Some thoughts on Newsweek's Religious Case for gay Marriage

The following are just a few of my thoughts in response to reading Lisa Miller's article, featured on the cover of Newsweek a couple of weeks ago, that claims to establish biblical support for gay marriage. Lisa Miller's article is so full of distortions, inconsistencies, and mischaracterizations that it is hard to cover them all w/o an awfully lengthy post so I am leaving those with an interest in a complete rebuttal a link for further reading.

1. Lisa writes, "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."
Maybe Lisa should read the following passages:

Matt. 19:5 ;Lk 18:29; 1Cor. 7:2,3-4; Eph 5; 1 Timothy 3:2.12

In addition to the specific verses cited above Lisa might be interested in doing a search of all the NT references to marriage. If she did she would find that every one is either explicitly or implicitly about monogamous heterosexual marriage. One of Lisa's egregious mistakes is to suggest that unless the Bible provides us with a dictionary type definition of a term it therefore leaves the term undefined.

2. Lisa writes, "The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family." She picks up this theme later writing, "He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me..." Her attempt to paint Jesus as being indifferent or even opposed, to marriage & family is pitiful. She completely ignores Jesus strong affirmation of marriage demonstrated in his emphatic condemnation of divorce. Her distortion of Paul's view of marriage is also shameful.
She makes no attempt to understand the comments of Paul's, which she so selectively cites, in their context (See Prof. Gagnon's response) and she ignores Paul's high view of marriage expressed in Ephesians 5: 25-33. After reading Paul's admonition to husbands, calling on them to love their wives to the point of being willing to die for them, would Lisa still feel Paul's teaching expressed only a "lukewarm endorsement of a treasured institution". Does Paul's instruction to husbands to "love their wives as their own bodies" sound like someone who believed marriage was simply a means for a man to relieve his sexual frustration? Neither did she take the time to mention what other NT books say about marriage, like, "Marriage should be honored by all..." (Hebrews 13:4)

What troubled me almost as much as her distortions of scripture was her own glaring inconsistency. She apparently can't decide from sentence to sentence whether we should have great respect or utter contempt for Jesus in particular and the Bible generally. When scripture agrees with her it is profound but when it doesn't it is outdated. Consider these quotes from the article:


"We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs"."

"In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace....Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."

"If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says."

This is truly amazing!
Lisa Miller decries the attempt to define marriage as consisting of one man and one woman as a failure to meet the Bible's true message of "acceptance for all". But then, without so much as blushing, she smuggles in her own definition of marriage: homosexual or heterosexual monogamy. She can appeal to the Bible in defense of the "value of monogamy" and the necessity to "bind ourselves in loving pairs" but she doesn't extend the same privilege to those who appeal to the Bible in defense of heterosexual monogamy. In other words, Lisa wags her finger at those who are unwilling to reach out and include those "on the margins" while clearly expressing her own preference for monogamous marriage. Wait a minute, Lisa, what about all the bi-sexuals in the land? What about the polygamists? Why don't they deserve a place at the marriage table? What happened to the message of inclusiveness? Since she quotes Terry Davis in an affirming manner, is Lisa, like Mr. Davis, against promiscuity. Come on now Lisa, what happened to all the talk about "accepting everyone"? This "hate speech" against all the nice promiscuous people out there has got to stop! I also find it odd that Lisa can conclude so confidently that children are harmed when we cease to bond in loving pairs while failing to recognize, despite the abundant evidence, that children need both a mother and a father. The article should more appropriately be titled "The religious case for Lisa Miller's Vision of Marriage".

Prof. Gagnon has written a lengthy rebuttal to Lisa Miller's article which provides a detailed and nuanced response to the more complicated issues raised by Lisa Miller.
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdfhttp://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdf
Here is a quote from Prog. gagnon taken from the link above:
"Scripture’s male-female prerequisite for marriage and its attendant rejection of homosexual behavior is pervasive throughout both Testaments of Scripture (i.e. it is everywhere presumed in sexual discussions even when not explicitly mentioned); it is absolute (i.e. no exceptions are ever given, unlike even incest and polyamory); it is strongly proscribed (i.e. every mention of it in Scripture indicates that it is regarded as a foundational violation of sexual ethics); and it is countercultural (i.e. we know of no other culture in the ancient Near East or Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin more consistently and strongly opposed to homosexual practice). If this doesn’t qualify as a core value in Scripture's sexual ethics, there is no such thing as a core value in any religious or philosophical tradition. "