With the issue of Sunday alcohol sales on the table at the Board of Aldermen meeting, the question of “Can we legislate morality?” will inevitably arise. Bible-beaters will hover, and restaurateurs will swarm, but in the end I hope the Starkville decision-makers realize this decision is not a question of morality.
Surely a group of legislators can contrive laws that reflect their personal moral codes, but imposing these laws upon other people is akin to the explanation that my parents gave me when I was younger and would question their orders: “Do it because I said to do it.” A legislative body doesn’t have the power to bring morality to the people, and it’s silly to think legislation has any purpose other than protecting the best interests of the people and the state, by extension.
I must say that the fuss about Ward 4 Alderman Richard Corey’s proposed change to the city’s alcohol ordinance finally provided the means necessary to make this issue crystal clear to me. The primary purpose of the law is to ensure that citizens do not infringe on one another’s rights, which has nothing to do with morality.
Think of this as it relates to an issue such as murder: do we make murder illegal because it’s immoral, or because one person infringes on another’s right to life by killing them? Indeed, if we were a nation of such great morals as to disallow killing on a purely moral ground, then we would not be engaging in any wars or allowing the death penalty to exist. Instead, we make judgments based upon rights. That is, if you are in favor of the death penalty, then perhaps you have judged the criminal to have forfeited his or her right to live when he or she committed the crime and took away the other person’s right to life.
The problem with this idea is that there is not a consensus on which rights each American citizen is guaranteed and, in the case of conflicting interests, which citizen’s rights supersede another’s. For example: lying under oath is illegal because in that situation people and institutions have been guaranteed the “right to the truth.” However, lying to your parents is not illegal because they haven’t been guaranteed the same right. In both instances lying can be considered immoral, but the exact same act is illegal in only one of those circumstances. Lawfully, should lying to your friends or family carry the same penalties as perjury?
Furthermore, the debate over an issue like gay marriage confounds me. How can we consider ourselves a supreme moral arbiter, capable of passing judgment on a relationship between two consenting adults? (I know I am too busy trying to keep my own life on track to even think about where others are faltering morally or otherwise.) Is it not an infringement of the rights of the homosexual couple not to allow them to share their lives together based on some moral precept held by a portion of our country’s citizenry, but with no basis in protecting anyone’s rights?
Juxtapose the three ideas presented in the preceding paragraphs and see if “HYPOCRISY” is not written all over it. In the first instance, we are legislating based upon the protection and retention of a person’s inalienable rights. In the second instance, the letter of law implies that morality has no bearing upon our legal system, whereas in the third instance, we find legislation based solely upon the so-called morals of the people.
That is why in the case of Sunday alcohol sales, as in any instance, we should not let our so-called morality color the decisions produced by our local government. Accordingly, it troubles me deeply to see citizen Dorothy Isaac quoted as saying, “It’s just not morally right for our youth, it’s not morally right for those who want to attend church,” in response to questions about why she opposes Corey’s proposed change to the city’s ordinance.
This is not an issue of morality. If you believe that getting drunk on Sunday is immoral, then surely you believe that the same is true on any other day of the week. Why then do you not voice support for the outlawing of all alcohol sales? How does one citizen’s right to purchase alcoholic beverages on Sunday infringe on another citizen’s right to go to church? How does voting down Sunday alcohol sales send the correct message to our youth? Wouldn’t that sanctimonious decision imply that it’s acceptable to hold half-heartedly to your own moral code? Should this decision not be based upon the best interests of all involved (and not on one person’s so-called moral judgment)? Perhaps you believe that we should all become perfect human beings capable of deciding those things that are right and wrong for our peers, based simply upon our own perceptions and ideas?
Perhaps you, dear reader, think that it’s OK to pass legislation based upon your morals (especially if it’s your cultural group that is currently in power). However, remember that morality is a blanket of a thousand colors. If we are basing our ever-changing laws upon the morals of certain cultural groups, then we can also expect those laws to change as power shifts to other groups, and those groups begin to impose their morality upon us.
Of course, the other option is to rely upon the relatively stable idea of making laws that protect the rights of the each citizen both from the government and from other citizens.
I know which one I prefer. What about you?