December 11, 2008
A Self-Evident Truth: There Is No
Religious Case for Gay Marriage
Here we go again. Newsweek – renowned for
delighting in celebrating holidays with
issues debunking the historic Jesus –
has now devoted a cover story to “The
Religious Case for Gay Marriage.”
Yo. I could offer up my own exposition of the
Religious Case for Gay Marriage. But my
fussy editor demands that my column
extend beyond zero words in length.
Still, just in case you missed the article by religion
editor Lisa Smith – most of which
wouldn’t pass muster as a freshman term
paper – I’ll save you the trouble. Her
arguments are a combination of old straw
men (persons?) – and downright
head-scratching non sequiturs.
The Good Book is hardly a marriage manual, because its
views of the institution are nothing
like today’s perspective. (And by the
way, the patriarchs were polygamists,
while Jesus and Paul were single, so
what do they know?) But take a look at
all its examples of unions that defy
The Bible’s a “living book” – but its outmoded rules
can’t be applied to today’s world. Adam
and Eve are described as “one flesh” –
but the Bible never “explicitly” says
marriage is between a man and a woman.
The couple was told to be fruitful and
multiply – but God never could have
conceived the non-traditional ways
procreation happens these days.
Homosexuality is only condemned in “a handful of
passages” – but then, modern society
doesn’t observe other Old Testament
edicts like those on haircuts or blood
sacrifices anyway. Paul is tough on
homosexuality – but his condemnation
doesn’t really relate to same-sex
activities at all. It’s about Roman boys
behaving badly. And hey, don’t we ignore
the Apostle’s much harsher admonitions
Jonathan and David (the polygamist) expressed their
“enduring love” for each other – which
leads Ms. Miller to smirk that “what
they did or did not do in privacy is
perhaps best left to history and our own
imaginations.” (Hers must be smuttier
Plus the same Bible whose teachings can’t be applied
today is really about inclusion,
acceptance and equality. In the end, the
religious case doesn’t really come down
to theology anyway, but to human need.
And all we need is love. (OK, I threw in
that last line, but the sentiment’s
It could be fun, if not necessarily profitable, to mix
it up point-by-point with Ms. Miller.
But why bother, since she is doing such
a good job getting in her own way? And
many much more qualified folks – like
real, live theologians – have already
dissected (more like drawn and
quartered) her mini-treatise.
Besides – hold on just a confounded minute! I smell a
big, fat rat trap here, anyhoo. Suck-er!
Ms. Miller and gay marriage proponents
don’t really give two toots on a ram’s
horn whether their “religious argument”
(you notice they don’t drag Muslims or
Hindus into this) is a winning one.
Simply to have the argument is a victory.
Because it puts the homosexual community
and their supporters on the same footing
as the other side – or more precisely,
knocks us equally off our foundation.
That foundation, as Jefferson put it, is that some
truths are self-evident – and one such
truth is that marriage is between a man
and a woman. Call other relationships
whatever you want – but they’re not
marriage. You see, there’s no arguing
something that’s self-evident. ‘Tis, or
‘taint. Marriage equals husband and
And on the subject of “’tis or ‘taint,” the Bible
couldn’t present a clearer
beginning-to-end trail regarding God’s
perspective on homosexuality if its
writers had strewn breadcrumbs from
Genesis to Revelation. Just say “no” –
and you’ve pretty much summed it up.
But again, the homosexual agenda isn’t to win the
debate. It’s to extend it ad
infinitum (not to mention ad
absurdum and ad nauseum).
While obfuscating facts with feelings
(“as long as two people love each
other”) alongside extortion and
intimidation (protests, vandalism,
economic pressure, even “call-in-gay”
days) – until opponents lose their grip
on certainty and collapse in confusion,
exhaustion and disarray.
The ploy’s working: Newsweek was so overwhelmed
with comments on the story, it’s stopped
Fortunately, instead of falling into Ms. Miller’s
seductive snare, I’ve fallen back on my
initial reaction to such brazen, snarky
sophistry – to drop-kick the publication
across the kitchen. (Don’t try this at
home unless you want wrinkled pages.)
Only this time, the boot was into the trash can. From
whence one can only hope the magazine
will be transported – along with the
long-past tiresome campaign for gay
“marriage” – to the ash heap of history.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.