Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... - Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Monday, December 08, 2008 10:10 AM

A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Kurt Soller

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."" href="<http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/12/08/newsweek_and_the_religious_cas.html>"> 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:

Now,as a member of a contemporary marriage, albeit one that isn’t so foolish as to think marriage is about gender equality or romantic love,I can honestly say that the Bible has been the only guide that has helped my husband and myself. We turn to it constantly to be reminded that the husband is to sacrifice for the wife and the wife is to respect the husband (these things don’t come naturally to either my husband or myself).

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."

Advertisement

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.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: tdavismsw (December 26, 2009 at 1:19 AM)

In response to the post by "asyans2 (December 10, 2008 at 3:31 PM)" about skin color not being similar to sexual orientation with regard to "bravery," my answer is, you're absolutely right. People of ethnic minorities usually do not have a choice to hide in the closet when it is obvious by the color of their skin.  Therefore, one would think that you'd actually give gays and lesbians (who COULD hide in the closet) a little more compassion and respect for CHOOSING to have the courage to come out of the closet as who they really are.  Sexual orientation, like race, is not a choice - but to come out to the world with the courage to be who you really are in spite of all the religious zealots who condemn them to hell for it, in spite of the religious right funneling millions of dollars into campaigns against equal rights in marriage, in spite of the risk of being physically bashed, mugged, beaten and tied to a fence naked in freezing temperatures and left to die (Matthew Sheppard - Google it), in spite of not being able to adopt children (that heterosexuals no longer want), in spite of not being able to visit dying partners or receive their social security benefits when they die - THAT is the choice, the choice to be courageous when one does not have to be.  In no way are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered people trying to minimize what African-Americans have had to go through to get where they are by comparing skin color to sexual orientation, but it IS very similar - we just CHOOSE to face the prejudice and discrimination.  Even with Loving vs. Virginia, many people today still believe that interracial marriage is wrong.  Many people today still believe that Blacks should have to walk on the other side of the street or the back of the bus.  Many people today still believe that Blacks should not have the right to vote.  Many of these beliefs are misinterpretations of the bible that influenced them and the votes that once kept you from enjoying the civil liberties you now have.  In spite of all that the African-American community faced in our history, they at the very least had African-American families they could go home to for support around who they are.  Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual and Transgendered people usually DO NOT have that support.  Nope - they are most often condemned by their families, as well. Don't you feel good today now that we have the country's first interracial president who looks mostly African-American?  I do.  This white, gay man voted for that change because I need it and what it represents. You'd think that YOU, in particular, could understand better what the GLBT community is going through today - and have a little more compassion for them.  We do have compassion for what African-Americans went through - and THAT is what's really meant when we compare what we're going through to what African-Americans once endured.  


Posted By: Collegiate in Maine (November 10, 2009 at 10:11 PM)

When studying marriage in the Bible, which was written by an infallible God, we come across fallible people. No surprise there, since the whole of God's word to us concerns his love for all fallible people, and his love so great that the Father sent Christ to die for the sinner, the God-man who died for the ungodly, to bridge the chasm between mankind and God, that chasm of sin. The only perfect human who ever lived was Christ. And so, as we read about God's people, we find people succumbing to sin. God never condoned it. The faith of the people in the Old Testament, looking forward to the Savior God would send, is the same faith as the people in the New Testament, who personally knew this Savior, Jesus. And as we read about the lives of fallible people who succumbed to sin, we see that yes, God in his grace forgave the sins of those whose faith was in him, yet we also see that the consequences of sin still affected their lives, even though the punishment of sin was given Christ. But keep in mind that Scripture also points out that "the sun shines on both the wicked and the good". We don't always see the consequences we would expect to see.

Some have dismissed the Bible as written by people, not by God, and by extension, have dismissed anything the Bible has to say that they choose to disagree with. How, then, do they know what to believe in the Bible? Only things that seem rational to them? How, then, do they know what is rational? As we've already seen, dependence on your own interpretation of right and wrong can lead to dire consequences. Indeed, dependence on your own interpretation of Christ can lead to eternal death. Just as knowledge of salvation is divinely administered by the power of the Holy Spirit and the only way to eternal life (Matthew 16: 16,17), so too, is the Bible divinely inspired. The Bible itself claims this is so, in 2 Timothy 3:16, which is God's signature of authorship. We either believe the claim that all scripture is God-breathed and infallible, or we ourselves become gods, deciding right from wrong. That road leads to death. Everything necessary to know right from wrong is contained in the Bible. That road leads to life.


Posted By: jazz4kurt (June 24, 2009 at 12:07 AM)

In Matthew 24, Jesus warned us to not be deceived. The Bible IS bent toward inclusiveness, but of sinners, not sin.