So no source. Thomas Jefferson wasn't exactly a puritan, and as something of a heretic in his religious beliefs I am not sure I am willing to accept him as some sort of absolute moral authority in any case.
If you think such laws that determine what someone can and cannot worship and what practices are forbidden between a husband and wife in the bedroom are consistent with the notion of a government of limited authority and the absolute freedom of conscience of the people; I simply do not know what to tell you other than that your ideas are anathema to what Thomas Jefferson proposed.
“People are FREE to worship whatever damn fool idea comes into their head, and they are free to talk about that idea and try to convince people of it.”
A proposition with which the Founding Fathers would not agree, which means that this interpretation of the Constitution is faulty.
“America’s founders were wise enough to understand that religious freedom could not be limitless. They also understood that this precious liberty should not be restricted unless the state could provide good reasons why these restrictions are justified. This is why the wording of free exercise provisions in state constitutions at the time of the founding of America typically allowed for the limitation of religious liberty if the prohibited actions would interfere with some aspect of the community’s good. New York State’s Constitution (1777) is typical in this regard: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.”
http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Free.htm
“Thomas Jefferson wasn’t exactly a puritan, and as something of a heretic in his religious beliefs”
What, are you on sabbatical from DU or something? You don’t get much applause for trashing the heroes of the revolution on this site.
“I am not sure I am willing to accept him as some sort of absolute moral authority in any case.”
False dichotomy. The choices are not between accepting him as an abolute moral authority or completely dismissing his thoughts. He is one of the sources to which we can look to determine how the Founding Fathers actually understood the Constitution.
“I simply do not know what to tell you other than that your ideas are anathema to what Thomas Jefferson proposed.”
Try again. It is your ideas for which Jefferson would have cheerfully flogged, or even executed, your philosophical ancestors.
Here are a couple of sources that mention Jefferson’s proposal of castration for the crime of sodomy. Odd that you never heard of it, being such an expert on the topic and all.
“Under the Capital Laws of New-England that went into effect between 1636-1647 the death penalty was meted out for pre-meditated murder, sodomy, witchcraft, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, assault in anger, rape, statutory rape, manstealing, perjury in a capital trial, rebellion, manslaughter, poisoning and bestiality. Early laws were accompanied by a scripture from the Old Testament.”
Jefferson himself wrote, “The first reforms of the death penalty occurred between 1776-1800. Thomas Jefferson and four others, authorized to undertake a complete revision of Virginia’s laws, proposed a law that recommended the death penalty for only treason and murder. After a stormy debate the legislature defeated the bill by one vote.
“The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes,... was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to.
Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason, [but I] would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., punish by castration.”
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/431452
“In 1777, Thomas Jefferson and others worked on a proposed new criminal code for Virginia in anticipation of the success of the American Revolution. The proposed new sodomy law would have eliminated the death penalty and replaced it with castration for males and the boring of a hole through the nose of a woman. The proposal did not become law, but clearly showed that women were subject to prosecution under current legal thinking.
“In 1792, when Virginia enacted its first sodomy law, it still was not ready for the removal of the death penalty. The law did, however, make certain that women were liable to prosecution. The new law read:
“That if any do commit the detestable and abominable vice of Buggery, with man or beast, he or she so offending, shall be adjudged a felon, and shall suffer death, in the case of felony, without the benefit of Clergy.
(The article goes on to say, “This law makes it clear that a woman could not be a victim of sodomy, but could be a perpetrator,” but that does not appear to be the case.)
“In 1800, the Virginia legislature showed its willingness to reduce the penalty for sodomy, but only for some people. A new statute30 set a penalty of 1-10 years for free persons committing sodomy either as principal or as accessory, but did not reduce the death penalty for slaves.
“In 1916, Virginia amended its sodomy law to expand its scope to cover oral sex. However, the legislature made a unique contribution to law for more than a half century when it worded the provision to read, ‘If any person...[shall] have carnal copulation in any manner with another person of the same sex...’ Fellatio and cunnilingus could be enjoyed by heterosexuals, but not homosexual men or lesbians.
“The Virginia Supreme Court followed the dictates of this statute in the case of Wise v. Commonwealth, decided in 1923, when it unanimously overturned the conviction of a heterosexual man for cunnilingus. The Court stated that it could not understand why the legislature put the same-sex restriction into the law, ‘unless because the legislators did not even imagine that such an offense would ever be committed between a man and a woman.’
However, the Court was confident that the legislature “will cure the oversight when called to its attention[.]”50 In concluding, the Court said that it “can hardly be necessary for us to say that the subject of this opinion has been distasteful.”51 They had endeavored to reach the conclusion ‘without unnecessary indelicacy of expression, but also without prudery or idle denunciation of the act charged. This character of evil conduct is the vice of low and depraved natures, and instances of it appear to have been notably rare in this jurisdiction.’
The legislature did exactly as the Court suggested. In 1924, the law was reworded to read, “If any person shall carnally know in any manner any brute animal, or carnally know any male of female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submit to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a felony and shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than three years.
“During World War I, Virginia followed the lead of other states and amended its law to permit prosecution for oral sex, except that this provision was limited to acts between those of the same sex. There is no historical indication as to why this discrimination was enacted and, when a heterosexual oral sex case appeared before it, the Virginia Supreme Court reluctantly reversed on that ground. The legislature speedily revised the law to include heterosexual acts.”
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/virginia.htm
“Under the Capital Laws of New-England that went into effect between 1636-1647 the death penalty was meted out for pre-meditated murder, sodomy, witchcraft, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, assault in anger, rape, statutory rape, manstealing, perjury in a capital trial, rebellion, manslaughter, poisoning and bestiality. Early laws were accompanied by a scripture from the Old Testament.”
Jefferson himself wrote, “The first reforms of the death penalty occurred between 1776-1800. Thomas Jefferson and four others, authorized to undertake a complete revision of Virginia’s laws, proposed a law that recommended the death penalty for only treason and murder. After a stormy debate the legislature defeated the bill by one vote.
“The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes...was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to.
Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason, [but I] would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., punish by castration.”
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/431452
“In 1777, Thomas Jefferson and others worked on a proposed new criminal code for Virginia in anticipation of the success of the American Revolution. The proposed new sodomy law would have eliminated the death penalty and replaced it with castration for males and the boring of a hole through the nose of a woman. The proposal did not become law, but clearly showed that women were subject to prosecution under current legal thinking.
“In 1792, when Virginia enacted its first sodomy law, it still was not ready for the removal of the death penalty. The law did, however, make certain that women were liable to prosecution. The new law read
“That if any do commit the detestable and abominable vice of Buggery, with man or beast, he or she so offending, shall be adjudged a felon, and shall suffer death, in the case of felony, without the benefit of Clergy.
(The article goes on to say, “This law makes it clear that a woman could not be a victim of sodomy, but could be a perpetrator,” but that does not appear to be the case.)
“In 1800, the Virginia legislature showed its willingness to reduce the penalty for sodomy, but only for some people. A new statute30 set a penalty of 1-10 years for free persons committing sodomy either as principal or as accessory, but did not reduce the death penalty for slaves.
“In 1916, Virginia amended its sodomy law to expand its scope to cover oral sex. However, the legislature made a unique contribution to law for more than a half century when it worded the provision to read, ‘If any person...[shall] have carnal copulation in any manner with another person of the same sex...’ Fellatio and cunnilingus could be enjoyed by heterosexuals, but not homosexual men or lesbians.
“The Virginia Supreme Court followed the dictates of this statute in the case of Wise v. Commonwealth, decided in 1923, when it unanimously overturned the conviction of a heterosexual man for cunnilingus. The Court stated that it could not understand why the legislature put the same-sex restriction into the law, ‘unless because the legislators did not even imagine that such an offense would ever be committed between a man and a woman.’
“However, the Court was confident that the legislature ‘will cure the oversight when called to its attention.’ In concluding, the Court said that it ‘can hardly be necessary for us to say that the subject of this opinion has been distasteful.’ They had endeavored to reach the conclusion ‘without unnecessary indelicacy of expression, but also without prudery or idle denunciation of the act charged. This character of evil conduct is the vice of low and depraved natures, and instances of it appear to have been notably rare in this jurisdiction.’
“The legislature did exactly as the Court suggested. In 1924, the law was reworded to read, ‘If any person shall carnally know in any manner any brute animal, or carnally know any male of female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submit to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a felony and shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than three years.’
“During World War I, Virginia followed the lead of other states and amended its law to permit prosecution for oral sex, except that this provision was limited to acts between those of the same sex. There is no historical indication as to why this discrimination was enacted and, when a heterosexual oral sex case appeared before it, the Virginia Supreme Court reluctantly reversed on that ground. The legislature speedily revised the law to include heterosexual acts.”
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/virginia.htm