The current issue of Newsweek is running an article by Lisa Miller that argues the Bible does not define marriage as being between one man and one woman. I think she makes a good case. Most of the Old Testament guys were polygamists, after all, and Jesus and Saint Paul didn’t explicitly say anything about one-man-one-woman marriage in the New Testament.
A Christian minister named R. Albert Mohler Jr. takes issue with Ms. Miller at the Washington Post‘s On Faith site. But Mohler’s arguments, IMO, don’t make sense. Basically his argument is, OK, so marriage as described in the Bible were not like marriages today, but they were still heterosexual and about procreation. So the Bible can’t be used to argue in favor of same-sex marriage.
But I don’t think Ms. Miller is using the Bible to argue in favor of same-sex marriage as much as she’s just saying that biblical marriage was not the one man-one woman thing current conservative Christianity wants written into law. Thus, there is no biblical authority supporting the way most conservative Christians define marriage. A number of other commenters at On Faith, including Christian clergy, admit this, and also argue that a Christian case could be made in favor of gay marriage.
And, of course, I don’t give a bleep what the Bible says about marriage or sex or procreation or asparagus. Writing something into law because it’s in the Bible is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Writing at NRO, Mark Hemingway sputters in outrage over the Newsweek piece.
The cover story in this week’s Newsweek, which makes “the religious case for gay marriage,†has come under fire from a large swath of the religious community. Newsweek’s own blog has been keeping track of the controversy, with religious heavyweights such as Albert Mohler, Ralph Reed, and Richard Land criticizing the article. The Politico devoted an entire article to cataloging the backlash, The Weekly Standard called it a “dire mess,†and countless blogs commented unfavorably. (Not to mention that the piece was not popular in the Hemingway household.)
I can’t believe these people are still citing Ralph Reed as some kind of spiritual authority.
While there is certainly a religious debate to be had over the validity of gay marriage, most of the criticism of the article sidestepped the main issue to comment on how the author, religion reporter Lisa Miller, wrote the article. Aside from making numerous basic factual errors,
I’ve yet to see any of these “factual errors” clearly pointed out. The couple of “errors” cited by Mohler were matters of interpretation, his inference of what some passages meant.
the author insisted — before the end of the first paragraph — that biblical views of marriage are déclassé: “Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple — who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love — turn to the Bible as a how-to script?â€
And, if you read Miller’s piece, she makes a good case that we would not, because marriage in biblical times was in no way about gender equality and romantic love. But Hemingway doesn’t even answer this. He quotes Miller as if no civilized person should ever be allowed to suggest that marriage today is different from what it was in Old Testament times, even though it plainly is.
What’s worse, for Hemingway, is that editor John Meacham does not explain Miller’s piece as “just her opinion,” but instead writes,
No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition. …
… In this light it would seem to make sense for Americans to look anew at the underlying issues on the question of gay marriage. One can decide to oppose it in good faith, but such opposition should at least be forged by those in full possession of the relevant cultural and religious history and context. 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. History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion.
Good for Meacham! But the Right cannot stand the idea that a news magazine would publish anything other than (b) unfiltered right-wing propaganda, or (2) mush. Miller’s piece stands on its own. She makes a strong case that it’s nonsense to cite the Bible to “prove” what marriage “ought” to be. I haven’t seen anyone on the Right honestly answer Miller’s arguments. They just think it’s outrageous anyone would make those arguments.
Newsweek also is in the news itself this week because its circulation numbers dropped like a rock in the past year, and the magazine’s managers are considering slashing the number of copies printed by about 1.6 million. The editorial focus may move away from reporting news to becoming more of an opinion magazine, or a “thought leader.”
I’m of mixed views on this. What the weekly news magazines can sometimes do very well, when they try, is in-depth reporting like the recent “Secrets of the 2008 Campaign.” But I don’t subscribe to any of the weeklies any more. I don’t remember why I stopped getting Newsweek — probably because I never had time to read it — and I canceled Time because of the infamous Ann Coulter issue of April 25, 2005. Oh, and because I decided Joe Klein is a dork.
I think that at some time during the Bush years the weekly news magazines started to seem so damn insipid. They were too careful not to piss off the Right, and in doing so pulled their punches on the Bushies far too many times. Most of the time I could get better, and fresher, information from the web.
Maybe now Newsweek has decided that publishing applesauce to please the Right wasn’t getting it anywhere, and it’s going to publish some meat now and then.
[Marriages in the Bible] were still heterosexual and about procreation….
Most people don’t realize that anti-gay marriage activists have a larger agenda beyond banning gay marriage; when pressed, some are just truthful enough to admit they want to make divorce virtually impossible, and rescind legal access to contraception, so that all married couples will be forced to have children whether they want them or not.
These are the same folk who nearly drown in their own spittle whenever they hear mention of Margaret Atwood’s masterpiece, The Handmaid’s Tale, which is the most accurate depiction of their monstrous agenda that one can find. The rebuttals to Lisa Miller’s brave article just prove that the Religious Right is still insane, and still hopelessly impaired when it comes to “truthiness.”
Hurray for Newsweek for not publishing mush, for once. Someone over at DKos came up with what our marriage laws would look like if they were based on the bible:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
I gave up on Newsweek and Time ages ago – they’re so dumbed down. It’s almost like they’re pretending to be news magazines. I used to subscribe to the Economist, but can rarely keep up with it. I just added their RSS feeds to my reader last night. Just got an ad from Amazon, who is selling magazines at a discount. Things are apparently tough all over.
It’s about time we stop letting the religious right make false and outrageous claims about what their scripture says. Jesus never spoke against homosexuality or gay marriage. Deal with it.
I used to read Newsweek’s international edition when I lived overseas in the 70s, and it had so much more ‘meat’ and in-depth news content than the insipid, dumbed-down product Newsweak and Time put out today. I thought this might just be nostalgia, but I dug up some old issues and the contrast is startling.
People say the same thing about US CNN versus CNN International. It’s insulting that corporate news management whores produce a stupider, coarser, most jingoistic product for their American audience.
The poet Robert Lowell, a manic-depressive, compared psychotherapy to the stirring up of the bottom of an aquarium, an exercise which I compare to the periodic public exercises on the pros and cons of gay marriage. Other than stirring up alot of shit to cloud the tank/issue, it accomplishes nothing.
Human animals are capable of love and we seem to have a need to make public the love we have for another and marriage is the way we express it. To deny some of us the right to do so means that, finally, we challenge one’s right to love another human being. Those who adhere to the teachings of Christ need to review his teachings.
Hi,
I’m still researching this one, but I plan to try and tackle this issue soon in my philosophy.
As far as I can tell, while spurious beliefs about the Bible did motivate the opposition to Proposition 8, it would be wrong to conclude that this was why it passed. I don’t think there are enough people in California with those particular beliefs to get the majority.
What seems to be at issue is people in the middle ground who are sceptical about what children will be taught in schools – will they be taught that marriage is between any two people? This disturbs many more people that you might expect (coming from an ultra-liberal position as you do) – not because the people in question have any express issue towards the Gay community as a *separate* culture, but because they are wary of integrating it into what they see as *their* culture.
Prejudice? I suppose. But what we’re dealing with in this case is the fallout of bad PR from the Gay community. I need to dig into the story the anti-Proposition 8 team chose to tell here, but I suspect they tried to sell their position on liberal grounds – thus adding nothing to their cause (because the liberals were already with them). They needed a way to sell their story on conservative grounds.
I’ll have a more coherent stance on this one some time next year. If you have any useful links that would help me investigate the anti-Proposition 8 campaign, that would be extremely handy. Thanks for helping me keep abreast of the issue – I appreciate it.
Best wishes,
Chris.
while spurious beliefs about the Bible did motivate the opposition to Proposition 8, it would be wrong to conclude that this was why it passed.
I think you are probably right; see below.
What seems to be at issue is people in the middle ground who are sceptical about what children will be taught in schools – will they be taught that marriage is between any two people?
That’s a bizarre thing to say. It’s been a long time since I’ve been in school, but I don’t remember being taught anything about marriage in school. If, in fact, state law defines marriage as between any two people, then that’s what it is, whether it is taught in school that way or not.
not because the people in question have any express issue towards the Gay community as a *separate* culture, but because they are wary of integrating it into what they see as *their* culture.
This gets to the heart of it. The extremes of “gay culture” get a lot of publicity and there’s a myth among conservatives that this is how all “gay people” live. However, the gay people I know live in a “culture” that is in every way indistinguishable from my “culture” or your “culture.” In other words, gays already are integrated into the culture of people who voted for Prop 8, whether the haters want to admit it or not.
What fueled support for Prop 8 was not so much the Bible as it was sheer hatefulness, prejudice and ignorance. However, what happens when conservatives hate something is that they whip out their Bibles and look up whatever scriptures they can find that might be interpreted to justify their hate. And that’s what we’re seeing here.
I suspect they tried to sell their position on liberal grounds – thus adding nothing to their cause (because the liberals were already with them). They needed a way to sell their story on conservative grounds.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
@ Maha:
“That’s a bizarre thing to say. It’s been a long time since I’ve been in school, but I don’t remember being taught anything about marriage in school. If, in fact, state law defines marriage as between any two people, then that’s what it is, whether it is taught in school that way or not.”
Marriage is not taught in schools. The statements made in that ad were a blatant lie.
“‘I suspect they tried to sell their position on liberal grounds – thus adding nothing to their cause (because the liberals were already with them). They needed a way to sell their story on conservative grounds.’
I have no idea what you are talking about. ”
Hes saying No on 8 was trying to convince people who would have voted No on 8 anyways, as opposed to trying to convince people on the fence or who were slightly inclined to the Right.
In my eyes the argument was not about the actual union, but rather the semantics of it, using the word “marriage” to define it.
As a contrasting view on this issue, I would recommend people read RollingStone’s article on why they believe Proposition 8 didn’t pass.
It is a sad day when people who marry for love are kept from eachother. It is a sadder day when the people keeping them apart believe they are doing right.
EDIT: Proposition 8 Passed. Not didn’t pass.
Hes saying No on 8 was trying to convince people who would have voted No on 8 anyways, as opposed to trying to convince people on the fence or who were slightly inclined to the Right.
Obviously, but he doesn’t give an example of what kind of argument he would have used to persuade conservatives to vote against prop 8. I cannot imagine what what argument would have been.
Which is where he may or may not be correct. Supporters of the proposition succeeded in convincing the middle ground that they were of the correct frame of mind. While I may not agree with their views, I will concede, they DID run a much more efficient, successful campaign to convince the middle ground then those who were No on 8.
Clearly the “yes” campaign was the successful one. I still have no idea what campaign the “no” side would have run that would have been more successful. What SPECIFICALLY would they have done differently? EXAMPLES.
It is, unfortunately, easier to campaign on fear and ignorance than on benevolence and knowledge. This is why the Right has been so successful for so long.
Hi,
I’m still working on the best way to sell this to conservatives in the States – but I imagine it begins working from the Bible. If you make it a battle between a New Testament and an Old Testament reading, the people on the fence can be swayed to a liberal interpretation. I’ll need to research this a little further…
My first thought is the following: video footage of a gay marriage ceremony, showing the love and joy on the couple’s faces, overlaid with voice over from 1 John 4, 7-8: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.”
Faced with this message, conservatives near the fenceline are, I suspect, much more likely to be swayed into support of gay marriage than pushed the other way by an Old Testament (mis)-reading.
Best wishes!