Sin and the law

One of the contentions we're hearing from the right these days against allowing gays to marry is that doing so forces Christians to accept homosexuality -- and thus it is gay-rights advocates, not proponents of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, who are the aggressors in the "Culture War."

The other day in my comments, a fellow named Shawn McFarland offered an iteration of this argument:

For most Christians homosexuality is a sin that is tolerated, but to try to force Christains to accept that homosexual unions are somehow equivalent to marriage, is essentially forcing Christians to claim that homosexuality is not a sin.

The problem with the religious right's argument in this case is similar to its faulty logic in other areas as well, especially regarding abortion: It confuses what's sinful with what's illegal.

There is, of course, a real multitude sins elucidated in the Bible. Among them: Divorce. Usury. Breaking the Sabbath. Spiritual pride. Taking the Lord's name in vain.

Are any of these against the law? Not in America. The nation's economy wouldn't be able to function if usury -- the lending of money at an interest rate -- were outlawed.

It is one of the conceits of the religious right, of course, that American law is based on "Biblical law." (See the whole Roy Moore dustup.) But that's largely mythical. The body of American law is decidedly secular in nature, and is driven almost purely by logic and ethics, rather than religious morality.

This basic confusion on the part of fundamentalists leads them to believe that if the Bible forbids it, it oughta be against the law too.

Problem is, if that were to happen ... it wouldn't be America anymore. But then, they seem to know that.

It should be clear who's playing the aggressor here. Indeed, the whole "Culture War" -- just like "Class War" -- is largely an invention, and a strategy, of the right.