Analysis: Patently FALSE. The Bible explicitly defines marriage as an inviolate covenant between one man and one woman (NIV text):
Genesis 2:23-24: 23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she (singular, female) shall be called woman,
for she was taken out of man (singular, male).”
24For this reason a man (singular, male) will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife (singular, female), and they will become one flesh.
Matthew 19, 5-6: 5″and [Jesus is already speaking here] said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
The singular and specific sexualities drawn here by Jesus are absolute. There is nothing in the Hebrew or Aramaic languages that allow for reference to a man or a woman, specifically named as such, which would blur their sexuality.
So much for her first allegation. Now let us look at the second:
“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.”
Oh, really? I’m sensible, and I’m modern, and I want my marriage to look like the biblical model.
Analysis: Again, this is patently FALSE. Her second statement is ludicrous on its face. But she compounds her error by switching in midstream from the concept of marriage as defined as being between a man and a woman, to a concept defined as between ‘partners.’ This creates a slippery slope down which it appears to be her fervent desire that the reader will slide.
Her final fatal error is in trying to re-define the bible as a living document:
“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.”
Analysis: Still again, patently FALSE. Living documents are alterable. For the bible, this is impossible, given that the bible is held to be, by every known biblical authority, a canonically closed document, that is to say, unalterable, and not subject to arbitrary redefinition. Even the Jews define the Old Testament – “The Law and The Prophets” – as sacred and unalterable writing. By Christian definition – and who better to define their own manifesto than the Christian – the bible is the unalterable Word of God. Thus, she sets herself up for making the final ludicrous statement in her fundamental argument:
“[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.”
In examining her article, most especially these first paragraphs, in which she sets up her failing argument, I find no substantive support for that statement, other than perhaps her agenda.
Finally, I will address what I think is the most comical error I have seen in years, regarding biblical ‘interpretation:’
“Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was “one spirit” and whom he “loved as he loved himself.” Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan’s death and, in grieving, writes a song:
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of 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.”
What Miller attempts with this text would be laughable, if it were not that she is attempting to equate friendship with sexual desire, which makes it more pitiable than laughable. David is not suggesting that marital love is inferior to that of friendship, nor do his remarks have any sexual implications. What David is doing, in context, is simply calling attention to Jonathan’s incredible self-denial, in his commitment to his friend David. We must remember that Jonathan had long recognized David as the lord’s choice to succeed his father (Saul) as King, rather than Jonathan himself. The prophet Samuel had anointed David (1 Samuel 16: 1-13) for this purpose, Jonathan had recognized this, and so served David in both soldier-ship and friendship as the Lord’s anointed.
All normal heterosexual men enjoy the friendship and companionship of other heterosexual men. Whether in a bar on Friday night after work, either boisterously relaxing over a beer, or in earnest conversation or political debate, or whether with a friend over whose loss one would grieve, as did David for his friend Jonathon, they enjoy each other’s company. This is not to suggest that they would enjoy partaking in sexual activity with each other; the ninety-seven-plus percent of the male population who are straight decidedly would not. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEED71630F936A25757C0A965958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
Ms. Miller is a Senior Editor at Newsweek. She should possess the knowledge that would prevent her misinterpreting religous documents, including the bible. Biblical law, and Canonical law form the bedrock of credibility for our system of law and justice, for our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution. To attack it in such an unadvised manner, therefore, is to attack the fundamental concepts on which our country is based.
She should know better. So should Newsweek.