One of the fundamental dangers posted by the Christian Right in America is that they want to replace democracy with theocracy. Few advocate this openly, but it is the undeniable consequence of the much more common rhetoric about how America must be ruled by "God's Laws" and according to (their interpretation of) God's standards.

The Washington Blade reports on the court case in Maryland where gay couples are attempting to get the right to marry:

Cutting through all the legalese, Judge M. Brooke Murdock asked the state’s attorney Sullivan a question repeatedly posed by gay rights advocates: “What is the tangible harm” of allowing gays to marry?

Sullivan did not directly answer the question, causing Murdoch to say that absent “tangible harm” it was difficult to comprehend the “rational basis for opposing this.” Later Sullivan told the judge that if hearings were held in Annapolis on the issue, then harm could be demonstrated.

“They never articulate the harm,” said Polyak after the arguments. “I’m waiting for the answer to that question.”

When Doug Stiegler, executive director of the Association of Maryland Families, was asked to explain the harm caused by same-sex marriage, he said it would discriminate against children who need a mother and father.

“That’s a wrong situation,” he said outside the courthouse. “Those kids are not in a right environment.”

He said that the country was based on “moral laws, God’s laws, God’s rights” and that the separation of church and state is a “figment of people’s imagination.”

Stiegler isn't even trying to explain why civil government should refuse to treat gays and straights the same. For him, it all comes down to one thing: he believes that gay relationships are contrary to his religion and, therefore, the government should refuse to sanction them. It's impossible to hold this position without also concluding that the government should prohibit them outright.

What, then, is to stop these people from enforcing all sorts of other religious doctrines via the law? If people must be forced to live in a society where divorce is illegal and contraception is illegal, regardless of what they personally want, then it isn't a democracy anymore. If people are denied basic civil rights because some religious leaders declare that God wouldn't approve, then it's not a democracy anymore.

What characterizes a democracy is that people have the right to participate in making decisions about the community's public policy. That, however, is not what these members of the Christian Right want. They don't believe that people can be trusted to make such decisions themselves — they believe that decisions about the community's public policy must be matched to what they think God wants. What the people want is irrelevant.

It's sadly ironic that this is precisely the attitude taken by Islamic extremists who oppose democracy. They, too, believe that society must be run according to their understanding of God's laws. They, too, don't think that people should be allowed to choose laws or police that are contrary to God's laws. Islamic extremists and Christian extremists are far more similar than either group would like to admit.

Read More:

• Religious Right
• Religious Right News
• Christian Extremism
• Christian Nationalism