Secular, Not Religious Law

Double G points out that Ross Douthat apparently doesn't know the difference between the concept of secular law and religious law in a very instructive lesson, since so many people seem to be confused about the two.

The State's official neutrality on the question of marriage does not even theoretically restrict Douthat's freedom -- or that of his ideological and religious comrades -- to convince others of the superiority of heterosexual monogamy.  They're every bit as free today as they were last week to herald all the "unique fruit" which such relationships can alone generate, in order to persuade others to follow that course.  They just can't have the State take their side by officially embracing that view or using the force of law to compel it.

But if the arguments for the objective superiority of heterosexual monogamy are as apparent and compelling as Douthat seems to think, they ought not need the secular thumb pressing on the scale in favor of their view.  Individuals on their own will come to see the rightness of Douthat's views on such matters -- or will be persuaded by the religious institutions and societal mores which teach the same thing -- and, attracted by its "distinctive and remarkable" virtues, will opt for a life of heterosexual monogamy.  Why does Douthat need the State -- secular law -- to help him in this cause?

The answer of course is the entire problem with gay marriage bans is that they are an attempt to enshrine religious law into secular law, always a dangerous proposition.   Douthat and other social conservatives say their right to not have gay marriage because they are offended by it outweighs the right for gays and lesbians to enter into marriage because marriage is a religious, social contract.

It's not.  Marriage is a secular, legal contract.  It's using religious arguments to enforce secular law.  By this argument we should be criminalizing adultery, disrespecting your mother and father, and having graven images of false gods as well.  We do criminalize murder -- That Shalt Not Kill -- because of secular law.  There are secular reasons against allowing people to go around and kill other people in cold blood.  Gay marriage bans?  Not so much.  It's a legal contract.

Greenwald concludes:

But the moral, theological and spiritual questions about marriage are every bit as open and unconstrained as they were before.  Just as is true with a whole host of questions on which the State takes no position, private actors are completely free to venerate some marriages and stigmatize others.  Churches, synagogues and mosques are free -- as they should be -- to sanction only those marriages which their religious dogma recognizes.  Parents are completely free to teach their children that certain marriages are superior and others immoral.  And columnists like Douthat are free to argue that the relationships they want to have are not just best for themselves but are, as an objective matter, morally and theologically superior.

They just can't misuse secular law to institutionalize those views or coerce others who don't accept them into having their legal rights restricted based on them.  But if they're as right as they claim they are, they shouldn't need to coerce others into acceptance through legal discrimination.  Their arguments should prevail on their own.  The fact that they believe they will lose the debate without that legal coercion speaks volumes about how confident they actually are in the rightness and persuasiveness of their views.

In other words, you can choose not to like gay marriage, gay people, gay anything, the color blue, fig newtons, clowns, and the number 17 all you want to on religious, moral, spiritual, and philisophacal grounds.  You're free to do so.

You just can't make laws based on that.  That abridges other people's right to like all those things.  It's that simple, and it's an argument that's so blindingly obvious it's overlook and unvoiced.  Good for Double G to put that out there.