23 October 2004
The Revealer generally lines up with conservatives when it comes to Nicholas D. Kristof, theNYT columnist who is the human embodiment of earnestness, with a dash of ignorance and a dollop of arrogance. We’ve been pretty rough on him in the past. But all those qualities serve him well today, as he calls for banning marriage, period. That’s right, you heard it here: TheNYT hates marriage!

Well, not really. But after running through the biblical arguments for forbidding gay marriage, he rightly concludes that a) they’re not nearly as clearcut as opponents would have you believe; and b) the same line of reasoning leads to banning marriage, veiling women, and criminalizing cotton/polyester blends.

Conservative Revealer readers sometimes accuse us of being secretly pro-gay. What we are is openly engaged with facts. And the fact is that outside of Paul, the Bible does not make an overarching, clearcut case against homosexuality.

We don’t need to take a position in the debate; our job is to pay attention to how it gets covered. And what we see is this: Conservatives who claim that mainstream journalists tend to be subtly sympathetic to gay causes are correct. But the master narrative of journalism means that most press on the subject inadvertently ends up lending implicit support to the anti-gay position. Journalists afflicted by the he-said/she-said model, in which every story has two, essentially equal positions, dutifully report the opinions of anti-gay activists. But they don’t check out their claims. That is, they don’t read the Bible.

Activists and religious leaders are entitled to come to their opinions however they like. But journalists aren’t. We’re supposed to investigate facts. That’s what Kristof has done today, no more, no less. There’s nothing remarkable about his column — other than the fact that most of the other journalists reporting on this debate appear not to have done the basic research he has. If they had, they could no longer report in good faith that the debate is a matter of interpretation. The anti-gay position as currently held by most religious leaders is, however you cut it, a matter of cherry picking select passages from scripture, which is just a round-about way of saying misinterpretation. Or, more simply, wrong.

Culture warriors, a request: Before you rail against The Revealer, do us this favor: Open up your Bible and review all the relevant passages — all of them, not just Leviticus and Paul. Take another look at 1 Samuel, with the same sophisticated eyes that allow you to perceive homosexual innuendos throughout Hollywood. Revisit Ruth. Consult the work of at least one biblical scholar who doesn’t simply confirm your opinion, whatever it is.

What’s the worst that could happen? You might conclude that the question doesn’t have such a clear answer. You might strengthen your argument by engaging thoughtfully with evidence to the contrary. Or, we suppose, you might end up demanding that women be veiled.