A Review of Lisa Millers Cover Story Our

A Review of Lisa Miller’s Cover Story, “Our Mutual Joy, ” in the Dec. 15, 2008 Issue of Newsweek

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments— especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion, " says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. 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? Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it —the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections. The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal. Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition. "

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) To which there are two obvious responses: 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. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2, 000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews' precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for. " Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. " But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time. )

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical There are spite numerous terms or phrases nottofound the Bible Jesus was—in of recent efforts of novelists paint in him otherwise— that are obviously a foolish emphatically unmarried. condemned He preachedina Scripture. radical kind. What of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. line of argumentation! Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be The phrase “serial he killer” appear in never the Bible either. no marriage in heaven, saysdoesn’t in Matthew. Jesus mentions homosexuality, but heit roundly Does that make ok? condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women). The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord's lack of interest in matters of Second Jesus. For “never time she’s mentions” pointed out does that Jesus make didbut itnot permissible? marry. the. If flesh. him, celibacy wasit, the Christian ideal, family stability was the. Jesus best alternative. Marry if in you must, he told his audiences, rape, but do not get What “never does “emphatically mentions” unmarried” specific terms mean? euthanasia, divorced. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife abortion, incest, child crack cocainegoes or racism. Does that must not separate from hersacrifice, husband. " It probably without saying thethat phrase "gay marriage" not appear in the Bible at all. make these thingsdoes permissible? Reality: Jesus does condemn homosexuality. In Matthew 19, He states marriage is for “male and female, ” and He speaks of fornication, which includes homosexuality as a form of it. And, remember, when Paul condemns it, it’s the Lord’s words.

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then “Throwaway lines”? Wow! what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, ofunderstanding…has course—specifically sex betweenits men. Sex between “Our modern surpassed women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on prescriptions”? Then, no longer it. We know "Homosexual Practices, " thewe Anchor Bible need Dictionary notes thatmore nowhere in the. The Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, because it Bible condemns all. God! homosexuality! Male beyond &"possibly female! and know better than We’ve advanced Him! did not result in true physical 'union‘…. " The Bible does condemn gay male was an abomination torefers God in The men as sex. Homosexuality in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus tothe sex OT. between "annature abomination" (King James version), these are lines in a of Godfallacious did not change. Hisbut definition ofthrowaway marriage did WOW! What arguments & faulty sources! So, if text Godgiven is now accepting homosexuality and Jewish no longer peculiar over to codesof for living inabomination the ancient world, a text not change. Homosexuality is still an to Him! that devotes verse after treatments for leprosy, cleanliness “For condemns this reason it, like God Heverse did gave intothem Leviticus up to 20: 13, vile passions. then God For must even berituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb their “ifwomen a dove. woman exchanged approaches any natural animal and for mates what iswith against it, ” or ok a turtle Most of us nothe longer heeduse Leviticus on haircuts or blood nature”He which (Rom. condemned 1: 26). three verses later in Leviticus 20: 16. its sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality Right? with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on no to longer bound by the old law (we live under the. We bestare price pay for a slave? New Covenant/Testament), but we can and must learn from His eternal principles and nature (Rom. 15: 4; 1 Cor. 10: 11).

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for another" he calls "a perversion") is really a critique the “a one certain group(which of people who have done everything in this of list”? worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and “For this reason Godbook gave "The them Arrogance up to vile passions. For even women debauchery. In his of Nations, " thetheir scholar Neil Elliott exchanged natural use for in what against nature. also the men, argues thatthe Paul is referring thisisfamous passage. Likewise to the depravity of the Roman emperors, theof craven habitsburned of Neroinand a reference his leaving the natural use the woman, their. Caligula, lust for one another, men audience havewhat grasped instantly. is not about we with men would committing is shameful, and"Paul receiving in talking themselves thewhat penalty call homosexuality at all, " Elliottthose says. things "He'swhich talking a certain of their error which was due…do areabout not fitting; beinggroup filled of people have done everything in this wickedness, list. We're not dealing with all who unrighteousness, sexual immorality, covetousness, anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really maliciousness; of meet envy, murder, strife, evil-mindedness; violent peoplefull who their end and deceit, are judged by God. " Inthey any are case, one whisperers, backbiters, God, violent, against proud, boasters, inventors of evil might add, Paul arguedhaters moreofstrenuously divorce—and at least half things, disobedient parents, disregard undiscerning, unloving, of the Christians into. America thatuntrustworthy, teaching. unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that So, who if America disregards a deserving teachingofofdeath, the Bible, it makes it but those practice such things are not only do the same alsoirrelevant? approve of those who practice them” (Rom. 1: 26 -32).

What. Review a warpedofview Scripture: Lisaof. Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, - It does not 15, endorse Dec. 2008“slavery”! (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) - It is not left up to Americans to decide what to accept. Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, - Itindoes notand minimize the seriousness of adultery or homosexuality. but custom tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort sex that transcends theological argument). Common - It is doeswith notgay provide a shelter for anti-Semites. prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of - The world has not changed as much as like to Common Prayer describes the participants in ashe’d marriage as think. "the man and “Then”? She’s drawing a conclusion whenfor(Mt. she the woman. " common changes—and thehasn’t better, proven the Rev. Scripture is. But timeless andpractice applies to all peoples 24: 35; 1 as. Pet. Martin Luther King Jr. point! said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward her supposed 1: 22 -25). justice. " The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now Religious objections to and gay barbaric. marriage. Itare rooted inthe thedeath Bible— universally consider shameful recommends penalty formaking adulterers (and in attacking Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for Again, “common rituals” and “common practice” our that’s why she’s been (unsuccessfully) the Bible! thatsupposed matter). Itstandard provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view rather than Scripture! of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a. Luther world King, so unlike our own, it's Can you imagine what Martin Jr. would think impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours. being quoted here? “A mature view of Scriptural authority”: - Absolutely needed - But you won’t find it in this article or in any attempt to use Scripture to justify homosexuality

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob. Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands' frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20 th. (In the NEWSWEEK POLL, 55 percent of respondents said that married heterosexuals who have sex with someone other than their spouses are morally objectionable than a gay couple in a committed sexual relationship. ) By the mid-19 th century, U. S. courts were siding with wives who were the victims of domestic violence, and by the 1970 s most states had gotten rid of their "head and master" laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be able to take a job. Today's vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History. " Marriage has evolved? Into what we want? Where is she getting her information? What’s the point? “Today’s vision of marriage” does not matter – only God’s vision! God says that the “husband is the head of the wife” (Eph. 5: 23).

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) Religious wedding ceremonies have already changed to reflect new conceptions of marriage. Remember when we used to say "man and wife" instead of "husband wife"? Remember when we stopped using the word "obey"? Even Miss Manners, the voice of tradition and reason, approved in 1997 of that change. "It seems, " she wrote, "that dropping 'obey' was a sensible editing of a service that made assumptions about marriage that the society no longer holds. " Again – are “new conceptions” within society the standard? In Scripture, “husband” was always male-specific and “wife” was always female-specific. God does not switch words or genders. God tells wives to “submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord, ” and to “see that she respects her husband” (Eph. 5: 23 -33), and referred to holy women “in former times” who were “submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham…” (1 Pet. 3: 1 -6).

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The. We Religious Case Gay Marriage”) absolutely can!for And must! 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. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whomin heuniversal "loved as truths! he loved himself. " Conservatives say She doesn’t believe this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two In her mind, is each truth? Letinalone universal men who standwhat up for other turbulent times, truth? through violent war and disapproval a powerful parent. rends his clothes at Thethe Bible gives us of absolute truth about. David marriage! More than Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song: Sick! Twist the meaning of Biblical love! “inspiration and warning, ” it gives us clear direction! I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; Typical mind in the gutter! Always sexual! You were verysociety dear to may me. try to find room in “a more just future” for An ungodly Jonathan defended David, saved him from Your love for me was wonderful, homosexuality, but that it will fit in God’s plan! his right to the throne. death & yielded More wonderful than of never women. Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations. The danger of speaking about something where the Bible is silent!

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community. The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah. Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. "I don't think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process, " he says. "We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent. " The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good. The boy needed two human parents, after all. What’s the point again of mentioning Moses or Esther, if not going to mention Ezra’s grief-filled reaction to Israel’s intermarrying (Ezra 9: 1 -15) or Nehemiah calling Solomon’s intermarrying “sin” (Neh. 13: 26)? Joseph & Mary’s marriage fit their cultural arrangements exactly. No “unorthodox. ” What a snide comment about “the boy needed two human parents, after all. ”

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) 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. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend—as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical “Acceptable. Seminary, for all” isquotes conditional! Requires obedience! “Come unto support of gay. My marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, “Eternal slave nor free, me all…take yoke upon you…” (Matt. 11: 28 -30). male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ. " The religious argument salvation to all who obey"is. Him” (Heb. 5: 9). for gay marriage, he adds, not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Biblesin. is bent “All-encompassing love” does not overlook or condone “Go and toward inclusiveness. " sin no more. ” “Unless you repent you will likewise perish. ” “…You PUT GALATIANS IN CONTEXT! is. CANNOT about thebelaw, the removal of the law “Religious argument for gay “made with reference to and did not do it to 3: 28 Me. Andmarriage” these. It shall go away into everlasting the child oftexts, ” God’s. BECAUSE relationship to God particular THERE AREseparate NONE! from the law. To be “in Christ” punishment. ” requires repentance from sin (including homosexuality, 1 Cor. 6: 9 -11). This does “The general conviction” = what we’ve made up in our own minds not say or teach, “neither heterosexual nor homosexual. ” Is the Bible bent toward the inclusiveness of unrepentant pedophiles, murderers, idolaters, rapists, etc. ? “I want to be included so I should be included no matter what. ”

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. 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" sincedepravity, 1992. "I'm indifference”? against promiscuity— “Inclusion…over and against chaos, – those love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual are Inclusion in thethe family of God is based sameupon sex, not and “biblical I think thevalues” church –should recognize validity of committed man’s obedience he to says. the will of God! sex relationships, " Apparently “racialpromiscuity? equality” and. Because “the common naturereasons of humanity” Why is he against of personal or imply acceptance Scriptural reasons? of homosexuality. But, Scripturally, that doesn’t follow! If he’s against promiscuity because God is against promiscuity, then why isn’t he against homosexuality? God is!

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) Legal ≠ Scriptural (ex: abortion, adultery, premarital God’s purpose marriage is multi-fold. For “mutualdo joy”officially (i. e. , companionship)? sex) Still, very few for Jewish or Christian denominations endorse gay Yes (Gen. 2: 18 -25). Also, states to propagate the racepractice (Gen. 1: 27 -28), marriage, even in the where it is human legal. The varies enjoy by region, intimacy (Heb. 13: 4; 1 Cor. 7: 2 -4), grow closer to God and help each other go to by church or synagogue, even by cleric. More progressive denominations— heaven (1 Cor. 7: 16; 1 of. Pet. 3: 1 -7; 5: 23 -33). the United Church Christ, for. Eph. example—have agreed to support gay marriage. denominations and. Hisdioceses will do "holy union" or 5: 2 -3). Show “how. Other you love God” by obeying commandments (Jn. 14: 15; 1 Jn. "blessing" ceremonies, but shy away from the word "marriage" because it is politically explosive. So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly thepoint same–thing as denying it based&on skin color—and no She has argued her illogically, unsoundly unsuccessfully! serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married "for their mutual joy, "children. ” explains. Athe Rev. Chloe Breyer, of We are NOT “all God’s child of God is one who executive has obeyeddirector God’s will the (Gal. Interfaith 3: 26 -27). Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she We have all been created by God, NO ONE was created a homosexual. There adds. In marriage, couples growbut closer to God: "Being with one another in is NO GAY GENE! Did God a man. That's homosexual then condemn him to death? community is how youcreate love God. what marriage is about. " No! Homosexuality is a learned behavior! It is something a person chooses to do! There is no parallel between skin color and homosexuality! Where is the verse that condemns skin color in any way?

Review of Lisa Miller’s “Our Mutual Joy” in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last She thinks so many human need trumps Word. for peacefully amonglike them. We others want, that as Jesus taught, to love. God’s one another our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We our“love children to growforupour inown stable homes. Wewant do not one another good” – Phil. What 2: 3 -4. happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, ahappens song that praises the beauty andto say it While people make the “what in the bedroom” argument imperfection in allbusiness, ” of us andthe that glorifies knowledge most is “no one else’s truth is that God's it is God’s business of andour God secret selves: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. " knows what’s happening in the bedroom: And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, is honorable among to all, the andgays the bed fornicators he“Marriage would reach out especially andundefiled; lesbians but among us, for "Jesus does not want people toand be adulterers lonely and. God sad. " the (Heb. priest's prayer be our (includes homosexuals) will. Let judge” 13: 4). own. God DID NOT and DOES NOT make people gay! Read the rest of Psalm 139 – the preciousness of God’s thoughts/words, the condemnation of the wicked. This is the same Old Testament that categorizes homosexuality as a wicked abomination.

“The Editor’s Desk” Article by Jon Meacham in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) On the campus of Wheaton College in Illinois last Wednesday, in another of the seemingly endless announcements of splintering and schism in the Episcopal Church, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan and other leaders of the conservative forces of reaction to the ecclesiastical and cultural acceptance of homosexuality declared that their opposition to the ordination and the marriage of gays was irrevocably rooted in the Bible—which they regard as the "final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life. " No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in God’s Word the final authority & unchangeable between —this IS conservative resort to biblical authority isstandard! 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 thelike Christian “No matter what one thinks…” – as long as he and thinks us 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 In other words, “why would anyone ever read or trust anything Judeo-Christian tradition… the Bible says? !”

“The Editor’s Desk” Article by Jon Meacham in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) …Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice—a matter of behavior—but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color. The analogy with race is apt, for Christians in particular long cited scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery with the same certitude that some now use to point to certain passages in the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals. This argument from Scripture is difficult to take seriously—though many, many people do—since the passages in question are part and parcel of texts that, with equal ferocity, forbid particular haircuts. The Devil, as Shakespeare once noted, can cite Scripture for his. There purpose, and the texts have been “Sexual orientation” is a choice! is no gay gene! ready sources for those seeking to promote anti-Semitism and limit the human of women, among other things thatone’s few people the first “Sexualrights orientation” is not comparable with race orinslavery! decade of the 21 st century would think reasonable. There is a difference between O. T. regulations that were strictly ceremonial in nature and those thateven wereknow morally Jon Meacham probably doesn’t thatevil! the devil did cite for his purpose! Shall we. Scripture also accept bestiality since it is also in Leviticus 20? Is what one finds “reasonable” our standard? Homosexuality is condemned in Patriarchal, Mosaic & Christian ages!

“The Editor’s Desk” Article by Jon Meacham in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) Beyond the Bible, some argue that marriage is between a man and woman by custom and tradition—which is true, but only to a point. As recently as the 1960 s men and women of different races could not legally marry in certain states. In civil and religious terms we have redefined marriage before in order to reflect evolving understandings of justice and right; to act as though marriage has been one thing since Eden (and look how well that turned out) is ahistorical.

“The Editor’s Desk” Article by Jon Meacham in Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008 (“The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”) 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. (As it has been with reform in America from the Founding forward. ) The NEWSWEEK Poll confirms what other surveys have also found: that there is a with decided generational difference on the issue, with I’d be more concerned who and what does God favor? younger people supporting gay marriage at a higher rate than older Americans. accepted reality becomes theisnext clear Notice that. One theera's whole basis for theoften conclusion here on era's “history wrong. So it was with segregation, it willwhich be, I suspect, with the and demographics” and NOT onand theso. Bible, was supposedly sacrament of marriage. the premise for this whole issue.

What the Bible teaches… Lev. 20: 13 Gen 18 -19 Homosexuality= abomination to God; worthy of death Homosexuality is a sin and very grievous (18: 20), wicked (18: 23, 25; 19: 7), worthy of God’s destruction (18: 23 -25, 28, 31 -32; 19: 13). Jude 7 Homosexuality is going after strange flesh Result: suffering vengeance of eternal fire, an example 2 Pet. 2: 6 Homosexuality condemned as an example to ungodly Rom. 1: 24 -32 Homosexuality is uncleanness (v. 24), dishonoring one’s body (v. 25), vile (v. 26), against nature (v. 2627), unseemly/shameful behavior (v. 27), can harm your body with just punishment (v. 27), a serious error (v. 27), worthy of death (v. 32) 1 Cor. 6: 9 Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God 1 Tim. 1: 9 -10 Homosexuals in same lawless class as murderers