A number of Colorado lawmakers — mostly Republican — had trouble the other day distinguishing between behavior they understandably don’t like and behavior that should be outlawed.
In this case the behavior they don’t like — adultery — is already outlawed, and the General Assembly was considering a bill to repeal that statute.
It’s not that public opinion has turned in favor of adultery over the years. We’ve heard no one praise the idea of cheating on a spouse. But what has changed is the public’s belief in whether government should be in the business of policing adulterers — even if only in theory, since the statute doesn’t actually include a penalty.
The repeal measure passed in the Senate on a 25-9 vote, with four Republicans joining the Democratic majority. But the House was a different matter. The bill died in committee on a 7-6 vote, with six of the negative votes coming from Republicans.
Do those opposing repeal want adulterers prosecuted? Presumably not, since almost no one openly advocates such a drastic remedy these days. But opponents do argue that a repeal is tantamount to condoning the behavior.
As Jessica Haverkate, director of Colorado Family Action, a political arm of Focus on the Family, explained, “Colorado Family Action does not believe that as a state, we should encourage the moral decay of our society, no matter how archaic the laws may be and appear to some.”
We are mystified why Haverkate would suggest that a principal way to discourage moral decay is through a government edict against it. Americans are free to do many things that are bad for their relationships and the well-being of their children that are not outlawed. They can gamble away their savings, get drunk every afternoon, or refuse to work hard enough to support their families. Such behavior — no less destructive than adultery — should be roundly discouraged, but outlawed?
The same proposal rejected by the House committee would also have repealed a law banning “promoting sexual immorality” by renting a room to unmarried couples who have sex. Unlike the adultery statute, this one has teeth, with conviction bringing a possible year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. But the statute obviously isn’t being enforced, either. Indeed, public appetite for a government crackdown on consensual sex between adults has all but vanished. Why preserve the statutory fiction that it hasn’t?
This is one of those rare moments when we hope those voting against the measure did so mainly for expedient political reasons as opposed to principle. Perhaps some lawmakers worried how such a vote might be portrayed, say, in a district with a strong social conservative base. But if that was their fear, we’d be willing to bet that they underestimated the maturity of their constituents, who surely understand that keeping antiquated statutes on the books that are not enforced is a laughably inept way to promote morality.
