Author Ann”A.C.” Crispin stated on her Facebook page the following:
” . . . Michael and I went to Anne and Kathy’s wedding on Sunday. They’ve been together as a couple for 31 years! Now they’ve made it legal, thanks to the law passing in Maryland. It was a beautiful ceremony, so touching that I was really glad I wore waterproof mascara. After the ceremony, the fun began. They had games, and dancing, and a lovely brunch, and a rainbow cake. Michael and I danced, and I also danced with my son. Anne and Kathy first met at my baby shower in 1979, and here I was, dancing with my six foot son who was the reason they first met. Isn’t that cool? . . . It was the most fun and heartwarming wedding I’ve ever been to. God bless my friends, and I wish them many more happy years together.”
Sure Ann . . . gay marriage is “cool” . . . very cool. We’re going to vomit.
“Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Joseph, ‘Thee generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.'”
Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9
Lev.18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.”
Lev.20:13 “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
A midrash, Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8–9, states that this refers to sexual customs, and that one of those customs was the marriage of women to each other, as well as a man to a woman and to her daughter. Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah, summarizes the matter as follows:
For women to be mesollelot[vague] with one another is forbidden, as this is the practice of Egypt, which we were warned against: “Like the practice of the land of Egypt . . . you shall not do” (Leviticus 18:3). The Sages said [in the midrash of Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8–9], “What did they do? A man married a man, and a woman married a woman, and a woman married two men.” Even though this practice is forbidden, one is not lashed [as for a Torah prohibition] on account of it, since there is no specific prohibition against it, and there is no real intercourse. Therefore, [one who does this] is not forbidden to the priesthood because of harlotry, and a woman is not prohibited to her husband by this, since it is not harlotry. But it is appropriate to administer to them lashings of rebellion [i.e., those given for violation of rabbinic prohibitions], since they did something forbidden. And a man should be strict with his wife in this matter, and should prevent women known to do this from coming to her or from her going to them.
The dying Ann “A.C.Crispin replied here.
Is that SFWA Presidential Candidate Steven Gould?