Of course, they are right in

a sense, but they are also terribly wrong. All laws stem from some basic,

shared moral convictions. The Supreme Court itself said that the problem

with the anti-sodomy laws is that they deny respect to a class of citizens.

Isn't that notion based on the moral idea that all classes should

be respected in the first place?

Morality indeed is the foundation

of law. However, it only acts as a foundation to the degree that the society

is moral or shares certain common notions of morality. Once the commonality

begins to recede, so does morality's influence on law. Instead, you begin

applying some sort of least-common denominator: does such-and-such an

activity result in the direct harm of another, non-consenting individual?

Of course, this approach completely

ignores the effects of private behavior on public life and society. The

mother who engages in prostitution may not hurt herself or her John when

doing business, but you can bet that she and her child will suffer as

a result of the moral, psychological, and mental damage done to her.

We as a society used to think

that certain sexual acts (premarital heterosexual sex included) were in

and of themselves sufficiently deleterious to society and the public good

that they ought to be illegal. Yes, this was a moral judgment. Yes, it

was based on Christian teachings.

Now, we reject such quaint

judgments as pre-modern and close-minded. Yet, we neglect the real question:

do such sexual acts actually result in harm to society? I mean,

was the moral condemnation of those acts just based on some old, out-of-date

religious text? Or is there also some real validity to such sexual prohibitions?

If one can possibly move aside

the sex-crazed bias of today's culture and look at what non-marital sex

does to society, it is quite clear that the old fogies got it right. AIDs,

STDs, out-of-wedlock births, rape, psychologically damaged teenage girls

and boys, crack babies, etc. The list is long and tragic.

Our laws are a reflection of

our society's capacity to respect the dignity of the individual. The less

we hold this dignity as something real and inviolate, the less we will

want our laws to protect that dignity, and the more our society will descend

into moral chaos, personal unhappiness, and general decline.

We have a right, as a democratic

nation, to change our mores and the connection between morality and the

law. But we do so at our own risk. For those of you who revel in liberalism's

continuing assault on traditional morality, I hope you get what you want.

It will come at a steep price and at the potential disintegration of the

very society which you are trying to "fix."

Trey Hoffman

Sharpsburg, Ga.