By Tom Boney

Editor of the Alamance News

We sometimes wondered the other night if some Graham residents actually realized the significance of the philosophy they were expressing during a hearing on whether the city council should repeal an old ordinance that prohibited wine and beer sales at area restaurants on Sundays.

We are not as troubled by the final result — the council did, in fact, repeal the ordinance, on a 4-1 vote — as we were by the disconcerting logic that was used throughout much of the debate by those favoring its repeal.

"We don't want government legislating morality," was the essence of the mantra, repeated, almost mindlessly, by several speakers.

Typical was the hyperbole used by Graham city councilman Jimmy Linens, who ultimately voted to repeal the Sunday blue law. "I'm one that's sick and tired of government dictating how we live our lives," which brought applause from many in the audience. "How I live my life is between me and my God."

Theologically, Linens may be able to postpone the ultimate judgment of God 'til they meet face to face at the Pearly Gates.

But in the here and now, there is no more fundamental purpose for the existence of government than the establishment of order and the regulation of interactions between and among citizens.

In other words, what is and what is not acceptable behavior in society?

That very often involves what most laymen would call "legislating morality."

Surely, those who "don't want government legislating morality" have no intention to have government approve of its citizens murdering one another, to take probably the most extreme case.

Can citizens have more than one spouse at a time?

Can people steal anything they so desire from their neighbor's yard?

Can citizens lie to one another, especially in legal matters?

Can people smoke, snort, or inject any drug they might so desire?

Repeating the mantra "not to legislate morality," as it would apply to those issues, would be troubling, indeed. That's what so concerned us about the almost mindless repetition of a meaningless catch-phrase.

Government "legislates morality" in these and a host of other cases.

The ultimate issue is not, contrary to what so many advocates claimed Tuesday night, whether government should legislate morality.

Rather, the issue is what kind of morality will it legislate — either directly, through ordinances and legislation, or indirectly, typically through inaction.

True, there are laws that could be viewed as seemingly neutral, or amoral, such as speed limits. But many other laws — especially those that have some semblance of similarity to Biblical injunctions — are the often ones termed "moral laws."

Some of the speakers Tuesday night protested that whether or not to have a glass of beer or wine in a restaurant was "their decision," and not one that should be restricted by a Graham ordinance.

We don't believe most thoughtful citizens are about to allow individual citizens "to make their own decision" about murder, polygamy, lying, stealing, or taking drugs, to name just a few issues that are otherwise "legislated" by government.

Residents in Graham may have had a host of good reasons to want to eliminate a longtime ban on beer and wine sales in area restaurants. Unfortunately, almost none of those reasons, if they existed, was voiced.

Instead, the council was repeatedly told "not to legislate morality," to "mind its own business," and "allow citizens to make their own choices."

We wish the caliber of debate in favor of repeal had been higher. Instead, the city council has adopted a new standard — a "morality" of its own — that says serving wine and beer in restaurants on Sunday is an acceptable, even good and lawful, behavior.

But make no mistake. It is simply a different morality from the previous prohibition.

The city council ultimately legislated a different standard of morality, but it legislated morality nonetheless.