All this would be infuriating and insulting if it weren't finally laughable and sad. It suggests one of three things.Read the whole thing.
It could mean that Meacham and Miller are simply ignorant of the nuanced and careful biblical arguments that religious conservatives have made. But this is doubtful, since as journalists of the topic, they have surely been immersed in the literature.
It could suggest they simply don't understand the subtleties of the biblical arguments. But this can't be, because they are clearly bright people in other respects.
Or it means they have found themselves hamstrung by the richer, nuanced, and thoughtful biblical defense of traditional marriage. And they find themselves utterly incapable of responding to it on its own terms.
And so ironically, even before the first word of Miller's religious case for gay marriage has been read, Meacham has conceded that it is not a case at all, but a simple assertion. And while they both claim they are arguing against exclusiveness and for inclusivity, they have managed to exclude from this crucial national conversation a significant proportion of the American population who happen to believe there is a strong biblical case for traditional marriage.
The one thing we biblical conservatives will never do, however, is exclude people like Meacham and Miller from any conversation that matters to us. So, we invite them to sit down with us, or someone from our world, to have a biblical, intellectually rich conversation about marriage—if they really are interested in being serious about this crucial topic.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
CT on Newsweek
Christianity Today has a good editorial response, which ends in this way: