Legislation related to religion and morality
How legislators decide to vote on bills
with a moral or religious component
Sponsored link.
There appears to be no consensus on this topic. Lawmakers may follow any of
the following criteria (and probably others as well) before deciding how to vote
on a bill. Most probably follow a mixture of these principles:
 |
Some legislators believe that they should strictly mirror the
beliefs and wishes of their constituents. So, for example, if a vote
is to be cast on a bill with a moral/ethical component, they would
determine the will of the majority of their constituents, and vote
accordingly -- irrespective of their personal beliefs. | |
Some feel that their prime mandate is to be re-elected at the next
election. They might weigh the will of the citizens that they
represent, against the likely future repercussions of a yea or nay
vote. For example, a vote to extend hate crimes legislation or
discrimination in workplace hiring to include protection on the basis
of sexual orientation would probably be favored by most voters. They
would be motivated by a sense of fairness, and by an awareness of the
widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians. But groups that
oppose bills granting equality to gays and elsbians be very highly organized; they might
persuade a solid minority of the electorate to vote against the
lawmaker, on the basis of a single issue. | |
Other lawmaker believe that their responsibility is not to follow
but to lead. Their personal task is to become totally familiar with
each bill, to determine carefully what is in the best interests of the
constituents, and vote accordingly. They believe that their
responsibility is not necessarily to follow their constituents' beliefs, but to
follow what those beliefs would be if their constituents were fully
aware of all aspects to the bill. One example of this happened in the
Canadian parliament decades ago. About 65% of the public -- and probably
of the legislators -- favored the death penalty. However, many of those
parliamentary representatives who studied the matter thoroughly changed
their mind and voted to abandon executions. Canada has been without a
death penalty ever since. | |
Some heavily weigh the human rights implications of a bill. For example,
a legislator might represent a constituency which is 90% Christian, of
whom a strong majority might support state-initiated prayer in the
public school system. But they believe that school prayer would
discriminate against, and generate increased intolerance of, religious
minorities. A legislator might buck a majority feeling among his
constituents in order to protect the religious freedom of a minority. | |
Some legislators weigh the constitutional implications of a bill. If
the proposed law would obviously be unable to survive a court
challenge, they will vote against the bill on a matter of principle.
This follows logically from their oath of office which includes a
commitment to support the constitution. A growing number of lawmakers
seem to take the opposite position. They ignore the constitution, violate their oath of office, and
vote in favor of a clearly indefensible law because of its popularity.
State laws opposing access to abortion, mandating religious
prayer in public schools, and requiring the
posting of the Ten Commandments in
state offices and schools are typical examples in which lawmakers
passed obviously unconstitutional bills. | |
Some follow the instructions of their personal faith group. Most
recently, the Roman Catholic church appears to be most publicly vocal
in pressuring Catholic law makers to follow church teachings:
 |
Vermont: The state Supreme Court
instructed the legislature to either widen the definition of
marriage to include gays and lesbians, or create a parallel system
for homosexuals that would grant gay and lesbian couples equal
benefits, obligations and rights to married couples. After holding
extensive hearings on the topic, a house committee drafted a bill
to create civil unions for gays and lesbians in Vermont. The Roman
Catholic archdiocese took a very active part in the committee
hearings. Most Reverend
Kenneth A. Angell, Bishop of the Diocese of Burlington, opposed the
creation of domestic partnership legislation because he believed it to
be "only a political stepping stone toward the legalization
of Same-Sex Marriage." He called for a state constitutional
amendment to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.
The bishop later organized a rally of Roman Catholic and
conservative Protestant clergy against the bill. Finally, the
archdiocese organized a petition for a constitutional amendment
that would "state that
marriage in Vermont is exclusively reserved for unions between one (1)
man and one (1) woman, only."
The House voted in favor of the civil union bill on 2000-MAR-17.
The archdiocese issued a statement critical of the Roman Catholic
members of the house who voted for the bill. They asserted that,
being Roman Catholics, the legislators should have dutifully voted
to support the church's position on the bill. | |
Europe: According to the Conservative News Service (CNSNews):
 |
The European Parliament approved a resolution "to
make rapid progress in the area of mutual recognition of the
various forms of living together legally, but not of a
conjugal character, and of legal marriages between persons of
the same sex." |
|
In response, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the
Family issued a statement saying lawmakers "and
especially Catholic parliamentarians, should not vote to
support this type of legislation as it goes against the common
good and the truth of man and, as a result, is in reality
iniquitous." |
|
Roman Catholic Cardinal Thomas Winning, leader of Scotland's
700,000 Catholics, said that that country's Catholic
politicians should vote with their conscience, but added that
"conscience is something that must take into account
the teachings of the church." Ronnie Convery,
spokesman for Cardinal Thomas Winning said on MAR-22 that
"Sometimes you find yourself having to choose between
the church's teaching and a particular policy of a particular
political party." |
|
Kate MacLean, Labor member and head of the parliament's Equal
Opportunities Committee, said lawmakers were "elected
to represent everybody in their constituencies and I do not
think any other organization, whether a church or other body,
has any right to interfere with that." |
|
|
References
-
"Dilemma for Scottish Lawmakers: Obey church or party?"
Conservative News Service, 2000-MAR-23. Online at: http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000323c.htm
Copyright © 2000 to 2008 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2000-MAR-28
Latest update: 2008-JAN-08
Author: B.A. Robinson 
|
Page Translator:
