« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Opinion piece doesn't sit well with those whose minds are already made up

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 1-226Yesterday we pointed you to the most recent issue of Newsweek, which features at its center a think piece from Lisa Miller in which the writer makes a religious case for marriage equality. Miller's article is an essay. It's an informed opinion. It's a case for granting LGBT people the peace that they seek. It's an attempt to encourage conservative Christians to consider both the Biblical passages that they have swallowed as the irrefutable gospel, as well as those that the vast majority have tossed aside over the years. It's a response to the barrage of anti-gay rhetoric that our opposition fires off on a daily basis.

Well, leave it to the Christianity-hijackers on the far-right to go absolutely apesh*t over Miller's "scandalous" ideas. Here's a sampling of some of what is being said about the article and the publication:


"scandalous hit piece"

"American liberal media bias is out of control. Somebody get Newsweek’s religion editor, Lisa Miller, a job with the “gay christian” (small “c”) activist group Soulforce, where she belongs."

"Kudos to Albert Mohler for refuting her nonsense. And once again, American Family Association (AFA) provides a valuable service by helping Americans confront liberal media bias — in this case, Miller’s embarrassing attempt to make a Biblical case for sodomy-based 'marriage.'"


"The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay-rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November. It appears that Newsweek intends to do its part to press for same-sex marriage. Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction. Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.

Newsweek could have offered its readers a careful and balanced review of the crucial issues related to this question. It chose another path — and published this cover story. The magazine's readers and this controversial issue deserved better.


"one of the most biased and distorted pieces concerning homosexual marriage ever published by any major news organization"


yet another attack on orthodox Christianity.

I hardly think that Newsweek is a credible venue for theological discussion

Because, of course, to the evangelical set, any religious ideas that fall outside of their own particular worldviews are unfit for publication. And forget about them drawing any distinction between a news article and a commentary. No, no -- they present the essay to their audience in a way that makes it sound like it's hard news reportage, so that they can write it off as "biased" and "distorted." But the reality is that its truth is laid bare right on the mag's cover: "THE RELIGIOUS CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE." Neither MIller nor Newsweek are trying to dupe anyone into thinking the piece is hard fact -- they, as an outlet that is quite fond of intellectual debate, WANT folks to consume it, think about it, and discuss it!

These folks preach all the time about "religious freedom" and "religious persecution." But here we have their side crapping bricks because a religious person is expressing her own Biblical views. They are snarkily undermining gay Christians by saying their brand deserves a "small c." They are attacking a national magazine for standing up against their constant, morality-hijacking noise machine. And in doing so, they are showing who among us are the truly intolerant ones when it comes to matters of faith, and how the only form of religious expression they really care about is that which irrefutably sends gays to hell's fiery barbecue pit.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Last comment by Perkins is so laughable; Newsweek and The Washington Post have cohosted the "On Faith" forum for some time now (I found it about a year ago) http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/ . "Respected" :theologians from either side of the aisle regularly post there, from the Dalai Llama to T.D. Jakes to Bishop Tutu to Franklin Graham!

Just one more case of Perkins puffing smoke.

Posted by: Jamie | Dec 9, 2008 10:05:49 AM

One of the posters on the Newsweek article offered what I think is the best commentary on folks like Perkins and LaBarbera.

She really sums it up well:

"As a Christian, I am struck by one similarity that exists in our modern time with that of the time of Jesus. It was the 'experts' of the laws and church leaders, whos preoccupation with the scripts/laws of old, that caused them to criticize and eventually have Jesus put to death. It didn't matter that he was healing sick people on the sabbath, they accused him of breaking the sabbath. Why is it so often, that those who should be first to recognize love are so often the last? While Jesus never once spoke of gay people, he spoke often of the Pharisees & scribes, whos understanding of the law was extensive, but in the end, they still were unable to recognize Gods own SON.... I see no difference today."

Posted by: Ed | Dec 9, 2008 10:55:36 AM

Here's the rub. When someone gets criticism thrown at them like she's getting from the right-wing on this, she's obviously doing something right and hitting a nerve. Their only option is to attack and obfuscate what she said so their flocks don't wise up to reason.

Posted by: Daimeon | Dec 9, 2008 2:35:14 PM

Reading the sort of bile that filled up the comments section on the article makes me sad. Sad to hear people selectively reinforcing their biases by trying to mine support from the Bible.

They take verses not only out of literary context, but also out of historical and cultural context, then attempt to directly apply words and stories using a modern meaning. YOU CAN'T DO THAT! It just doesn't work. I wish more people calling themselves Christians would take time to carefully study the Bible in the richness of all it's social, historical, and cultural contexts (not to mention taking care to remember that it's an English TRANSLATION) instead of just tossing out a few clobber passages and saying, "QED".

Posted by: PSUdain | Dec 9, 2008 10:05:09 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails