Belated note on the Newsweek cover story
CommentsThe Newsweek cover story described itself as a “religious case” for gay marriage, but it certainly was not a Jewish case. The argument was almost wholly based on the Bible, and while some Protestants take the Bible literally word for word, 99.9 percent of Jews do not (see my Leviticus Traps). A Jewish case for gay marriage, if such a thing was thinkable, would have to deal not only with Biblical texts (they shall be as one flesh, anyone?) but the Talmud (which forbids same-sex civil and religious marriage to Jews and to gentiles), the codes of Jewish law, and modern responsa. There are a tiny number of Bible-only Jews, known as Karaites, and they number maybe 25,000 in the world, to be generous. The cover story was “A liberal Christian case for gay marriage” - which is hardly shocking, since liberal Christianity has been moving in that direction for a long time anyway! Harumph.
Yep, the article was definitely mis-named. It’s too bad that it’s so often taken for granted in our nation that “religious” automatically means “Christian.”
Actually, the Newsweek cover story and its editorial introduction were aimed at the so-called “religious right”, “literalists”, and so forth. It was so aimed because, according to those writers, that is whence came the most influential voices in favor of the marriage amendment in California. Of course, the authors had to misrepresent the actual teachings on marriage and instead of discussing marriage qua marriage the authors tried to change the subject to homosexuality.
The article was not misnamed, given its propagandic purpose. A more apt title would have been Reading Scripture Through the Lens of Gay Identity Politics.
The authors attempted to use Scripture, not to accurately represent Scripture, and certainly not to accurately represent the case for marriage as both-sexed as per Scripture. The profound flaws in the Newsweek propaganda are evident both in the Christian and the Jewish contexts.
Since the authors failed to address the teachings on marriage of other major religions, they revelead their purpose was political and not religious. They misnamed their article based on their perception of the successful campaign for the marriage amendment and based on the sore loser reaction of the No side in the aftermath of their defeat.
LOL. I laugh at the fact that Chairm has to be disagreeable over even the smallest of issues, including ones that we actually agree on. He claims that the title was “not misnamed” but then he proposes a “more apt title.”