Legislating Morality.

You are a loyal buyer of Ford. In your eyes, no other company could possibly make cars the way Ford does—sleek, shiny cars built to be aerodynamic and long-lasting. You’d never buy anything but a Ford, and you can’t imagine why everyone else doesn’t share your opinion. Your best friend always buys Toyota—what’s with that? But while you will certainly try to talk your friend into buying a Ford instead of a Toyota, you’d never dream of legally limiting her car-purchasing options. Though you can’t imagine anyone making the choice your friend made, you recognize that she has different, though still valid, opinions than you. An individual’s personal choices, therefore, should never legally limit another person’s individual choice.

A car analogy makes this principle seem relatively simple, yet citizens all over America try to limit personal choices for other people each and every day. Apparently, when it comes to same-sex marriage, all bets are off.

I believe that one of the fundamental problems with the same-sex marriage debate-- though there are several key issues-- is the question of whether or not this a country where we legislate the choices of others. Once upon a time, in a high school history class, I heard a quote from James Madison-- that his right to express his anger with his fist ended where the other man's face began.

The idea is relatively simple: we are allowed our choices and our decisions and our opinions, insofar as they do no harm to another person. We can express displeasure at the customer service of a large corporation, but we cannot go so far as to inflict damage through slander. Similarly, in this country, we can believe virtually anything we like.... as long as it doesn't aversely affect another.

Same-sex marriage ought to fall into this category. Why did we attempt to legislate it in the first place? Another's morality shouldn't necessarily be considered a good reason. Should we, can we, attempt to legislate morality? 

I've heard arguments that morality is merely distinguishing what's right and what's wrong-- and that all laws legislate morality as they set a legal standard for "right" and "wrong", but it seems to me that this argument misses the point. The point is this: should we attempt to tell an entire culture or group of Americans what to do, simply because we wouldn't do it? Should I tell you not to wear jeans because I find them atrocious? Or, better yet, is it my right to tell you (and this is what parallels the situation) that you can't date someone... becuase I wouldn't? How is that okay? When it comes down to it, same-sex marriage laws are too often decided on one group's insistence on morality, rather then the group's needs and the individual's rights.

We have separation of church and state for a reason. I believe Austin Cline sums up the legislating morality based on faith issue very nicely:

"Having a Christianity-based reason for a law is fine, but if that's all you have then you shouldn't vote for it. To become law, there must be some secular reason as well.

"The claim 'we shouldn't legislate morality' doesn't mean 'we shouldn't legislate anything for which there might be a moral argument.' This is much the same as noting that 'we shouldn't legislate Christian beliefs' doesn't mean 'we shouldn't legislate anything for which someone might happen to have a Christianity-based argument for supporting.' What is meant by such claims is that if there is only a religious/moral argument on behalf of the law, then it shouldn't be passed. If there is also some other, secular/civil reason for the law, then maybe it is a good idea."

(If you want to read more of this article, click here.)

I'm sorry. We don't all buy Toyota. In the United States, the beauty of the system is supposed to be about freedom of choice. So stop trying to make us live in your boxes. Some of us don't like your brands, and some of us don't like your gender norms and morality complexes and ALL OF US hate your interference. It's time to get back on the right track.