From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 22:49:30 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
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
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 - 22:50:18 BST