Moral choices don’t always slot neatly into the law: Dolores L. Christie - cleveland.com

SHAKER HEIGHTS, Ohio -- “Who do those people think they are?” asked Texas Sen. John Cornyn, of Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, about the high court’s decision to legalize gay marriage.

I am not a lawyer, never mind a judge. Nevertheless, I feel an obligation to call out the senator’s flawed argument. My field of interest is moral theology. I know how important it is to make a careful distinction between what is legal and what is moral, between a positive right and a negative right. Again and again, I preach to classes that, because something is legal, it does not make it moral.

While the law allows abortions, it may not be moral for a particular decision-maker to seek one. It is legal to eat meat on Fridays of Lent, but as a Catholic, it is a departure from the rules of my religion. It is legal for me to devour a donut, but my diabetes may dictate that, for me, it is not the right thing to do. Legality is not equivalent to morality, even if laws have a moral basis.

Likewise, there is a distinction between a positive right and a negative right. The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life is a positive right: Human persons have, intrinsically, the right to live. I cannot take the life of another.

As to liberty, everyone knows the cliché that freedom may not be exercised to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or to slander another. I am not free to stomp upon the newly planted marigolds marching merrily in the neighbor’s yard or to swing my fist freely into my neighbor’s nose when he objects. The margins of my “rights” can be circumscribed by law. Even with holes in my socks, I am required to remove my shoes before boarding an airplane. Freedom may be limited or even taken away when persons commit crimes. While freedom is a positive right, it has constraints.

Marriage is a right for each person. The Constitution’s declaration of the right to life and liberty certainly would include the right to choose happiness in marriage. The document does not include a footnote that one must verify one’s gender before the ceremony can proceed. We celebrate that right with champagne or church services, with civil events or even common law.

Should that right to marry be limited to those who are heterosexual, a person who would choose a spouse of a clearly contrasting gender? The Supreme Court has said no. Their decision to allow gay marriage clarified that this right is not limited by gender. Certainly, the Founders of the country never envisioned or articulated that people are not all definitely male or female, or if they did, it was a private matter. Societal mores and beliefs of the time were not kind to those who deviated from accepted standards. Further, the traditions of religion at the time affirmed the same thing.

The Founders, because of the norms of the era, also did not see persons of color as full persons. They themselves kept slaves and kept them without guilt, with full consent of the law. Over time, the court clarified what we might call a “new” insight that the phrase “all men” was not limited to “white men.” It took 40 years longer to add “women” to the category of free Americans who were allowed the vote.

We cannot confuse legal conclusions with moral choices. Because of freedom of religion and separation of church and state, we cannot constrain an entire country because of the beliefs and rules of any given religious tradition. The Supreme Court? Who do they think they are? Hopefully, they are fair adjudicators of the Constitution for a modern diverse country.

Dolores L. Christie is a bioethicist, retired college professor and former executive director of the Catholic Theological Society of America. She has authored four books, many professional articles and book reviews. She and her husband are longtime Shaker Heights residents.

Have something to say about this topic?

* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

* Email general questions, comments or corrections regarding this opinion article to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at [email protected].

• Fossil fuels should remain our primary energy source and production should increase to keep costs low
• Short-term increases in fossil fuel production are fine as we transition to more renewable energy sources over the coming year
• Immediate increases in renewable energy but limit disruption
• A balanced mix of fossil fuels and renewable energy sources
• Aggressively reduce our dependence on fossil fuels even if it causes significant disruption

To understand how we may use the results of this poll, please read our
Privacy Policy and User Agreement. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Note to readers: if you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.

source: https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2022/04/moral-choices-dont-always-slot-neatly-into-the-law-dolores-l-christie.html

Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.