Mind and Morals in Government

[JoshB]

In this forum I want to see the communities opinions on this subject.

Each person is taught morals as a young person from a variety of sources. The morals we grow up with define who we are in many ways. One thing we learn about morals as we grow up is that not everyone will share the same view on ethics. That includes authority figures. And that also includes rules. Rules do not always fall in the same ethical beliefs as a person.

But what if someone who is supposed to uphold the law does not agree with it himself? I want to use a hypothetical from this point on.

Bob is a Christian. Bob is also a Supreme Court judge in the year 2020. Finally the case of homosexual marriage has arrived at the Supreme Courts desk. The side for homosexual marriage has introduced nigh irrefutable evidence that it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

The eight other judges on the Supreme Court have voted on the subject; 4 favoring gay marriage, and 4 not. Its up to Bob to decide now.

Bob, throughout the years, has been instilled with the ideals of fairness and balance, and never betraying the values he took oath to. But in this case he has hit a dilemma: his morals are telling him not to vote in favor, but upon reviewing the argument posed by those for homosexual marriage, it would betray his political oath to vote against it.

So how should Bob vote? He has equally pledged to the religious and political values, but is utterly perplexed by this problem. Should his morals come over his duty?

And please, don't say that if Bob was truly Christian he would vote nay. I only said he was Christian because I wanted to show that his morals oppose homosexuality.

[strike]------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/strike]
"The wisest knowledge is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

[geospiza]

The side for homosexual marriage has introduced nigh irrefutable evidence that it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

...

The eight other judges on the Supreme Court have voted on the subject; 4 favoring gay marriage, and 4 not. Its up to Bob to decide now.

So how should Bob vote? He has equally pledged to the religious and political values, but is utterly perplexed by this problem. Should his morals come over his duty?

If, as you have assumed, the evidence is "irrefutable" then there would be no legal basis to decide any other way except in favour of gay marriage. Bob should know that.

The duty of a judge is to uphold the law. No exceptions. If the law needs to be corrected, then that is a job for the legislative branch of government. If the law is uncertain, judges may interpret it, but no judge may ever knowingly enter a decision that is contrary to the law.

That is not to say that as private citizens, judges do not sometimes come into situations of conflict with law and personal conscience. But insofar as their judicial authority is concerned, the rule of law is paramount.

The duty of a citizen is to respect the rule of law, assuming that the laws are just. If a law is unjust, then we get into more controversial territory.