Those of you who read my last article might recall that I mentioned something of morality, legality, and ethics not all being the same.

I wish to expand on this concept, this time with the help of a man I have long admired, though I have sadly never had the chance to meet him, nor shall I, for it has been years since his time, and what I can only assume was an evil agent took his life too early. That is, the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose “I Have A Dream” speech's anniversary took place last week. It has been 54 years since then.

As I said when discussing Charlottesville, and as I, as a student of law, must be aware and hold onto dearly, whether or not act, object or idea is legal does not necessitate that said matter is moral nor that it is ethical. Dr. King recognized this fundamental even then. In “The Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King spent part of the letter discussing laws and their morality.

In a fashion of advanced rhetoric, Dr. King opens this discussion by answering how one can advocate breaking some laws and obeying others. He responds, “The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all.” It is this quote that I take heart on my own suppositions, for I find that I can agree with the Reverend. When humanity has created laws in the past and when we continue to create laws in the present, what guides us? It is (or at least, it must be) our morality. Laws are not morals, but they should be a reflection of ethical beliefs and decisions. Not all of them are.

So how does one determine the difference between a “just” law and an “unjust” law? I present you again with the words of Dr. King,

“An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

“Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

“ An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.”

Take a moment to consider these words. Again, we see that, clearly, Dr. King envisioned a distinction between morals and laws. We also see that which he registered as immoral or “unjust”. A law which, by its nature or application, harms or demeans humans is unjust. Segregation is, of course, the primary example of his time and his actions. Many other examples have persisted in the United States as well: anti-suffrage laws, laws which would not allow Asian Americans to vote, Japanese internment camps, marriage inequality, bathroom bills, the wall. Now I know, these are or were highly controversial issues, and some might say that a few these are arguably necessary or defensible. However, I stress Dr. King’s points again: laws which degrade individuals are unjust.

The last point on unjust laws is also of interest. It has a ring of equality to it, as well as a bit of heart of the “Golden Rule”. That is, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Instead, though, it takes another turn- one should do unto others as one would do unto oneself. Personally, this sort of standard is driving. Would I be content to pick cotton in the field without pay? No. Would I be content to not be able to make a binding declaration of commitment to the one I love? No. Would I be content to not have the ability to help decide the future of my home? No. So then why force it upon another?

Finally, it important to know and illustrate the way and heart with which one chooses to not obey or to oppose “unjust” laws. Dr. King explains, “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for law.” There will always be consequences for standing up. One must be ready to accept those consequences if one is to be truly committed. Finally, however, and perhaps one of the two most important takeaways, is the heart with which one takes opposition. “Openly” and "Lovingly." It does no good to be sneaky, for you are sneaky than your dedication to seeking justness is easily called into question. There must be no doubt as to your motive and belief. Most importantly, you must approach the issue with love in your heart. If your actions are not guided by love in its truest, then what even is the point?

Besides, there is already enough hate in the world. We could always use a little more love.