A little bit more on that...thing...in Newsweek

Really, what do you call it—that thing featured on the cover of the December 15, 2008, issue of Newsweek? It's not journalism. It's not news. It's not coherent, logical, well-argued, or well-written.

Honestly, it reads like an essay tossed off by a partially-drunk, angry, sexually-confused sixteen-year-old who thinks Oprah is an intellectual giant and traditional Christianity is responsible for every ill in the world. Yet, the Newsweek blog claims that Miller "lays out the religious case for gay marriage"—in which case it appears there is no religious case for "gay marriage" other than "it's on its way, so you religious bigots need to accept it."

I've already addressed some of this, as you likely know, in a previous post. What I missed was Newsweek editor Jon Meacham's appalling and insulting editorial about Miller's article, which nearly accomplished the nigh impossible task of making Miller's piece sound reasoned and mature:

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 decided generational difference on the issue, with younger people supporting gay marriage at a higher rate than older Americans. One era's accepted reality often becomes the next era's clear wrong. So it was with segregation, and so it will be, I suspect, with the sacrament of marriage.

Meacham would do well to remove the 50,000 acres old-growth timber from his eye before complaining about splinters in the eyes of those wretched, mentally-challenged religious conservatives. Miller's article not only fails to demonstrate a "full possession of the relevant cultural and religious history and context," it demonstrates a complete failure to even try to achieve such a possession. And of course religious conservatives are going to be upset with the piece; the fact that Meacham snidely and proudly says so indicates that it was written and printed to accomplish one thing and one thing only: anger those who are opposed to "gay marriage." Miller's piece, boiled down to its farcical essence, makes this "argument": Gays are wonderful and gay sex is beautiful, so gay marriage must be accepted.

Meacham is mostly wrong in writing, "Religious conservatives will say that the liberal media are once again seeking to impose their values..." Any "religious conservative" still stuck in that gear needs to time travel out of the 1980s and '90s and settle into the end of 2008. No, on the contrary, the thoughtful religious conservative recognizes that Newsweek ceased being about journalism quite a while ago. What upsets the religious conservative, in large part, is that millions of people continue to read opinionated, half-baked swill passed off as "news" that doesn't have an ounce of intellectual nutrition in it. Newsweek is the intellectual equivalent of McDonalds: name-brand recognition, fancy packaging, savvy marketing, and a crappy product, all aimed at people who might not catch on—if they ever do at all—to the poisonous qualities of said product before their innards (or minds) turn to mush. Prior to the Miller article, back on December 2nd, Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture wrote:

Did I say news magazine? Actually, I’ve learned a thing or two over the past year of subscribership about what constitutes news in at least part of the mainstream these days. Much of the magazine is devoted to health, celebrities, and the movies. To be sure, this accurately represents the preoccupations of many Americans, but it rankles a thinking man to have to pay for it, even if most of the cost of publishing is covered by advertising. Moreover, even when covering the socio-political stories one associates with hard news, Newsweek has a bad habit of filling its pages with data that has been hastily organized to convey some preconceived (and perhaps largely fanciful) theme.

One of those fanciful themes has become readily apparent: the promotion of the glories and joys of homosexuality and the urgent, even sacrosanct, need for the implementation, promotion, and protection of "gay marriage." The fact that Meacham, like Miller, specifically refers to the "sacrament" of marriage is a signal that many (or most) "gay marriage" advocates are not going to simply settle for civil marriage, but will insist the State put pressure on churches to perform "sacramental marriages" with homosexual couples. And that, of course, is because the push for acceptance of "gay marriage" is ultimately about the complete acceptance of homosexual acts and lifestyles as normal, as well as opening doors to polygamy and polyamory, as Stanley Kurtz explained at length in an August 2003 article for The Weekly Standard:

POLYGAMY, POLYAMORY, and the abolition of marriage are bad ideas. But what has that got to do with gay marriage? The reason these ideas are connected is that gay marriage is increasingly being treated as a civil rights issue. Once we say that gay couples have a right to have their commitments recognized by the state, it becomes next to impossible to deny that same right to polygamists, polyamorists, or even cohabiting relatives and friends. And once everyone's relationship is recognized, marriage is gone, and only a system of flexible relationship contracts is left. The only way to stop gay marriage from launching a slide down this slope is if there is a compelling state interest in blocking polygamy or polyamory that does not also apply to gay marriage. Many would agree that the state has a compelling interest in preventing polygamy and polyamory from undermining the ethos of monogamy at the core of marriage. The trouble is, gay marriage itself threatens the ethos of monogamy.

The "conservative" case for gay marriage holds that state-sanctioned marriage will reduce gay male promiscuity. But what if the effect works in reverse? What if, instead of marriage reducing gay promiscuity, sexually open gay couples help redefine marriage as a non-monogamous institution? There is evidence that this is exactly what will happen.

None of this seems farfetched in the least, especially when you consider the disdain expressed by Miller toward traditional marriage, orthodox Christianity, and the Bible: "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?"

And now, a few links to some of the notable reactions to Miller's article:

• Diogenes, at "Off the Record," writes: "Well, when the reader of the Bible cuts the knot with Dei Verbum 10 and becomes his own ultimate umpire of scriptural interpretation, he'll find in the text exactly what he wants to find there.  Thus it's scarcely surprising that persons with newly emancipated sexual fervors have managed to connect the scriptural dots in ways invisible to preceding generations -- ways inhospitable, in fact, to generation full stop." Read his entire post.

• Dr. Jeff Mirus, at Catholic Culture, states, "This column, like much of Miller’s work, frames issues so that they will resolve themselves the way she prefers, abuses evidence to make it reveal only what she wants, over-simplifies nearly everything, and betrays an astonishing ignorance of how Christian beliefs must be understood and engaged." Read his entire response.

• Mollie Hemingway of the "Get Religon" blog has written this response and a follow-up. In the latter she writes of Miller's article: "As a journalist, it violated almost every rule in the book. It failed to accurately represent the viewpoint being scrutinized. It was riddled with errors. It was driven by emotion. More than a few journalists — one at a competing weekly news magazine — wrote to me yesterday asking, 'Where was her editor?'"

• Newsbusters' Ken Shepherd takes on Miller's article and his colleague, Tim Graham, addresses Meacham's editorial.

• Baptist leader Albert Mohler: "Miller picks her sources carefully.  She cites Neil Elliott but never balances his argument with credible arguments from another scholar, such as Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [See his response to Elliott here].  Her scholarly sources are chosen so that they all offer an uncorrected affirmation of her argument.  The deck is decisively stacked." Read his entire response.

• Evangelical Rob Bowman, over at "The Religious Researcher" site: "Jesus said nothing (recorded in the Gospels) about incest, pedophilia, or bestiality; what can be plausibly inferred from this “silence”? Nothing. If we had to guess, we should presume that Jesus probably held the same view of these behaviors as that of his Jewish contemporaries, which was that all such behaviors—including homosexual activities—were detestable. Nor do we need to resort to a fallacious argument from silence in reverse, arguing that if Jesus said nothing about these behaviors he must have disapproved of them." Read his entire, detailed post (ht: Francis Beckwith).

And so forth and so on...

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles and Book Excerpts:
• The Meaning and Purpose of Marriage | Alice von Hildebrand
• Marital and Family Commitment: A Personalist View | Monsignor Cormac Burke
• The Challenge of Marriage Preparation | Dr. Janet E. Smith
• Focus Groups and Marriage: A Match Made for Heartache | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Entering Marriage with Eyes Wide Open | Edward Peters
• Human Sexuality and the Catholic Church | Donald P. Asci | Introduction to The Conjugal Act as a Personal Act
• Who Is Married? | Edward Peters
• Marriage and the Family in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae | Reverend Michael Hull, S.T.D.
• Male and Female He Created Them | Cardinal Estevez
• The Meaning and Necessity of Spiritual Fatherhood | Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers, MTS
• Practicing Chastity in an Unchaste Age | Bishop Joseph F. Martino
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley | An excerpt from Sex and the Marriage Covenant

Comments

[Francis Beckwith]

I just don't understand Miller's obsession with biblical polygamy as a defeater to same-sex marriage. Even if we were to assume the polygamy is a legitimate Christian option (and, for the record, I don't for a minute believe it), it does not count against the telos of human sexuality. All that it would show is that a man may have more than one wife, but it would surely not establish that he may have at least one husband. On the other hand, if one thinks of biblical polygamy as a tolerable aberration from the norm, again, it actually reinforces the telos of human sexuality that grounds male-female marriage. It is, to be sure, the wrong number; but it's the right order.

What am I missing in Miller's argument? I don't see how you can move from "polygamy is allowed" to same-sex marriage is permitted.

[Jack Grimes]

Next up from Newsweek, Advent expose on Luke's Gospel:

"Abstinence not 100% effective, Scriptures show."

[Dan]

One aspect of this whole thing that I have found amusing (although it is sad actually) is how scandalized Lisa Miller is at the notion that celibacy is superior to marriage. She can understand it only as a denigration of marriage; it is evident that the possibility that there is something that is literally "better than sex" is completely beyond her understanding. It is the perfect illustration of the modern materialist's mindset. The notion that there is something "better than sex" is a direct blasemphy against the modern god of Sex, which to the materialist is the highest good.

[Joe]

All I can say is this is the wave of the future as far as public opinion. I'll be on age a bit watching all the clergy with gay sympathies as this gets harder and harder to soft-peddle amidst the voiceferous arguments.

[Joe]

The polygamy argument works like this, as voiced by a gay friend:

"Human sexuality has always been a grab bag of desires. The patriarchs thirst for action could not be slaked. David we know must have been gay like Michaelangelo. And the Church has always been prone to legalism and running from desires. Paul obviously had hangups: he thought "burning" desires were a sin. So don't go pointing a Bble at me. It is as sexually angst-ridden and twisted as human history. People sexually are all over the map wrestling with desires, and you can't tell me God has had a consistent rule when he hasn't! As for God's model for marriage, it just can't be iron-clad, since our desires aren't either!"

[Telemachus]

A comment that I hear from the pro-queer side is the following: "Heterosexuals aren't sticking to marriage, so what gives them the right to tell homosexuals that they can't even try? In fact, queers might have something to TEACH heteros about marriage, as most of them are VERY dedicated to one another."

Such a statement is patently absurd, of course: the statistics on homosexual promiscuity are well-documented. But it does slap one in the face with a sad fact: the West just doesn't really give a crap about marriage anymore. It's just another "life-style choice," to be made if you prefer, or to be avoided if you don't. So honestly, if the pro-queer side gets their way, it will only be the "straw that breaks the camel's back." Like Marxists before them, they recognize that a social institution has been damaged beyond repair, and they seek to finally destroy it for the sake of rebuilding it into their own egalitarian version.

My solution: eliminate State involvement in the recognition of marriage. It's extreme, but it might be crazy enough to work. And by "work," I mean stop the State from enforcing the radical views of a small, petulant minority. Even I'm not sure this is a good answer, but I'm not seeing many ideas which will stop what is happening in this country barring mass conversion of hearts and minds.

[Mike]

I think your comment is on target, as are so many that you do, and it is good that you are making it so clear the difficulty that we have with awful 'journalism.'
What I found frustrating was your need to drag McDonald's through the mud. Yes, the food could be healthier, and yes, people may each too much of it, but in moderation I find it very enjoyable. Perhaps I am in the boat you accuse Newsweek readers of being in, but I must say, with regard to the Golden Arches - I'm Lovin' It! I say the same about all the work you and Ignatius Press do for Christ and His Church(although I know your work isn't bad for the health, excepting getting the blood boiling for good reason).

In Christ,

Mike

[Dan]

Meachem and other supporters of gay marriage make two fundamental mistakes when they suppose that opposition to gay marriage ultimately will go the way of opposition to racial equality. One mistake is not understanding the fundamental, and indispensable, role of Christianity (and the Catholic Church in particular) in forming Western culture. Christian opposition to racial discrimination enabled the development of a broad societal consensus on civil rights for blacks; Christian teachings on sexuality ensure that no such consensus will ever emerge in the West with regard to gay marriage so long as Christianity continues to live in the West. A bet for the triumph of gay marriage is a bet against Christ and His Church. That is a very bad bet. It is possible that Catholicism and all other Christianity will by and large disappear from the West. But, were that to occur, what we understand as "the West" would disappear with it.

The second mistake goes to the substance of the argument: gay marriage will not win a consensus because it is contrary to the truth. A lie contrary to the truth of Christ can gain only so much traction. It can never win a permanent place in the minds of men who have heard the Gospel. Racial equality won broad consensus because, unlike gay marriage, it comports with the truth.

Insofar as gay marriage is concerned, the real analogy is not with the civil rights movement but with abortion. When Roe was decided it was supposed that a consensus supporting the ideology of abortion would triumph in short order. But it was not to be for the same reason that gay marriage will never win a consensus: it is contrary to the truth.

[Carl E. Olson]

What am I missing in Miller's argument? I don't see how you can move from "polygamy is allowed" to same-sex marriage is permitted.

Frank: I don't think you're missing anything. Miller's argument makes no sense at all. In fact, it's not even an argument.

[Carl E. Olson]

What I found frustrating was your need to drag McDonald's through the mud. Yes, the food could be healthier, and yes, people may each too much of it, but in moderation I find it very enjoyable.

Well, I eat at Dairy Queen and Taco Bell from time to time, so I'm hardly above reproach in this regard. And, obviously, there is a difference between eating fast food and reading anti-Christian opinion pieces. My point, however, was that none of us (I hope) would think that one's main source of nutrition should be McDonald's, nor should Newsweek be a central source of information about, well, much of any consequence. Which doesn't keep anyone from enjoying, on occasion, a Big Mac, or an article about this or that. But both McDonald's and Newsweek are very much about style and marketing over substance and true value. That was my point.

[LJ]

Telemachus,

I have thought for a long time that we may find it necessary to de-link the Church from state regarding marriage. That is, renounce and relinquish any state authority to create a legal contract in the course of the sacrament.

If I am not mistaken, Orthodox Churches were forced into that situation in the Soviet Union for other reasons, and in some cases carry that separation with them here.

I attended a "crowning" in a Carpatho-Rusyn Church, at which the priest, aware of the many non-Orthodox family members in attendance preached a great and moving homily about marriage, and in particular the vast distinction between a legal contract and the sacrament.

The legal signing and witnessing were kept out of the Church proper, not allowed even into the nave, but conducted prior to entering.