To be honest, I expected some more commentary on our Global Elite List. After putting 50 thought-leaders on our cover that will be molding the world for the foreseeable future, I thought more of you would chime in about who was missing from our list, who we shouldn’t have included in the first place and where we got the idea in the first place.

On the cover essay about the history of power, written by Jon Meacham, there is a bit of that: “Where is Ahmadinejad?” asks one reader. Others complained of “No Rothschilds or Rockefellers,” or our very “thorough investigation” that forgot “Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, and Elmo.” Of course, Elmo. Even more complained about our inclusion of Oprah Winfrey, adding that “Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown and the Clintons are merely hood ornaments.” Someone’s obviously looking to stir up some controversy so, I say, let’s go for it:

Who would you put in your list of the Global Elite? Who do you think is the most influential, most powerful and most insightful when it comes to government, entertainment, economics, academics and any other discipline you deem important?

Leave your choices in the comments below and – as magazines like ours seem to love to do these days – feel free to rank them. Otherwise, I’m going to have to answer questions like this, from one commenter: “How about Tiger Woods and Rachael Ray?”

A (fairly obvious) note: I've been posting the New York Post's Media City column for the past few weeks when it comes out on Monday. The reason? Well, the column is an institution, albeit an interesting one that does the not-so-simple (or perhaps, completely arbitrary) task of ranking our issue on whole. It is good to have alternate viewpoints, right? And since Jon Meacham likes to say that NEWSWEEK is a first draft of history, I like to think I'm keeping a record of how we're doing.

Anyway, this week we got a mere 2 stars.

The briefing:

Twas a Fortnight Before Christmas

Twas a fortnight before Christmas
And all through the land,
Many readers were stirring with
Newsweek's 12.15.08 edition in hand.

There on the front cover
To see in plain manner,
A cross on a Bible
With a rainbow flag banner.

"The Religious Case for Gay Marriage"
The lead story reads.
Tis about fairness and justice,
Which everyone needs.

"Our Mutual Joy,"
Writes editor Miller.
Gay couples in photos,
Are part of this thriller.

 (Continues after the jump).

Given that Lisa Miller's cover story on gay marriage caused such an uproar of feedback, we gathered two religious experts to parse through the issue when it comes to the Bible, gay marriage and Christianity. Throughout the weekend, Bill Wylie-Kellerman, a United Methodist serving as pastor at St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Detroit, and Dr. Barrett Duke, vice president for Public Policy and Research at The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, e-mailed back and forth about their conflicting viewpoints surrounding this issue. The full debate (and it's long!) can be read here.

As I was moderating the debate throughout the weekend, I bolded some take-away lines from both sides that I thought were insightful and interesting. If you don't feel like reading the whole transcript, here's a bit of a preview.

From Bill Wylie-Kellerman:

• "Today I hear the summons to say, in Christ, there is neither gay nor straight."
• "The Bible, beginning with the old covenant is, to be frank, fraught with patriarchy."
• "[The Definition] of marriage will change, as it has repeatedly during and since the biblical era. I believe this and welcome it."

From Dr. Barrett Duke:

• "I approach the Bible as a fixed product... Communities don't adapt it; they adapt to it."
• "I must make sure that I come across as loving when I speak to homosexuals or about them, though, something I confess I do not always do adequately."
• "If the gay community really wants respect, they should pursue a path toward public acceptance, not judicial fiat."
  

This, as usual, from the New York Post:

"For substance, turn [from Time] to Newsweek. The cover story on Thomas Tamm, a Justice Department employee-turned-whistleblower on the Bush administration's wiretapping program is far more compelling than the entire Time issue. Newsweek writer Michael Isikoff got Tamm to speak on the record against the advice of his lawyers, and the story he tells is not an uncommon one among whistleblowers: extreme courage, bolstered by a keen sense of moral obligation, creates personal and professional upheaval that threatens to destroy everything he's worked for. Or, as Isikoff writes, "Sometimes the thinnest of lines seperates the criminal from the hero."

And this time, it's from the other side! I've been yakking on about how many e-mails and letters NEWSWEEK has received in response to our cover story this week. Many came from the American Family Association, which started an e-mail campaign directed at our CEO.

Now, after hearing about the landslide from Lisa Miller herself, the Human Rights Campaign has organized their own stock e-mail that you can send along to our Editor, Jon Meacham (though, trust me, I know he's well aware of the situation). Anyway, check out this page to read about their campaign in response to our cover (oh, how meta!) and if you want to hear the author of the story talking about the feedback we've received, there's a short audio file they've included with Lisa Miller.

While we're at it, here is HRC's take on the piece, as written in the campaign they've started:

I am writing to thank you for your extensive coverage of marriage equality for same-sex couples in the current issue of Newsweek and on your website. It's so important that the Bible not be continually used as a weapon against loving, committed LGBT couples who simply want what everyone does -- to find that special person and build a life together.

As you point out in your articles and your poll, more and more Americans are recognizing that these couples deserve recognition, respect and support through marriage. Regardless of where each of us stand on the spectrum of our own religious beliefs, treating our fellow neighbors with the equality we want afforded to us is a universal truth.

At this point, I think I can finally say that I'm surprised by the volume of comments we've received in regard to Lisa Miller's cover story about religion and gay marriage. My inbox has received more than 5,000 e-mails today, mainly from people responding to the previous post about the religious reaction to our cover story. And that's just chump change; our Web editors inbox brims with more than 26,000 missives; our CEO received more than 20,000 e-mails after a campaign organized by the American Family Association revealed his e-mail address, and the offices that handle the hand-written letters are overflowing with notes from impassioned readers, well-wishers and self-proclaimed subscription cancelers. Meanwhile, the story itself has accrued nearly 10,000 comments.

To percolate all that information into one blog post would be an impossible task. Naturally, much of the response comes from conservative Christians. (Or, actually, let's just say Christians. The word "conservative" has caused ire among those who say we're being simplistic over here at NEWSWEEK, that being Christian is reason enough to be against gay marriage). "The author will know exactly what the Bible says on marriage at the moment of their deaths," threatens one reader. "The Bible is VERY clear on sexual immorality and that those who commit it will be 'outside the gates.' Also, contrary to what the authors have stated, Paul states in Hebrews 13:4, 'Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept clean.' The Bible is clear on homosexuality and the penalty for continued, willful, disobedience." Among those who responded, the general tack is that crucial moments in the Holy Book, like the punishments levied on those from Sodom and Gomorrah, were left out of the piece so that NEWSWEEK could present a consistent, cohesive argument. And in speaking out against homosexuality, the words "sodomy," "sodomite," and "sexual promiscuity" are used as go-to terms for the reasons many of the readers feel the Bible is against homosexuality. "I do NOT believe in the gay lifestyle, nor do I believe you were born that way," says one reader. "I believe you make that decision. You cannot change or re-write the Bible. You might try to twist it to fit your situation, but either way the Bible was written by God who loves us enough that He gave His only son to die on the cross for us. It's a shame that the "gay" lifestyle is being pushed so hard on us. It's wrong and that's all there is to it. God loves every-one but He doesn't love the sin. I certainly don't want to see two men or women together. That's not how God wanted things for us. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah?"

If you've been reading the comments, I'm sure you're aware that the viewpoints I'm re-posting are among the more polite ones. If you look, you'll find references to necrophilia, pedophilia and other venomous comments that detract from intelligent conversation. That's why I was really glad to get this e-mail from a reader named Tara White: "I am not surprised at all at the amount of responses I am sure you are getting from both sides," she writes. "I bet some of them are not very nice and probably say hurtful things. I would like to apologize for them since I think that kind of attitude totally undermines whatever point they are trying to make about their view," she says, before politely expressing her own opinion of the issues: "I not only believe that gay marriage is wrong but that being gay in the first place is a sin. A sin no different than adultery, premarital sex, murder, stealing, and lying. While that may sound strange because in the world's view lying is much better than murder, in God's eye's a sin is a sin and that much is plainly stated in the Bible. God does not say that good people who only sin a little can get into Heaven. He (through the Bible) says that the only way into Heaven is through belief in His son Jesus Christ. Anything short of perfection leads to death (Romans 3:23 and 6:23). Only Jesus leads to the Father (John 14:6)."

If readers accuse NEWSWEEK of being "revisionist" (which is a common thread throughout the feedback), then Ms. White's take is exactly the opposite. That said, I appreciate her honesty, especially since many agree with her: "My own belief is that God said be fruitful and multiply. He created man and woman to do this. If he intended us to be attracted to the same sex, where would we be now? There would be no human life on Earth," writes another reader.

Even ignoring religion, the vote on California's Proposition 8 was often evoked to suggest that Americans, on whole, are against gay marriage and that it doesn't really matter what the Bible has to say. "Get it through your heads that the majority of Californians voted and believe that marriage should remain one man and one woman," writes one reader. "No one's rights are being violated."

Lest this post go forever, let's switch to the other side, where the viewpoints tend to be a bit more personal, especially considering those gay men and women who have been fighting for the right to marry, and -- rightfully so -- are offended after reading hundreds upon hundreds of comments that refer to their sexual orientation as a "perversion." Like Lisa mentions in her piece, many readers (both gay and straight) mention how the Bible discusses slavery: "I look forward to a time in the (hopefully) not too distant future when we, as a country, will look back upon this period of discrimination against homosexuals with the same regret and shame that we feel about our past involvement with slavery, or in denying rights to women or blacks," writes one commenter. "The arguments then were eerily similar to those now...and yet the ignorance was eventually overcome. I think about my children, and their children, and the world I want them to grow up in. One where love and commitment between two consenting adults is honored and respected in all aspects of our society, and allows all of the same privileges." Aside from that comparison, others address the sin of self-righteousness: "Get over yourselves!" chides one reader. "Not everyone believes in your God. I believe in humanity and charity and goodness. I do not need a book of your God to tell people how they can live. I am straight married woman with two children; I teach them to be kind, generous and charitable."

And in the same way that agnostic readers point to Prop. 8 as an American straw poll, many others argued against reading into the Bible at all: "Finally, a serious, thought-provoking review of the facts," writes one reader. "The Bible has been used for such exclusion and hatred by homophobic right-wing religious believers. The true Christians will read this story, apply it to themselves and make changes in their views to be more like the God they serve. The other Christians will condemn this story, distort these Biblical quotes and facts and continue to judge the entire LGBT community."

Is that a fair analysis of what's happening? You tell me. Before I end, it feels right to include something from a gay reader. So here's this e-mail that was sent to me from one reader, Vajdon Sohaili:

I am not a member of the media or even a blogger, simply a person who, with my American partner of nine years, was forced to emigrate to Canada because the United States would not recognize our relationship — and as such, I wanted just to say thank you, not only for an article that finally offers some perspective on all the religious rhetoric, but also for the editorial courage of standing up for equality in the face of the predictable backlash. I can't help but believe that the majority of ordinary religious Americans would not support discrimination if they recognized it for what it was — but unfortunately all they hear from their leaders is fear-mongering and misinformation and propaganda. It is not the first time in history that religious leaders have held a stake in divisiveness, but this may be one of the last divisions.

Since yesterday, some major Christian Web sites have offered their viewpoint on our cover story, which is blowing up blogs and keeping readers busy in the comment section.

Christianity Today has written a three-page editorial that calls for NEWSWEEK to appeal to conservative Christians and explain why we've equated the fight against gay marriage with "the worst kind of fundamentalism," as Jon Meacham mentions in his Editor's Letter. Here's an excerpt:

While we do not expect Newsweek to excel in theological or biblical argument, we do expect that respected magazine to practice good journalism—like presenting the actual arguments of one's opponents, and being fair to the context of quoted sources. Neither of these things happened in Lisa Miller's piece.

Meanwhile, over at OnFaith, The Rev. Dr. Susan K. Smith argues in a blog post for the same kind of inclusiveness that Miller wrote about in the story. As the Senior pastor at the Advent United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio, Smith writes:

Lisa Miller's article in Newsweek seems to be right on the money. Either God is an inclusive, loving God who made everyone, or God is not. And if we come to a consensus that God made everyone, then we can agree that God made gay people.

 ...What is the problem? The problem is sex. The problem is sex, sexuality and the fact that a whole lot of people are confused about and frightened about, their sexuality. Miller is right: in the Bible, there really is not a lot of support for marriage as we know it today. Men had a lot of wives. At best, in the Hebrew scriptures, marriage is polygamous.

We saw it coming. This week's cover story,written by Lisa Miller, our religion editor, lays out the religious case for gay marriage. As Jon Meacham says in his weekly Editor's Letter, "The reaction to this cover is not difficult to predict. Religious conservatives will say that the liberal media are once again seeking to impose their values (or their "agenda,"a favorite term to describe the views of those who disagree with you) on a God-fearing nation. Let the letters and e-mails come."

And come they did, in a flood. Throughout the week, I'll be featuring conversations with people on various sides of this debate, some thorough reader analysis of the issues at stake (keep commenting and e-mailing!) and perhaps some guest viewpoints to complement our cover,which is ultimately supportive of gay marriage.

To start, Politico reached out to conservative Christians, including Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Liberty Commission. "It doesn't surprise me," he told Politico of our piece. "Newsweek has been so far in the tank on the homosexual issue for so long, they need scuba gear and breathing apparatus. I don't think [the piece] is going to change the minds of anyone who takes biblical teachings seriously." The Atlanta Journal Constitution's political blog linked to the Politico piece and pointed out the comments made by Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition. "I see it as an attempt to caricature and reduce to a cartoon the social conservative belief in the efficacy of a traditional marriage, and try to reduce it to some formulaic, scriptural literalism," he said. "There's more of a practical, sociological foundation for why we seek to affirm marriage as an institution than I think is generally understood by those who want to legalize same-sex marriage." And Tim Graham, the Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center, accuses NEWSWEEK of saying, essentially: "Religious conservatives are troglodytes on the wrong side of history."

Over at the blog of the conservative magazine, The Weekly Standard, they refer to the NEWSWEEK piece as a "dire mess." In turn, they point to the lengthy rebuttal that was written by Mollie Hemingway on getreligion.org (which, it's worth noting, has this tag line: "the media... just doesn't get religion"). In her lengthy piece , Hemingway argues that NEWSWEEK'S biblical analysis is off-base. "If you are going to pretend that opposition to same-sex marriage is based Sola Scriptura, could we at least get our Scripture right?" she asks before introducing herself into the piece:

Meanwhile, on the National Review's blog, Mark Hemingway says that Miller "can't even get through the first paragraph of her story without evincing an understanding of Christianity and its basic texts that is grossly oversimplified and distorted, filtered through an almost exclusively liberal political lens." And, on his personal blog, Albert Mohler, the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argues in a lengthy response for the reproductive reasoning behind marriage: "At the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment, " he writes. "And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual."

Not according to everyone. On the Web site for America, the National Catholic Weekly, a blog post lauds Miller for quoting biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann, who says that the religious argument for gay marriage "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness." In doing so, America encourages any readers who want to comment to "remember the dictates of charity."

And the leading gay news blogs, not surprisingly, were also supportive. On Towleroad, a gay news aggregator, an image of the cover is featured as the top story with this excerpt from the story: "...First,while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage-theirs or anyone else's -to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes."

On AfterElton, a blog owned by the gay television network Logo, Brian Juergens writes, "Much like the excellent documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So," the Newsweek piece takes a hard look at exactly what the Bible says about marriage, homosexuality, and the place where the two meet. Not surprisingly, the fundamental text is not as anti-gay as many Prop 8 supporters would like us to think it is." And to round things out, the blog Queerty had this to say about our piece: "One of the most useful side-effects of the passage of Prop. 8 in California is that people are asking, "So why won't we let the gays get married again?" and anti-marriage advocates, unable to win their case in the civic square have retreated to religion, pulling out the "Because the Bible tells me so" defense. Not true, says Newsweek's Lisa Miller inthis morning's cover story." The authors of the Queerty post close out by saying that, if history is any indicator, Miller's sure to get lots of angry responses.

Queerty is right. On the American Family Association's Web site, they have started a petition urging members and like-minded readers to e-mail NEWSWEEK's CEO. So far, his office reports that they have received 15,000 such e-mails.

Due to the high volume of traffic, we have had to temporarily suspend the comments function on this story. We regret the inconvenience, and will have it restored as soon as possible. Thank you for reading.

"Sound politics," as your Dec. 1 article "Obama's Nuclear Reservations" described it, is actually what created the $9 billion hole in the side of Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Back in 1987, politically powerful members of Congress managed to steer the nuclear-waste repository away from their states and directly into Nevada. Science had nothing to do with the selec­tion, but science and common sense will prevail. The reasons for ending the tax­payer boondoggle called Yucca Mountain are plentiful: years of flawed science; un­realistic assumptions about costs conserv­atively predicted to hit $100 billion; and the egregious error of burying waste that could potentially, with American innova­tion, be less dangerous and even turned into energy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has stated that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely on site for at least 100 years in dry cask storage. That leaves plenty of time to fund and develop new technologies to safely manage nuclear waste. Our country is not so flush with endless funds or energy that it would make any sense to permanently bury al­most $100 billion and a potential energy source. Let's leave the waste where it is for now and invest a fraction of that money in studying safe and common-sense alterna­tives to a national repository. We're confi­dent the payoff will be worthwhile for all Americans.

Sen. John Ensign (r-nev.)
Sen. Harry Reid (d-nev.)

Katie's Connolly's Periscope item on whether Michelle Obama is anything like Jackie O. has some great feedback in the comments section, but nary a reader was willing to disagree with the story: "Two such distinctly different personages as Jacqueline Kennedy and Michelle Obama need never be compared," wrote one reader. "Jackie Kennedy and Michelle Obama cannot be put into a slot. They are individuals of their own brilliance and we should be happy that they were."

Though many agreed with the story's premise -- that these two women have little in common -- many questioned NEWSWEEK's focus on First Lady fashion. As Katie wrote in her piece, "Obama has pledged to focus on complex social issues, such as support for military families, once she gets to the White House. Still, most of her recent headlines have been about her clothes." That's true, but readers wondered whether our reporter was just fanning the flames by comparing Obama's J.Crew with Kennedy's haute couture? "Who cares about dress and style, when there is important work to be done in the country like the economy and terrorism.. get real.. Newsweek.. get something better to write about!," offered up one reader, while another added that "profiling Lady Michelle against Lady Jackie Kennedy is meaningless and superficial." In furthering her argument, that commenter continued: "A dress is still a dress, a wardrobe is only cloth and tinsel. It's what upstairs that counts."

Amy Odell over at New York Magazine's fashion blog, The Cut, just called Newsweek out for saying Michelle Obama was going to be on Vogue's March cover. Turns out, that tidbit -- which was reported in last week's cover story -- isn't true:

Amy writes:

Our heart skipped a beat when we read the following in the Newsweek cover story from last week about Michelle Obama:

…Michelle looks nothing like the supermodels who rule the catwalks or the porcelain-faced actresses who hawk must-have cosmetics. Yet now she's going to grace the March cover of Vogue magazine — the ultimate affirmation of beauty.

Yes, those lines were buried in a giant feature story as if they were nothing, with no further details. Oh, Newsweek. But are they true? We asked Vogue about the slip and a spokesman told us, "That was incorrect. We're still very interested in working with her, but it still hasn't been specifically determined what we're going to do." Booooo. However, at least we know something involving both Vogue and Michelle is in the works. Who knew Newsweek was such a tease?

So where did that fact come from? I asked Allison Samuels, who wrote the story, to explain. She says that her information came from "someone inside Vogue" and that her source told her "they were working on the cover and Michelle's people acknowledge that but now they are saying it might not happen... it may be later in the year now...but their [original] plan was for March."

After the piece ran, Samuels told me that Michelle's people called her to say that the cover shoot wasn't a done deal. But, to me, it looks like Vogue -- or the Obama camp -- may have pulled the 'ol switcheroo.

That's the charge levied by the New York Post in this week's Media City column:

 "After innumerable guest appearances that have helped make Newsweek's pages seem uncomfortably out-sourced of late, Fareed Zakaria is on staff as a columnist and overseas editor. The time, the perennial gloom-and-doom-sayer of American power and prestige hits that mark with a well-timed essay on the Mumbai terrorist attacks..."

AdAge surveyed college students about their favorite brands, and found some fascinating (if not perplexing) results:

While in some cases the results were predictable, there were a few surprises. Time magazine, for instance, ranked as the No. 1 magazine, unseating perennial favorite Cosmo and jumping ahead of last year's No. 2, People. CNN.com made it into the top 10 websites for the first time, while sites such as Perez Hilton and CollegeHumor dropped off the list.