Historical revision and intellectual disingenuousness permeate "Newsweek" cover story on homosexual marriage.

Advocates for homosexual marriage in the liberal intelligentsia realize a major roadblock to achieving their goal is that pesky book the Bible and the influence it holds on millions of Christians and Jews and even Muslims.

Generally, I think they're dismissive of these uneducated, unenlightened folks who take serious a book written a couple of thousand years ago by often uneducated people bound to "superstitious" beliefs about miracles and supernatural happenings.

Be that as it may, they figure they better address the claims of this book because of its influence. They see the influence churches, including black churches, played in the battle in California over Prop 8. "All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections." They realize their better address the Bible on this issue.

When they do, they attempt to debunk and deconstruct the clear meaning the the texts by trying to read into the text their own biases.

Such is the case with the Newsweek cover story, "Our Mutual Joy: Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side" written by a Lisa Miller.

The first paragraph of the article cynically looks at a couple of biblical ideas and stories and distorts their meaning.

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel-all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments-especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. 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? Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

Miller suggests both the Old and Testaments take a low view of marriage. This is ridiculous. To suggest the model or ideal for marriage in the Old Testament is polygamy is ridiculous. Genesis 1 points out that the ideal is one man and one woman. The effects of the fall can be seen in the distortion of all areas of life including family and marital life. The fact that people engaged in less than the ideal does not mean that has become the ideal.

In the New Testament, Jesus reaffirms the ideal of marriage is a one man, one woman relationship and says the reason God allowed unilateral divorce in the Old Testament was their stubborn, hard hearts. Matthew 19

Similarly, Miller says Paul had a similar low view of marriage. That marriage was a last resort for those who can't control their lusts.

Paul's comment that it was better for a person not to marry was due to the crisis and difficulties facing the people he was communicating with. In fact, Paul analogies marriage between a man and a woman to Christ and the church. Marriage is a beautiful, powerful institution ordained by God.

Miller then seeks to address the view that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman by saying it doesn't and no right thinking person would want their marriage to look like a biblical marriage.

First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. 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.

First, Jesus clearly does define marriage as a lifelong relationship between one man, one woman. And her second assertion merely distorts what the Bible actually says about marriage. There are a lot of bad things mentioned in the Bible, e.g. murder, rape, betrayal and so forth but that doesn't mean the Bible affirms them; it's merely describing what sinful people do.

She then asserts the relativist thinking that the Bible is a "living document" with no fixed meaning that needs to be reinterpreted in light of today's changing circumstances.

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.

Of course, if the Bible doesn't have a clear definition of marriage and the models of marriage it provides are what no sensible person would want, why does the Bible even need to be considered in the debate? She then argues the other side by saying the Bible is "powerful" and "speaks truth to us" 2,000 years later. See how she's simply throwing arguments at the Bible which are contradictory and mutually exclusive?

She says the Bible never addresses woman to woman sex. Wrong. See Romans 1:26.

She says Paul really wasn't talking about homosexuality. She references "progressive scholars" to support her argument.

Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God."

Unfortunately for her, such arguments have no basis in fact, merely speculative efforts to dismiss Paul's meaning as found in the text and clearly understood by Christians consistently since the text was written.

She makes the false assertion that

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument).

And we need "A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

Again let's move beyond "literalism" she says. And she uses the usual liberal "literalism" smokescreen to say we need to change the meaning of the text. How do you move beyond historical events that occurred? Are they simply not be taken literally and thereby can be dismissed as not statements of fact?

She includes a smattering of liberal, e.g. progressive religious figures who support her pro-homosexual marriage views and concludes by saying that if we really loved as Jesus taught us to we'd support homosexual marriage.

Of course, Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law but fulfill it. Matthew 5:17 (A law which clearly forbids homosexual behavior.) And the New Testament definition of love, in part says, "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. I Corinthians 13

In a biblical understanding of love, those who do not rejoice at wrongdoing such as homosexual behavior are acting in the spirit of biblical love while those who do rejoice in homosexual behavior are not.

Gays concerned about a fissure with African Americans in their liberal coalition

I was recently directed to a letter written by National Gay and Lesbian Task Force encouraging their folks to not point the finger at the African American community for shooting down their efforts to defeat the California Proposition 8 constitutional amendment which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

It says in part:

This past week has been a difficult time. With the passage of Proposition 8 in California to change the state constitution to eliminate the right to marry, our community has experienced a difficult defeat. We are angry and upset by the passage of Proposition 8 and the betrayal of the promise of equality that has been the hallmark of the Golden State. Yet, we know that this is only a setback in—not the end of—our journey toward full equality for the LGBT community.

It is natural to analyze what went wrong. But in recent days there has been a tendency to assign blame to specific communities, in particular, the African American community. The fact is, 52 percent of all Californians, the vast majority of whom were not African Americans, voted against us. In addition, the most recent analysis of the exit poll that drove much of this speculation determined that it was too small to draw any conclusion on the African American vote, and further polling shows that the margin was much closer than first reported. Most importantly, though, none of this discourse changes the outcome of the vote. It only serves to divide our community and hinder our ability to create a stronger and more diverse coalition to help us overturn Proposition 8 and restore full equality and human rights to LGBT people.

The letter eludes to the fact that there's frustration among homosexuals with the African American community which basically put the amendment over the time. I've heard 70% of African Americans voted for the amendment, far more than any other racial group. Without their support it wouldn't have passed.

African Americans went out to vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers while at the same time voted to protect marriage.

I suspect homosexual activities know that many African Americans are not too excited about having their race compared to a person's sexual preferences as white liberals love to do regarding same sex marriage and previous bans on inter-racial marriage. (For the record, the comparison is invalid; inter-racial marriage bans are also anti-marriage because it attempted to keep particular women and men from marrying; something which is fundamentally different than efforts to fundamentally redefine the institution to include same sex persons.)

Who knows but the election of Barack Obama to the presidency may usher in a new era of African American political engagement in politics. One in which the African American community looks at issues and politics with a fresh perspective. Realizing that alliances with the homosexual community and other liberal groups aren't in their best interest. Whether it pertains to the redefine of marriage which will only cause further disintegration of the family which has so dramatically harmed the African American community. Or the push for further expansion of the welfare state which has only generated dependency and further family breakdown.

The interests of the African American community do not coincide with liberal interest groups.

Stand by the Mormons

As the attacks against supporters of Proposition 8 increase, I have become concerned with the abuse directed towards Mormons. The LDS church became a target of protest and violence after raising nearly $20 million and mobilizing to pass the amendment to protect marriage in California.

I have friends in the Mormon church. We acknowledge our theological disagreements. However, I believe we must lock arms with our allies in the public square to protect marriage, life and family.

We should also take a public stand against the hatred and bigotry they have absorbed because of something we all believe in.

To the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints who worked to pass Proposition 8, I say thank you.

California and Thank-a-Mormon day
John Mark Reynolds

http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/11/05/california-and-thank-a-mormon-day/

"Proposition 8 would not have passed if it had not been for LDS (Mormon) money and manpower. For their hard work as participants in the process, this small religious group received some of the worst attacks of the political season. They were demonized and stereotyped by opponents of Proposition 8 and sometimes by the mainstream media."
[snip]

"Despite this fact at times a plausible Mormon presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, was the subject of unfair religious scrutiny. (Some forms of scrutiny of religion are fair, but some are just bigoted. Distinctions start here.) Too often people they have supported in the past were weak in their condemnation of such bigotry."

"Republicans should not ask for Mormon money and manpower and then regulate their leaders to the backrooms when leadership roles are handed out."

"Of course, nobody should confuse political and social agreement with theological unity."

"My theological differences with the Mormon faith are deep and important. Within the last month I have argued that the LDS view of the God is not compatible with what we know about Divine love. Those theological discussions and disagreements must continue bringing clarity with charity to the important disagreements."

"They are important because they are, after all about eternal things."

"In the battle for the family, however, traditional Christians have no better friends than the Mormon faithful. It would be wrong if that support were taken for granted. We are intolerant of the false attacks on Mormon faith and family. We stand with our Mormon friends in their right to express their views on the public square. We celebrate the areas, such as family values, where we agree."

Video - Gay mob swarms Christians in Castro District: "We're going to kill you."

VIDEONETDAILY Sparks fly as 'gay' activist mob swarms Christians
Residents of homosexual district: 'We're going to kill you. We know who you are'
Posted: November 17, 200810:16 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Hundreds of homosexual activists rushed out of bars and swarmed a group of Christians who were singing songs in San Francisco's Castro District – and some even threatened to kill the worshippers.

A group of Christians had been singing and praying in the "gay" district for several days, but they never expected an angry mob would run them out. However, that's what happened Friday night.

One woman who was attacked told her story with Pastor Lou Engle at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City. She said the group's fellowship had been peaceful for several nights before the riot.

"People would come stand with us and join us," she said. "We got to pray for some people."
But then angry men began yelling profanities and warning the Christians to leave the district.
(Warning: Video may contain offensive language)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng


One asked, "Why are you here?"

The leader of the group said, "We're here to worship God, and we're here because we love you."

A group of men approached the Christians and covered them with a large cloth, backing them into a corner. Then the angry mob began swearing and growing larger. The bars began emptying out, and a crowd completely surrounded the Christians.

The worship group began singing "Amazing Grace," while an estimated 500 "gay" advocates sang, "We Shall Overcome."

The woman said she and her friend were doused with hot coffee. One man took a Bible from her friend, hit her on the head with it, pushed her to the ground and began kicking her. People began lunging at the Christian group, blowing whistles in their ears.

"They started saying, 'We're going to kill you,'" she said. "They started taking our pictures and saying, 'We're going to kill you. We know who you are."

Then she said a man jumped through the crowd and pushed her forehead. Just then, a squad of police officers arrived in riot gear, surrounding the Christians and forming a protective human wall.

She said the police told them, "You have to leave if you want to make it out."

When the group continued praying, an officer came back and said, "You don't have a choice anymore. We're going to escort you out."

The officers then took the Christians to their cars. The angry mob began lunging at them through the riot gear and chanting "Shame on you!"

Some yelled, "We are going to follow you all the way home!" Others called the Christians "hypocrites."

One man screamed into a camera, "We don't ever want them coming back. Do you understand that, other Christians? Do you understand that, other Mormons? I'm talking to you, people. Yeah, you. Stay out of our neighborhood if you don't like us. Leave us alone!"

The woman said her group had merely organized a peaceful fellowship and wasn't there to condemn homosexuals.
"We hadn't preached," she said. "We hadn't evangelized. We worshipped God in peace, and we were about to die for it."

"Their rights were respected," Joe Schmitz, an opponent of Prop. 8, told San Francisco's KTVU Channel 2. "They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk, and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech, which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood."

The following day, approximately 20,000 people marched in San Francisco to protest passage of California's Proposition 8 protecting traditional marriage. Several thousand people conducted other protests around the nation in cities such as Manhattan, Chicago and Los Angeles. According to reports, many protesters feeling emboldened by the recent election chanted, "Yes we can!" – a slogan popularized by the Barack Obama campaign.

What happened to tolerance and respect for diversity?

After the passage of Proposition 8, an amendment to the California state Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman, homosexual activists are filing lawsuits and taking to the streets. They once again are seeking to press their social agenda for overturning the mores of society by whatever means necessary, legal usurpation of the political process or intimidation.

Another news story reported on 2000 gay activists protesting outside the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles because of the Mormon's support of Prop 8.

There seems to be very little tolerance here for people, including the majority of Californians who supported the amendment, on the other side of this issue. It's interesting to note that the African American and Hispanic were bigger supporters of Prop 8 than the white community.

Significant increase in support for California marriage amendment comes from young people.

A recent poll shows a surge of support for the Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment. Prop 8 would enshrine marriage between a man and a woman in the California Constitution. It's driven by the support of young voters. This is interesting because young voters are usually more amenable to homosexual marriage than older voters are.

47% of voters now support the amendment versus 42% of voters who opposed the amendment. Eleven days earlier opposition to the amendment had a 5 percent lead.

A news story on the poll

A new CBS 5 poll finds that California's Proposition 8 has picked up support in the wake of a television ad campaign that features footage of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaiming same-sex marriage is here to stay "whether you like it or not."

The poll conducted for CBS 5 by SurveyUSA indicates that support for the measure to ban gay marriage has grown among voters in the state over an eleven day period -- most especially among young voters.

According to the poll, likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure's opponents.

The only demographic group to significantly change their views during this period were younger voters -- considered the hardest to poll and the most unpredictable voters -- who now support the measure after previously opposing it.

Historically, polls on marriage amendment initiatives under report the actual support for the amendments. It's not politically correct to oppose homosexual marriage so many people will not disclose their true feelings on the issue, except in the privacy of the voting booth.

While most of the media attention is focused on the presidential and congressional elections, the consequences of California embracing homosexual marriage may well be more consequential to the culture than those elected to political office this time around. As marriage goes so goes the culture and society. Marriage and family breakdown are currently at crisis levels. Legally defining marriage between a man and a woman out of existence would only accelerate the crisis. No society has ever survived which embraced homosexual relationships which is just what homosexual marriage laws would do.