There is a common phrase that “you can’t legislate morality.”  Here I will touch on why this is no longer the case.

In conversation with my wife the other day I defined myself as a libertarian (small ‘l’). The thought then raced through my head that in saying I am a libertarian I in no way want to be associated with Libertarians as there is no liberty in killing the unborn.

So I got to thinking.  Do I really believe in liberty?  Do I really believe that people should be able to do as they please as long as it doesn’t harm or intrude on anyone else?  — That has always been my definition of liberty.

Merriam-Webster gives us:

lib·er·ty
Pronunciation:
\?li-b?r-t?\
Function:
noun

1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice

Perhaps here it is defined in the view of the individual and not a group.  Certainly if someone can do anything they please, there is the potential for the people around them to not be free or have liberty.  Without a context of freedom and rights, this definition makes no sense.

So where do we get “freedom” and “rights”?  From Thomas Jefferson’s pen we know that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

From the Declaration of Independence we understand that these rights, which cannot be taken away, are from our Creator.  Certainly as our lives have been created we have the right to pursue those lives unobstructed.  I say unobstructed because if your pursuit of life and happiness forcibly takes life or happiness away from others, we no longer have common liberty.

So what if your neighbor’s pursuit of happiness is to have homosexual relations in his front yard in plain sight?  Or yell obscenities only when children are near?  Should one’s own pursuit of happiness include a constant effort to shield your family from the pursuit of others?  Or is there a common ground?
It is well known that John Adams stated:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

So what is a “moral and religious people”?  And why did he yoke the two together inseparable?

Again Merriam-Webster tells us:

mor·al
Pronunciation:
\?mo?r-?l, ?mär-\

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment e: capable of right and wrong action

and

re·li·gious
Pronunciation:
\ri-?li-j?s\

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

So what Adams was saying is that the structure of government defined in our constitution only works if the people under the government know the difference between right and wrong and are held to judgment for actions under an ultimate reality (in some cases God).

So where does this leave us with our homosexual neighbor or the profanity slinger?  Are their actions right or wrong?  And who is to decide?  What is the ultimate measure of right and wrong?

For those who believe in the Pentateuch or Torah  the Ten Commandments are a guide.  For the Christians, Jesus narrowed the commandments down to:

36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

But where does an atheist or agnostic get any sense of morality?  The answer is they don’t.  At least they don’t necessarily have a sense of right and wrong that is generally accepted.  Since they don’t answer to an ultimate reality they are allowed to create their own morality.  Since creating your own sense of right and wrong wouldn’t necessarily adhere to any principles or morality, I’ll call their morality pseudo-morality.  Without an ultimate reality, those with a pseudo-morality require that the government step in to serve the role of judge.  It is for those without God that we need to create legislation to define morality. How else would we protect the liberty of others from the pseudo morality of the homosexual neighbors.

In considering liberty and legislation, it is out of morality that we do not do that which may impose on the liberty and pursuit of happiness for others.  The moral person knows not to drive twice the speed limit while drunk because this may impose on the pursuit of happiness for others.  However, the pseudo-moral could claim they receive all their happiness from such actions.  Firing a weapon into a crowd may not injure anyone; however, there is the chance it would and we need to legislate to control those without the moral compass to know this is wrong.  If the government requires $10,000 per year per person to meet its obligations, who would pay this tab?  Only those who felt morally obligated would submit their taxes without legislation.

So with regard to the phrase you can’t legislate morality: if one is not to legislate morality, what else would one legislate? And it is true that we can not have liberty without a defined morality for all.