DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORAL AND LEGAL

I read Robert Galia's Sunday letter, which argued that the Chico
Police Officers Association was in error because they were against
allowing marijuana sellers the right to sell their product openly. He
argued that California law allows him and others the right to ingest
the herb, to stave off the pain and suffering of some illnesses.

Recently, I heard a commentator, who tried to point out that there is
a vast difference between something being legal and something being
moral. What he tried to point out was that just because something is
legal, does not necessarily make it moral. What Galia pointed out was
that a majority of California citizens voted to allow the usage,
therefore it was legal. Can Galia answer these questions for me:

If our Congress passed some laws permitting them to have certain
rights that they denied to their constituents, would that be legal and
moral?

If our Congress passed a law that required all their constituents to
live by, but they themselves were exempt from said law, would that be
legal and moral?

If the Muslim religion were to grow with popularity, and they suddenly
became the majority of all voters, and they wanted their marriage laws
adopted, allowing them to have four or five wives of girls as young as
12, and their vote turned out to be the majority, would that be legal
and moral?

Richard A. Douglas

Paradise