THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH and conservatives are appalled by the idea of homosexual marriages, and rightly so. It is a weird idea, akin to house-man marriages--- that is, the terms in the phrase just don't fit together. What it means, of course, is the elevation of a certain kind of homosexual relationship to the same level of government approval as marriage. But what interests at me at the moment is why it is this issue which is exciting attention, rather than, say no-fault divorce, which has had such a deleterious effect on the family and society that "gay marriage" has little left to kill. Just look at all the turmoil listed in Ted Olsen's Christianity today web-log of July 14.
I think the reason can be found in the difference between natural law and divine law. Natural law refers to moral principles common to most or all human cultures. One can believe that natural law comes from God, from evolution, or from some other source; what matters for present purposes is that it is universal. People don't like snakes, or cannibalism, or hurting babies. Divine law, on the other hand, is law promulgated by God via revelation. Divine law is not univerally known, though it may be universally binding. If you do not believe in God, then you will not find divine law compelling, or even, really, acknowledge its existence. Christians do not acknowledge the divine law in the Talmud or the Koran, for instance.
Not all divine law is natural law, and not all natural law is divine law, but there is some overlap. Murder violates both divine and natural law. For a Christian to make an idol of Jehovah violates divine law, but not natural law. To eat human flesh violates natural law, but not divine law (the Old Testament culinary laws do not apply to Christians, and there is no New Testament prohibition of cannibalism).
Homosexuality violates both natural and divine law. It is universally abhorred (yes, I know it is tolerated in some cultures, but so is cannibalism and murder-- but those are exceptional cultures), and it is condemned both in Romans and Leviticus. Thus, not surprisingly, conservatives and churches oppose it, and oppose the even more unnatural concept of homosexual marriage.
No-fault divorce, on the other hand, does not violate natural law. It is common in many cultures for a man to be able to discard his wife without much reason; he just has to be willing to suffer the antipathy of his wife's family. Divorce for any reason except adultery does, however, seem to violate divine law. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says that even though Jewish law allowed easy divorce, it still is wicked except in cases of adultery ("sexual impurity", actually, if I remember rightly, but this would at least include adultery). From the standpoints of natural law, including what a reasonable and intelligent person would think after careful deliberation, this wickedness is not obvious. It would seem that if a husband beats his wife out of pure desire to cause pain, refuses to support her, and threatens to kill the children, then she has reason to divorce him. But Jesus forbids it; she may desert him indefinitely, perhaps, and perhaps get a civil divorce, but she may not undo the marriage and marry someone else instead.
I think this explains what gets many churchgoers upset. Most churchgoers, even sincere Christians, do not get detailed religious teaching, especially regarding unpleasant truths. Such teaching is a duty of a pastor, not a pleasure, and his congregation is not going to thank him for it. Thus, most Christians, including even most evangelicals and Catholics, are not opposed to an at least moderately liberal divorce law. Such a law-- say, one that allows divorce by mutual agreement or even if one party disagrees, if that party has committed a severe fault--- is in accord with natural law. If pastors do not draw attention to biblical teaching on the subject, their flocks will not know the divine law.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is an obvious enough evil that it does not require special teaching. Indeed, special teaching is required to make people believe homosexuality is not a bad thing, and that is one reason why there is so much agitation for official approval from homosexuals.
Appendix: I think official Catholic teaching may be that divorce is a violation of natural law, but that is making natural law into "What is truly right" rather than "What is written in the hearts of men". The bad thing about the idea "natural law" is that so often it is used simply to refer to what the speaker thinks the law ought to be. We should recognize that many bad deeds are not prohibited by natural law, though, presumably, a Christian ought not to do any of them because he does not wish to displease God even in things that God has not specifically told us about.
[ http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.07.19a.htm ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.