perhaps it is normal for lesbians to have sex with their married relatives. Perhaps you yourself have had sex with your “father-in-law”, so you think these sort of relationships are perfectly normal. That’s the only way I could really comprehend you drawing a comparison between the two.
The Bible does give an example of a mother who had no problem sharing the care of her child with another woman.
Indeed — said child’s grandmother.
Again, seriously; do you not understand the difference between relatives and sexual partners? Are the boundaries that blurred among gays and lesbians that you don’t understand these basic facts?
By the by, Rob, what makes this “argument” of yours particularly odious is that it’s a fine example of ruining what could be a decent example.
You see, you might have been able to see the point of the Book of Ruth, which is to talk about fidelity and faithfulness to the families that marriage creates. You might also be able to recognize the other messages therein about the importance of family and how children are the physical representation of that ongoing hope and continuation. And you might have even been able to bring forth examples of people whose partners treat their family like their own and who are willing to help in the noble work of raising and supporting nieces and nephews and cousins to whom they are no blood relation — like mine and my partner.
But you saw the words of Ruth and had to try to pull them into demanding gay-sex marriage — even though it means you are claiming that Ruth and Naomi had an incestuous lesbian relationship.
Do us a favor, and leave the Bible to people who a) believe in what it’s about and b) are far more informed on it than you are. Antireligious bigots like yourself need to grow up and take responsibility for your bigotry instead of using your sexual orientation as a copout.
Okay then, quick question: what was the name of Boaz’s mother?
Boaz arranged things so that Obed was officially Naomi’s grandson.
And certainly Rob is right that lesbians look at Ruth and Naomi’s relationship as a model.
Brilliant post, Rob, and right on target.
Another time, I hope you’ll do one on David and Jonathan.
Or maybe Abraham-Sarah-Hagar. Or Jacob-Leah-Rachel (two sisters!), plus Bilhah and Zilpah thrown in for good measure.
All of which was thoroughly approved by God, so the story goes . . . .
Oh, ND– you’re back from homo-hatin-homo land.
And ND– the only person saying they had an incestuous lesbian relationship is, uh, you.
A mind is a terrible thing to lay waste.
And ND– the only person saying they had an incestuous lesbian relationship is, uh, you.
Did you miss this?
And certainly Rob is right that lesbians look at Ruth and Naomi’s relationship as a model.
ND- If you’re claiming that sexual relationships between in-laws is incest, how do you explain the Biblical command that a man marry his brother’s widow and get her pregnant? Wouldn’t that be incest, too?
And wouldn’t that make the kid the product of an incestuous relationship?
How can you say that’s ok but condemn Ruth and Naomi?
So, ND30 is doing the noble work of raising children?
@JohnD
the Mother of Boaz is the harlot Rahab who saved Jericho according to Joshua 2. In Ruth 4:21 she is married to Salmon the father of Boaz as shown in Matthew 1 “family tree to jesus” description.
the funny part of this (and those morons) is that Ruth is considered a book of inclusiveness because Ruth as a woman of MOAB converted to believing in a Yahwistic religion (I lover that word, Yahwistic religion …. it must make the jesus freaks tongues boil to say it lol)
hey ND, do you also defend Job in the cave getting drunk and impregnating his own daughters too?
Never mind Ruth, I’m still gaping over that quote. “Moms, do you believe that? No!”
LOLWHUT?
“Ruth was married to Naomi’s son. For all intents and purposes, Ruth was Naomi’s daughter. The hilarity comes in the fact that you are comparing Naomi and Ruth’s relationship, which was one codified, supported, and created by heterosexual marriage and rooted in a strong, enduring, non-sexual love between a mother- and a daughter-in-law, to Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson.”
Actually he didn’t.
Here’s what he did say. Perhaps actually reading it this time around would help?
“But here’s the thing: Ruth said this to a woman, her mother-in-law Naomi, after the death of Ruth’s husband (Naomi’s son).
That’s right. NOM and the Ruth Institute consistently claim that same-sex relationships simply are not comparable to straight ones. But those Biblical words — the words countless straight couples have seen as the perfect expression of marital love — those words were said to a woman by a woman.”
If you want to interpret this as some sort of incestuous lesbian undertone, it’s the straight people who pick words spoken during a mother-daughter moment to profess their undying heterosexual love. Surely that’s at the very least FUNNY.
Imagine going to a wedding and the bride and groom act out a scene from “Gilmore Girls” as their vows.
I saw Brian Brown’s head explode when I reminded him that Jesus had two dads.
He really hates that. But it’s the truth.
Regan: LOL!!!
mikenola: that was Lot, not Job.
I always have to look twice at their logo; to me, it looks like a sand dollar.
I’ve been reading your blog whenever it popped up on other blogs I currently browse, and really loved the videos and your thoughtful, careful, clear rhetoric. You can now consider me a fan/faithful follower. Thank you for the thought/conversation-provoking posts and videos. KEEP ‘EM COMING!!!!
hey ND, do you also defend Job in the cave getting drunk and impregnating his own daughters too?
Pity that never happened. But then again, we don’t expect antireligious bigots to actually know anything about that which they mock, and you’ve demonstrated that quite nicely.
Another case in point:
If you’re claiming that sexual relationships between in-laws is incest, how do you explain the Biblical command that a man marry his brother’s widow and get her pregnant?
And again, the gay and lesbian bigots are funny when they try to speak about a book which they’ve never actually read. Try Mark 12:18 – 27, in which Jesus Himself neatly disarms that attempt at polemic.
Another fine example of gay and lesbian bigotry:
(I lover that word, Yahwistic religion …. it must make the jesus freaks tongues boil to say it lol)
Why? Same Bible, it’s the word that’s used to describe God in the Old Testament.
If you want to interpret this as some sort of incestuous lesbian undertone, it’s the straight people who pick words spoken during a mother-daughter moment to profess their undying heterosexual love.
Or, more precisely, people who pick words spoken as a direct result of a marriage ceremony and the commitment expressed therein to profess what marriage actually means in terms of the joining of families.
Rob is the one who stated that Naomi and Ruth were identical to lesbian sexual partners. Let him defend his own statement.
Rob is the one who stated that Naomi and Ruth were identical to lesbian sexual partners.
Where did Rob say that? Please provide the quote.
Also, I do not think “stated” means what you think it means.
ND30–it wasn’t Job, it was Lot. You know–the “righteous man” who was saved because unlike the other Sodomites he practiced desert hospitality.
The only reference to the sins of Sodom that doesn’t tie to inhospitality, lack of charity, not taking care of widows and orphans is one little sentence in the Letter Jude, which is so important, it’s…well, it’s “in the canon”, but tucked toward the back.
I read Mark 12:18 – 27 and I think you have the wrong verse. It only deals with what happens after death. It doesn’t explain why you don’t consider it “incest” when a widow marries her brother-in-law.
ND30: Ruth was written during a time of turmoil after the Babylonian exile when some authorities were arguing that those who had remained in Judea needed to divorce their non-Jewish spouses. The author of Ruth writes it to show that a non-Jewish woman, Ruth the Moabite, can not just be incorporated into the covenant community but more than that, be highly blessed in being the ancestor of King David (and therefore, for us Christians, of Jesus as well). The author of Ruth, therefore, intends it to communicate a message of radical inclusivity, arguing against those who wanted to purify the covenant community of its non-Jewish elements. Thus the Ruth Institute’s taking of this name is highly ironic in view of their highly exclusive stance on marriage. One might wish that the Ruth Institute would only be more Ruth-like.
but instead, Gary….
They’re ruth-less.
Giggle.
I love how ND30 completely AVOIDS Lot’s dalliance with his own daughters and I’m sure he will completely “forget” that Adam and Eve’s children married each other. We are the offspring of incest if you follow the Bible. So don’t be so hypocritical Mr. ND30. People who live in glass houses…..
I agree that you are stretching a bit with Ruth and Naomi’s relationship. She was renouncing her faith, her family, her culture and her people to follow Naomi. In ancient times family relationships were sacred and treated with great respect and honor. This doesn’t diminish our Lesbian Sisters example of female/female love. Platonic or not, it shows the dedication, loyalty, and love of two women that overcame terrible tragedy and hardship. They are excellent role models for the Lesbian Community.
Hey Mud. Actually, as a few people have noticed, I deliberately stopped short of saying they were in a sexual relationship. Who could know? Who even knows whether they actually existed? But my critique of the Ruth Institute’s cluelessness holds either way.
I read a dumbed-down version of Ruth that was meant for children. It was in a little book that I found on the ground. Anyway, it doesn’t say Naomi got a grandson, it says she got a son. It looked like she just stole Ruth’s baby. And what about Boaz? It doesn’t explain to us at all whether Boaz was ok with this. Maybe the three of them planned it out.
But how was Naomi able to nurse the baby? She wasn’t the one who was pregnant. I didn’t think it worked that way.