MAN ON DOG? (Lawmakers move to lower penalty for bestiality … seriously)

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.”

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.

If AIDS treatment and drugs were not subsidized by everyone else, very few homosexuals (or anyone else) would be able to pay for them.

I have sympathy for those infected with HIV due to transfusions or needle sticks. Actually a great deal of sympathy, because if it were not for homosexuals, and to a lesser extent, drug addicts (who are often prostitutes into the bargain), the blood supply wouldn't be tainted.

But for those who engage in the very acts that everyone above the age of 5 knows will give them AIDS, my sympathy doesn't extend to wanting to distribute the contents of my wallet.

there is a difference between zoophilia and bestiality which I won't get into on this board for the sake of decorum

Well I have news for anyone willing to distinguish this from pedophiles. I consider my dogs as much a part of the family as I do my children. I don't see a whole lot of difference between them raping my daughter or my best friend, who happens to be canine. The sick SOB that screws with either one in this manner will be pushing up daisies regardless!

The purpose of law (in my opinion) is to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual while providing a framework within which members of a society can live and interact while safe, productive, and secure with as much individual autononomy as possible. Morals-based strictures that do not aid in these goals are not appropriate. For the opposite of what I'm talking about, see the Taliban.

I think actually it's the word 'law' that we are using differently. It sounds as though you are using "law" to refer to the absolute divine law ordained by God (I'll call that Law with a capital L) and using "government" to mean the secular legal structures (law with a little l) developed by people. 'Morality' = 'Law' in your construct, and ideal law should be an approximation of Law. (This is my interpretation of your post - correct me if I'm wrong.)

My view is a little different: I see Law as something that is not absolute, but will vary between cultures, religions, etc. The Law for the Hindu is not the Law of the Christian, and so on. It doesn't need a religious base, for example a vegan will abide by a moral structure (a secular 'Law') that has been arrived at philosophically, perhaps without reference to a higher power. Individuals may abide by a different Law, depending on culture and upbringing.

On the other hand, law (small l) is the structure that a society creates in order to achieve the secular goals that I laid out. Individuals within a society may follow different Laws, but they are all subject to the same law to allow the society to function. It's this law that I believe should not have a basis solely in morality, because members of the society may not share a common moral structure. Small l law should impinge on personal freedom (and personal adherence to Law) as little as possible.

I do agree with you on the idea that a shared morality is part of the glue that binds a culture, and a society with shared cultural values is a stronger society. However, I don't think that law is the correct mechanism for producing this cultural sharing. (In the real world it's not as clear-cut as I describe - interactions between 'society' and 'culture' tend to dilute the idealized version of law that I describe, but that may not always be a bad thing in a pragmatic sense, although I might dislike it in an academic sense.)

Anyway, thanks for your substantive response - I've enjoyed thinking about the topic even though there probably won't be many minds changed on this thread...

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.