Lisa Miller on Gay Marriage

Here's Ms. Miller's latest attempt at sophistry: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

Apparently, this example of Ms. Miller's work actually made Newsweek's cover. Where to start,
where to start? Well, how about the title:

Our Mutual Joy
Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

Well, yes, opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. That is true enough. But Ms. Miller never quite gets around to explaining what it is that the Bible teaches about love and how it argues for the other side. Rather, Ms. Miller spends most of the article arguing that what the Bible says about love is not relevant, at all. She notes that men in the old testament were polygamists, she notes incidents of adultery, she notes that the new testament advises men to avoid marriage altogether, and she argues that no contemporary heterosexual couple would use the Bible as a guide for their relationship. She appears to be arguing that what the Bible says is irrelevant, and therefore gay marriage is okay. Fair enough. If the scriptures are irrelevant, create a new religion where marriage within the same sex is celebrated, but don't try to argue that the irrelevant scriptures compel us to condone gay marriage.

But Ms. Miller continues on and on to suggest that what the bible does actually assert should be dismissed and what she would like it to assert should be accepted. Here's a doozie of a quote:

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.

Again, she begins with a truth: Biblical literalists will disagree. Indeed, but not only Biblical literalists, but also those who read the Bible allegorically, as well as those who read the Bible in the context of sacred tradition. In fact, there is no fair reading of the Bible's actual words that can be interpreted as condoning, much less celebrating gay marriage. To suggest that the Bible is "living document" is just another way of saying that what it says is not really important and we should just ignore what we do not like. In general, the Bible is not big on supplying reasons for anything. When the Bible asserts as a commandmant, "Thou shalt not kill," for example, it does not give any reasons, good or bad, why thou shalt not kill. The fact is that the Bible does proscribe homosexual acts, and never talks about marriage in any other context than between a man and a woman, except, perhaps, as a covenent relationship between Christ and His Church. I'm still looking through her article and my Bible for the "number of excellent reasons why" gays and lesbians should be married.

One of the most laughable arguments Ms. Miller makes regards the specific proscription against homosexual acts in the Bible. She characterizes the quote as a "throwaway line." Well, yes, she certainly has thrown it away. To assert that the Bible can be read to support gay marriage in any way, you have to throw away a lot of lines. Seems the Bible is in serious need of a rewrite, and Ms. Miller is just the Prophetess to take on the task.

Well, Ms. Miller never does get around to enlightening us on that number of excellent reasons from the Bible why gay marriage should be recognized as valid, except to say that "the Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community." Hardly a compelling argument in favor of gay marriage, considering the fact that some of those warnings are against engaging in homosexual acts. She seems to be suggesting that the actual details of what is written in the Bible are irrelevent, but the general themes of love and inclusiveness should be taken to heart. But there is one detail she does not want to scratch out with her red pen. She suggests that King David must have been gay, since he expressed his love for his friend Jonathon. This line is too convenient to ignore. No "throwaway line" here! At least she does not suggest that they got married. Maybe she can add this detail when she completes the rewrite.

Unfortunately, the Bible is completely misrepresented in this rather illogical rambling. The Bible does not teach inclusiveness, at least in one respect. Sin is not to be condoned. Sin is what caused the fall. To be sure, we are not called to throw stones at the sinner, but we do believe that Jesus came to call sinners to repent: "Go, then, and sin no more." Unfortunately, homosexual acts are among the unnatural acts of man that fall into the catagory of sin. We do not help the sinner by celebrating his sin. To celebrate and condone sin is no act of love. We call sinners to repent. There was a place in the Bible where homosexulity was condoned, and perhaps they even had an institution of gay marriage. Amazingly, Ms. Miller has written an article addressing homosexuality and the Bible and neglected to mention Sodom, the root word for Sodomy. Well, just a few more lines to throw away.