One thing that stinks about blogging (or any journalism or writing, for that matter), is finding a possible post, following it up, then finding it's a non-starter. This morning's NYT has this story:
An interfaith coalition of clergy members and lay leaders announced a petition drive on Monday aimed at blocking a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
I followed it and even went to the coalition's website, searching for something humorous or interesting. You know, a quote that says Jesus was probably gay, TDVC notwithstanding. Or maybe a quote from Gene Robinson, the only man to flawlessly discern divine will through the bottom of a liquor bottle. Or maybe something that compares the proposed federal amendment to slavery or, better yet, master rape (there's a connection, I'm sure).
There wasn't much. Just the usual characters: Unitarians and liberal Jews and mainline Prots. I did, however, find this excerpt from an Episcopalian sermon worth noting:
Abraham's use of his slave, Hagar, to sire a child, and his subsequent banishment of Hagar and the child to the wilderness (Genesis 21:14) would be considered unspeakably callous by today's standards. Yet, according to the family values of his day, Abraham was acting completely within his rights. When Jacob steals his brother Esau's birthright, the Bible describes it not simply as an act of brotherly betrayal but as a necessary part of God's will for God's people (Genesis 27). Even more severe is Jephthah's sacrifice of his own daughter to fulfill the terms of a foolish vow (Judges 11:29-40) or Onan being put to death for refusing to impregnate his late brother's wife (Genesis 38:9).
Of course, not every biblical relationship is as dysfunctional as these examples. Interestingly, when biblical figures do act virtuously, they often do so outside the bounds of “traditional family.” The story of Ruth and Naomi, often read during marriage ceremonies, is a moving account of the devotion of two women (Ruth 1:16). David and Jonathan's relationship is presented with a tenderness lacking in most biblical marriages; David admits that his love for his friend “surpassed the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26).
So, some Biblical relationships are dysfunctional, therefore, we can't define marriage. And because Noah got drunk, we can't define sobriety. The logic itself is so flawed, that I don't even need to mention that the examples cited by this preacher are ridiculously odd and the analogy stretched (Jacob stole Esau's birthright, so this is a dysfunctional family?).
It's also refreshing to see that Ruth was a lesbian. I'd heard the David/Jonathan comparison, but the Ruth/Naomi one was new to me. Nothing like dragging one of the Old Testament's most-revered women through the political mud and degrading her memory. As for David, it's tripe like this that makes men afraid to have true friends anymore. Let a man profess his love for a friend, and he'll be labeled a queer. It's a very sad state of affairs, but it won't get any better, until the gay wave subsides or the entire society becomes a bunch of malfunctioning androgynes.
