Man, Newsweek! I don’t read it since, after all, I made it through grade school but it’s out there, and some other folks do. I’m sure some take what Newsweek prints as true just because they’re a magazine. That’d be a poor judgement call, but I’m thinking maybe some do that.

The 12/15/2008 issue of Newsweek (I won’t put the link in here, since I want to direct no traffic to their website) has an article on the Biblical position for gay marriage. There’s no such thing, but apparently some editor in the building at Newsweek, facing declining readership in print media, had to come up with something so weird and sensational that they’d sell a few magazines to folks who are otherwise WAY too intelligent to bother with Newsweek. Feel free to read the article if you want a laugh. I did, chuckled, and then came up with this post. I had to split it up a bit on the Newsweek site, since they have a 3000 character limit.

I was surprised that there were almost no concrete Biblical references in the article. Some are mentioned in passing, and several liberal clergy are quoted, but there’s very little actual Scripture in the article. I guess that shouldn’t surprise me, since Scripture defeats the position they’re trying to make. Anyhow, here’s my Newsweek comment in it’s entirety, respectfully submitted.
—————
Maybe all isn’t lost for California? Passing prop 8 gives me some hope. We passed a similar amendment here in Arizona recently, as did other states across the country. Lisa Miller, touted as the “religion editor” by THE editor of Newsweek on page 4 of the 12/15/2008 edition, came up with or was given a position (”There’s no Biblical basis for marriage being just between a man and a woman.”) and then went off to concoct a believable article. Hopefully she’ll do better next time.

The argument that the Bible’s invitation to love all people equates to “everyone should be able to marry everyone” is ludicrous. I love my daughter, but if I get to thinking that she and I should be married, I need immediate and substantial psychological help, locked away from polite society for everyone’s safety. Thank goodness I know right from wrong. I love my dog (no, not physically), and the same logic holds there too. It’s nice that some “rights” and “wrongs” are easily adjudicated! I love lots of people and things, but the institution of marriage (at least as described in the Bible, and now by state constitution in a few states) doesn’t avail them all to me in marriage. For a long time I was obsessed with pornography. I’d have made a lousy husband, and it would have been wrong for me to marry anyone. God still loved me, as did many people, but the institution of marriage wasn’t right for me and I wasn’t right for it. I’m not descriminating against myself there, just making an objective call based on Biblical principle. Since the Bible clearly (in my opinion) defines the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, I’d make the same call. I support prop 8 in California and I supported the Arizona marriage amendment too.

The second chapter of the book of Genesis (with references to the books of Matthew, Ephesians, and 1 Corinthians) describes the creation of man, woman, and the institution of marriage. The temptation to take a verse or two out of context is a trap that many folks fall into for the sake of making their point- especially if it’s a difficult or tenuous one. Pick pretty much any generally accepted translation of the Bible and read the entire chapter (it’ll only take a couple of minutes), and you’ll quickly see that the contextual intention was clearly to describe marriage as between man and woman- husband and wife. Groups of people down through the generations may have made modifications to the quantities in the equation, but that doesn’t justify the pairing of two members of the same sex (or a man and an animal, for that matter, though some people have tried it) as being right for the marriage relationship. There are numerous verses in Proverbs that describe the roles of husband and wife. Proverbs 31 is devoted almost exclusively to describing the traits of a strong and dedicated (not weak, passive, or overly submissive) wife. These are descriptive ideals and what I consider to be “numerous examples of traditional marriage” that Ms. Miller somehow overlooked while reading her Bible in fulfilling her duties as “religion editor”. While we won’t ever be perfect, these guidelines were put here for us to follow when we run into those patches in life where we’re wondering what to do. Nowhere do they describe marital roles other than “husband” and “wife”, and not in terms of “wife to wife” or “husband to husband”. Furthermore, just because we can’t look to the Bible to write our vows for us doesn’t preclude it from being an excellent “marital manual”. The institution (as described in the Bible) and what’s in the hearts of the couple are what’s important, not the words the potential husband and wife say to each other so that others can listen to them and say, “Oh, how nice!”. More important still is how the couple honors their Biblical responsibilities to each other. Most husbands and wives in America I think do pretty well in this area. Those that don’t feel it in the way of increased levels of guilt, stress, poor health and other problems. It’s hard to have any good relationships when you’re shortchanging your primary relationship. Oftentimes they see the signs and take corrective action. It’s been scientifically proven that husbands and wives in marriages described as “happy” live longer than those who aren’t. Science (as well as the Bible) goes on to describe how children need to see both male and female gender roles played out in their homes, over the years they’re growing up, or suffer psychologically.

By the way, there are many “man and woman” couples considering marriage that probably shouldn’t because they’re at odds with Biblical guidelines. They’re too selfish, they want to run their lives based on their ‘feelings’, they want to make ‘money’ the center of their lives (look what happened to the Governor of Illinois when he did that!), and so on. The Bible lays out principles for marriage that make for happy lives. I’ve observed married couples who’ve followed the Bible (religious and unreligious) and those who didn’t, and the ones that did were happier longer, and other people around them were happier longer. Think of it as being “blessed”, I suppose. That’s what I want some day!

I think some of us Americans sometimes wonder, “Why should I do anything other than what I feel like doing?” Well, the reason is because feelings change quickly, and because of this living by feelings makes us unstable. Without responsibilities to fulfill, guidelines to follow, challenges to overcome, and relationships to feed we’re less than human. Why not let the children run the home and not the parents? The reason is explained in the Bible. Should people protect their own homes? The answer’s in the Bible. What’s the meaning and point of life? Yup- it’s in there. When I feel like I want to die and there’s no hope, what should I do? Modern psychologists admit privately that they don’t have an answer for this one, but it’s in the Bible. Why is our country so out of control, with a declining marriage rate and simultaneously advancing divorce rate, increased teen pregnancies, drug use, violence and physical abuse? That one’s our fault (no, not George Bush’s), but the answer’s in the Bible- the same place marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. If we look at these alarming trends honestly, we may have to admit that these past few decades of “liberalizing the culture” has made us worse off, not better, regardless of what Newsweek has to say, how “politically correct” we may be or how “inclusive” it may feel. Please don’t take Ms. Miller’s word for what’s in the Bible- it doesn’t sound to me as though she spends much time reading it. Feel free to peruse the Bible (or sites like bible.com if you prefer the ‘online’ variety) for real answers to real questions, not just mindless “politically correct” speculation and pointless conjecture designed to sell a magazine and make a buck.

One final note- I think it’s interesting that Lisa Miller tries her very best to equate homosexuality with such involuntary attributes as skin color, and in the very next article mother Lisa Miller (apparently a different Lisa Miller) is described as having renounced her homosexuality. C’mon, Newsweek. Which’ll it be? As much a born-in part of me as skin color, or something I can renounce? The fact that the two women share both first and last names, with the second pretty much refuting the arguments set forth by the first, is absolutely priceless irony. You can’t make this stuff up!

Anyhow, Merry Christmas (that’s right, I went there!)!! God bless us- each and every one.
Whipsawjim