The Editor’s Desk

Mr. Meacham,
The lack of objectivity and scholarship in this piece suggests that you misunderstood Ms. Miller's intention. Her submission was obviously intended as an advertisment rather than an article to be considered as serious journalism. My suggestion would be that you charge her your going rates for such publicity and refund the subscription price to those of us who had to wade through the drivel.

This article is full of errors with regard to the Bible. Jesus pointedly DID say, more than once, that a man should be the husband of one wife in a lifelong marriage. By itself, this statement alone helped to elevate the status of women in future times because Jesus had a huge stature among those who believe in him.

The notion that two people of the same sex can marry is sheer nonsense. Dangerous nonsense, but nonsense none the less. What is wrong with Newsweek? Has Jon Meacham forgotten that in order to sell magazines into the future, he has to have a posterity who will purchase subscriptions?

Only true marriages can produce our posterity in sufficient numbers, even if a small percentage of gays and lesbians have children. What is with liberals today?

In the nineteen seventies a marriage license was"just a meaningless piece of paper...", a bankrupt notion that fueled a huge increase in live-in couples with no formal ties. As a result, there are now already too many fatherless children in America without introducing crazy notions that people of the same sex can marry, which means that same-sex female couples will contribute even more fatherless children via reproductive technologies. Love is NOT enough. Children need two opposite sex parents, ideally. American children have already suffered too much from the lack of formal parental arrangements in their formative years. It's tragic for the child, so let's do it again by declaring that marriage has no definition !?!

A slight resurgence in marriage did follow that period, but the percentage of live-in couples with kids is still way too high, and comparisons between the children of married and unmarried parents demonstrates the importance of marriage to child welfare, regardless of the fact that some families are seriously disfunctional.

In addition, marriage is not a right; it's an insitution. Any and every adult can contract a marriage with a person of the opposite sex, IF THEY SO CHOOSE! If gays want to formalize their relationships, what's the problem with civil unions? It's two word instead of one? What?

I've had it with the politics of envy, which drives this notion, with the false concept that if gays can 'marry', they will be 'accepted', as if they aren't already (but are unable to see, apparently) all problems will cease. This sense that the next frontier will give gays the full acceptance they seek has been the driving engine for each new push in the gay community, but it is never enough. That should tell them something. Give it a rest. Isn't it enough to accept yourselves, as you have long claimed to do?

Clear, understandable, common sense, respectful and prophetic are apt descriptions of Lisa Miller's "Religious Case for Gay Marriage." Opponents will rant and rave but others will listen and hear the truth that God does not play favorites, that love sanctifies and that transcendent human relationships open the path to union with the divine. To condemn or recommend people to a life of celibacy or promiscuity is dehumanizing. I cannot believe that God wants that. Society both the sacred and the secular cities would be much better served by encouraging and supporting gay marriage. Finally, if religious fundamentalists refuse to see the wisdom in their own tradition, let them define marriage as they will within their own communions, but let the state define civil marriage according to the constitution and preserve the separation of Church and State.

I am appalled by your article and that of Lisa Miller. The convenient quoting of Biblical passages out of context has rightly outraged and alienated a portion of your readership. The ???intellectually bankrupt??? people you refer to include many of the significant scientists, scholars, and governmental leaders both now and in the past. I must assume that your surveys on the generational differences on this issue must be quoted out of context or from a conveniently biased sample. My experience has shown the opposite to be true. The younger generation cannot even bring themselves to speak about homosexual activity. They would much rather change the subject than to discuss the issue. I am an infrequent reader of your magazine ??? I am one of those intellectually bankrupt business leaders who reads it on plane flights across the country. I will be a reader no more.

Please stop tying Judaism in with christianity with regards to gay marriage. The two largest judaic denominations (i.e.- the VAST majority of American jews) support gay marriage. Unlike our christian cousins, jews are taught to question, debate, persuade, and change our minds and traditions as society evolves and grows. The Torah is a guide, not the be al and end all of rules and laws. It is a living document that adapts and supports social justice and equal rights.

I am appalled by your article and that of Lisa Miller. The convenient quoting of Biblical passages out of context has rightly outraged and alienated a portion of your readership. The ???intellectually bankrupt??? people you refer to include many of the significant scientists, scholars, and governmental leaders both now and in the past. I must assume that your surveys on the generational differences on this issue must be quoted out of context or from a conveniently biased sample. My experience has shown the opposite to be true. The younger generation cannot even bring themselves to speak about homosexual activity. They would much rather change the subject than to discuss the issue. I am an infrequent reader of your magazine ??? I am one of those intellectually bankrupt business leaders who reads it on plane flights across the country. I will be a reader no more.

This article is completely misleading. For example in one portion he is using the old testament and saying that it should be discounted because it is the old testament, then later he is using verses from the old testament to support his thoughts. I know that if you know the bible and have read it you can see right through this article. However, if you have not read the bible or are not familiar with the bible please don't just take this guy's word for it.

A good example of what this is like:

I am a structural engineer, and it would be like me reading an article on engineering written by a journalist. In this article he is trying to tell me why beams deflect. But he just doesn't have the knowledge to describe it because he never took the classes. But he could convince someone else that doesn't know about beam deflection why beams deflect.

Please look into it for yourself, its clear as day!

Mr. Meacham 99% on these comments are oposing your editorial and Miller's article, never buogth and never will buy a single magazine, there is two way to interpret the bible, the correct one in the espirit, and any other interpretacion in your flesh(mind,traditions,own 'agenda',interest,etc.) to me is a joke, editorial and article. lol for your ignorance.

I am more than disappointed that Newsweek has published an article that distorts the Bible's teaching regarding marriage and homosexuality. The article by Lisa Miller in this week's edition is inexcusably prejudiced, unfair, and lacking scholarship.

Newsweek has made it known now where it stands on the issue of homosexual marriage. It also has made it known where it stands regarding its view of the Holy Scriptures. And that so far has not included a fair and balanced view of what the Bible says. I ask Newsweek to apologize for such a one-sided article. Further, I request that you show an unbiased approach to reporting and present the "other side of the story" by publishing an article by, say, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Frankly, considering your strong support for homosexual marriage (your real agenda), I very much doubt your ability to be so fair. At best, I expect you to find some scholar who is supposedly "conservative" but who will still present your biased opinion. If your view is so sound, why not allow another view a fair presentation?

Thank you Mr. Meacham for having the courage to speak out against intolerance so strongly. It is not easy to speak out against using religion to deny people their rights, and I applaud Newsweek for doing so. As you have predicted, the emails and letters citing Newsweek's "agenda" have come. Just take a moment to read through the comments. History is on the side of those who favor inclusion. It is always sadly surprising to me that spiritual people, those that I would think would be the most open to love and non-judgement, cannot see this.

Your arguments and Ms. Miller's arguments are so flawed it would take paragraphs and paragraphs to go through each point. Let me pick one: Proposition 8 was not a ban on gay marriage. It was an affirmation of one-man-one-woman marriage. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court overruled the will of the people expressed by the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000. Prop 22 passed by 61%, yet that court thought they knew better. This is not taking anyone's rights away because no "right" had been granted in the first place. Proposition 8 is codifying the definition of the word "marriage" and explaining to our judicial system, yet again, that they cannot forcibly change that meaning without the consent of the people. Your slanted editorials clearly reveal your motives. We are not fooled.

I think if the article was entitled "Is there a Religious Case for Gay Marriage?" this would lend more credibility to "Newsweek." Supposedly, news magazines are supposed to investigate, discuss issues, and educate. Regarding gay marriage, I believe Newsweek should have presented both sides of the issue. However, its obvious by the title alone that Newsweek has an agenda and is espousing a position rather than than being a legitimate journalistic product. That Newsweek is liberal is not shocking. However, Jon Meacham's comments disturbingly indicates his extreme left-wing views and his blanket castigation of anyone who disagrees with him or his magazine disqualifies him as a legitimate journalist and relegates him and "Newsweek" to the status of blogger or left-wing propaganda piece.

I've seen Jon Meacham numerous times on documentaries and other shows discussing politics, political and historic figures and other topics. The notion was that Jon Meacham was an objective, unbiased, well informed individual who had legitimate perspective and input to these important issues. How can anyone ever again take "Newsweek" seriously? How can anyone ever trust that any story is factual, objective, or isn't politically motivated? By this one letter to readers, Jon Meacham has overnight become a joke of an editor. He's stated that he has a certain political position, further states that has taken a theological position, he arrogantly states that he's right, arrogantly decides what Christianity really says on the issue, and dismisses those that hold a different opinion. I guess this is a good thing though. "Newsweek" has pretended to be a legitimate journalistic endeavor for decades. At least now they've finally shown that they are nothing more than tabloid trash with an agenda.

and that's Embarresment, not "i" barresment

woe to you who call darkness light and light for darkness, this is dispicable, if we had a subscription we'd sure cancel it now, how dare you delbirately re-interpret the Word of the Living God to bend to your "perverted" ways. of course this means you are going out of buisness now, hey laugh and mock all you want. only fools think they can lie about God and get away with it.

I am disgusted that Newsweek would print such a mockery of my religion.

Funny, I would have expected a "religion writer" for a magazine as well known as Newsweek to actually know something about religion. And maybe even to have read the Bible! At the very least, I would have thought she might have presented both sides rather than so obviously stacking the deck against the Bible and opponents of gay marriage. But then that would require objectivity, which seems to be completely lacking in almost all mainstream media reporting nowadays! ...As forJon Meacham's comment that "Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt???it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." All I can say is the Judeo-Christian tradition is based on the relevation of God through the Bible, so if arguing that something is so because it is in the Bible is intellectually bankrupt, then the Judeo-Christian tradition isn't really so "great", is it? So, which is it?! It's only when we try to read too much into the passages and try to twist them to mean what we want them to mean rather than what they actually say that intellectual bankruptcy comes into the picture. I submit that many involved in mainstream media today are both intellectually and morally bankrupt, and therefore blind to the truths contained within scripture. Articles such as these amount to the blind leading the blind, and we all know how that will end up. Woe to those who through their own false teachings lead others to hell. Personally, all I have to do is see the hate filled, destructive rampages caused by opponents of proposition 8 to know that I'm on the right side of the issue. That's the way thugs and criminals behave, not those who seek love. ...The question I always wanted someone to answer is why does any one at all believe homesexualty is normal and natural when it cannot naturally result in children? God said go forth and multiply. How in the heck is that supposed to work?! If it's perfectly natural, then why do we never see animals engaging in homosexual behavior? It's because it IS NOT natural, and comes about as a result of sin and God giving men over to a depraved mind. Proper Christians don't hate homosexuals and want them to suffer, but at the same time we cannot condone their lifestyle, nor should we in any way support it.

Shame on you, Newsweek!!! You obviously aren't in business to turn a profit because this article will surely cause the cancellation of many subscriptions to your biased, agenda-driven rag. The citizenry of our country are a lot smarter than you give them credit for and won't buy the sales job you've put on them to embrace homosexual marriage. Those who truly know and love God, and have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, will never support homosexual behavior in any form because it is an abomination to a Holy God. No slick argument you or other media in the tank for the homosexual agenda will overcome the wisdom given by God in His Word. Your "spin" on Bible teaching reeks of out of context interpretation that only an unbeliever would accept as truth. God help you all on Judgment Day!

Her article was not only a complete imbarrisment for your paper but was so fortified with lies that if anyone were to question it it would fall apart like a wet paper box. First of all the Bible did talk about homosexuality between both men and woman. Second the Bible never says "Slavery is Good" or "Slavery is Bad". But it very clearly defines homosexuality as an abomination and a act of rebellion towards God. Its sad that you as an editor would show such a horrible responsiblity of not following up to even make sure that the facts she puts in her articles are even true. As for your comment about there being a different in beliefs because of age I would like you to take a close look at the up and coming age you speak so fondly about. I am 22 and even I can say that this generations moral values and over all atitude is unbelievable and I do not look forward to when they are running this "No Longer" God fearing country. You should be ashamed of yourself as an editor and Newsweek should be ashamed to have either of you on staff