Legislating Morality

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1483850' date='Mar 25 2008, 02:36 PM']If you're asking for MY opinion on those subjects, I would say no; however, with the exception of sodomy, the things you mentioned have laws prohibiting them for justifiable reason. Afterall, we can't have people selling their bodies for sex because how do you collect the taxes? And we certainly cannot have doctors killing off patients because, in the words of Chris Rock, the money is in the medicine, not the cure.

Seriously, though. The government of our land should have little to do with the immorality of the citizens it governs. The slippery-slope analogy is particularly appropriate precisely because there is no single set of moral codes in this country. You and I may be of a similar (and a correct one, if I do say so myself), but not everyone agrees. Thus, unless the action be obvious in its immorality (i.e.- abortion) and egregious in its effects on society, I believe that government--both state and federal-- should keep its focus on other matters.[/quote]

How can the action be "obviously" immoral if the government has little to do with the morality of its citizens?

I tend to think that many of our laws need a moral backing; divorcing morality from law seems dangerous to me.

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1483864' date='Mar 25 2008, 04:58 PM']How can the action be "obviously" immoral if the government has little to do with the morality of its citizens?

I tend to think that many of our laws need a moral backing; divorcing morality from law seems dangerous to me.[/quote]

I think that we should not remove more free will than what is absolutely necessary for the relative-safety of the public. While the morality and spiritual well-being of the culture is of utmost importance, I don't think that heads-of-state, congressmen, senators, policeman and city councils are the people in charge of supplying that moral background you speak of. I think it begins with parents, who must instill solid Catholic morals in their children at home. Next it's the priests and pastors job to teach their congregations about God and His laws and His love. Finally, teachers, politicians and the like should be models of good civic behavior.

If we all worried more about our own morals, we would serve as better examples and perhaps people would emulate our behavior.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1483572' date='Mar 24 2008, 11:50 PM']Well... for once I agree you with you 100%. But this is the key line, how far should they go?

Should divorce be outlawed since its immoral? Why or why not?

Some people have said we should only outlaw things that effect the public. Yet this leaves a lot of grey area; for starters nearly anything can be linked to the public somehow.[/quote]
In a truly Catholic system, divorce and remarriage would not be legally recognized by the government.
Of course, as things stand, that's completely unfeasible in our (nonCatholic) society, but I would have nothing against such a law on principle.

A lot of times, of course, what is ideal and what is feasible are two different things.

And divorce (in the sense of separation) is not in itself immoral, but divorce and remarriage (as it's currently practiced in our society).

The civil law should reflect, rather than contradict, God's Law, but lawmakers must also realize that we can't create heaven on earth, and laws should not be made where the enforcement would lead to greater evil than that which is being outlawed.
Yes, there is a certain amount of "grey area" here.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1483717' date='Mar 25 2008, 11:12 AM']I generally agree with you, Soc, especially the question of whose "morality" is behind the laws we pass and follow; however, I would put forth that most people would say that the state law banning sodomy violates the reasonable right to privacy that we all expect. My mother always told me that whatever happens in someone else's bedroom between 2 consenting adults is not the business of any government, federal, state or otherwise[/quote]
Constitutionally, it is up to the states. According to the 10th Amendment, the federal government has no right to step in on this matter. If the people of Texas want the law changed, they can work to change it. If they wish to keep this law respecting "traditional" morality, then it is not the place of the federal courts to butt in.
This is also in line with the Church's teaching of the principle of subsidiarity. Matters of government should be handled at the local level whenever possible.

Morally, I have no problem with anti-sodomy laws on principle. Most states had them in the early years of our country, and they were not considered an issue (though most states have not seriously enforced them in some time). And generally they did not lead to cops in private bedrooms and such nonsense, but rather concerned public vice. If the people of a state wish to have laws respecting morality, then they should not be taken away by federal decree. Again, principle of subsidiarity.

[quote]Agreed. I think we should all worry more about tending to our own affairs instead of the inequities of others, and if we were less preoccupied with the morality of society and more concerned with encouraging the morality of our children, our country would be better off.[/quote]
This is a false dilemna argument which I see used on here ad nauseum. There is no contradiction between teaching morality to one's children, and supporting moral principles in law. In fact, locally, a lot of the people supporting morality in law are Catholic homeschoolers and such.
Unfortunately, there has long existed a concentrated effort to undermine Christian moral principles in law. If nobody does anything to fight this, the enemy wins.

[quote name='kujo' post='1483850' date='Mar 25 2008, 02:36 PM']Thus, unless the action be obvious in its immorality (i.e.- abortion) and egregious in its effects on society, I believe that government--both state and federal-- should keep its focus on other matters.[/quote]
Unfortunately, not everybody can agree on what actions are "obvious" in their immorality. Plenty of people now argue (wrongly) that it is not obvious that abortion is morally wrong.
And 100 years ago, most people would regard homosexual sodomy as obvious in its immorality - as a vice deserving punishment rather than a "right."
The more immoral a society is, the more morally blind it becomes, and the less "obvious" immorality becomes.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1484368' date='Mar 25 2008, 09:44 PM']Constitutionally, it is up to the states. According to the 10th Amendment, the federal government has no right to step in on this matter. If the people of Texas want the law changed, they can work to change it.[/quote]

That is true up to the point when someone claims that the law violates their constitutional rights, and since privacy has been deemed a constitutional right, the people of Texas can't pass the law.

But as a whole on this matter, I would agree with you. If we are truly looking to work towards the Kingdom of Heaven, we should outlaw things that immoral; sodomy, contraceptives, ect.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1484368' date='Mar 25 2008, 11:44 PM']Morally, I have no problem with anti-sodomy laws on principle. Most states had them in the early years of our country, and they were not considered an issue (though most states have not seriously enforced them in some time). And generally they did not lead to cops in private bedrooms and such nonsense, but rather concerned public vice. If the people of a state wish to have laws respecting morality, then they should not be taken away by federal decree. Again, principle of subsidiarity.[/quote]

IMHO, governments, at any level, should not be in the business of enforcing morality. Citizens should always have the choice to do what they want, even if it's an immoral activity.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1484382' date='Mar 26 2008, 12:02 AM']But as a whole on this matter, I would agree with you. If we are truly looking to work towards the Kingdom of Heaven, we should outlaw things that immoral; sodomy, contraceptives, ect.[/quote]

Why? Why should we remove the free will of our peers? You cannot coerce people into morality. They need to be educated on the immorality of their activity, of course. But I don't think we should trust the agents in our government to be the articulators of these principles.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1484841' date='Mar 26 2008, 02:17 PM']Why? Why should we remove the free will of our peers? You cannot coerce people into morality. They need to be educated on the immorality of their activity, of course. But I don't think we should trust the agents in our government to be the articulators of these principles.[/quote]

Outlawing immoral actions no more limits the free will of the people than outlawing murder, or anything really.

Agents of the government can articulate morality just as well as others in society. When they miss the mark, we have a duty to call them out on it.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't think it is the governments role to teach morality. But certainly if the people want to pass a law saying X is immoral and we want to make it illegal, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. Morality is objective; if its wrong, its wrong and we should prevent it.

Edited March 26, 2008 by rkwright

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1484873' date='Mar 26 2008, 04:53 PM']Outlawing immoral actions no more limits the free will of the people than outlawing murder, or anything really.

Agents of the government can articulate morality just as well as others in society. When they miss the mark, we have a duty to call them out on it.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't think it is the governments role to teach morality. But certainly if the people want to pass a law saying X is immoral and we want to make it illegal, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. Morality is objective; if its wrong, its wrong and we should prevent it.[/quote]

There is a difference between laws outlawing murder and laws that would outlawing certain forms of sexual activity (i.e.- sodomy, oral sex, etc.). The former is a disruption to public safety and order while the latter is an immoral activity that doesn't really affect you or I in any tangible way.

Remember something: if we give the government we trust the right to do something we like, we run the risk of having that power in the hands of a government we don't like.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1484382' date='Mar 25 2008, 10:02 PM']That is true up to the point when someone claims that the law violates their constitutional rights, and since privacy has been deemed a constitutional right, the people of Texas can't pass the law.[/quote]
That's the judicial tyranny I am referring to.

There is aboslutely no "right" to sodomy listed in the Constitution, nor is a "right to privacy" anywhere mentioned (whatever that might mean).
The so-called "Constitutional right to privacy" is completely bogus, an invention of activist judges used as an excuse for federal courts to overrule any state laws which disagree with a liberal social agenda. That was the basis for the Roe v. Wade ruling which declared abortion a "Constitutional right."

Most states had laws restricting both abortion and sodomy, and no one saw them as contrary to the Constitution until the late 20th century. In the meantime, the federal government has made more and more restrictions on our [i]legitimate[/i] freedoms.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1484841' date='Mar 26 2008, 02:17 PM']IMHO, governments, at any level, should not be in the business of enforcing morality. Citizens should always have the choice to do what they want, even if it's an immoral activity.[/quote]
Oh, so you're an anarchist? Should we get rid of all laws?
All laws "enforce morality" to some degree.
Or are you saying that laws should only force immorality?

[quote]Why? Why should we remove the free will of our peers? You cannot coerce people into morality. They need to be educated on the immorality of their activity, of course. But I don't think we should trust the agents in our government to be the articulators of these principles.[/quote]
By that logic, we should abolish laws against murder, rape, and theft. After all, these would "remove the free will of our peers" who would wish to commit such acts, and you "cannot coerce people into morality."
Why should we trust the agents in our government to be the articulators of these principles, such as that rape is wrong?

[quote name='kujo' post='1484891' date='Mar 26 2008, 03:27 PM']There is a difference between laws outlawing murder and laws that would outlawing certain forms of sexual activity (i.e.- sodomy, oral sex, etc.). The former is a disruption to public safety and order while the latter is an immoral activity that doesn't really affect you or I in any tangible way.

Remember something: if we give the government we trust the right to do something we like, we run the risk of having that power in the hands of a government we don't like.[/quote]
Since the time of the American founding, most states had laws against sodomy, and this hardly led to the creation of some totalitarian hell with cops in bedrooms, etc.
The laws would really only be enforced if the sodomy was in some way made public. (Gay swingers clubs, etc.)
Openly promoted and practiced homosexuality and other sexual vices does in fact affect all those who have to deal with it, directly or indirectly, and has helped contribute to a breakdown in public morality.
While the federal courts may have plenty of concern for the "rights" of homosexuals to openly practice and promote their vice, what about the rights of parents who don't want to raise their children in a moral open sewer?

While you may not agree with sodomy laws, there is certainly no reason for the federal courts to forcibly (and unconstitutionaly) override these state laws (as they have done with abortion, and other things as well).
When we give federal courts the power to basically overturn any state or local laws or customs (such as displaying the ten commandments) they don't like, [i]that[/i] is a risk we should be worried about.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Socrates

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1485411' date='Mar 26 2008, 11:25 PM']Oh, so you're an anarchist? Should we get rid of all laws?
All laws "enforce morality" to some degree.
Or are you saying that laws should only force immorality?


By that logic, we should abolish laws against murder, rape, and theft. After all, these would "remove the free will of our peers" who would wish to commit such acts, and you "cannot coerce people into morality."
Why should we trust the agents in our government to be the articulators of these principles, such as that rape is wrong?
Since the time of the American founding, most states had laws against sodomy, and this hardly led to the creation of some totalitarian hell with cops in bedrooms, etc.
The laws would really only be enforced if the sodomy was in some way made public. (Gay swingers clubs, etc.)
Openly promoted and practiced homosexuality and other sexual vices does in fact affect all those who have to deal with it, directly or indirectly, and has helped contribute to a breakdown in public morality.
While the federal courts may have plenty of concern for the "rights" of homosexuals to openly practice and promote their vice, what about the rights of parents who don't want to raise their children in a moral open sewer?

While you may not agree with sodomy laws, there is certainly no reason for the federal courts to forcibly (and unconstitutionaly) override these state laws (as they have done with abortion, and other things as well).
When we give federal courts the power to basically overturn any state or local laws or customs (such as displaying the ten commandments) they don't like, [i]that[/i] is a risk we should be worried about.[/quote]

I don't contend that the states don't have the right to ban sodomy. I think you misunderstand my argument. I am saying that they shouldn't. It's not a constitutional issue, for the states maintain the right to legislate how they please. I'm saying that, in the state I live in, if such a law was proposed, I would be against it.

I am hardly an anarchist. I am saying that laws should protect my life, my liberty and my property. My moral well-being, and that of my family, is not the responsibility to of my state or our federal government to protect. That's MY responsibility and the responsibility of our parish priests.

I think that there is an obvious distinction between murder/rape/theft/fraud and sodomy. So please...be rational.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1485351' date='Mar 26 2008, 09:06 PM']That's the judicial tyranny I am referring to.

There is aboslutely no "right" to sodomy listed in the Constitution, nor is a "right to privacy" anywhere mentioned (whatever that might mean).
The so-called "Constitutional right to privacy" is completely bogus, an invention of activist judges used as an excuse for federal courts to overrule any state laws which disagree with a liberal social agenda. That was the basis for the Roe v. Wade ruling which declared abortion a "Constitutional right."

Most states had laws restricting both abortion and sodomy, and no one saw them as contrary to the Constitution until the late 20th century. In the meantime, the federal government has made more and more restrictions on our [i]legitimate[/i] freedoms.[/quote]

Regardless of the outcomes, do you really believe that you don't have a right to privacy thats implicit in the Constitution, or perhaps under the 9th Amdt?

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1485435' date='Mar 26 2008, 09:41 PM']I don't contend that the states don't have the right to ban sodomy. I think you misunderstand my argument. I am saying that they shouldn't. It's not a constitutional issue, for the states maintain the right to legislate how they please.[/quote]
Ok, seems we agree on that point. I wasn't perfectly clear where you stood regarding the Constitutional issue.

[quote]I'm saying that, in the state I live in, if such a law was proposed, I would be against it.

I am hardly an anarchist. I am saying that laws should protect my life, my liberty and my property. My moral well-being, and that of my family, is not the responsibility to of my state or our federal government to protect. That's MY responsibility and the responsibility of our parish priests.[/quote]
I don't think there is such a clear-cut distinction between laws regarding morality, and laws not regarding morality, and you have not really given any reason why you think the law should be divorced from moral principles. I believe law can never entirely be divorced from moral principles - which is a modern liberal notion our forefathers would have balked at.

"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” ~ John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." ~ Charles Carroll - (Catholic) signer of the Declaration of Independence

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” ~ James Madison [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” ~ George Washington


[quote]I think that there is an obvious distinction between murder/rape/theft/fraud and sodomy. So please...be rational.[/quote]
Do you believe government has the right to tax the incomes of citizens? To maintain building codes? Regulate the sale of any weapons? Impose any health or environmental regulations on businesses? Have seatbelt or helmet laws?
(Nt saying I support all those things, but just curious where you stand)

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1485597' date='Mar 27 2008, 07:12 AM']Regardless of the outcomes, do you really believe that you don't have a right to privacy thats implicit in the Constitution, or perhaps under the 9th Amdt?[/quote]
An "implicit right to privacy" is certainly a vague thing, and is nowhere explicitely stated in the Constitution.
The fourth amendment rules against unreasonable search and seizure, but there's certainly absolutely nothing even implying an absolute and all-trumping "right to privacy" which means a person may do absolutely whatever he wants so long as it is of a "private" nature - including abortion and sodomy.
This notion of "implied privacy" is so vague and ill-defined that it seems that it can be used to justify almost anything.

The fact that this was not seen to be the case until the 1970s should tell you something.
But, oh well, who am I to question the unfathomable wisdom of federal judges or the ever-so-rapidly "evolving constitution"?

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1486308' date='Mar 27 2008, 11:40 PM']Ok, seems we agree on that point. I wasn't perfectly clear where you stood regarding the Constitutional issue.
I don't think there is such a clear-cut distinction between laws regarding morality, and laws not regarding morality, and you have not really given any reason why you think the law should be divorced from moral principles. I believe law can never entirely be divorced from moral principles - which is a modern liberal notion our forefathers would have balked at.

"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” ~ John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." ~ Charles Carroll - (Catholic) signer of the Declaration of Independence

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” ~ James Madison [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” ~ George Washington
Do you believe government has the right to tax the incomes of citizens? To maintain building codes? Regulate the sale of any weapons? Impose any health or environmental regulations on businesses? Have seatbelt or helmet laws?
(Nt saying I support all those things, but just curious where you stand)[/quote]

Wow, a lot to digest here. Forgive the answers in list form...

1. I believe laws should maintain the safety of the public while protecting the freedom guaranteed to them prior to their codification in the Constitution. I believe in natural law and that the government's job is to protect your life, your liberty and your property while abiding by the limitations set forth in the Constitution.

Which brings me to my second point...

2. I believe that seatbelt and helmet laws are carp! I actually had an argument with my Constitutional Law professor the other day about this very issue. If I want risk my life and not wear a seatbelt while I'm driving or a helmet when I'm riding a bike, who can tell me to do otherwise? Why do state governments get to tell me how to live my life? It's my life, and if I am going to be stupid and risk it in such an idiotic manner, so be it. The same goes for those who would support laws banning smoking...GET OFF OF MY BACK! If I want to do it, I will.

3. State governments can trounce on our rights just like the federal government, except in a more specific way.

4. I agree that all laws assume a certain inherent morality, for in order for something to be "right" or "wrong," there must be a benchmark for which to examine issues. I just don't believe laws prohibiting an action between 2 consenting adults are legitimate. I fail to see how it endangers my physical or economic safety; however, I do see how it abridges the liberty of another.

My question to you, Soc, is why do you feel this law, and others like it, present a danger so great that we must prohibit the action?

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1486326' date='Mar 27 2008, 11:54 PM']An "implicit right to privacy" is certainly a vague thing, and is nowhere explicitely stated in the Constitution.
The fourth amendment rules against unreasonable search and seizure, but there's certainly absolutely nothing even implying an absolute and all-trumping "right to privacy" which means a person may do absolutely whatever he wants so long as it is of a "private" nature - including abortion and sodomy.
This notion of "implied privacy" is so vague and ill-defined that it seems that it can be used to justify almost anything.

The fact that this was not seen to be the case until the 1970s should tell you something.
But, oh well, who am I to question the unfathomable wisdom of federal judges or the ever-so-rapidly "evolving constitution"?[/quote]

I agree with your first point, that the Constitution is virtually mute on the subject of privacy. But I would assert that we have the right to expect the government to stay out of our houses (both in the literal and metaphorical sense) unless it has a just cause (i.e.- a warrant). This right comes not from the Constitution, for the document itself does not [i]confer[/i] rights, but rather [i]enumerates[/i] [b]SOME[/b] (not all) which exist prior to its creation.

Now, I do not believe that we have the "right" to kill someone "in the privacy of our own homes" because, of course, the laws of this country do not start and end on our doorsteps. Similarly, there is no inherent "right to privacy" when it comes to abortion for similar reasons. Murder is murder, no matter what the scene of the crime is--a street corner, a bedroom, a deli or a doctor's table.

Edited March 28, 2008 by kujo

[rkwright]

Edit: Double...

Edited March 28, 2008 by rkwright

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1486651' date='Mar 28 2008, 10:35 AM']2. I believe that seatbelt and helmet laws are carp! I actually had an argument with my Constitutional Law professor the other day about this very issue. If I want risk my life and not wear a seatbelt while I'm driving or a helmet when I'm riding a bike, who can tell me to do otherwise? Why do state governments get to tell me how to live my life? It's my life, and if I am going to be stupid and risk it in such an idiotic manner, so be it. The same goes for those who would support laws banning smoking...GET OFF OF MY BACK! If I want to do it, I will.[/quote]

We had this same discussion this week in my con law class also... Thus the topic being posted (we just finished up on substantive due process stuff).

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1486685' date='Mar 28 2008, 12:59 PM']We had this same discussion this week in my con law class also... Thus the topic being posted (we just finished up on substantive due process stuff).[/quote]

Haha. Have you studied economic substantive due process? If not, prepare to be lulled into a coma because that stuff, while important, is incredibly boring. And don't be fooled by names of cases like "The Slaughterhouse Cases"...trust me....there's no slaughtering....just limiting of working hours and minimum wages....

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1486691' date='Mar 28 2008, 11:04 AM']Haha. Have you studied economic substantive due process? If not, prepare to be lulled into a coma because that stuff, while important, is incredibly boring. And don't be fooled by names of cases like "The Slaughterhouse Cases"...trust me....there's no slaughtering....just limiting of working hours and minimum wages....[/quote]

Yea we started with those ones... actually I got behind and didn't read slaughterhouse, but we read Lochner... I think we had one other one I'm forgetting the name of...