The barbarians are at the gate. With a socially conservative voting block delivering a majority of electoral votes on a consistent basis, a change of position is vital for our survival.

The solution for Democrats is that communities should be activist in making laws that reflect and uphold their moral standards but that it is not the right of the federal government to force all Americans to accept a moral standard that is not commonly held by all Americans. Philosophically speaking, we need to apply federalism to the problem of moral diversity in America.

Background: The word "Morality" became a dirty word among democrats and this is the primary source of their devastating defeat. For most liberals, “Morality” is a red flag for intolerance. Mr. Bush and Karl Rove were only too happy to oblige and take ownership of the term. If you listen to the subtext of what they were saying during the Kerry Edwards campaign, it permeated everything. If you were for Kerry, you did not have the kind of absolute confidence in your convictions that puritan Christians do, if you were for Kerry, you centered your actions on thought not belief. Democrats didn't have any problem with these assertions, and most take pride in these distinctions, not realizing how their cultural viewpoint was alienating a diagonal cross-section of the American public including many within their own base of support.

As a non puritanical, non fundamentalist Christian, I see a culture war raging in the US, that has largely been dismissed as a slogan of the right. It is no slogan.

The democrats have been blindsided by a movement that they have had every warning about during the last 4 years.

The movie the Passion was an unnoticed early warning of the political strength of a movement that the Democratic Party has shut out of its broad umbrella. I feel a general hostility among democrats towards people of faith. I participated heavily in Kerry's campaign, but I am also a member of a church that for the most part voted for Bush. I think I am pretty well exposed to both extremes of the political spectrum.

When Mel Gibson's movie The Passion came out, I could not understand the ferocity of the critics against the film. As a Christian, I simply did not understand what they were so alarmed about. I understood all the minute details of the similarities of medieval plays but it was so irrelevant and disproportionate that I was dismayed.

The topping came when I was in one of my infrequent political discussions with my agnostic brother. His view of the world had changed significantly in the last years, believing that the problems of the world were caused by people for whom faith was a big portion of their lives- evangelical Christians and Wahabi Muslims lumped into the same pile. But what surprised me was that he extended his diatribe to all people of faith.

The costs of allowing the republicans to take ownership of the term Morality are only too clear to the democrats now. In the CNN exit polls, 41% of the voters who stated that they go to church at least once a week, voted for bush 61% to 39%. That is a staggering statistic.

Worldwide, there is no accurate model of the religious moderate. Moderates are made to feel wishy washy or insincere in their faith by their more extremist brethren. Wahabi Muslims deride their westernized brethren in Turkey as not true believers. Orthodox Jews deride the Reformed Jews as not serious about their faith. Evangelical Christians believe that that moderate Christian is an oxymoron. Most believe I am going to hell, whereas my religious belief is that they are the idol worshipers much more so than non-Christians.

Although religious moderates will ignore their normal party affiliation and vote for a national candidate based their support for a set of socially conservative policy positions, there is a political opening because they are also uncomfortable- even resentful of the tyranny of the zealots who define themselves as defenders of the faith. I know that the beliefs and practices of the fundamentalists are deeply antithetical to the teachings of the founders of my faith. Moderate Muslims are saying the same. Because the hard core Christians of Rove’s Base treat religious moderates with contempt, there is a political opportunity to win away this group of voters who hold social conservative positions.

The world is not being served well by politicians who do not have a political philosophy capable of representing diverse moral standards of behavior.

Here is the error. We do not have a robust political response for supporting moral diversity.

The solution is to apply federalism to the question of how we support a morally pluralistic society. Since we have a highly mobile society, if an individual believes that a state law is an expression of tyranny- either of moral bigotry or alternately, of moral relativists indifferent to the decay of society, then they have the option of moving to another community whose laws are more in conformance with their cultural point of view.

We see the political advantages, but is it philosophically sound? We accept that one of the glories of our constitution is that it can be interpreted for the best fit to each generation’s set of values. So we accept that the meaning of the constitution shifts over time, but then, why not also over space? This seems reasonable since there is an established precedent that constitutional protection of freedom of the press should be balanced against the definition of pornography by local communities. Laws are based on commonly accepted norms. We think that it is not socially acceptable for women to display their nipples in public and have laws supporting that standard. But a law requiring women to also hide their face is considered offensive to our common values of feminism, yet for some cultural perspectives, women displaying more than their eyes is akin to how we regard flashers. These views can be accommodated even if we think the beliefs that they are based on are incorrect. So long at they are not in conflict with matters of fact, or federally protected constitutional rights, it should be every Democrat’s position that laws should reflect broadly held values in the local community, but that federal policy and laws should not enforce their moral views on local communities.

What we have done as liberals is to elevate social standards to the national level which seek to enforce a morally relativistic viewpoint rather than a morally pluralistic viewpoint. In so doing we have alienated large numbers of our supporters. We have done it in the name of tolerance but it has in fact been intolerant of the socially conservative point of view of many of the state constituencies that we must have the support of.

The solution is to strip all policies from the national platform which fit this description and make them the default platform at the state level, which may be amended at the state caucus discretion.

Politically, the democrats are at a philosophical advantage because of the republican philosophical support for less, not more laws. Democrats will not simply tolerate laws reflecting the broadly held values in the local community, they will actively advocate them. In Nebraska, it may be felt that exposing children to portrayals of violence is in itself an act of violence. A national democratic candidates would be encouraged to go to states to help campaign for such a laws he supported based on his personal moral beliefs. This burnishes his credentials supporting socially conservative positions. In the context of national politics, he can be simultaneously portrayed as an activist but also not a person that people of other states should fear. He presents the point that since there is no national consensus on such a law, and it is not part of the national Democratic platform. (Subtext to ideological followers whether it is a moral issue from the right or left is to keep the faith baby- we are working on it state by state, etc.)

I’d like to point out finally, that that social conservatism is a misnomer. The mechanism that I supports both the moral positions of both the right and left. It is the simple position that we think the operation of our government should reflect our values. If we believe in San Francisco that heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles are equivalent choices, then our school system treatment of sex education and social studies should reflect that belief.

I welcome your comments and criticisms.

I don't think that the answer is local morality laws. Yes, we as a society are highly mobile, but we are also influenced by many other factors including needing jobs and housing. For many, if they are stuck in areas which would pass laws making their lifestyle illegal based on morals, moving would not be an option for them due to monetary concerns, employment options, and similar reasons.

Moreover, when such morality makes second class citizens of a group... whether by forcing them to cover their bodies, as in your example of muslim women, or by denying them marriage benefits for their unions as in the example of same-sex marriage... can this really be acceptable, even at a local level? If so, did we make a mistake in forcing the south to accept our morality and end slavery in America, against their own beliefs that negros bore the Mark of Cain and were destined for servitude and hardship? Or, if that was alright, did we make a mistake when we further forced desegregation and mixed-race marriages on all parts of the nation equally? What about banning books?

can you say REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY....

that DOES NOT MEAN MAJORITY RULE!

FURTHER...the founding fathers made it clear that "science and reason" were the ONLY APPLICABLE STANDARDS by which legislation was to be created.

Morality is an opinion...sorry...and it is grounded in neither FACT nor SCIENCE.

just the other day, I flipped thru a channel showing a gentlemen talking to one of the televangelists and giving him PROOF POSITIVE that MEN HAD WALKED WITH DINASAURS! Aint that amazing?

anyone not worried sick about the diseased minds (and their minions) who are now in control of our government .... ARE CERTAINLY NOT ACQUAINTED WITH FACT OR REASON!

This is a culturally bigotted point of view. Ok. Then are women second class citizens because men can go topless but women can't?

Again- you are using morality as a pejorative term in the same way that republicans use the term Liberal. Democrats have to knock this off.

What is being argued for is social standards. We have lots of such laws. What is Pornography? Why can't women display their nipples or genitaltia in public? Do women have a federal constitutional right to prostitution, or can states disallow it?

You are applying the word "Morality law" selectively only to the laws you happen to disagree with. Don't communities have the right to insist their local government and local laws conform to the values of the community? This is not just a defense of values you disagree with, but those you do agree with. Say you are living in San Franscisco, and most people in the commnunity regard homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles as equivalent. Say the local school administration ignores homosexuality in sex education and social studies. Don't you think it is the right of the local community to politically force that situation to be corrected, and come into conformance with the community's values?

Certainly, there are those who will be alienated by such a law. They will feel that they are being treated as second class citizens because they teach that homosexuality is forbidden by their beliefs, but the public schools paid for with their taxes are teaching something different.

Morality is not a pejorative term. Sorry.

Definition of pornography is an opinion too.

Making prostitution illegal is based on opinion that it is undesirable for society, not fact.

Making gambling illegal is based on opinion that it is undesirable for society, not fact.

What is your point- that all these laws are illegitimate because they are based on belief rather than fact?

Personally, I've always found that unfair. I see nothing inherently more sexual about a woman's breasts than about a man's chest. And, as a male, I rarely go topless unless in an environment where women are able to do the same.



I am not using it as a pejorative. I think it is good to have morals, but I do not think morals should be forced on others with the force of law, even at a local level, unless clear harm to the rights of others can be demonstrated.



Social standards are one thing, but some social standards inherently create inequality. If two males kissing were cited as pornography according to local morals, while a male and a female kissing was just romantic but them having sex was pornography, would you still support local pornography laws? Social standards which tell one group that they are inherently lesser in some way cannot be a positive thing in society.



No. I am applying the word "morality law" to those laws which define something as more or less virtuous, and support or ban it for no other reason than that. To the best of my knowledge, I oppose all such laws equally. I have never heard one I agree with, since I disagree with the premise underlying them: that it is the government's task to make its citizens virtuous through the force of law.



Not necessarily. Local communities would have supported slavery in the past, should they have the right to insist that local government and local laws conformed to that standard?



No, I don't. Letting local educational policy be so easily molded by local values would mean that many schools in the south would reject the study of evolution and replace it with creationism. It is to no one's benefit to be so insulated from outside thoughts. If the local community in san francisco feels that a portion of their children's education is being neglected, they have the right and responsibility to educate their children on homosexual sex and social studies themselves. Education does not stop when you leave the school building.



This argument is fallacious. Public schools would never teach that homosexuality is not forbidden by their beliefs. They would teach merely that it exists and is seen by some as an acceptable path in life. Perhaps also that it should be tolerated. Is this any worse than them mentioning in history class that Muslims exists in certain parts of the world, and that it is seen as an acceptable religion for some, and that it should be tolerated even if not accepted by Christianity?

Christians are not being treated as second class citizens by this example. Not adopting or endorsing the tenets of a particular faith above other faiths is not evidence of discrimination against it.

I don't know if that was LNAB's point, but I would agree with that statement.

Pornography is certainly an opinion. What some see as pornography, others see as simply a natural act. Why should one group get to define it over the other? Simply because there are more of them?

Likewise, prostitution... what gives us the right to tell someone that it is immoral for them to use their bodies to make money through a sexual act, and because it is immoral forbid it through law?

Likewise, gambling... what gives us the right to tell people they cannot wager on the outcome of games if they choose to use their money in such a manner?

We as a nation tried to legislate such morality with prohibition in the past... we tried as a nation to tell people it was wrong, immoral, to drink... we banned all liquor, because 60% of the country had decided that 40% of the country were wrong to drink.

Such laws only entice law-abiding citizens with differing values to break them, and lower respect for all laws.

Law cannot be based on so shaky a foundation as popular opinion. This is the very heart of why we have a constitution covering the areas that it is permissible for government to legislate, and explicitly forbidding its interference in all areas left unspecified. (And quite a few rights as well that it was specifically forbidded from encroaching on even in the areas within its jurisdiction.)

Jarandel- Are you recommending that the democrats take a libertarian philosophy? It's even more doomed than the present democratic platform of moral relativism.

You may feel that laws governing prostitution, gambling and nudity are unjust.

You are in the minority for nearly all states, but you have the freedom to pursue your beliefs in Nevada.

The position one way or the other taken at the national level should not be permitted.

What is this contention that laws should not be based on opinion? You can't be serious. They are created as a product of a political process. You must not mean what you literally wrote, because taken at face value, it is absurd.

You are asserting the primacy of the values of rationalism.



You must have missed the passage where I covered that in the opening topic: "So long at they are not in conflict with matters of fact, or federally protected constitutional rights, it should be every Democrat’s position that laws should reflect broadly held values in the local community, but that federal policy and laws should not enforce their moral views on local communities. "


No they couldn't. It is a fact that the evolutionary theory is not simply the dominant theory, there are no other credible alternate theories from the perspective of science. Certainly southern schools could teach the creationism theory so long as they did not say that it in any way conformed to standards of scientific method. It is not permitted to contradict facts. Let the republicans run on being anti empiricism and see how far they get.



It would not be permitted to prohibit this, since these are facts.

However, it would be permitted to require teachers to cover extensively the view held across many cultures and religions that homosexuality is regarded as an abomination. These are also facts.


This would be permitted, but recognise that it is a moral position. Would it be valid for democrats to require such statements of tolerance as a national educational policy? Although it is a value I share, I would say no- we have no right to impose this viewpoint on christican conservatives. They are treated as second class citizens nation wide when you do this. By limiting such intolerance to the state level, the tyranny of the majority in that state may be escaped by moving elsewhere. In a darwinian fashion, I think that those with such views will be economically punished for it, and this would impose a correction, but that is a sepculative observation and not part of my argument.


None of these issues are necessarily faith based. The acceptablity of homosexuality, prostitution, gambling, etc. are based on social values that a community's majority may or may not believe. If they believe in them, then it is their responsibility to make the local government conform to their values.

I know you would prefer that communities not be able to do this sort of thing, but I repeat my question: Don't communities have the right to insist their local government and local laws conform to the values of the community?

Your response was "not necessarily", but only brought up fallicious examples, such as unconstitutional slavery, or violations of fact.

Omitting these cases do you agree with the proposition? If not, why not.

Not exactly. A libertarian philosophy is one in which every individual is left alone to succeed or fail on their own merits. Libertarians would make no provisions to provide for the welfare of the citizens, and would believe that it is up to the individual to help themselves in all cases.

What I am recommending is returning to our founding principles. It's all in the declaration of independance, arguably our country's mission statement as the constitution is its bylaws.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Notice, the role of government is clearly defined as defending the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all of its citizens. Nowhere is the government charged with promoting morality, not even the morality of the majority of its citizens.



I hold a lot of minority beliefs. That really doesn't bother me... so did the people who founded this nation. Independence of a colony? It'd never been done before in the history of man, it was unthinkable. Free religion? Only in america! Dear gods, there shouldn't be slavery?? So unthinkable they would have to give up on that cause or risk losing american independence before it even happened. I'm fairly confident that the principles underlying my positions are the same which underlay theirs. So I'm also fairly confident that it is only a matter of time before our nation refines itself to the point where we reach that ideal.



If it violates rights at a federal level, why on earth would it not do the same on a local level? Moving somewhere else is all too frequently not a viable option.



I said that they should not be based on popular opinon. That is one of the reasons we have representatives rather than putting everything to a straight vote.

"Your representative owes you, not only his industry, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." -Edmund Burke

In the same way that judges render judicial opinions that carry the weight of law, representatives are called to render legislative opinions based on special knowledge, as that of an expert. This is hardly the same thing as popular opinion, which concerns beliefs or conclusions widely held but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

I say again, laws should not be based solely on popular opinion. Or else anything disliked by a mere 51% of the population may be banned, and 49% of the population made criminals if they continue to pursue their tastes.

Certainly. Last I heard, to be rational has ever been considered a virtue... to be irrational has not. Do you assert the primacy of the values of irrationalism, whatever those might be?



The problem is, their faith disputes facts. Their faith tells them homosexuality is a choice, for instance, when all scientific data indicates it is an orientation. Also, the rights protected by federal law are interpreted by each side in vastly different ways. You assume consensus in areas where there is far from it. Likewise, you ignore history: Loving v Virginia, Virginia cited quite a few examples of studies saying that mixed-race marriages wold have negative effects on children and society. (Very reminiscent of current studies which make similar claims with regard to homosexual marriage) If even basic scientific studies cannot be agreed on in matters like these, how do you suggest that allowing local moral laws would never encroach on matters of fact or basic rights?



You ignore the fact that they are already lobbying to remove the theory of evolution and replace it with creationism. They have fabricated the entire field of "creation science" specifically to poke holes in evolutionary theory and try to support their own religious views, and have demanded that it recieve AT LEAST equal time with the theory of evolution in the classroom. And in many cases have been successful in their lobbying.



Should it not also then be required for teachers to cover extensively the views held by many cultures that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or even that homosexual individuals are in some way special and have powers granted by the gods?

My real question, though, is why does the factual assertion that some people are homosexual and that homosexual couples exist require ANY corresponding cultural values statement regarding homosexuality... whether it is for, against, or balanced? Do we follow telling kids that some boys have a foreskin and some are circumsized with lengthy discussions of which is best? Is it discrimination against the abrahamic faiths to mention that some boys are uncut without mentioning that their faiths traditionally see this as unclean? Why does a values discussion about homosexuality have a place in sex ed, but not a values discussion about foreskins?



That makes no logical sense. Are Christians and other religions that feel theirs is the only path to salvation treated as second class citizens when we teach freedom of religion as a primary value this country was founded on? Teaching that one has to tolerate the choices of others does not mean one has to agree with them.



You assume with this argument that it is normal for people to have the means and opportunity to move whenever local morals become contrary to their own. What do you base this assumption on? In my experience, it is not that easy to just pick up and move... it involves money, time, finding new housing, job opportunities. In many cases, it's just not possible.



All of these are faith-based. They believe, without evidence, that these things are bad... they take it on faith that they are correct. It doesn't matter if it is a particular religion that says so or not, it is still based entirely on faith. That's just not enough to base a law on.



No, they don't. The purpose of government is to ensure rights for all, not to instill the values of the majority and potentially make 49% of the populace who disagree with them second-class citizens. We learned that morality cannot be legislated by our country's experience with prohibition... 60% of the poulation imposed their morality on 40%. Look how that turned out. Why do you think that is defensible so long as it is on a local level?



The thing is, slavery was never unconstitutional till our interpretation of the constitution was refined. Likewise, many other things we now take as rights, such as desegregation and the right to do whatever we want in the privacy of our own bedrooms. So my examples involving unconstitutional slavery was not fallacious, but relevant in that homosexuality may likewise be protected by the constitution when our interpretation of it is further refined to eliminate the prejudices inherent in popular opinion.

Likewise, my examples involving violations of fact were not fallacious, since they are occuring as we speak; and historically "facts" come down supporting both sides. People can always find "science" which agrees with their position. Prohibitionists cited science blaming alcohol for any number of ills. White supremicists cite facts that supposedly indicate blacks are an inferior race. Facts are not agreed on universally... they would and are being lobbied for change in many areas. Allowing local morals to be legislated as long as they don't conflict with facts is not a guarantee that they will not simply select the "facts" which agree with their opinions. They will, because they already are.

I have no problem with your state asserting the primacy of your values. But if you wish to impose those values on all states, that is tyranny. You see, there are alternate points of view other than your 17th century philosophy. I would hardly refer to more recent systems of thought that addressed the failings of Rationalism as irrational. Perhaps you would.

Your sort of smug condescension is not uncommon in the democratic party, but after getting our *asses kicked over social values, one wonders how much longer the democratic party can afford the luxury of such smugness.

The point is not that your philosophy is worse than others. It is simply that no one particular philosophical rationale should achieve primacy for choosing the social norms that are not acceptable to majorities in particular states.

The fact is that the Courts have recognized that states have a federally guaranteed constitutional right to legislate based on moral values (Milner v. Apfel, 1998).

You no doubt feel this is wrong.

You wish is that such issues not to be decided on a state by state basis, but in a winner take all game at the national level.

What does your game theory tell you about which side is going to win in the current political context?

Are you prepared to risk everything for your rationalist jihad? Are you prepared for the federal government to state that abortion is prohibited everywhere, or that gay marriage should be prohibitted everywhere in America?

Because that is exactly the outcomes that are risked if you accept that these battles should be fought at the federal level.

You are very clever at twisting words. From asking me if I promoted rationalism, small r, to acting as if I supported a 17th century philosophy bearing the same name, with a capital R.

To be rational is defined as having or exercising the ability to reason, being of sound mind, or being consistent with or based upon reason.

I don't know about you, but being reasonable, sane, and logical sound like virtues to me. And the opposite of rationalism is irrationalism. Which is defined as irrational thought, expression, or behavior; irrationality and as belief in feeling, instinct, or other nonrational forces rather than reason. These are basic matters of definition.

Reason; rationality... these are the hallmarks of a civilized society. It is hardly tyranny to expect them to be the standards our civilization adheres to. In fact, the very foundation of our society as a system of laws which are interpreted by judges and juries using principles of logic and reason to ascertain truth is based entirely upon rationalism.



I do not believe I am being smug, nor condescending. I fully support reframing our positions to better appeal to people of faith rather than alienating them. This essay is an example of my thoughts on that subject. However, I cannot support a tyranny of the majority over minority opinion, even if that tyranny is localized.



The problem for you is that rationalism has already achieved primacy... it is fundamental in our society. The rule of law is simply not possible without it. Due process, the burden of proof, the entire concept of proof itself... these are all founded on the ability of man to use reason to find truth.



Yes. As does the supreme court, which is why it was overturned in Lawrence v Texas, 2003. If states had a federally guaranteed constitutional right to legislate based on moral values, sodomy laws would have stood on those grounds.



My game theory tells me that it may take time, but our society always refines itself in the end rather than regressing. The side whose case is contingent upon imposing their values on others will lose as time passes. This is historical fact.



There are already elements trying to make exactly those things happen. I see no reason to split the arena of dispute into many smaller ones rather than tackling this issue as a national issue which affects all citizens regardless of where they live. I see no reason to abandon minorities in a given area to the morality of the majority. You yourself admit this is unconscionable at a federal level, why on earth do you think it's fine on a local level? And please, don't reassert that people can move, I've already addressed that and the fact is it's just not that simple to pick up and move.

"You are very clever at twisting words. From asking me if I promoted rationalism, small r, to acting as if I supported a 17th century philosophy bearing the same name, with a capital R."

I apologize for the misunderstanding. The primary sense of rationalism is exactly what I was refering to. Do a google on the term. Count how many pages of hits you have to go through of hits on the philosophical sense before you come to the psychological sense you mean.

If you wish to demonize people of faith as devotees of some pathological psychological state of irrationalism, then it is exactly this sort of exclusionary elitist attitude that the democratic party needs to distance itself from.

It is not tolerant of moral diversity.

Besides, you are arguing against a straw man. No one is advocating the abandonment of reason. You can't be serious that you don't see anything condescending about your attitude. What is the purpose of lecturing me on the role of reason in law? It's simply insulting, and has no place in an honest dialogue.

You believe that no state should have the constitutional right to legislate based on moral values.

You issued your constitutional ruling on the matter, but unfortunately you are not the supreme court.

The majority opinion of Lawrence made no mention of overturning Milner. You are making wild inferences. Milner stands.

Also- don't regard this as any kind of victory even for the narrow case of sodomy laws. O'Conner in her opinion stated that the law would have been constitutional were it not for the fact that it only applied to gays and therefore ran affoul of equal protection rights.

In view of Bush's opportunity to name up to 3 new justices, it is highly doubtful Milner will be weakenned or overturned.

But you are welcome to imagine otherwise. I would caution you that there are many good reasons to be optimistic about the future direction of the court.

I stated that Democrats should not establish morally contentious laws at the federal level because it is intolerant of moral diversity. The established principle being leveraged is that the laws of communities should be responsive to the commonly held values of the community. This is the principle for definition of pornography, and this is why certain practices like prostitution, gambling, easy access to liquor differ from state to state.

It's not like California or New York is suddenly going to start shutting down gay nightclubs or abolish abortion. And if constitutional liberties are not being trampled, what are you getting so steamed about? If they aren't constitutional liberties and they aren't important enough for you to move, then maybe they aren't so important after all.



Here are 3 reasons:

• Presidency in the hands of a born again christian
• Clear majorities in each house of congress
• Conservative Supreme court, trending more conservative with 3 to 5 potential appointments including liberals Stevens and Ginsberg

Google placement hardly indicates what the primary sense of a word is in the english language. May I recommend http://dictionary.reference.com instead?



You seem to assume that I am an atheist. I am not. In point of fact, I am pagan, and my own beliefs requires no less faith than any Christian. Just because someone is a person of faith, that does not mean that they feel they must force their morals on others, or that they feel their faith should be the basis of all laws.

The suggestion that this viewpoint excludes persons of faith is patently false, since I am one myself.



That is precisely what you argue for when you argue that we should base laws on morality rather than rationality.



I believe I have covered this sufficiently in target='_blank'>another thread.



O'Conner was one justice, and wrote a seperate opinion from the majority justifying her own vote on grounds of equal protection rights. The majority opinion, on the other hand, clearly said that "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. It is the promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter."



As I've said already, it's fairly clear that it already has been, despite your continuing assertions to the contrary.



It is intolerant at the state level too. Expecting people to pick up and move every time new moral legislation is passed if they disagree with it is just not realistic. You need to take into account money, job opportunities, housing availability and cost, health issues, schooling... the list goes on and on. In the past year, my own parents both had to move from New Jersey to Minnesota if my mother wanted to keep her job. They couldn't have afforded to take a moral stand such as you describe if Minnesota had laws discriminating against them. Actually, Minnesota is a great example of why your position is wrong: Minneapolis and Saint Paul are both very liberal cities, but the countryside is far more conservative... should either the cities or the countryside have the right to legislate statewide morality laws that affect city and countryside alike?



It's not a matter of whether or not they are "important enough" for someone to move, it has to do with whether or not one CAN move. I live in Virginia at the moment with my boyfriend and we certainly can't afford to move currently. It's just not practical to require people to move to different areas, and to allow states to legislate against law-abiding citizens purely on grounds of morality.



These may be disinheartening, and may make the struggle harder, but that is not a mandate for retreat to fight the battle locally. Much less a mandate to give up the battle save in places that are overwhelmingly in our favor.

Doing so, particularly on rights so fundamental to individual liberty as choosing one's own moral code to abide by, would be as heinous as mandating a return to a divided north and south over the morality of slavery.

I get it. Black people can't have racist attitudes about black people. And to think- you were lecturing me on the value of logic and reason. I make no such assumption about your affiliations. Your arguments matter. Your club memberships do not.

You have submitted your legal opinion and arguments against the constitutional right of the state to legislate with regard to social norms.

I pointed to the legal opinion which stated this.

You cannot point to any winning legal opinion which overturned that legal ruling.

You can believe what you want, but the law remains on the books. States are entitled to make thinks like polygamy, prostitution and gambling illegal.

You think such state laws are tyrannical infringements on liberty, and think that the democrats should run on a platform that opposes the rights of states to establish such restrictions.

You refuse to recognise that your position is intolerant of the moral diversity in America. Further, you are willing for the democratic party to be annihilated in elections in order to maintain your ideological purity. As a political trade off, you are willing to let Necons stay in power which very possibly will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranians or North Koreas, rather than allow states their historical rights of autonomy on moral questions.

Perhaps you need to rethink both your philosophy of PC intolerance as well as your political priorities.

I advocate the plural- common grounds, in order that Christians not feel that they are being attacked in a culture war. That is the subject of this thread. If localities do not have unwelcome beliefs thrust on them, they will not feel under attack. That is the very essense of this thread.

The situation in 1860 was due to racists in power on the court, not the language of the constitution. The language of the fifth ammendment says that no person should be imprisoned without due process. Read it. It says Person, not Citizen. Laws are only as good as the people entrusted to carry them out. The Supreme court had plenty of support for striking down slavery. They didn't either because of their economic or racist motivations.

Some argue the explicit language of the 14th amendment was unnecessary. The first Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that federal law trumped state law.



Sure it can. The Dred Scott decision was completely reversed. But in any case, the court would not have to reverse the entire ruling. They have already reversed the trimester portion of it. Other revisions could be made to render in inoperative so that the states may once again restrict abortion to the fullest extent.

In addition, an ammendment could be made to achieve the same impartial effect. It could simply state that the federal constitution takes no position on the issue of abortion, that it neither prohibits it nor confers a constitutional right of abortion. Neutral. No statement that it is illegal, no statement suggesting degrees of legality, no definition of personhood.



The 14th ammendment says that states can define or restrict any rights not in conflict with federal law or the federal constitution. If the Supreme court reverses the establishment of a constitutional right to abortion, then the state would be free to make laws banning abortion. The reason you have given why this is unacceptable is that the state would have too much power. You stated the measure of acceptable power is anything not restricted by the federal constution. After the Supreme court vacated Roe, it would not be in violation of the federal constitution, so your restriction is satisfied.

It appears you did not try very hard to investigate the means of achieving the goal of allowing abortion to be decided on a state by state basis.

Here I provided a scenario that neither violates Supreme court ruling, and does not require a new definition of personhood. States do not require constitutional arguments to make laws, and in this case, the constitutional argument of the rights of the fetus would be completely unnecessary for a law banning abortion either partially or completely.

All you can offer is that you think that the Supreme court does not have the power to alter or reverse Roe. This ignores the fact that the Supreme court is not infallible, that it has made a huge number of mistakes in the past, and it has frequently reversed itself either partly or entirely as in the case of Dred Scott.

It appears to me that you have somehow linked states rights to the failures of 1860. Those failures were not just at the state level but the federal judiciary level. We are agreed that no state should be allowed to exceed constitutional restrictions of power.

In the case of abortion, you have provided no rationale why federalism cannot be used to support america's diversity of beliefs. You have provided not rationale why the Democrats cannot allow States to decide the issue on a state by state basis.