You don't have to leave your morality at the capitol steps

[posted with permission from the author] Legislative information letter distributed 4/16/07 before the HB 2007 and SB 2 votes in the house.

Legislators, voters:

I hope it is not too late! Do not be deceived. Many of you know who I am talking about when I say that there is a great deceiver, well that deceiver is working today in an argument being made at our legislature. Many extreme social liberals in our society and our state are trying to remove morality from the public square. But they are using a deceptive and untrue argument. This cannot continue! Why?

Follow me on this, this is not a simple concept. It is physically impossible to completely separate the moral reasons you support a policy from the social or other reasons you support that public policy. Thus, the government cannot force you to abandon your personal morality in your decision-making. Your personal morality will always have some impact on every evaluation that is a part of your decision-making.

Furthermore it is not legal for the government to force you to abandon morality in your consideration of policy. The first amendment to the United State Constitution guarantees that your right to free exercise of your religion will not be prohibited. This includes exercising your religion by evaluating the morality of personal choices on a daily basis. (this is aside from your free speech right to say what you believe). So if you are a legislator, it is both not possible, nor legal for you to be forced to abandon your moral precepts that guide your decision-making. In fact you have sworn an oath to act in the way that you believe is best. If the best solution includes considering moral, social, economic factors then so be it. That is your obligation as a legislator.

Some liberals, including the liberals formerly on the US Supreme Court have tried to argue that morality reasons are not a rational basis for making a law. (Arguably the holding in Lawrence vs. Texas from 2003) The fallacy of the logic in that part of the holding was pointed out in the 3 dissenters opinion. For over 200 years now the U.S. has based many, if not most, of our laws in part on the moral reprehensibility of some acts. (Murder, stealing, public nudity, gambling, etc.) The U.S. Supreme Court's logic in Lawrence has been rejected by major Federal Courts reviewing morality based law since, and at least 58 major cases have declined to use that weak logic. (read the opinions and focus on this one argument if you don't believe me). The fact of the matter is that moral considerations comprise at least a part of almost every decision that a legislator or person makes.

Thus it is both impossible, and illegal for our government to try to force YOU as a legislator to remove your morality from your vote. This is being sent to you as one of the a legislators in Oregon so that you will know that you do not have this ‘excuse’ for not following whatever morality you say you have in the upcoming votes on SB 2 and HB 2007. And the voters like myself, will watch, and see if the morality you claimed to follow during your campaign corresponds to the way you vote on this issue.