ALso, keep in mind that the laws are not 'theocratic' laws that apply only to believers or the identified 'chosen people.'
Still, one has to wonder a little about the title of the topic, as it relates to what you point out. That is, we could be talking about the "Christian" response, the "legal" response or both.
Did you intend that we analyze/discuss the existing laws, or those which Christians think/believe should be in place?
One must make a case that such laws, even if they are motivated by Christian belief and morality, should apply to both believers and un-believers.
Specifically, unless we have a massive cultural and/or Constitutional change in this society, that laws "
motivated" by religion, will not be accepted and abided by "all" (at least not without such laws being seriously challenged, in a most direct fashion). I mean, Christians and others could go as far as implementing
10 Commandments types of laws, but it does have to be considered as to how practical and just such laws would actually be (for "ALL").
And
legally, that is a major part of the argument/discussion. How directly should morals or ideas based upon religion, be included in laws which apply to those who aren't of a given doctrine or belief system?
As far as homosexuality (exclusively speaking), I can't think of any logical reasons why any "law" (that
all must follow) must discriminate against or support the behavior.
In the broader sense, the U.S. Constitution
isn't a condensed version of the Bible (as some like to interpret it as being); so, there comes a point (in reality) where there need to be reasonable "compromises" to accomodate ALL citizens who are living under the law. A law can indeed be "theocratic" (in essence), without adherents being members of the given belief system from which it originates.
While I agree and understand that a nation where the
Bible influenced so many (especially) at the beginning, somewhat explains the various interpretations of many laws today, I don't think laws should be created and subsequently enforced solely as a result of some religious viewpoint or worldview.
A law which (for example) bans homosexuality altogether might be desireable to some, but certainly not to others. But there are few or no truly logical reason/s outside of one's religious views to call for such a law (or enforcement thereof). I think what we see today, is a nation deciding limits; not necessarily concerning "homosexual" rights/protections, but exploring the overall influence of the Bible or religion; what role those things must play as we move forward as a society.
It is a fair question to ask: Why would laws discriminating against homosexual people be right or necessary? Certainly various "biblical" and other religious reasons could be generated as answers, but it would remain questionable as to how those laws whould/should apply to those who do not necessarily ascribe to the particular religious worldview from which such laws might originate. I think it would remain debatable period, because "beliefs" do regularly "clash" with myriad aspects of "reality". This explains why science and religion do often go toe-to-toe on many issues.
I'm not sure how "torn" some of our Founding Fathers must have been, to NOT include certain doctrines/dogma in the laws of this nation, but I think it is fairly clear that they did not intend for laws to act as an enforcement of morality. It is clear that they had witnessed or experienced the POWER of religion in "law" over the people, and saw fit to "limit" the influence of organized religion over this nation's endeavors.
I'm not calling for a total disregard of the Bible, but calling direct attention to the undeniable reality that not all people ascribe to the specific (or interpreted) moral instructions taken from the Bible. And that people are encouraged to regard one another in mutually beneficial and peaceful co-existence, is something that I believe the Founding Fathers were after in the overall sense. Christianity (and various forms of it) can certainly be accomodated under the U.S. Constitution, but it would not necessarily be practical (or just) to fold more of what Christianity (or the Bible) is, into the framework of LAWS which ALL must abide.
-Mel-