Who’s “legislating morality?”

Conservatives are often accused by the left of trying to “legislate morality.”  (It’s an illogical argument anyway, since all legislation really deals with moral issues.  Murder, for instance, is a moral issue and yet everyone–at least right now–agrees with legislation prohibiting it.)  However, since it’s one of the left’s favorite illogical arguments, let’s apply it to a favorite liberal issue–discrimination.

On Wednesday, the House Education and Labor Committee conducted a hearing for H.R. 3017, the grossly misnamed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).  ENDA would create special workplace protections for “perceived” sexual orientation and gender identity.  (Click here to read more about ENDA.)

At the hearing, WI’s own Congresswoman Tammy Bladwin (D-2nd), instead of presenting the supposed merits of the bill, made sweeping generalizations and accusations that point to the real motivations behind ENDA.  She declared the bill would send a message against “irrational bias” in the workplace and claimed that disapproval of homosexuality is “irrational prejudice” and “irrational hatred, bias, and fear.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinish (D-Ohio) revealed what ENDA is really about; “it’s the law telling society this kind of discrimination is not OK.”  Hmm…sounds like a real layperson’s definition of “legislating morality.”  Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) openly admitted that passage of ENDA would be “a moral issue for our country.”  Too true.  Only whose morals?

Since all lawmaking really boils down to “legislating morality,” this is really just a classic case of liberal double-speak.  “Legislating morality” is wrong if you’re trying to keep government out of the God business (i.e., redefining marriage, determining when life begins or ends, etc.), but it’s fine if you’re imposing the will of the few, the very few, on the many.