So, let me ask this. And I'll remove it one degree so I can be clear that we are hypothesizing here.
Let's say that a group of people want to live somewhere where they will never have to be exposed to wife swapping in any way, shape or form. Do *they* have a right to not have any exposure to it if they don't want it around? If they are of the opinion that wife swapping within a community degrades said community...do they have rights? If they moved somewhere and formed their own country...would they have the right to enforce that on their community as that community grew? Would they have the right to make standards that say, "these are OUR standards...if you want different standards, go somewhere else."
I'm not asking anyone to agree with it...not sure I do or not....this is only meant to be an exercise in thought. Does that group of people have rights too...if they have collectively decided they don't want something around, and they've gone through the trouble of removing themselves from "the problem"...do they have a right to keep the standards of where they live whether we agree or not?
I wouldn't have a problem with something like this. I mean, I certainly wouldn't
like these people, but I would respect their right to run their own country however they wanted. If a group of like-minded individuals want to form a country where homosexuality is forbidden, then homosexuals simply shouldn't move to that country. Likewise, if a group of like-minded individuals want to form a country where
heterosexuality is forbidden, then heterosexuals simply shouldn't move to that country. But this isn't a question specific to gay rights or anything else. If a group of people want to form a country where national law dictates that no citizen is allowed to live past the age of 21, I have no real problem with that, either. If a group of people set out to form a society based on specific principles, and everyone in that society shares those same principles, then they absolutely should have the right to enforce those principles.
My problem is when people who
don't share a principle are nevertheless legally forced to abide by that principle.
Everyone votes their moral conscience, everyone. Its just that a proper liberal moral conscious says live and let live, that if what you do doesn't "harm" (cause its a loose definition of harm), than you don't care. But its still a moral claim to say this, its still majority rule to tell people not to murder someone. That you find this obvious doesn't change this simple fact.
In the case of murder, I'd say it is more 'acceptable' to vote on moral conscience, because basically everyone shares the same moral conscience on the issue of murder. If you were to put it to vote - 'should first-degree murder be legalized?' - I'd be willing to bet that you'd get very few 'yes' votes. Because as a general rule, most people consider murder immoral. Therefore, there is no conflict of moral conscience.
When there
is a conflict of moral conscience, then I would say it is wise to not vote your moral conscience. If you vote your moral conscience while being aware that someone else's moral conscience differs from your own, then you are effectively voting to oppress the moral consciences of other people. Which, I would argue, is wrong. Instead, when there is a conflict, I would encourage people to look outside their morality into the realm of logic. For instance, comparing gay marriage and murder. Well, I look at the Declaration of Independence of the United States. "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." I pose the logical question: does murder interfere with any of those unalienable rights? Well, yes, it quite obviously does, because if someone kills you, you've obviously been robbed of your right to life. Does gay marriage interfere with anyone's unalienable rights? I don't see how. Therefore, I decide that murder is logically 'worse' than gay marriage. This decision is independent from my own moral conscience - I have looked to logic to answer the question for me, and the answer seems pretty obvious.
So, in summary: I agree that everyone votes to their own morality, but I suggest that not everyone votes
solely to their own morality.