Posted on 02/21/2002 12:36:24 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:43 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts' highest court on Thursday upheld two anti-sodomy laws but limited enforcement to cases when specific sex acts occurred in public or weren't consensual.
Gay activists said the Supreme Judicial Court ruling clarified for the first time that anti-sodomy laws don't apply to private, consensual sex.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Thursday, January 17, 2002 -- (BOSTON AP) - Lawmakers in the House approved a bill Wednesday designed to toughen the state's incest law by broadening the definition of sexual contact.
The move was sparked by a Supreme Judicial Court ruling two years ago that found that current Massachusetts incest law only applies to intercourse between a child and parent and not other forms of sexual conduct.
The state's highest court made the ruling after it threw out an incest indictment in the case of a Plymouth County man. One of the allegations was that he had his daughter perform oral sex on him.
The court said at the time that its ruling "undoubtedly offends both common sense and fundamental decency," but it was compelled by the language in the law.
The bill would change the law by expanding the definition of incest to include a wide range of sexual behavior, including oral sex and digital contact.
The bill was approved unanimously by the Senate last year. The House passed a slightly different version of the bill unanimously on Wednesday.
"It's vitally important that we close the loophole that was created by the SJC decision," said state Sen. Cheryl Jacques, D-Needham, the bill's sponsor.
"Clearly the intent of the Legislature was to outlaw all sexual acts between a child and a parent and this bill would do that," she said.
Rep. Elizabeth Poirier, R-North Attleboro, pushed the bill in the House saying it would send a clear message that the state would not tolerate any form of sexual abuse of children by their parents.
If both houses can agree on a single version of the bill, it will be sent to acting Gov. Jane Swift's desk. An aide to Swift said she would likely sign the bill. The legislation is more than just a technical correction, Jacques said. She said people already convicted of incest could point to the SJC decision and try to appeal.
The bill would also strengthen the ability of prosecutors to charge defendants with incest. Jacques said prosecutors sometimes use the charge because it carries a higher penalty than lesser charges like indecent assault and battery of a minor.
In the Plymouth case, the man was convicted of indecent assault and battery of a person under 14 and sentenced to two years in prison and three years probation, she said. A conviction for incest could have drawn a 20-year sentence.
Two of my cousins, first cousins to each other, dated for a while.
The worst problem was that after breaking up they now feel uncomfortable attending family events where the other will be present.
Maybe there is a good reason not to legitimize incest among adults(birth defects), but I don't think it is against the law. Some states prohibit marriage between cousins, others do not.
In fact, the federal government is constitutionally forbidden to outlaw sodomy. But the federal government is also constitutionally forbidden to outlaw murder, and rape, and robbery. That's all in the Ninth Amendment, too.
And here's a question (I'm leaving now--really!--but I'll be back in the morning). When was the first anti-sodomy statute passed in the US? And when was the first court ruling overturning an anti-sodomy statute? In other words, how long did it take the courts to realize that sodomy was an inalienable human right?
And I keep asking you the same question too. Do you think incest should be legitimized in the same manner that homosexuality has been? If incestual couples lobby to have anti-incest laws overturned will you support that? If incestual couples demand the same type of normalization of their sexual behavior as the homosexuals will you defend that? In order to be consistent, you'll have to.
Leaving aside the fact that this is a Massachusetts case, not Maryland:
A) I've dealt with general provisions such as that (e.g., the Ninth Amendment) in previous posts. Yours raises no further issues.
Mine addresses the false assertion (often raised on FR) that only the federal government's powers are limited and the states are 50 experiments in unlimited majoritarian socialism.
B) As far as I know, neither the Massachusetts State Constitution nor the US Constitution authorizes the Massachusetts legislature to forbid murder...
In the case of Maryland, Article V of Maryland's Declaration of Rights says that the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England--which I think forbids murder--but, that's a bit of a stretch, to be consistent with the theory of limited enumerated powers one should see them listed in the power enumerating section (article 3 of Maryland's). So I'll take your point under advisement.
C) Massachusetts may well someday put a sodomy protection in their state constitution. But we were discussing provisions of the US Constitution.
I took your question to mean, "please cite the state constitutional enumeration of the right to be free from J Edgar and his vice-mates."
D) If you don't like a law, but can't find a constitutional provision forbidding it, why don't you try behaving like a citizen of a republic and attempt to get it repealed through the legislative process?
Why don't you behave like a true citizen in a republic who understands that all of his rights need not be enumerated?
Not a chance! I hope it was tasty! =)
--- The 14th lists deprivations of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", as a type of law "No state shall make or enforce".
Number one, it doesn't actually answer the question. Number two, even gramatically, it makes no sense as an answer to the question.
As you see above, --it makes perfect sense, -- if you have a bit of common sense. -- And can read the 14th.
Number three, no one has suggested that people arrested under an anti-sodomy law are not entitled to due process. People arrested under anti-murder laws are also entitled to due process. Does that make anti-murder laws unconstitutional? And now this discussion has gotten annoyingly silly, and so I will be saying goodbye, then, sir. Goodbye, then, sir.
Yep, its been made silly, -- by you. -- Thanks for scurrying away.
Come on now! We need cameras in every room of the house linked to the poh-poh station. That way we can make sure everyone is only having heterosexual sex - missionary, on the bed, and in the dark.
As a side note we could also make sure no one was smoking the devil weed, and that everyone was getting drunk on beer and or wiskey. Their drug baaaaaaad, our drug gooooooood!
:-)
Here is site with a survey of sex laws: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2269/
Of course, different jurisdictions define incest differently, whether the law be crimimal or civil. Some states include cousins, others do not. Some include adopted persons.
The problem is that your position requires that those unemumerated rights be determined by judges--in other words, by a cabal of black-robed lawyers. And since our other rights are unenumerated, they can pretty much rewrite the laws any way they want them. What about the right to self-government?
I prefer to be governed by the people's representatives, except in very specific and enumerated instances. I believe that my unenumerated rights are safer in the hands of the citizenry than in the hands of the lawyers.
Can you find instances from the early history of this nation (when the founding generation was still alive) of anyone using the Ninth Amendment as an argument against state anti-sodomy laws, let alone of courts overturning them? If you can, I will grant that perhaps your interpretation of the effect of the Ninth Amendment is correct. If not, please explain to me why the Founders so badly misinterpreted their own work.
Uh? Since when impersonation became legal?
No one is talking about depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. People accused of violating anti-sodomy laws receive due process, just the same as anyone accused of violating any other law.
If you're talking about the idiotic and tyrannical notion of "substantive due process," then I give up.
This is not about private behvior. This is about behavior which threatens the public order. You can do in your own bedroom to your heart's content, but I will not argue for anyone's right to have unencumbered sex of any type just because they are "barely" shielded from public view.
In our republics, each officer of the executive branch is also sworn to NOT enforce statutes of the legislature that each executive officer deems in violation of the un-enumerated inherent rights that our state and federal constitutions protect.
But most importantly, in every criminal case, all 12 randomly selected jurors are bound to NOT enforce unjust statutes. So a statute that 1/12th of the community thinks is in violation of the un-enumerated rights that our constitutions refer to will not be enforced.
What about the right to self-government?
The system of vetoes and separation of powers in our republics is a great advancement toward true self-government.
I prefer to be governed by the people's representatives, except in very specific and enumerated instances.
I prefer our system of citizen oversight of all statutes drawn up in smoke filled rooms.
I believe that my unenumerated rights are safer in the hands of the citizenry than in the hands of the lawyers.
Exactly. But the lawyers (and teachers unionists) that run our state legislatures as well as the lawyers that run the judiciary get a veto too.
Can you find instances from the early history of this nation (when the founding generation was still alive) of anyone using the Ninth Amendment as an argument against state anti-sodomy laws, let alone of courts overturning them? If you can, I will grant that perhaps your interpretation of the effect of the Ninth Amendment is correct.
Yes, up until the mid to late 19th century, the citizenry regulary vetoed statutes that they considered to be in violation of inherent rights. The best example is the slavery statutes. Godfrey Lehman has documented how juries were instrumental in slavery's abolition in the north AND the south. The Zengar case and the Sedition Acts of the 1790s are world famous cases of how our republics protect the un-enumerated rights of its citizens that are referred to in our constitutions.
Nowadays, all jurors are threatened by judges (lawyers) that they will be jailed for contempt if they attempt to exercize their power to nullify unjust statutes.
I would say the 4th amendment covers it for private acts. However, anyone having sex in public, ought to be arrested.
Also, when a president or governor refuses to enforce a law, he can be turfed out of office at the next election and replaced with someone who promises to enforce the law. When do we get rid of Stephen Breyer? Only when he chooses to leave or dies. And then, under your system of jurisprudence, we have to hope that his replacement agrees with us politically, since it is his political desires that will govern the decisions he makes.
Pardon me, but I simply don't like that system.
No, the prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures might make such a law practically impossible to enforce, but that doesn't affect the constitutional standing of the law itself.
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.