Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dknv
i.e. 'laws to uphold moral beliefs' - or, 'Once someone is required to believe and act in a way that they didn't choose, we're no longer a free country.':
Purely & simply, we're already NOT a free country if this is the definition of free. There are some good reasons why certain laws need to govern the morals of our society, even if those laws intrude on some of the population's freedom to choose. For example, you cannot be legally married if you are under the age of majority (in most cases). In some other countries this is the accepted norm. in this case, a 'moral majority' has decided what is best for the benefit of the many.
|
You are correct... a "totally free" society would have no laws and would simply be anarchy. Now if people could control themselves 100% of the time, then this would be fine. But that's not reality.
To me the difference between what should be limited by law and what should be self-limited by morals is how an act effects others. I should legally be allowed to smoke, drink, cuss, act like an ass, worship the devil, eat raw sticks of butter, cheat on my girlfriend, paint my house orange, and wear black socks with shorts. All those things only effect me (except perhaps in extreme circumstances) so I should be allowed to choose for myself how to live. I don't do those things because I've decided that's not how I want to live my life... making those decisions are morals.
Let's apply this to the gay marriage issue:
If I believe that gay marriage is wrong or right, that's my own moral decision, and I can choose to either participate or not in a gay marriage. However, to make it a law one way or the other is wrong, because it tells people how to live their lives when the alternative effects only those involved.
My rights end where yours begin, so to speak. Since marriage is between me and whoever I marry, why should the government have any say in who I marry. Now if I want my marriage to be recognized by my church, that's a different story, I will have to abide by the churches rules, but that's certainly *not* a legal issue for the government.
Back to your example of underage marriage... you make a good point that "the majority" does decide things along moral lines. You could certainly make a valid argument that because of the fact that people under 18 have hobbled rights, we are erroding the freedom of everyone. And I would agree with that argument fundamentaly. But also, as you mentioned, our society is not so idealistic as to endanger our children by letting them run loose w/o legal control of a parent, or by letting them hitch up with some pedifile because he's talked them into marriage. It's certainly a compromise, but because this compromise, and many others I'm sure, have been made does not mean we should stop being vigilant in attempting to prevent the cooersion of the Constitution.