He’s obviously been busy and therefore been unable to respond directly to my last argument on the subject (and it was very kind of him to do so earlier), but Prof. Volokh has a couple of new posts up about the Hindus and Homosexuals issue.
First, let me say that I have so far not addressed the question of the reasons why a Christian might oppose the legalization of gay marriage. I have not done so, because my perspective on this issue is shaped by Mormon doctrine, which provides reasons beyond those that other Christians have in their doctrine.
But Prof. Volokh still does not seem to acknowledge that what people generally consider to be religious freedom has only to do with choices about who or what to worship, and in what manner. (“Choose ye this day whom ye will serve…” Joshua 24:15.) Other choices involve other freedoms.
Christians in the United States have generally decided that religious freedom is important to them, and that therefore they will oppose laws that discriminate on the basis of religion. Prof. Volokh seems to be saying that Christians cannot logically do so while opposing gay rights.
Prof. Volokh sees inconsistency in the fact that some Christians want the secular law to enforce some things mentioned in the Bible and not others. Generally, such “inconsistency” results from varying religious beliefs about what God wants us to do in this day and age.
Prof. Volokh says:
Recognizing this distinction between religious laws that should be enforced by secular law and those that shouldn’t be so enforced shows that “Homosexuality is against God’s law, and therefore must be punished by the legal system” is not itself a sufficient argument. Christians who want the secular law to enforce such prohibitions thus have an obligation, within their own moral system, to provide some other reason besides Leviticus for their proposals. And it is that reason — which, incidentally, is probably more subject to pragmatic analysis than just a Leviticus-based argument would be — that should be the heart of the debate.
So, according to Prof. Volokh, Christians must justify their positions on secular matters with secular reasons, not religious ones. (Ironically, he says that Christian morality requires it.) Let’s call this the Volokh Rule.
While quoting scripture in public policy debates will do little to convince those who do not believe in that scripture (or who have a different interpretation of it), it is something that will have influence among those who believe similarly. Therefore, the Volokh Rule would make it harder for Christians to appeal to other Christians in the public debate.
I use the word “scripture,” rather than “The Bible,” for a reason. Mormons believe in modern-day revelation that is considered to be scripture. Most people do not believe in Mormon scripture, and would therefore find it unpersuasive.
In 1995, the leaders of the Mormon Church issued The Family: A Proclamation to the World. This proclamation reaffirmed that marriage is intended by God to be between one man and one woman. It also called upon citizens and officials to promote measures designed to strengthen the family.
Since that proclamation was issued, the Church has been heavily involved in opposing gay marriage.
Under the Volokh Rule, in debating the merits of legalizing gay marriage, Mormons’ opposition to the idea should not be based on the Proclamation. They must base their opposition solely on secular reasons.
Now, I could say that Prof. Volokh’s inconsistency argument doesn’t apply to Mormons. Mormons believe that God is giving revelations to a prophet living on the Earth today. Since modern revelation supports religious freedom for Hindus (and others), but opposes gay marriage, there is no doctrinal inconsistency.
But it’s not just the Mormons. Most Christian denominations have made determinations over what parts of the Bible God wants us to focus on at this time, and which commandments God wants to see us enact as part of our secular law. Ultimately, a Christian answers Prof. Volokh’s charge of inconsistency with “Well, that’s what I believe God wants.” It’s a matter of religious belief.
You know — the thing that religious freedom is about.
(Note: This entry was originally published on my now-defunct political blog, Attilathepundit.com.)