Posted on 06/10/2010 10:57:35 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Edited on 06/10/2010 12:46:35 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
And your knowledge of Massachusetts history vis-a-vis this issue is rather thin. The penalty for adultery was rather harsh, that is if you consider putting someone to death rather harsh, but that didn't mean there was no adultery, but rather, the penalty was never administered anywhere near close to fully because it was so harsh. The penalty was later ameliorated to a fine and/or time in prison, and believe it or not, adultery is still a crime in Massachusetts.
I guess the fact that slavery existed as a formal institution in this country until the mid 19th century is just one of those things then, huh?
Women were not treat chattel. That feminist horse manure. Women worked. They were educated.
. . . yet they remained disenfranchised until the early 20th century . . .
Instead of wasting your time slinging around words like "liberal" and "marxist," which you probably don't understand, maybe you should spend that time instead getting familiar with a history book.
Neither the Founders nor the Founding documents claimed that committing sodomy was a right as you claim. Only the Supreme Court’s left-wing progressive justices agree with your opinion. (Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) and they overturned the ruling of an earlier Supreme Court decision in doing so.
So it is good to at least find out through this conversation what you are really about. You are a liberaltarian. You favor rulings by liberal activist judges over Constitutional rulings by conservative originalist justices. You are also a gay rights activist who believes that your right to engage in homosexual behavior supercedes my right to representation.
Then, you're a fool to support it being legal.
The idea that any act can't be reduced by the law is nonsense. The law deters; the stronger the law the more the deterrent.
Few acts have harmed kids, produced juvenile delinquency and lead to murder and violent crime like adultery. Reducing adultery via the law would dramatically reduce the other crimes we have to deal with as well as reduce the welfare roles because so many women are left by adulterous husbands and end up receiving aid from the state.
And your knowledge of Massachusetts history vis-a-vis this issue is rather thin
LOL. I'm the one John Winthrop, the first Governor of Massachusetts Colony, who witnessed two adulterers being executed. So, you want us to believe the couple in question was singled out for unfair punishment? I don't. I believe the nonsense you spewed was more history revisionism.
yet they remained disenfranchised until the early 20th century
How were they "disenfranchised"? Because voting was done by household and the male head of the household did the voting?
Face it, your nonsense is the same sort of propaganda that NOW spews.
Can you not read? In Massachusetts, the state in which I reside, adultery IS illegal. A lot of good it's doing . . .
Feel free to quote Winthrop all you want; it proves you did a cursory internet search. However, if you actually took the time to do some real research of MA jurisprudence over the past 380+ years, you might just learn something.
Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.
Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.
Civil law is man’s law and is of this earth. Last I checked, homosexuality is not against the law.
Marriage is joining of man and woman under God and is very different.
Slavery wasn't against the law 150 years. Would you have made the same comment about it?
When civil laws contradict God's laws, Christians are to oppose those laws or lack of laws as the case may be.
The Bible doesn't say gay marriage is a crime; it says homosexuality is. And, throughout the majority of the history of the nation and the past 500 years of Western Civilization, it was a crime. Nothing good has come from legalizing it, only the spread of disease, depression and attempt to use the issue to strip freedom away from anyone that doesn't agree it is fine and dandy.
Thomas in his dissent if he were a judge in Texas said he would vote to repeal the same law saying the law was silly and shouldn't have been on the books in the first place.
I guess Justice Thomas and I are just a couple of Libs in your book. (That would be Sarcasm).
I know this is wasted on you but as a true Conservative I know that following the Constitution as it was meant to be used means things will be done under the guise of free speech and free will that I will be opposed to. But either one follows the Constitution or one usurps it. Can't do both.
So I'll side with the Founders...
Just because Thomas thought the law was silly does not mean that he agrees with your left-wing notion of sodomy rights. You are just showing your ignorance to claim such a thing considering that Thomas was apart of the dissent.
You are on the side of the liberal activists judges by believing such a thing and are in the minority here at FR. You are not a conservative at all.
You said before that you agreed with the Texas sodomy ruling and used it as an argument against me. These are the justices who voted in favor of that ruling:
Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
They are the left-wing activist judges that you side with.
See your problem is your powers of logic are all but nonexistent.
"You are the type that sez Horses Have hooves and a Horse is a Mammal therefore All horses have hooves."
My logic is very simple one either has to follow the Founder's intent that the Constitution is the final word. It states that Free will (Liberty) is to be protected even though sometimes we do not agree with another's Free Will choices. Liberty is always to be protected as long as the act does not harm another's Liberty or Life.
Even though I think Homosexual sex is icky and have no interest in it whatsoever, when two people engage in it in the privacy of their own home or other private dwelling it harms not me or anyone else not party to the act.
Do you wish to hinder another adult's Liberty when the act they are engaged in doesn't harm those not party to the act?
Thomas is the same as me on this and proved so by his statement. He would have repealed the law if he were a Texas judge and the case was brought before him So by your demented logic Justice Thomas is not a Conservative either.
See just because horses have hooves and they are also a mammal doesn't mean all mammals have hooves.
Inductive reasoning makes you and all others who engage in it look ignorant.
So ignorant.
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.