During the discussion on the merits of the legalization of gay marriage it was proposed that the prime reason behind the Christian Right's opposition to the legalization of gay marriage lies in thier belief that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle. Therefore the ultimate conflict arises when the state attempts to condone what they believe to be an illegitimate lifestyle. The Forum does not dispute that these folks have the right to oppose the legalization of gay marriage on a moral ground, however it was suggested that the precedent exists where other Christian morals have led to laws which have never faced any resistance from the left, primarily cited were laws against murder and theft, mirrored in the Ten Commandments.
Again, the Forum does not argue that there is a strong correlation between the civil laws which govern the daily lives of the citizenry and the moral laws that guide the lives of people of faith, however certain distinctions between the two should be made. First, one must look at the difference between a law and a commandment. While many pastors have typically reduced the issue to a semantic difference there is in fact a very basic and very integral distinction...commandments are not a the beginning of a legal proceding. Commandments are not adjudicated. Commandments are not justice. While the Israelites had a complex and well-manged judicial system, the commandments were not addressed in these courts and for the same reason that they are not addressed today. How does one prove in a court of law that someone has coveted his neighbor's wife. If the Forum were so accused then the Forum would most certainly bear false witness. As Christ explained, the Commandments pertained to matters of the heart and to intention. Wishing you could kill someone is the same as actually doing it as far as God is concerned. But this is no way to maintain public order, and God knew that and institued a systematic code of laws to keep order and maintain the common good. Many of these laws are conveniently written out in the Book of Leviticus.
To be sure, some of these laws had a moral aspect to them as evidenced by many of the consequences for breaking such laws. Ultimately though, God was attempting to build a nation and it was massively important that they be bigger, stronger, and faster than their neighbors. Thus we see laws intended to protect the flesh as opposed to protecting the spirit. Take Kosher laws, for instance...Pork, especially in the millenia before Christ, was dangerous to eat...just like today if not properly cooked pork could make you very ill. So, while the Hittites and the Ammonites and all of the other Ites were feasting on the stuff, God said, "no, don't eat pork. you won't get sick and you will be healthier and more fit than your enemies." Eating bacon had nothing to do with the eternal state of the Israelite soul. Niether did not shaving your beard or sitting outside the camp for seven days following an emission that caused uncleanliness. These were all laws designed to make Isreal distinct and keep God's people strong, healthy, and safe.
So today we have laws against things like littering and speeding that have little if any connection to the state of our souls. On the other hand there are also laws against rape, theft, and murder that would seem to be intended to keep us from sinning. Now this, friends, is where it gets a little complicated....
Lying is a sin but it isn't a crime. Although lying can be a civil offense (like libel and slander) with tangible consequences. Ultimately though, you cannot go to prison for lying. Perjury, though, is a crime and is punishable with prison time, however it isn't aqgainst the law because the Commandments say "Thou shall not bear false witness." No, perjury is a crime because the entire justice system fails if people go around falsly accusing people of crimes and then lying about it in court, or if those who are rightfully accused are aquitted by lying.
Theft is not a crime because stealing is a sin but because The right to own property cannot be guaranteed if the government cannot offer legal defense of one's stuff. Further muddying the waters is the fact that there are divergent ideas on what constitutes theft. An Inuit Tribe in Northern Alaska has a tribal law against theft, yet it is perfectly legal to walk into your neighbor's empty house and take his television. However, if your neighbor's son is named John and you decide to name your newborn son John, you sit in violation of the law.
That brings us to laws against murder. Once again, the moral ethic against taking someone's life is clear and present, but it is not distinct from any other code or ethos. Hammurabi's Code made murder illegal but not because the Sumerians were good Christians concerned with the morality of thier nation, not at all. Hammurabi knew, as did the founders of this country that, without penalty for taking someone's life society as a whole will crumble. Gone unchecked murder would litterally leave a community with a "last man standing" mentality. Even if one had committed no offense, that person would at some point be placed in a kill or be killed situation.
Justice is not retribution. Our legal system is designed so that partial and passionate victims have NO rights in regard to the dispersment of punishment. This protects everyone from being handed a 5000 dollar penalty for a fifty buck crime. Back to murder for a moment....if murder was legal, than what would prevent the family of a victim from enacting revenge? Again the system would collapse.
Finally, back to the issue at hand, gay marriage...while the Christian Right will continue to claim some moral certantity that homosexuality is a sin, the state can make no regard about what is sin and what is not sin. Even in matter where it seems that the law and morality intersect, it is important to remember that the legal system makes no determination of morality only justice.
