Religion & Law

Jon Pahl writes that DOMA laws are a form of "religious violence."  Though I share some of his misgivings about prohibitions on same-sex marriage, I find his analysis unhelpful to the conversation.  The traditional definition of marriage has been shaped by religion, to be sure, but also by broader biological and cultural norms.  Equating the failure to change that definition with the imposition of a religious hierarchy takes the "public reason" requirement to absurd levels.  As for the legal merits, here's the crux of his argument: "It is a violation of the First Amendment's protection of free association to inhibit by law some forms of association that pose no harm to the common good, and a violation of the freedom from an established religion when religiously-inspired exclusions are written into law."  Putting aside his strange interpretation of the right of association, the very point that is being contested in SSM debates (at least the thoughtful versions) is whether extending marriage to same-sex couples will harm the common good.  It does not advance the conversation -- and, in my estimation, does much to inhibit the conversation -- when one brackets that central dispute as though it has been conclusively settled, then attaches the worst of intentions to those who oppose SSM.