Posted on 11/14/2005 9:49:08 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
More than two and a half years ago, the nation laughed as pro-family crusader Rick Santorum predicted the consequences of legalized gay marriage: If man-on-man marriage was sanctified, man-on-child and man-on-dog unions might not be far behind.
Those who jeered Santorum were silenced last Tuesday. Man-on-dog isn’t legal just yet, but if the Massachusetts State Legislature has its way, it might be soon. On November 1, cheerleading for bestiality was just one of a string of stunning pieces of legislation that converged on the legislature’s judiciary committee in a bizarre, post-Halloween orgy. The imminent collapse of the state cannot be far behind.
Sponsored by Senators Cynthia Creem and Robert O’Leary, and Representatives Michael Festa and David Linsky, the bestiality measure was buried in a packaged assault on morality, disguised as “An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes.” The bill would strike down several sections of the current penal code criminalizing adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion. It also repeals what appears to be a sodomy statute forbidding “abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast.”
Archaic, indeed.
The new law would continue to forbid “a sexual act on an animal,” but reduce possible penalties for committing such a crime, making it decidedly less illegal. Whereas the old law punished doggie-diddling and the like with hard time (a maximum sentence of 20 years) in state prison, the new measure would give activist judges the option of slapping perps with a mere two and a half years in plush local jails, or even letting zoophiliacs walk with a $5,000 fine.
How badly has Massachusetts’ moral compass suffered since dudes started honeymooning with dudes? Not one legislator, nor a single member of the God-fearing public, appeared before the judiciary committee to denounce the proposed changes. But then again, who has time to worry about bestiality when teenagers are shoplifting and buying NyQuil?
Though presumably more than willing to lower penalties for crimes against nature, Rep. Linsky demanded the judiciary committee get tough on the real criminals—mall thieves. It turns out that if shopping bags are lined with duct tape, any merchandise inside can be snuck past security tag sensors undetected. One shoplifting ring, Linsky testified, had recently been busted in Natick with $47,000 in stolen goods. Linsky’s bill would criminalize the possession of duct-tape bags and other shoplifting tools in malls, punishing offenders with up to two years in the clink and a $1,000 fine.
Cold medicine, it appears, is also a greater threat to society than bestiality, as Falmouth Rep. Matthew Patrick denounced NyQuil and codeine, but remained silent about barnyard romance. Patrick’s bill would criminalize the sale of “cough syrup or a cold remedy containing alcohol or codeine … to any person under the age of 18.” Such medicine “wreaks a lot of havoc on young people,” Patrick argued.
And the shoplifting and NyQuil bills were two of the tamer legislative initiatives before the committee; the rest of the docket amounted to a clearinghouse of insanity.
Up for consideration was a measure, sponsored by Southie’s Jack Hart, to ban the advertisement of fireworks; a bill banning the sale of laser pointers to minors; a push to revamp the way the state punishes graveyard vandals; an examination of how to combat the epidemic of drunken riots; new punishments for drivers who steal gas; and—our personal favorite—a bid to make criminally liable anyone who knowingly allows their telephone to be used “repeatedly, for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying or molesting [another] person … or for the purpose of repeatedly using indecent or obscene language to that person or his family.”
Hopefully, with those problems solved, we’ll all be able to marry our dogs and live in peace.
Homosexual Agenda + Moral Absolutes Double Bagger ping.
Just loosen the penalties for bestiality, the gov't has better things to do, as long as the animal isn't hurt (or married to someone else), who cares what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, etc.
If the cultural acceptance and promotion of moral absolutes isn't brought back, as a society we're toast. Finito. The End. And they won't live happily ever after.
Freepmail me if you want on/off the M.A. pinglist, and me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off the H.A. pinglist.
I'm going to try to get the link to another article about this and post it.
"I have no problem with gay marriage, and this is not an example of incrementalism.
Well, it's obvious that you spit on traditional morality anyway by having "no problem" with two men or two women marrying each other, so even the theory of a slippery slope means nothing to you.
To you, it's just a walk in the park on flat ground.
To those of us who don't wear moral blinders, it is worse than a slippery slope, it's a screaming nose dive.
My God, it's like we've gone back 1000 years in time...scary!
More like ancient Rome, or possibly another planet.
ping
So, are you saying that the idea of a slippery slope is a moral value, and people who don't share your world view are incapable of grasping the concept? On the contrary, I understand slippery slopes quite well, and this topic isn't an example of one. As for the larger question, I see no moral objection to gay marriage, and neither I nor society in general are harmed by it. In fact, I favor it - if our system is providing a benefit to one segment of society then it had better have a darn good reason to deny the benefit to another segment.
You can blat about moral blinders all you want; personally I have no inclination to impose my sense of morality on others, and I don't believe that any moral system - however traditional it may be - is that last word for all of society...
A lot of problems would be solved if the federal and state constitutions set a maximum life span for laws. The old crud would disappear by itself, and the legislatures would be too busy re-enacting the worthwhile laws to get into much newfangled mischief.
You hit the nail on the head. There is a lot more in this "bill" that is more disturbing.
I think that's a good idea - didn't the assault weapons bill go away because it had a set lifespan? It would be nice to see more sunset clauses, especially in laws that are more 'experimental' attempts to address an issue (like the AWB).
Here you go: Bill softens bestiality statute
Thank you!
"Of all the dispositions and habits which least to political
prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should
labor to subvert these great Pilliars of human happiness."--- George Washington (Farewell Address, 19 September 1796)
"[O]ur ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits."
-- Daniel Webster, American Jurist and Senator
"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster." -- General Douglas MacArthur
"No man is a good citizen unless he so acts as to show that he
actually uses the Ten Commandments, and translates the Golden
Rule into his life conduct." --Theodore Roosevelt
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke
“We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us ... to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” -James Madison
You are just posting homosexual agenda propaganda talking points. There is no benefit being denied -the homosexuals choose to deny themselves heterosexual marriage -they choose this just as they choose the various sexual activities they engage in...
Thank God the morally devoid and innately flawed opinion you espouse will remain what it is -objectively flawed and disgusting no matter how often it dressed up and taken out for a spin by you and others...
This speaks volumes on the sexual preferences of Creem, O'Leary, Festa & Linsky. Where is PETA?
This aint right.
Of course PETA is quiet, dogs need love too >>sarcastic<<
"Meow means Meow!"
"Woof means Woof"!
Everyone gets one free grope thanks to IMPOTUS X-42!
In all fairness Teddy Kennedy was pretty young when this law was written. He could have went either way...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.