The morality of law (and lawmakers)


Power and the law do not grant morality
Like many of you I watched as Mark Foley's public career came crashing down around his ears. What makes this particular situation so unique is not that Foley was gay or the fact that he was targeting a teenage male. Nor was it all that interesting that the House Republican leadership probably conspired to hide that fact from the American public, or that Democrats were making the usual noises about the morality of the Republicans.

All of this, unfortunately, is business as usual.

As it would be even if it were a Democrat caught in the headlights.

No, what made this unique was Foley's hypocrisy. He was one of the crusaders for laws on sexually exploited children.

He isn't the only Republican politico who is showing two faces. Senator Bill Frist snuck in an amendment targeting internet gambling into the port security bill.

The Democrats don't get off so easy, they just aren't in power in Congress right now. At least not directly. But I remember more than a few of their fiascos.

I want to talk about morality and the law.

Morality is subjective.

The law isn't supposed to be subjective.

Putting morality into law is not a good idea.

The obvious example here is marriage law.

Simple question, why should marriage be regulated?

Other than making sure everyone getting married consents and possibly how property is divided after a marriage is over, what is the "overriding public interest" in defining and regulating marriage? Not to mention all the other little things like cohabitation, sexual practices, and joint tax returns.

Under what authority does Congress regulate marriage? Under what authority do States regulate marriage?

Marriage started as a religious institution that was given legal status by government.

It is a moral law, in the sense that one groups morality is imposed on everyone else.

Right now there is a big push to protect "traditional marriage." But let's apply the old pairity test. If the law finds in necessary to define marriage as between a single man and a single woman, what happens if the legal definition is changed? What happens if tomorrow marriage is only legal between three women and a man? Or ten men and a woman?

The "moral standards" for a "traditional marriage" don't exist, they are legal fictions. What's more, those "moral standards" are oppressive to anyone who does not share those "moral standards."

Marijuana is illegal. Beer is not. Scotch on the rocks is not. What is the difference? Moral standards.

Betting on the Superbowl is illegal. Betting on the stock market isn't. Buying a U.S. Savings Bond isn't. What's the difference? Moral standards.

Prostitution is illegal in most states. Sex during marriage is not. Unless of course you use an unconventional position. What's the difference? Moral standards.

Elvis was banned. The Beatles were welcomed. Madonna was cherished. What's the difference? Time and moral standards.

Here's the point I want to make.

Politicos do not have a superior morality than you.

It doesn't matter where they say the morality comes from. There is NOTHING that makes a legislator innately more moral than the people they are supposed to represent.

The late Peter McWilliams made a great point about consensual crimes.

Why are some consensual activities considered crimes while others are not? The short answer is religious beliefs. Almost all of the consensual crimes find the basis of their restrictions and prohibitions in religion. Even the idea that one should take good care of oneself has a religious base. ("The body is the temple of the soul.")

Prudent participation in consensual crimes, however, is not necessarily anti-God, anti-religion, or even anti-biblical. The prohibitions against certain consensual activities grew from a misinterpretation and misapplication of biblical teachings. (This is discussed in the chapter, "What Jesus and the Bible Really Said about Consensual Crimes.")

The fact is, however, that religious beliefs (or misbeliefs) are what most people use when choosing what is right or what is wrong for themselves. This is fine. It's when they try to bestow that system of right and wrong on others—by force—that consensual crimes are born.

Show me a vice crime that does not reflect religious views.

You can't.

In all the noise of the upcoming election season, that is the one American tradition that we must not ignore.

Morality can not be legislated.

Americans do not need the law to make us moral. All we need is the freedom to make our own choices and face the consequences.

The rest is a power grab to destroy your freedom.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sun - October 1, 2006 at 09:03 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved