Blessed are the liberals, for they shall defy public reason

The Sermon on the Mount includes a mandate for legal approbation of same-sex unions. So saeth the junior Messiah from Illinois. Reverend Obama did not choose to enlighten us by instructing where precisely the mandate may be located. Perhaps it ought to be inferred from the passage on interior decoration, a well-known strong suit among gay men: "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house."

Obama's is a curious interpretation of a passage that includes express prohibitions against both lust and divorce and makes no mention of same-sex relationships, much less homosexual intimacy. (His description of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which expressly condemns homosexual conduct, as "obscure" betrays a manifest ignorance of biblical literature, Christian theology, and Western philosophy.) But leaving aside Obama's embarrasingly bad hermeneutics, his assertion raises two additional questions.

First, is there any conceivably rational interpretation of his statement? CNSNews speculates that Obama might have been referring either to the Golden Rule or to the prohibition against judging. However, neither has any bearing on the question whether the State ought to lend legal approbation to monogamous, same-sex intimacy. Indeed, nothing in the Sermon on the Mount has any obvious relevance to the issue. Just as nothing in the Sermon addresses same-sex unions, nothing about conjugal marriage offends against any of Christ's admonitions. So what was Obama thinking?

Second, why does Obama think that this theonomous rhetoric is persuasive? Some conservative evangelicals are often excoriated for engaging in the same practice. A public figure who argues against same-sex marriage on the ground that the Bible condemns homosexual conduct short-shrifts the conclusive argument from public reason in favor of conjugal marriage for two reasons: (1) which choices are right or wrong for individuals does not directly determine which choices the State ought to approve in law and (2) arguments from authority are only persuasive if the audience submits to the authority invoked. Most of our interlocutors in the public square do not recognize the authority of Scripture. We are well-advised to offer the very compelling public reasons in favor of legal approbation of conjugal marriage and to avoid turning Holy Scripture into a law and policy manual.

Legal approbation of conjugal marriage -- the two-in-one-flesh communion possible only in a monogamous commitment between persons of opposite sexes -- is eminently reasonable. It promotes a self-evidently valuable relationship and, additionally, secures the practical benefits that flow out of marriages and familes. As a strategic matter, Obama is wise to call attention away from the reasoned arguments in favor of conjugal marriage; those arguments are not merely persuasive but conclusive. His attempt to distract is as transparent as the emptiness of his message of hope.