"One of the great myths of our time is that you can't legislate morality"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
so says Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the guy who took over after Dubya headed to DC.

...Perry's faith-based appeal came as he awaited possible Republican Party primary challenges from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record) and Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn in 2006. But Jillson said the ex-Democrat risks alienating moderate Republicans turned off by an in-your-face approach to political issues with religious themes.

It's a gamble the governor seems willing to take. Last month, he spoke to about 500 pastors in Austin at a meeting of the Texas Restoration Project, which plans to register 300,000 new "values voters" in Texas and elect candidates who reflect their conservative views.

In the private meeting, Perry championed promotion of spiritual values on the public square.

"One of the great myths of our time is that you can't legislate morality," the governor told the ministers, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press by his campaign.

"If you can't legislate morality, then you can neither lock criminals up nor let them go free. If you can't legislate morality, you can neither recognize gay marriage nor prohibit it. If you can't legislate morality, you can neither allow for prayer in school nor prevent it," he said. "It is a ridiculous notion to say you can't legislate morality. I say you can't NOT legislate morality."

Perry, a United Methodist, did not refer to the death penalty, which his denomination says devalues life and should be eliminated from criminal codes. The governor, a capital punishment proponent, presides over the nation's most active death penalty state.

Perry's pastor, the Rev. James Mayfield of Tarrytown United Methodist Church in Austin, did not respond to e-mail or phone messages from the AP seeking comment.

Perry grew up attending both the Baptist and Methodist churches in the tiny Paint Creek community in West Texas, spokeswoman Kathy Walt said. His religious beliefs are guided by several factors, including his understanding of scripture and conversations with "faith leaders."

"His walk of faith is a lifelong journey of a sinner who has accepted the grace of God," she said.

Ohio televangelist Rod Parsley and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington were among the religious conservatives who shared the stage with Perry at the Fort Worth bill signing. Parsley linked homosexuality and disease rates, and about 1,000 supporters cheered attacks on "activist judges" and the media.

Objections to Perry using a church school as a backdrop to a bill signing preceded his visit, with critics mostly focusing on separation of church and state.

"This is one of the most outrageous misuses of a house of worship for political gain that I've ever seen," said Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Perry shrugged off the complaints.

"We could have signed it in a lot of different locations," Perry said on Fox News. "We could have signed it in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and those who are against people of faith being involved in the electoral process would still have been very much against this bill."

Perry actually signed two measures. One will impose more limits on late-term abortions and require minor girls to get written parental consent. The other would ban same-sex marriage, but voters must approve the constitutional amendment in November.

Perkins said he sees nothing wrong with signing legislation at a Christian school, and he pointed to a consistent theme of the bill-signing: Forces are at work to exclude the religious-minded from political and civic debate.

"People of faith are not backing up, we are not giving up, we are here to stay," he said...

again, keep playing the persecution card, the "people-of-faith as a monolithic group" one, as well as getting reactionary anti-gay bills on the ballot to get the reactionary fuckheads to come out and vote.

kingfish maximum overdrunk (Kingfish), Sunday, 12 June 2005 21:29 (twenty years ago)

Ha, I thought this was going to be a quote from Santorum, who appears to be headed out on his ass in 2006 if the general trends hold.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 12 June 2005 21:34 (twenty years ago)

i think he misunderstood what people mean by "legislating morality", maybe.

caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Sunday, 12 June 2005 21:44 (twenty years ago)

Well, of course you can legislate morality. Making racial discrimination illegal is legislating morality.

What you can't do, in this country anyway, is legislate religion. But that ain't stop them motherfuckers from trying.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 12 June 2005 21:56 (twenty years ago)

Ha, I thought this was going to be a quote from Santorum, who appears to be headed out on his ass in 2006 if the general trends hold.

i hope that yer right, ned. there IS a reason why they call the non-philly/pittsburgh parts of PA "pennsyltuckey," unfortunately.

i already told my sister that she's disowned if she votes for santorum.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Sunday, 12 June 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

Caitlin OTM.

J (Jay), Sunday, 12 June 2005 22:12 (twenty years ago)

he's just trying to distract everybody from his flaming homosexuality.

hstencil (hstencil), Sunday, 12 June 2005 22:13 (twenty years ago)

how are santorum's negatives?

teeny (teeny), Sunday, 12 June 2005 23:49 (twenty years ago)

i dunno but when did arlen specter get bald?

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 13 June 2005 00:03 (twenty years ago)

remember, Arlen has cancer, so that's probly chemo effects.

kingfish maximum overdrunk (Kingfish), Monday, 13 June 2005 02:14 (twenty years ago)

oh, see i didn't know that. poor guy.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 13 June 2005 02:17 (twenty years ago)

i don't wish cancer on him -- or almost anyone else -- but arlen isn't a very nice guy.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 13 June 2005 02:20 (twenty years ago)

given your state's other senator, i have learned a new respect for him.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 13 June 2005 02:21 (twenty years ago)

i live in NJ, stence -- neither arlen nor man-on-dog are my senators.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 13 June 2005 02:22 (twenty years ago)

oh your home state, i mean. granted, that's still better than my home state's mitch and the baseball codger.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 13 June 2005 02:22 (twenty years ago)

The funny part is, I kind of agree with him (Perry, not Santorum) on the legislation is morality point. I mean surely murder, rape and robbery are all moral issues.

mouse (mouse), Monday, 13 June 2005 03:41 (twenty years ago)

ask the iraqis.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 13 June 2005 03:49 (twenty years ago)

man i am in a real machiavelli/kissinger mood tonite.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 13 June 2005 03:50 (twenty years ago)

just like tupac

kingfish maximum overdrunk (Kingfish), Monday, 13 June 2005 04:03 (twenty years ago)

also, a note to our UK/AUS/NZ fans who are playing along at home, Texas is a VERY weird state, with but one tolerable city, named after famed WWE Champ Stone Cold Steve Austin.

kingfish maximum overdrunk (Kingfish), Monday, 13 June 2005 04:36 (twenty years ago)

whatever dude, they got that roadrunner statue in ft. stockton

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 13 June 2005 04:37 (twenty years ago)

I've heard good things about San Antone.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 13 June 2005 04:40 (twenty years ago)

San Antonio fucking rules.

Bruce Bwned (Matt Chesnut), Monday, 13 June 2005 05:18 (twenty years ago)

gypsy mothra & mouse OTM - most laws are based on morality.

wetmink (wetmink), Monday, 13 June 2005 05:19 (twenty years ago)

St Antone is where all the yuppies when after abadoning austin, or so i've heard

kingfish maximum overdrunk (Kingfish), Monday, 13 June 2005 05:21 (twenty years ago)

That's kind of a nice conservative victory over iffy liberal semantics, but even in the sense that it's "true," it might not actually be true. I mean, I think the line on the legislation of morality has something to do with some notion of "harm," or at least harm to life and property and such. Which is to say that it's possible that we condemn murder not because it's immoral, but because it presents an actual harm to someone, deprives them of a concrete possession like life. In that arena, I can't think of anything we criminalize purely because it's "immoral." Even in the case of gambling and prostitution, the rationale isn't that they're "wrong"; we say instead that gambling is regulated because of negative side effects that a community has an interest in avoiding, and we say that prostitution is illegal because it's inherently exploitative. I can't imagine any politician ever standing up and saying that our system of laws isn't about "right" and "wrong" and is actually about rights and property instead, but as a concept it just might be true: there are plenty of "wrong" actions that we don't criminalize because the consequences are more strictly emotional.

Which would leave "legislating morality," as a term, having more to do with an issue like homosexuality, which doesn't deprive anyone of life or liberty or property.

nabiscothingy, Monday, 13 June 2005 06:22 (twenty years ago)

w/t getting all "philosophy of law" here, this parry fellow IS right. morality CAN be legislated -- it's done all the time. but, as is so much conservative ideology (religious or otherwise), it's a dodge. the REAL questions are (a) WHOSE morality; and (b) for what PURPOSE is this morality being legislated? when many people say "you can't legislate morality," what they REALLY mean is that while laws can modify behavior (e.g., they can stop racial discrimination or make gay sex illegal) they cannot actually dictate what people THINK (e.g., they can't make people LIKE racial minorities or make gay people straight). to the extent that laws cannot dictate people's thoughts and people IGNORE the laws (e.g., people continue to illegally discriminate or gays continue to engage in gay sex), then the laws are merely ineffective (w/t using state-sanctioned force to mandate compliance).

but (as someone upthread said) what many people mean these days when they say that "you can't legislate morality" is that you cannot legislate right-wing christian morality. this comes down not only to whether laws enacting such moral beliefs actually change thought (fat chance), but whether such laws are even constitutional (they aren't).

Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 13 June 2005 06:27 (twenty years ago)

long way of saying: this is essentially a replay of sen. richard russell's strategy during the 50s and 60s to stop civil rights legislation. that is, pontificate long and hard about some abstract principle in hopes of convincing folks that yer "reasonable" & "non-bigoted" on a hot-button issue (then, it was civil rights for blacks; today, it is civil rights for gays) and thereby distracting attention from the fact that yer screwing someone over.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 13 June 2005 06:32 (twenty years ago)

You have to sympathise with these poor Christians having so little say in the running of their country. It's those bloody Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and so on at the top of the government, I expect.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 13 June 2005 11:35 (twenty years ago)

Eisbar OTM ... You can define legal code by so-called moral beliefs, but you can't force someone to be "moral" (as you see it.) "You can't legislate morality" doesn't mean you can't make immoral things illegal, it means that you can't make immoral people moral by passing laws.

.. and then, defining "moral" is a problem obviously, as has been stated ad nauseum.

geyser muffler and a quarter (Dave225), Monday, 13 June 2005 11:44 (twenty years ago)

Which is to say that it's possible that we condemn murder not because it's immoral, but because it presents an actual harm to someone, deprives them of a concrete possession like life.

Is this not the moral/ethical distinction?

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 13 June 2005 12:04 (twenty years ago)

Is it? I have no idea. I'm thinking mostly about the distinction between causing concrete harm to body and property versus causing more abstracted or emotional/intellectual harms: e.g., you can go to jail for murder, but not for adultery. I suppose this ties into what Eisbar is saying, in the distinction between concrete acts with concrete harm (e.g. hate crimes) and intellectual acts with abstract harm (e.g. racism). In any case I suspect one of the defining lines in terms of how morality may or may not be legislated has to do with that division.

nabiscothingy, Monday, 13 June 2005 18:01 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.