I don’t like caviar; tried it, but I hate it - nothing you could do or say would make me eat the stuff - it’s horrible, even the idea of eating it makes me shudder.
But if other people wish to enjoy it, how and why should that be any of my concern, or the concern of my elected government; its not as if the act of other people eating caviar is forcing me to do anything I don’t want to.
It would be quite juvenile of me, I think, to try to insist that the consumption of caviar is objectively disgusting.
Good point, mangetout - and, apart from the PETA crowd and their ilk, I doubt anyone would make a case for legislation against consumption of caviar.
But if the ideals of PETA were to take sail in, say, New Hampshire, and the idea of eating animal-derived products were seen as out-and-out immoral to a vast majority of the state, I think the voters of New Hampshire should have the right to say, “We don’t condone the cruelty to fish that is inherent in the production and consumption of caviar; thus, it is illegal in New Hampshire to sell or possess roe, except for humane purposes.”
Drug use, or prostitution, present slightly different, yet analogous, cases. While you could well say, as we did about caviar, that consuming drugs or paying for sex is something that is not the concern of government, other, reasonable people would disagree, pointing out the legitimate state government interest in controlling or eliminating drug use or prostitution.
But for drug use, prostitution, and caviar consumption, I say there is no federal constitutional right to engage in any of those practices. A state may - as Nevada has - decide to legalize one of those activities. Although I hope it never comes to pass, a state may decide to criminalize caviar-consumption. But in each case, it’s the state’s call - not the federal government. Admittedly, the feds have reason to get involved when the practice in question affects interstate commerce, as both drug use and possibly caviar may do.
Each state has the right to draw the “moral” line where it sees fit. Those states that lean towards homosexuality as being immoral should have the right to limit the practice of sodomy. Society and its mores differ from location to location and what may seem like an archaic law to us may seem reasonable to that sect. We should and can judge that sect based on our veiws, but there is nothing we can or should do unless we happen to be part of that sect and are involved in the decisions. That is part of the reason why this nation is great. Everyone has the right to make stupid decisions and everyone else has the right to criticise these decisions. State rights are very important to the overall value of our freedom in this country. Allow these states to make dumb laws and allow them to ammend them - that is the what this country is about. If they choose to not change the law then that is up to the disagreeing voters in that state to challenge the elected officials that made that decision.
We live in structured societies, these societies have morals, we need to follow the morals of the majority. Where we draw the line between public and private actions is a line that each society can draw. Allowing people to drift away from the morals of the majority will facilitate the breakdown of that society.
The Constitution is a guide that sometimes has general parameters that can be interpreted differently from state to state.
This is why we must continue to allow states the right to make their own laws no matter how foolish we think they are.
All laws enforce morality. If you believe that laws should not try to control private sexual activity, then make that distinction. But to say that the state has “no right to enforce morality” is absurd. Think about that for a moment.
That is my whole point, maybe clumsily worded, that each state “CAN” enforce morality. Whether or not states (or local societies) choose to be more invasive and regulate sexual activity is also up to them.
NOT all laws enforce morality, think about that for a moment.
Question for you, whuckfistle: I agree (in very general terms) that states have the right to decide what constitutes unacceptable behavior within their bounds. But in your exposition you suddenly jumped from “state” to “sect” and then back – is it your contention that if and when a religious group attains majority status in a state, they are then entitled to legislate the moral precepts that they as a religious group hold to as binding on all residents of the state?
Your second criterion sets up an interesting situation. Are you arguing that a law outlawing homosexual sex acts would be acceptable since it is possible that a homosexual might contract AIDS through unprotected homosexual sex (thereby committing a crime in some states), and then have to rely on Medicare or Medicaid to provide for health care services (thereby relying on assistance the state is obliged to provide)? Doesn’t it follow that homosexuals would then be ineligible for any form of public assistance? I think that’s an even bigger equal protection problem.
I disagree, in fact I think that’s bordering on a slippery slope argument - are homosexuals more likely to commit acts of theft, murder, slander etc just because they are homosexuals? I think not.
Excellent point, but if local pressure creates local ordinance to ban activity outside your parameters would that be acceptable?
Say a certain communty was loaded with people that believed that wearing shorts was immoral. Should that law be upheld in that community?
Polycarp — Sect meant "sections of the state ". Sorry.
And to answer your question, I believe separation of church and state prevails here. Even tho it is somewhat mushy. But if enough people voted like minded to elect politicians who then pass legislation that dictates moral precepts based on the views of the general religious attitude of the state, I don`t have a problem with that. I may not want to live in that state. Of course, we would hope that extreme views would have to pass the muster of the state and federal courts.
I believe plnnr`s response is directed at MANGETOUT.
Here in the Kingdom of Butter, Healthcare is provided by the state, certainly the state can argue that it has an interest in discouraging individuals from acts which might be deleterious to their health and cause them to become a burden on the system. I was thinking of dangerous narcotics in this context, rather than homosexuality.
AIDS is available to all, regardless of orientation, so I don’t see that as bringing homosexual activity under the second criterion.
I don’t think so, unless a sound case could be made that innocent third parties were somehow at risk of harm by people wearing shorts in the privacy of their own homes.
In short, I believe the law should be there to protect us; in what way do I need protecting from sexual activity between two consenting adults that I am not even aware of?
Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for people being able to insist “It’s wrong for me to do X” or “It’s wrong for you to do X to me”, I just don’t see any good reason for people to be able to enforce “YOU must not do X” (subject to the above 2 conditions, of course).
Personally I think that bridge is a dull game; you’ll never convince me otherwise, but if you want to play it, why should I stop you?
Everyone has their own line drawn in there head as to what is moral and what is not. Why not let the voters decide where that line is. If they decide to allow homosexuals the freedom to pursue their sexual activities then let it be. If they tell me I cant park a purple car in front of my neighbors house then I wont. Keeping in mind that each decision would have to stand up to the constitution and the courts.
MANGETOUT ----- If homosexual behavior if deemed unnacceptable in that community and local pressure is asserted on the offenders I don`t think they would want to live there.
Whether that pressure is right or wrong is up to us to debate. But that community should have the right to enforce pressure if they choose. The person whom the pressure is being applied also has the right to protest and get local laws changed, but not to the point that they are then infringing on the rights of the majority of that local. The majority have the right to live in a community that shares their views. The minority has the right to grieve but not to the point that it affects the majority.
Unless I miss my guess, the reason that Texas and other states have laws against sodomy (the issue at hand in the OP) is that the legislatures in session at the time of the adoption of the laws felt that such acts (“crimes against nature” I believe is the euphemism) were immoral (in their view, against the morality of the majority of the population). A violation of the law, by definition, would be seen as a violation of the morals of the state.
Using your criteria, if homosexuals violate the morals of the state, and as a result of that activity have to be provided public assistance (in my example, medical care provided through tax dollars), the state is justified in making homosexual acts illegal. At least that’s what happens when I follow the criteria you’ve set forth for determining when a state can be justified at regulating morality.
I have a little states’ rights question - what about those people who are too young to vote, or too poor to move? What about the disenfranchised people who cannot, for whatever reasons, leave the state they are in that persecutes them, or cannot, for whatever reasons, make a movement to change the laws in that state in which they reside?
I also question the “morality of the majority” when it enacts and/or enforces laws that take away basic human rights - like being able to have consensual sex with the person of your choosing.
States do not have a right to enforce religious morality, and homosexuality is “immoral” in no other sense then a religious one. The right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” can be abridged only if the pusuit of happiness in some way harms or infringes on the civil rights of others. Since private sexual behavior between consenting adults harms no one, infringes on no one else’s rights and can not be shown to have any deleterious effect whatever on the community, the state cannot legally forbid it. The only “moral” justification would be religious, and then you have a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
The majority is irrelevant here. The first amendment is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What if a majority decides that interracial marriage is “immoral?” Does a state have the right to forbid it? What if a majority Muslim community were to outlaw the consumption of pork? Is that ok too?
Furthermore, the Texas law applies only to homosexual “sodomy” (can’t we retire that word, please? It IS the 21st century is it not?). This violates equal protection. you cannot forbid an act for one group of people and allow it for another. (imagine a law that said that Jews can’t get blow jobs. This is no different.)
If everyone agrees that “whats done behind closed doors doesnt hurt me” is acceptable, then this discussion is over. But not everyone believes this, that is why this debate will never go away. It must be left up to the individual governing bodies to decide this. What works in Seattle may not work in D.C. What works for you may not work for me. Some areas of the country are more liberal and some are more conservative. You cant blanket them under the same laws. That is why states should be allowed to decide on their own, with the power to create laws trickling on down to the local level. With the acceptance of the courts and the constitution as Ive said.
Esprix ----- the word “consensual” is very different from state to state, wich furthers my side of the arguement.
Diogenes ---- are you saying that people with no religious affiliation can not make a determination whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral???
“states’s rights” means “things the federal government can’t keep the states from doing” just like “civil rights” means “things the government can’t keep the people from doing”.
“making or not making a state law about prostitution” is something the feds can’t forbid the states to do, just like “free speech” is something the feds can’t forbid the people to do.
Sure, I personally would like to have the feds tell the states that they can’t criminalize abortion, sodomy, firearms etc., but I don’t want the feds telling the states that they must criminalize drugs and other ‘victimless crimes’, have school prayer and teach creationism, have sales tax, have a certain speed limit, etc…
Its a trade off between wanting the states to do the right thing versus not wanting the feds to have any more power than necessary.
As a libertarian, presumably you don’t think the federal govt. should be allowed to tell the people what to do anymore than is necessary. So why should the federal govt. be allowed to tell the state legistators to do? Should the federal govt. be allowed to initiate force against the state governments (and the people who run them)?