Unalienable Rights, Freedom of Association, and Morality Laws

How do you reconcile the three concepts of unalienable rights, freedom of association, and morality laws?

This is part two of my first article located here .

We
believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are
framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free
exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the
protection of life. ~D&C 134:3

Thus according to
scripture, peace can only be achieved in a society, when the following
rights of individuals are universally upheld and protected.

1. No law shall be established which infringes upon a human beings right to freedom of conscience.
2. No law shall be established which infringes upon a human beings right and control of property.
3. No law shall be established which infringes upon a human beings right to life.

For
simplicity, I will refer to these rights in the remainder of this
article as rules 1, 2, and 3.  Rule 1 is freedom of conscience.
Conscience is the individuals internal judgment of right and
wrong.1  In order to achieve peace in society, the freedom to exercise
the personal judgment of right or wrong must not be violated.  Thus all
individuals have the inalienable right to do any action which does not
infringe upon the inalienable rights of others.  This includes freedom
of association or disassociation.

To best explain the purpose and
concept behind this article, the following law from the Virginia
Statutory Code will be used as the primary example (this example can be
easily replaced with numerous other situations):

Lewd and Lacivious Cohabitation 18.2-345, which states:

“If
any persons, not married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously
associate and cohabit together, or, whether married or not, be guilty
of open and gross lewdness and lasciviousness, each of them shall be
guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; and upon a repetition of the offense,
and conviction thereof, each of them shall be guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor.”

At first glance, this law appears to be
in violation of rule 1.  If an unmarried man and woman living together
believe that cohabitation is not wrong (rule 1), then this law will
violate rule 1.  They are prohibited in their associations with one
another.  This law also appears to be in violation of rule 2.  A woman
owns the property she lives on.  If her boyfriend decides to move in
with her for economic and personal reasons, then this law would violate
her right to control her own property.  Any attempt by the local
government to impose a fine on this couple, would be an initiatory
aggression.  The exception to the violation of both of these laws
however, is when they were passed, and who agreed upon their creation.

Suppose
ten people move to an isolated area to form a new city.  As they set
forth establishing rules and laws of interaction (i.e. making a
contract), they all feel a law should be made against cohabitation.
Under their right to freedom of association, they all agree on a law
prohibiting cohabitation within their city limits and set forth
penalties for violation of that law.  The blue circle surrounding the
ten people is a representation of their inalienable right to freedom of
association.  Since all parties agree upon the law there is no
aggression, and their right to associate with like minded people is
preserved.  Under this scenario, none of the three rules has been
broken.

A
few years pass and Jack decides to buy a piece of property within the
city.  He was aware of the cohabitation law before he bought the
property.  By voluntarily moving within the city limits, he has freely
entered the jurisdiction of the laws which govern it.  Later, Jack’s
girlfriend Bertha decides to move in permanently.  They are now in
violation of the cities cohabitation law.  They have initiated
aggression and are in violation of the laws established by the will of
the people who created them.  They have violated the other ten city
members right to freedom of association or freedom of conscience.  Any
action taken by the city to enforce the law would be retaliatory
aggression, and would be justified.

Under the right to freedom of
conscience however, Jack and Bertha have the inalienable right to
advocate their position.  Jack and Bertha initiate a campaign to change
the hearts and minds of the townsfolk to abolish the cohabitation law.
Jack persuades five of the other town members to his position, and
they now have a majority of seven (10 original members plus Jack and
Bertha).  The town votes in favor of abolishing the law and Jack and
Bertha can now live as they please.  Whether morally right or not, this
principle is backed by scripture:

Now it is not common that
the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is
right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire
that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it
your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.  And if the
time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is
the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the
time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto
visited this land.

~ Mosiah 29:26-27

If
Jack and Bertha are ever prohibited from advocating their position or
from voting, such aggression would be initiatory against them.  It
would also be a violation of their right to freedom of conscience.
Furthermore, only laws against behavior can be passed.  If a law was
created that granted the authority to arrest people who simply believed
in cohabitation, such a law would be a violation of inalienable rights.
This principle is also backed by scripture:

Now there was no
law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the
commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to
unequal grounds…For there was a law that men should be judged
according to their crimes.  Nevertheless, there was no law against a
man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which
he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

~ Alma 30:7,11

Now
that the law against cohabitation has been abolished, the only way it
can ever be reinstated is if all people agree.  By the time the next
election roles around, one member of the city has been advocating to
the other members the downfalls of cohabitation in their city.  The
town holds a vote, but the majority are now if favor or reinstating the
law against cohabitation!  This action would now be a violation of Jack
and Bertha’s right to freedom of conscience.  This is the introduction
of a new law which violates freedom of conscience and property because
they do not agree to in nor abide by its standard.  This is a case of
the majority infringing upon the rights of the minority.2

If
Jack and Bertha decided to get married and vote along with the others
to reinstate the law, there would not be any rights violation.  They
have the right to freely associate and create a society they would like
to live in.  If all members of a society agree (freedom of conscience)
to enact laws regarding adultery, illegal drugs, polygamy, incestuous
relationships, marriage, etc. then there is no violation of inalienable
rights.  Such a society has created a contract with one another
(freedom of association) to live in a world according to the ideals
they believe will bring the greatest happiness.

The strict
punishments of the Law of Moses for example, would not be a violation
of inalienable rights (i.e. the death penalty for breaking the
Sabbath).  In Deuteronomy 29, the congregation of Israel covenanted
with the Lord to abide by the requirements of the Law Moses, or God’s
laws.  They exercised their right to freely associate and abide by laws
they best felt would secure their happiness.  If a non-Israelite person
moved into the jurisdiction of Mosaic Law, they would be obliged to
adhere to that law, or they would be guilty of initiatory aggression
against the law and those whom had chosen to freely associate according
to that law.

The principle of unanimous consent to uphold
morality laws is the only way morality laws can be created.  Once lost
by the voice of the people, they cannot be restored unless there is
once again unanimous consent.3  If all people do not agree to a law
that punishes a certain type of behavior, those who participate in said
behavior will ultimately have their property taken through enforcement
of the law.  Such action would violate the freedom of conscience and
the right and control of property.

Questions I have for open discussion:

1. What
   becomes of people who are born into societies with laws against
   cohabitation?  They entered the jurisdiction after the law against
   cohabitation was created, yet they did not enter the jurisdiction by
   choice.  Suppose people born into such jurisdiction want to live in
   cohabitation?  Would such a law be considered initiatory aggression
   against those who had no choice to enter and be part of the agreement
   in the first place?  I am governed by the Constitution, yet I never
   supported its ratification.
2. At what point does jurisdiction end
   and begin?  What if Jack and Bertha decide to secede from the city?
   They would not then be subject to cohabitation laws.  Do they have the
   right to secede?
3. The Tenth Amendment is supposed to prohibit
   the Federal Government from ever becoming involved in morality laws.
   At what level of jurisdiction do morality laws cease?  The family?
   The city?  The county?  The state?  It would seem to depend on initial
   unanimous consent.  Thoughts?

---

Footnotes

1    Webster
1828 Definition: Internal or self-knowledge, or judgment of right and
wrong; or the faculty, power or principle within us, which decides on
the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and affections, and
instantly approves or condemns them.  Merriam Webster defines
conscience as:   (1) the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness
or blameworthiness of one’s own conduct, intentions, or character
together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.

2
The actions taken by the Church, and the people of California
regarding Proposition 8 are not an example of initiatory aggression but
of retaliatory and just aggression.  The initial definition of marriage
that existed in California was created and upheld during the states
formation.  When a group of judges overturned the definition of
marriage to include relationships of the same gender, it was initiatory
aggression and unjust.  It was a violation of the people’s initial
established right to freedom of association.  The only just way this
law can be changed is by a vote of the people or their representatives.
The people of California justly retaliated against judges who had no
jurisdiction to interfere with the right to freedom of association.

3
For examples of unanimous consent in the scriptures regarding the
institution of new laws see Deuteronomy 29, 2 Kings 23, Mosiah 5:1-5,
Mosiah 29:37-38.  The principle of unanimous consent is also present in
voting in the Church.  President George Q. Cannon (counselor in the
First Presidency)explained that the scriptures are the only source of
official doctrine,coupled with later revelation to the prophets that
has been presentedto the Church and sustained:”I hold in my hand the
Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and alsothe book, The Pearl of Great
Price, which books contain revelations ofGod. In Kirtland, the Doctrine
and Covenants in its original form, asfirst printed, was submitted to
the officers of the Church and themembers of the Church to vote upon.
As there have been additions madeto it by the publishing of revelations
which were not contained in theoriginal edition, it has been deemed
wise to submit these books withtheir contents to the conference, to see
whether the conference willvote to accept the books and their contents
as from God, and bindingupon us as a people and as a Church.”  George
Q. Cannon, “Comments,” Millennial Star 42/46 (15 November 1880): 724. (10 October 1880, General Conference)

---