From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 21:55:39 BST
Hi All,
Here in the U.S. the Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 decision recently struck
down the law in Texas that criminalized sodomy. Being the highest court in
the land, the decision made similar laws in other states besides Texas
null and void. In effect, the Court has made the practice of sodomy a
Constitutional right, superseding all state laws that would say otherwise.
Critics were quick to point out that nowhere in the Constitution can one
point to right to sodomy just as one cannot find in that document a
general right of privacy.
State laws are enacted by representatives of all the people of the state.
When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it becomes the law of all states,
enacted by the number of justices voting to make a majority decision, in
the case of the right to sodomy, six individuals.
Texas argued that preserving the majority's sense of morality was a
legitimate state interest. But the Supreme Court disagreed, stating in
effect that public morality is not a sufficient basis to sustain a law,
raising the possibility that state laws against bestiality, incest,
prostitution, and polygamy, enacted for no other reason than to promote
the majority's moral views, could likewise be overthrown as
unconstitutional.
Of course, the paradox is that the justices in striking down sodomy laws
used their own morality. Instead of permitting the public to enforce its
moral views, the Court has taken upon itself the role of final moral
arbiter.
Was the Court's decision correct according to the MOQ? Here we see a
biological value, sodomy, in conflict with a social value (social mores)
with a bit of intellectual values (individual rights) thrown in.
For myself, I don't see social restrictions against sodomy to be a threat
to higher intellectual values. And I think the public through its
democratically elected representatives should be able to establish laws
that reflect the morals of the majority rather than have a six or seven
individuals decide such matters, provided intellectual values are not
obliterated by any state in the process. Finally, keeping lower biological
forces in check by law is legitimate moral function of society.
But, I could be wrong, and would be most interested to see how you would
apply MOQ principles to this controversial matter.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 02 2003 - 21:53:43 BST