Posted on 03/28/2011 5:40:36 PM PDT by LonelyCon
Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.
The candidate, Don Haase of Valdez, also admitted under questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that his official resume failed to disclose his leadership role in Eagle Forum Alaska, which advocates for social conservative issues. He most recently was president of the organization, but resigned when he learned of his nomination, he said.
[Snip]
Paskvan: "Do you believe [adultery] should be a crime?"
Haase: "Yeah, I think it's very harmful to have extramarital affairs. It's harmful to children, it's harmful to the spouse who entered a legally binding agreement to marry the person that's cheating on them."
Paskvan: "What about premarital affairs -- should that be a crime?"
Haase: "I think that would be up to the voters certainly. If it came before (the state) as a vote, I probably would vote for it ... I can see where it would be a matter for the state to be involved with because of the spread of disease and the likelihood that it would cause violence. I can see legitimate reasons to push that as a crime."
Haase then asked why those questions were relevant.
"You are injecting yourself into the judicial system and so I think it's fair inquiry," Paskvan replied. "If you have a motivation to limit who would be advanced to a judgeship ... then your beliefs and attitudes are important," Paskvan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
“he’s a loser and it ain’t no ones business what goes on in my house or Vegas.”
Dude they are already in your business up to their eyeballs.
According to Jesus, even lusting after someone you are not married to is adultery. I doubt there is anyone here who is free of that sin.
I agree with him. A lot of homicides are committed by an irate spouse-not all. Adultery does cause social harm. The concept that legislating morality is a “bad thing” overlooks the fact that murder, theft, fraud, lying under oath etc. are simultaneously both moral violations and crimes. As far as proof of adultery it does not involve catching the parties in the act. There was a New Yoyk case where the two went into a motel room, no one saw them do it but the court said “the law presumes they saith not pater nosters there.”
I believe the Attorney General of the State, and each and every Municipal Prosecutor...not to mention every sworn police officer...should undertake prosecution of every instance of such crime that has not been nullified by the local Statute of Limitations.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Let's put all of those criminals in jail. Each and every one of them.
No quarter.
Zactly....
Zactly....
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surely curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they make better neighbors than the other sort.
— Robert Heinlein
It’s none of government’s business!
Little Willie sez he don’t wanna go to the Big House.
And I estimate that your chance of convincing anyone not living in a mental institution, nor in most any Muslim majority country (but I repeat myself), that a law against sexual relations between unmarried but consenting adults is a good idea is low indeed.
“Let’s put all of those criminals in jail. Each and every one of them.”
Do a little research on the problems caused by broken homes.
This is a place to start:
http://www.mensdefense.org/STM_Book/FatherDeprivation.htm
Not all broken homes are caused by adultery.
Not all children from broken homes end up in trouble. (neither my sister nor I did)
However, adultery is a MAJOR factor in the breakup of homes.
It hurts kids.
It hurts the two or three or four (married) people directly involved.
It hurts the parents, friends & neighbors of those involved.
Decrease adultery and you will decrease crime.
Would you agree that when a crime is committed against a person or a person's property, whether it's done physically or by illegal force or fraud, it's entirely proper and fitting that the government have a role in apprehending, prosecuting and punishing the criminal?
Of course it's also immoral to take what isn't yours, to kill another person or to falsely accuse another for a crime he or she did not commit. But we're not under Biblical law in this country, or Sharia law or any other law that depends on universal adherence to a single religion for its acceptance. Our laws and system of justice (except for Louisiana) derive from English Common Law, which relies on the common sense of judges and juries and not in all cases on written law, rather judicial precedent.
While we may find many of the recent federal laws and regulations oppressive, it could be worse. Imagine how many new prisons would need to be built if certain "immoral" conduct such as adultery suddenly became unlawful.
For a libertarian's take on this subject, please watch this segment from John Stossel's excellent Fox Business show of last week, Who Owns Your Body?.
I've owned mine for a very long time, and plan to keep it that way.
Great Heinlein quote — I’ll have to save it for later use!
Expand laws against adultery and you expand "crime" in the legal sense.
Should we, or should we not, prosecute each and every one of them to the fullest extent of the law now on the books?
“It’s natural and commendable for a man to have several mates.”
Really? Men who are faithful to their wives are not natural or commendable? I’ve been saving myself for 33 years for such an “unnatural” man.
I’ll stop having sex outside of marriage when they pry it from my cold, dead hand.
The problem with such laws that attempt to enforce societal morality along religious lines is that someone else can come along and get harsher, and the next guy even harsher yet. People who like to hold others to standards forget that others may have much higher standards - and much more brutal punishments. The hunter may quickly find that they are the hunted.
Which pretty much describes Islam, who’s spiraling laws of stricter morality are responsible to a great deal of the brutality in the world today. Surely you’d oppose with force any attempt by Muslim clerics to impose their moral order on this country. Surely you understand that many would do the same with you. At what point do you become Taliban?
If you were to enforce what you wanted to enforce like some Ministry of Virtue and Vice, I simply would declare a more strict morality, and by that authority overthrow and exterminate you in a very speedy, efficient and public manner. The hunter would become the hunted.
That’s always the problem seeking to do what you do. You would be harsh. I would be harsher. My superior morality would give me the authority to eradicate the infidels. And so on it would spiral, like it does in turd world countries like Pakistan, Somalia, and Sudan.
That is the problem with your position. Policing morality never stops where you draw the line. It always progresses till those in charge completely dominate and subjugate their people. That is why I hate Taliban of any religious stripe. I consider them regardless of religion to be vermin to be eradicated brutally and without mercy, before they make us all infidels under their oppressive yoke.
May I throw the first stone?
Let’s outlaw lying and coveting, too.
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.