Pro-Sodomy Bill Gets OK From Criminal Justice Committee

Beacon Hill Beat ^ | Wednesday, March 6, 2002 | staff reports, wire services, and the State House News Service

[Rockyrich]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use….
A bill repealing colonial-era sex laws that prohibit “abominable and detestable crimes against nature,” interpreted to mean sodomy, was approved by a legislative committee Tuesday. Aides to the Criminal Justice Committee said they believed it was the first time such a bill repealing the 17th-century statutes had passed out of a committee. Backers of the repeal say the archaic laws could be used to intimidate and threaten gays with jail terms of up to 20 years.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) would also broaden the definition of bestiality to include domestic animals. State law now only makes mention of “hoofed animals” – a holdover from the state’s farm days. But committee aides said they heard from prosecutors that house pets also lacked protection under the law. Creem’s bill would also strike from the books laws that punish adultery with jail terms of up to 3 years or fines of $500. The law is outmoded, aides said. The bill (S 171) now heads to the full Senate.

[Rockyrich]

The bill sponsored by Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) would also broaden the definition of bestiality to include domestic animals. . . . house pets also lacked protection under the law.

I was so impressed with the foresight of the people's republic of Massachusetts that when they passed the pro-sodomy law that they needed to protect their pet population.

[Jen]

We've got to stop these 'cheerleaders' for the loony liberals!

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
- Samuel Adams

---

Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers.
Donations and official correspondence should be mailed to:
Free Republic, LLC, PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794

Support Free Republic by secure credit card.

Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

[breakem]

apparently many of you here have not had the pleasure of a full sexual relationship with your spouse. Or are you against heterosexual sex.

[Dimensio]

How dare these legislators suggest that the government should no longer regulate private sexual activity between consenting adults!

This won't be a free society until we have government-installed cameras in every bedroom to insure that no "unauthorized" sexual positions are being used.

[RJCogburn]

In general, I like the idea of repeal of laws...we certainly have too many.

In this specific case, I think repeal is a great idea.

Calling this "pro-sodomy" is a silly statement.

[Rockyrich]

I think the next step is for these brown-shirt socialists to draft legislation for school kids to bring their pets to school and introduce them to the aspects of homosexuality. This legislature could then take some polls on the kids pets to see how many pets support the behavior and determine if it was inherited or learned.

[concerned about politics]

It's great for married heterosexuals.
The homos should get the 20 years, along with their little dog toto, too. Homosexuals and beastiality isn't that much different. They're both strange fetishes, no matter how "sweet" they try to make it.

[xm177e2]

Homosexuals and beastiality isn't that much different. They're both strange fetishes, no matter how "sweet" they try to make it.

Yet we recognize homosexual adults as adults who can consent to private behavior with one another. I would actually believe you were a moral crusader, and not just a typical bigot, if you ALSO wanted to make heterosexual sodomy a crime, as well as adultery and all other fornication. In other words: you think violating Biblical sex laws is JUST FINE, as long as the violators are straight, but those same Biblical sex laws should apply to gays. Hypocrite.

How can some people only half-embrace the Bible? Selectively picking and choosing the rules THEY want... it's pathetic.

[nofriendofbills]

So what happens if the domestic animal is also the domestic partner?

The legal implications are staggering!

[Dimensio]

I think the next step is for these brown-shirt socialists to draft legislation for school kids to bring their pets to school and introduce them to the aspects of homosexuality.

You're absolutely right: decriminalizing sodomy is just one step away from forced indoctrination.

[nofriendofbills]

How can some people only half-embrace the Bible? Selectively picking and choosing the rules THEY want... it's pathetic.

Standard operating procedure...The Churches have always forgiven the sins of the majority, we wouldn't want to scare off our biggest donors. This is why the RC's so readily grant annulments and there are Protestant ministers who've been married and divorced a couple of times. It' all a racket.

[concerned about politics]

How can some people only half-embrace the Bible? Selectively picking and choosing the rules THEY want... it's pathetic.

In the Bible, man and women become one in marrage. Where in the Bible do you find they cannot do what ever they please? Of course they can. They're untited before God.

Now queerdom and butt fetish are certainly not supported by Biblical doctorine. Really! Get a grip!

[nofriendofbills]

You're absolutely right: decriminalizing sodomy is just one step away from forced indoctrination.

Possibly the stupidest thing I ever read on FR. And that covers a lot of territory.

[Dimensio]

Possibly the stupidest thing I ever read on FR. And that covers a lot of territory.

I do hope that you realise that I was being sarcastic (though I was expressing what seemed to be the logical inference of the statement posed by the person to whom I was responding).

[Buckeroo]

Isn't a "democracy" grand?

[xm177e2]

In the Bible, man and women become one in marrage. Where in the Bible do you find they cannot do what ever they please? Of course they can. They're untited before God.

Now queerdom and butt fetish are certainly not supported by Biblical doctorine. Really! Get a grip!

What about unmarried heterosexuals?