Newsweek nonsense equates "Jesus has two (Immaculate) Mommies"

Mike Fragoso over at the FRC blog writes a first-class response to Lisa Miller's laughable attempt in Newsweek to deconstruct the traditional Christian vision of Marriage. A sample of Fragoso's response (underlining mine):

[Miller] elides much of the New Testament, and her history is reliant on the quotably wrong Stephanie Coontz. Where does one begin to answer imputations that King David was a homosexual? How can one comprehend-let alone respond to-an argument that first apparently admits Christ's virgin birth and then proceeds to equate the Holy Family to "Jesus has two (Immaculate) Mommies"? The Bible is simply a weapon-at-hand for her preferred policy ends. She's the sort of person Aeflric was worried about.

That underlined equating that "Jesus has two (Immaculate) Mommies" got me thinking: what an antitype that is to the Solemnity of Mary's Immaculate Conception which we Catholics are celebrating today!

It never ceases to amaze me how people can use the same words as we do, and yet completely miss their proper meaning. But there is something deeper in play here: the publication of this article is clearly a result of the California referendum reversing the CA court's decision to allow homosexual marriage, which subsequently caused progressive secularists to attack traditional Christian churches for their continued resistance to state-mandated homosexual "marriage."

What happens when these secular progressives try to do theology? Little gems like this:

"We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future."

How wonderfully Hegelian. Problem is, universal truths and justice itself are not separated from individual acts, which either bring about justice, or defeat it. Sorry to be a bother - but that's what Christ actually revealed.

Theology a la Miller, part deux:

"More basic than theology, though, is human need."

Actually, nothing is deeper than theology in this sense: theology reveals to us that human need is placed within us by God, and that His love is the only answer to the deepest yearnings (needs) of the human heart.

But if you have convinced yourself that your deepest yearning is to witness the legalization of homosexual "marriage", than sure, theology is inconvenient.

And so is the biblical teaching on marriage.

update: well isn't this interesting. Politico is reporting (in a very popular story) that Newsweek is catching alot of heat for this (cover)story:

Leading social conservatives blasted Newsweek for its current cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," which they said misinterprets both biblical scripture and their own political movement.

.... Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council, agreed, calling Newsweek’s cover story “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity. I hardly think that Newsweek is a credible venue for theological discussion,” said Perkins. “I mean, I thought it was just full of holes.”

And yes, that's the same Family Research Council I mention in this same post.

What really gets me is the way the Newsweek editors are being defiant on the issue, as if Miller's argument actually holds any theological weight. I'm sorry, but such a stand would just be laughed off the soapbox if we were encountering an objective debate here. Instead, we are witnessing an ideologically-driven deconstruction of Christian teaching and tradition.

Arguing that the Christian vision of marriage ought not to influence American legislation is one thing, but denying the Christian vision of marriage in its essence ... that's another (and mute) topic.

[photo credit: Flickr user Steve Rhodes]