…and keeping in mind that I’m speaking in general, not necessarily about the “gay marriage” thing (and further keeping in mind that I barely believe in straight marriage as it’s currently done, much less the gay variety), let’s try a little thought experiment.
The next time someone offends you, carry out an honor killing (whatever your ethnic background, it’s probably been part of your culture at some point in the near or distant past).
See how very much we do legislate morality. And pretty damn successfully.
Honor killing is an integral part of many cultures’ version of “morality” even today (and most cultures, if you go back far enough). Ours, recently (as in “within the past 100 years” in some parts of the country) decided it’s not any more. And they legislated it.
Ditto owning slaves, or having multiple spouses – although there’s no logical reason we won’t have the latter back within a generation.
That slogan “you can’t legislature morality” has always bugged me.
Somewhat similiar. Arizona passes a law (not signed or vetoed yet) that says a business person can refuse to particapate in an activity if it goes against her religious beliefs. Christian photographer can refuse to work at a homosexual wedding. Black baker can refuse to cater to a cross burning rally. ALL of MSM runs this headline: “Arizona passes anti-gay law” or “Arizona passes law that says businesses can refuse to serve gays”.
And NFL says they will look at cancelling Arizona super bowl if law is signed.
How does are side win when all of MSM and the big institutions are ultra-left wing?
That slogan bugs me, too. It seems to me that we Always legislate morality, specifically, the prevailing morality of a majority of the lawmakers present and voting.
In 1860, the legislators were overwhelmingly Protestant Christians so when they passed laws to create an orderly society, the marriage law reflected their belief that one-man-one-woman marriage was the correct way to organize and structure that society.
In 2013, the prevailing morality of the majority of the lawmakers present and voting had shifted so the law changed. What previously had been illegal because it was immoral, became legal, moral and probably all too soon, mandatory.
I believe that morality is just another qualitative word that is used when the user wants enough wiggle room to prevent being locked into an answer.
“Good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong” are deemed too judgmental and require the user of those words to take a stand, so they are rarely used. Even the most heinous criminal, when apologizing or expressing remorse, is considered to be sufficiently repentant when they show regret for their “wrong choices” or for making “bad decisions.”
“We don’t dare judge” (or similar) is another. When discussing some misdeed or activity, the politically correct speaker will toss such a phrase in occasionally to show moral neutrality. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that …” Of course such moderation need not be used if the issue relates to something of a conservative, Christian, or American nature.
Minnesota State Statute 609.2245 has always struck me as a bit of cultural insensitivity, too …
Honor killing can be legislatively dealt with because it involves behavior and action, same with slavery. But moral issues that are also controlled by natural law cannot be.
Leftists can force the appearance of homosexual normalizing on society through election fraud and the courts, sure, but educated (those familiar with human biology), and yes, morally opposed people will never accept it as legitimate.
You can create laws that seek to have an affect on morality, but you really can’t legislate it. That’d be thought crime, and as much as that might appeal to the left, it’s not feasible…yet.