undred years ago, incest and polygamy would be more acceptable than gay marriage. As society has evolved, so has its morals. Under this belief, it is not the Court eliminating public morality, it is the Court simply adjusting to its fluid nature. This can be seen in Gonzales v Carhart. Although the common consensus of the nation is that abortion is morally ok, they do not believe that partial-birth abortions are morally acceptable. This judgement has nothing to do with an objective scientific fact, it only has to do with what the consensus on moral abortion. Although science may be objective, it still needs moral interpretation. Findings in science may present facts that lead to immoral outcomes that violate society’s beliefs. Even though these facts are objective it doesn’t mean you would create a law that would contradict the current state of morality in society.
In addressing the fear of the imposition of moral opinions on the minority, I would argue that the moral consensus of the majority allows a democratic government to function. In a governed society, everyone fundamentally enters a social contract to feel safe. A government must create laws that conform with the majorities opinion. This allows for the maximum number of citizens to be protected by the government. Just because a minority group believes it is ok to practice incest or write hate speech, it does not mean that it should be a freedom protected by the government. Most of society would consider these moral wrongs and opt for legal protection. This notion on majority consensus does run the risk of marginalizing some minorities. Therefore, the Bill of Rights exists in the Constitution. It allows for all individual’s fundamental rights to be protected. This can be seen in the case of Texas v Johnson. Although most American citizens would consider the burning of the flag to be disrespectful and potential ground for legal action, the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights protected Johnson’s right to symbolic speech. This shows that even a minority can still be protected by the moral law.
Finally, it is important to respond to the notion that police powers are strictly to protect tangible harms and not intangible moral harms. The harm principle defined by Mill grants citizens as much freedom as possible without harming someone else. This does not clarify what type of harm. It is subjective to define a tangible harm. A moral harm may have the same tangibility as one classified as tangible such as physical or financial. Due to this subjectivity, the moral consensus comes into effect. The courts and legislature must use this consensu