Really, what do you call itthat thing featured on the cover of the December 15, 2008, issue of Newsweek? It's not journalism. It's not news. It's not coherent, logical, well-argued, or well-written.
Honestly, it reads like an essay tossed off by a partially-drunk, angry, sexually-confused sixteen-year-old who thinks Oprah is an intellectual giant and traditional Christianity is responsible for every ill in the world. Yet, the Newsweek blog claims that Miller "lays out the religious case for gay marriage"in which case it appears there is no religious case for "gay marriage" other than "it's on its way, so you religious bigots need to accept it."
I've already addressed some of this, as you likely know, in a previous post. What I missed was Newsweek editor Jon Meacham's appalling and insulting editorial about Miller's article, which nearly accomplished the nigh impossible task of making Miller's piece sound reasoned and mature:
Meacham would do well to remove the 50,000 acres old-growth timber from his eye before complaining about splinters in the eyes of those wretched, mentally-challenged religious conservatives. Miller's article not only fails to demonstrate a "full possession of the relevant cultural and religious history and context," it demonstrates a complete failure to even try to achieve such a possession. And of course religious conservatives are going to be upset with the piece; the fact that Meacham snidely and proudly says so indicates that it was written and printed to accomplish one thing and one thing only: anger those who are opposed to "gay marriage." Miller's piece, boiled down to its farcical essence, makes this "argument": Gays are wonderful and gay sex is beautiful, so gay marriage must be accepted.