[Hong Kong Expat]

Theocrat is my term.

Fish's thesis is way more complex than what I can reproduce here. And he in no way makes any moral equivelent between Fundementalists Christians and Fundementalists Muslims.

But when Christians oppose gay marriage because of "God's Will," "God's nature," or the "Bible says so." Like it or not that's an attempt at theoracy.

Secularists, he uses in the broadest term possible, basically anybody who doesn't want the local preacher making and interpreting the laws is a secularist.

[livius]

No, saying that gay "marriage" is wrong is not an attempt to impose theocracy. It is a simple question of right and wrong; that is, what human beings were made for and in what framework we and our society exist. Rejecting any moral or ethical conditions on social life grants the state has the right to make ultimate decisions about human nature and leaves us totally vulnerable to the will of the state. People like Peter Singer, who say that the expediency of the state permits the killing of handicapped children, are the ultimate extension of this.

It is very important to keep these words straight, because "theocracy" does not mean a society that is influenced by religious beliefs or moral principles based on religion (as ours is, even in the fundamental assumptions of our Constitution), but one that is totally governed by a religion and where the religious law is also the secular law (as in the case of Islam). Christians do not advocate having the local preacher making or interpreting the laws, and it is dishonest of Fish to imply that they do.

[Neophyte]

But when Christians oppose gay marriage because of "God's Will," "God's nature," or the "Bible says so." Like it or not that's an attempt at theoracy.

With all due respect, I cannot agree. Theocracy is such an arrangement of society when both the legislative and the executive functions of the state are conducted by the religious hierarchy. Just that.

When Christians reject gay marriage, it's because such institution contradicts the tenets of their creed. If it so happened that the given Christian, but not theocratic country, had a government stupid enough to introduce gay marriage through the law, the Christians would be very unhappy but powerless to stop it.