Sally Quinn, the Washington Post reporter who has been running the “On Faith” column for the last 18 months, doesn’t understand how anyone could object to gay marriage. She just doesn’t get it:
Of course, marriage is a legal and a moral issue. I have been moderating “On Faith” for a year and a half now. I have made it a point to try to study as many religions as I possibly can, to try to understand them and sympathize with them. There are many religions that have allowed some to pervert their basic tenets. But the common thread among all of them is Love. Love thy neighbor as they self. Love one another. Love your fellow beings first. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Homosexual couples are simply two people who love each other. Please explain to me how that can be wrong in the eyes of God. Didn’t God make us all in his image? Please explain to me why it is not better for society that two people who love each other cement their relationship in a legal union. Please tell me how it could possibly be harmful to society to have two loving people form a union.
I simply don’t get it. I really don’t.
She may have “studied as many religions” as she “possibly can,” but that doesn’t mean she understands them. Please notice she doesn’t say she disagrees with them, which is a perfectly reasonable intellectual position, and one I would expect the person who moderates a column called “On Faith” for a paper like the Post to take. But she doesn’t disagree–she doesn’t understand, despite the fact that it is presumably her job to do so. Of course, that may be because she also doesn’t understand the foundational document of the Christian faith:
I know, I know, it says in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination. But isn’t that the same Bible that says you should stone to death heretics or anyone who doesn’t believe the same things you do? Isn’t that what we call terrorists, fanatics, or fundamentalists in another country?
Amazingly, she doesn’t mention shellfish or blended fabrics, which are the usual red herrings brought up by those seeking liberal sexual ethics who need to discredit the Old Testament law. These items fit in the same category, however. All specific punishments for sin are part of the national law of theocratic Israel, and as such have been set aside by Christ for His people (given that we aren’t part of a theocratic nation, despite the delusions of Americans United). Judaism also pays no attention, because Israel isn’t a theocracy governed by Old Testament law, and Jews in the Diaspora obviously don’t live in a Jewish nation.
But all of that is really beside the point. Quinn’s real point is, how can anyone of normal intelligence possibly believe any of that Neanderthal rot? Certainly it should be obvious to every civilized person that gay marriage is a perfectly acceptable practice, and anyone who can’t see that is a terrorist, a fanatic, or a fundamentalist–which is an interesting way of referring to pretty much everybody in the history of Western civilization prior to the last decade. But then, what else would you expect from someone who gets paid to understand religion, yet considers any point of view but her own to be incomprehensible?