Editor’s Note: here I go again.

It takes a special kind of conservative to seemingly take the stance that the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch is being too liberal (my words; no quoting here). But that is essentially what a former colleague of mine did in a recent letter to the paper of record’s editors recently. Last month, the Times-Dispatch had a relatively short editorial of the opinion that the Commonwealth’s laws outlawing co-ed cohabitation were antiquated, intrusive, and in need of repealing: (partial reprint)

Yet seven states — including Virginia — maintain statutes forbidding unmarried people of the opposite sex to share living quarters. That the laws are rarely enforced only underscores their anachronistic nature.

Cohabitation entails not only the right to privacy, but also the right to property — governments should not dictate to a householder whom she or he may permit to share the residence. By contrast, a man and woman who cohabitate are not violating anyone else’s rights; nobody has a right to demand they live apart, and it’s nobody’s business but theirs if they do.

For the record, I’ve taken similar issues with a couple of Virginia’s laws (and even more outrageous bills) banning all sorts of inter-personal relationships which the state really hasn’t got any damn business regulating.

So in comes my old colleague, with his letter (see "Without God’s Laws…"). So we should have a Government that is just big enough that it can peek into our bedroom, but not one inch taller. This is the same man who would explain (at great, painful length) that the federal government has only the right to maintain an army and nothing else*; that the market should decided what environmental risks we should be taking rather than the government*, and that the government has no business in the hiring and firing policies of religious institutions*. But when it comes to the personal relationships between two individuals, the government has every right to intrude to whatever extent he sees fit: (reprinted here with absolutely no permission granted, but saving you the click; my comments in green):

The thesis of your editorial, “Nobody’s Business,” is false. As we have learned through numerous Supreme Court rulings, anything that could affect the spending of our tax dollars is our business. [Note: he doesn't bother to give any specifics, or even expand upon this dubious rational.]

However, that is not the particular inspiration of this letter. It is the revelation that the underlying morality of the Editorial staff is completely independent of the morality taught in the Bible, and thus by God. Two people engaging in sexual relations outside marriage is forbidden. That it is happening beyond the sight of any third party is irrelevant. [So, we should pass laws on everything the bible states. Whose version? Should you be fined for not eating Kosher, or should you locked up for being envious of your neighbors house? And how does God feel about internet sales tax? I can't find that in the New Revised Standard Version, does the King James have it? Perhaps the Quaran? No, certainly not there.]

Our legal system will endure only if supported by a sound morality. As a nation that is supposed to rely on the rule of law, America needs a sound legal system. To have a sound morality, we have to rely on the teachings in the Bible, because apart from God there is no morality. [This statement obscures the nuance between ethics and morality, as well as implies by converse that someone other than a religious individual cannot be a moral person. The former shows little lack of understanding of civil law versus religions law, while the latter shows a lack of understanding of humanity.]

In the final analysis, if we try to establish a morality for our country without consulting God, we will allow the country to be destroyed.

So there you have it, the Government can’t make an amoral corporation do anything it doesn’t want to, but it can and should tell you exactly who you can and can’t have sex with. Why, well because his God says so, that’s why. And quite frankly, his God is better than your God any day of the week, except on Sundays, because that’s a holy day and you can’t beat up people on holy days… The arrogance of assuming that the most basic of personal relationships (short of mother-child) should be regulated based on this persons religion is astounding. I know lots of people who don’t agree with cohabitation, but that gives them the right to not do it themselves, and nothing more.

To suggest that this is harmful for others (or America, as an institution) is ridiculous. I’m hardly one to say no-harm-no-foul to everything; I think there’s a damn good reason for most drug laws. However, no rational person can consider personal relationships to be socially harmful. If anyone really thinks that unmarried couples (and of course, married gay couples) are destroying our country, what about all the married couples who screw up? Divorce, abuse, abandonment? Why aren’t those numbers worrying people about the state of the union? People being together are not destroying the country. Environmental ravaging, fundamentalist crackpots shooting doctors, "American Idol," off-shore multi-national corporations… sure they might be, but a couple of folks sharing the rent? Hardly.

*Yep, those are but three of the many fervent positions this person took in conversations to me. Sure, there may well be some valid points in there, but they all go a long way in negating the argument that any government should be regulating person-to-person freedoms.

Update (August 8th, 2005): I was informed by another former colleague, who had read the letter to the editor of the newspaper in its entirety, that the letter had been edited down quite a lot. While I understand the Times Dispatch’s need in doing this, it is a shame that they edited out some of the argument. It is my understanding that there the letter’s author has some logical steps between arguing that the federal government has the right to control private issues and why governing sinning (at least in some individual’s eyes) falls under this. However, I can’t imagine any sort of "logic" that would cause me to void my critique of the letter. Sadly, since the paper can’t be bothered to publish complete letters, even online where space is considerably cheaper, we’ll never see the whole thing.