- Resistance Is Futile!
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.
I also read it. I also don't see your point.
What about doggie abortions? I wonder what their position is on that.
I cannot believe anyone can possibly defend something like this. But then again I couldn't believe anyone would defend the marriage of two men or two women.
Why do you think it's an either or proposition? We can't have bestiality laws because we need other law more? What?
Her maiden name was "Cynthia Anita?" How odd. God, I hope that doesn't mean she's of Italian descent.
I know you're joking, but I DID say *given* name.
Any taxpayer money spent on convicting and incarcerating people for this, is money that will not be spent on something more important. And we shouldn't have laws on the books that it makes no sense to enforce.
Then I suggest you run for office. I believe it should be against the law for humans to have sex with animals but I'm just old-fashioned I guess.
Actually, I'm not even sure that's true. Once you wade through all the weasel-words in this article, all it says is that judges now have options in sentencing. It doesn't say that 20 years was mandatory, that judges can no longer impose hard time, or that this law is now or has even been enforced. This author is stretching to the moon in order to support his hell-in-a-handbasket thesis, but there is really nothing to see here - MA deleted some archaic and probably redundant laws, but we haven't moved a millimeter on any hypothetical slippery slopes...
later (triple bagger) pingout.
It would be interesting to see how many times someone has been prosecuted under this law since it was put on the books and how much time they served.
O.K., I would bet on the Unitarian Universalists.
If I could bet on Free Republic.
Which I can't.
But it is sort of like making love, isn't it?
Kind of, anyway?
Not like he was going to kill it and eat it.
They're cheering at DU.
[Music:] "Be kind to your web-footed friends -
Take a duck out for drinks and some dinner..."
Hopefully very few and very little. And it's a dangerous business having laws on the books that aren't enforced, as they tend to end up being enforced every blue moon, for totally unrelated and inappropriate reasons.
Really?
It's right in front of your nose.
LOL!
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.