Certainly, a consensus born of religious thought or moral belief can infuse itself into law, but it needs to have a basis in objective moral reality, rather than just a reflection of mere ritual.
Just where does one find "objective morality"? In a secular world view, every man is his own center of gravity, and the result is an enormity of competing individuals (who then form groups) each with distinct sets of rights and wrongs. Eventually, the "objective morality" becomes the moral view of whoever is in charge. The logical end of such objective morality is "might makes right".
On the other hand, sectarian viewpoints are equally untenable. What is the solution? The only solution I can see is to look, with a broad view, at the moral absolutes as contained in every monotheistic religion in the world (if people don't like to accept Judeo-Christian moral foundation). I have read major portions of the Koran (several years before 9-11), and the moral precepts are essentially the same as in the Bible. I have studied the Vedas for more than 30 years and I can assure you that the moral precepts contained in them are universal, and in complete congruence with what we accept as Judeo-Christian moral absolutes.
Any differences are slight - the basics are the same.
When we reject moral absolutes, the "moral objectivity" you speak of is nowhere to be found. We will wind up similar to a large pack of snarling dogs, and the big dog will set the rules.
Ok, perhaps a poor choice of words. I refer, however, to the morality that any philosopher can understand, without reference to any specific religion. Surely, people who live their lives without religious belief structures can lead moral lives, at least in relation to the way they treat their fellow human beings. I was trying to distinguish between universal standards of right and wrong (Golden Rule, charity, mercy, avoidance of harm of others, etc.) that do get some disagreement on the fringes, and laws that clearly reflect the mere influence of a religious practice. My example of beer sales on Sunday seemed perfect as an example, if beer is wrong, it should be wrong all of the time, if beer is OK, then it should be as right to buy it on Sunday as it is on any other day of the week.
Are the common teachings of ancient religions a perfect guide to moral people of today? In most nearly everything, surely they have great value as showing us how to treat each other, but collectively, they have been wrong, as well. All of the major religious texts have countenanced slavery, all sanction war in ways that are easily misinterpreted by individuals who seek power through militarism, and all have regarded women as lesser beings.
Every religion that survived to be practiced today has facets that enabled its adherents to overcome hardships of everyday life. Surely, one of those hardships was producing enough people to fill the needs of an agricultural society. Yes, each new child is another mouth to feed, but generally, that mouth comes with a pair of hands to plant and to reap. Any religion that said, "Replace yourselves, but no more," would have died out what with famines, wars, disease, and accidents, on top of those who were infertile, and we would not have heard about that religion. Clearly, our Western society has re-evaluated its position on slavery, on equality of the races, and of the sexes, and it is currently considering its stance on a form of non-procreative sexual behavior. Were the Biblical (and other faiths) injuctions against homosexuality designed to foster procreative uses of sex, and thus aid the spread of the society with that set of beliefs, or are they universal truths, never to be tampered with? Many here would argue the latter, many in the world outside of Free Republic would agree with the former. Those are going to be the fellow Americans who will need to be convinced that gay marriage is wrong for reasons that do not revolve around ancient religious beliefs, tradition (which is just doing something a certain way because its always been done that way), or procreation. I just haven't seen any reasons that would convince anybody in the middle, who hears the other side talk about fairness, lack of harm to existing and future heterosexual marriages, and tolerance.
We will wind up similar to a large pack of snarling dogs, and the big dog will set the rules.
Well, I suspect there will be a lot of snarling in about five months or so, when gay people will either flock to MA for ceremonies and marriage certificates to take back to the courts at home. That's only if the MA legislature fails to adopt a civil unions plan that peels away one judge from the 4-3 majority, to approve the compromise. Those people who think that some form of civil disobedience or divine intervention will occur to prevent any official recognition of some form of gay commitment by the state of Massachusetts will be quite disappointed. I expect there to be lots of unhappy people posting here on May 17th (or soon thereafter, if the legislature fails to enact something the court -the big dog here- can live with) when CNN shows pictures of gay couples in wedding regalia on TV. By that time, middle America will have come to grips with it, and if the answer is gay marriage that they don't like, they can always vote for the guy who believes that marriage should always be between a man and a woman.