Lop-sided Gay Marriage Battle in Massachusetts

Our Nation's laws against homosexuality go back beyond it's founding. In every single civilized nation since the beginning of time, homosexuality was considered immoral, a crime against nature, and usually was a capital offense. Let's look at a few quotes:

"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.

The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)."

The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris: "'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV) Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."(KJV) Leviticus 20:13

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (KJV) Deuteronomy 23:17

No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil... ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.

"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186

Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791:

Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).

Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868:

Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, 1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).

"Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King's Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament" Buggery act of England 1553

Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted" English law forbidding sodomy dating back to 1300AD.

These quotes are just a few of the many that are avaliable.

Now, why did these laws exist? Libertarians and other assorted liberal folk don't like any laws that protect society and prevent the moral decline of a nation's people. They are immoral people and they want to be free to be immoral.

What did our founders say about this? Way back in 1815, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided an important case, here are excerpts from that case:

This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society... Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.

Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.

Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...

No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated.

Keep in mind now that the judges on this court had lived through the revolution and fought for the nation's survival. This was just a few years after the Constitution was Adopted. SO the libertarians who are going to scream that these judges didn't know what they were talking about are way off base. (They want you to think that your basic pot head knows more about the Constitution than the men who were actually there at the nation's founding.)

Now why did the court take that position? Simple, a Nation without morality cannot function. A nation that loses site on principle is doomed to go the way of the Roman Empire. Every single nation that has lost sight of basic moral principles has fallen. Homosexuality is anathema to morality. The two cannot exist together. Homosexuality is unnatural (no matter how much liberals will try to convince you otherwise.) And it is immoral. It cannot be tolerated period.

Homosexuality is immoral, Indecent, abhorant, and repugnant. It is a stain on our society, and must never ever be tolerated.

Why were our Founders "Nannys" and all of the sudden in the 1960's should we become elightened to the fact that homosexuality was suddenly okay after being considered immoral for thousands of years??

Why are Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina , Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Massachusetts Michigan, and Missouri Wrong today? As each of these states have laws against sodomy.

What makes libertarians/liberals/democrats/sodomites/ACLU/NAMBLA/Greens so much more informed of the spirit of the founder's intent on this subject, yet thousands of years of case law, a United States Supreme Court Decision, Countless Appeals and State Court Decisions, Laws dating back to the Roman Empire, and Thousands of years of Biblical Judeo-Christian Values wrong?

Why should we believe the libertarian/democrat/ACLU/NAMBLA/Green/Sodomite position in light of this overwhelming evidence?

The United States Supreme Court Decision in No. 85-140 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 478 U.S. 186; 106 S. Ct. 2841; 92 L.Ed. 2d 140; 54 U.S.L.W. 4919 March 31, 1986.
is a great source of information.

Boy those founding fathers sure open up a can of worms. That damn declaration and constitution. Is it too late to edit out a few phrases?

Thanx for the historical perspective, you wasted a lot of bandwidth on stuff I already know.

Oh! And welcome to the 21st century. Keep your eyes open and hang on, you're in for a bumpy ride.

Why can't they be like we are, perfect in everyway, what's the matter with gays today................

If the point comes where the leftists continue destroying our culture beyond a certain point. They are going to be on the wrong end of the mudslide.

You and your ilk will find out.

Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson.

For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10:30-31 NKJV

aren't you the same person who posted all the sodomy laws last week. Either way, here's my response. It's none of the government's business how my wife and I have sex or any other adult for that matter. You're big on history but you neglect the perspective that the number of these laws has greatly decreased in the last 100 years.

As a supposed conservative, how do you rectify (pun intended) your views on the government outlawing adult sexual behavior, even amongst spouses, with your conservative views. Or are you just mixing your religion into other people's private lives?

I'd be interested in signing on - but only in another jurisdiction.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court is routinely reversed, often 9-0 or 7-2 by the US Supreme Court, on cases that they have voted 7-0 on.

They are that bad.

The Chief Justice is Margaret Marshall AKA Mrs Anthony Lewis of NY Times fame.

"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.

No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil... ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.

"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186

All recent decisions. You can't blame these on those "Evil Founders."

The United States Military, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Massachusetts Michigan, and Missouri all have laws That ban Homosexuality.

In many of those places, Homosexuality is a felony. In North Carolina for example, Homosexuality is a class I felony, Homosexuals who go to the parks to engage in their perversions are prosecuted and convicted, and live the rest of their pathetic lives with that status hanging over them.

Pinging the Good Guys.

I think you should start a campaign in those states to have the homosexuals, who you say are de facto felons by their existence or choice, put in prison. Let's get law enforcement to enforce the laws. How can you let this ommission go on. You are not living up to our history.

Meanwhile, I'll get some laws reinstated so we can go after witches. If we divide up the labor we can get the job done.

Your guest list contains posters who namecall, lie, and run away, but hey if you need the help, you need the help. Good guys who lie and are against freedom, now theres an organization.

Addressing one of the good guys in advance.

CJ the other night you called me a drug user. When you acknowledge your insult and lie, I may respond to you. Until then you have a free hand to continue these practices.

I'll not tell the moderator, so you have a clear path ahead.

The Democrats are going to find themselves in deep sh*t once their stooges on the Mass. Supreme Court do the gay lobby's bidding. This won't fly in flyover country at all. Hell, it would seriously alienate them from even the black community ...

This is a major slippery slope. In all cultures around the world, three laws govern marriage; (1) Only two people share a marriage bond i.e. even in polygynous/polyandrous marriages, the man/woman is married to each woman/man individually and the wives/husbands are NOT married to each other.

(2) Only a man and woman can get married. Even the Igbos, who have a form of woman-woman marriage make it clear that it's a strictly non-sexual/economic arrangement. The woman who is the "husband" gets men to get her "wife" pregnant so she can have "children" who would work her farm. The woman-husband generally is married herself ... to a man.

(3) Only two people of sufficient distance in blood can get married. Of course, this "distance" differs from culture to culture but it's quite clear that people from within the same nuclear family can't get married. It happened in ancient Egypt among the Pharoahs because "gods" could not marry mere mortals but ...

Now if Rule (2) can be thrown away in favor of PC, why not Rule (3)? What if Jack and his sister Jill (consenting adults) want to get married? Why should their marriage not be recognized? Their children would be deformed?

What if Jack decides to be sterilized? What if it's Jack and Jim? What if it's Jack, his brother Jim, his uncle Joe and Jim's daughter Jill who want to get married in a four-way pan-sexual marriage? Why not? Because it's disgusting? Wasn't that what was said about homosexuality just a few decades ago?

This is one major can of worms the Left is opening. Most people recognize this. That's why this is really gonna hurt them in 2004 ...

These threads are notorious for their slippery slope examples. You put up the challenge for relative-marraige, but that does not apply to unrelated adults. So you have established a classic straw man. Why not pitch to your own team and hit one out of the park.

Soon Kevin Curry will come along and ask what's wrong with marrying animals and someone already mentioned marrying kids. Kevin and others do this because they are disrupters who ignore rational responses over and over. None of these equate to two unrelated adults being married. No one can justify how children would be allowed to enter into this type of contract. As for animals, baaaaaaaaaaad example.

To use your can of worms analogy, not all worms are able to climb out of the can.

PS: BTW none of these laws stop some people from having sex with kids, relatives, or animals, and according to Jerry Springer, sometimes all three.

Interesting because a ballot question defining marriage a union of one man and one woman passed like 75-25. Only the in the undemocratic courts can this jive be enacted into law.

You must know the history of such court actions and the reason why. Rights cannot be abrogated by a plurality vote. Throughout the history of the US rights have been upheld by court cases because people try to limit the rights of others based upon, religious belief, prejudices, or just plain ignorance.

IOW, you support gay marriage. Along with Marriage, comes adoption.

Marked...breakem supports the queers.

SR

You misrepresented my view, although you got some of it right. I would not ban gay adoption, but as I said earlier, and you erroneously forgot to cite it, father mother is still the best. Sorry to dissapoint you. Perhaps you can find another misreading upon which to attack me. Take a shot.

BTW, in your comment that I "support the queers." Even though you mean it as an insult and an attempt to deride me, I am proud to place human rights over your attempt to deny people of them. I'll list you on the side of government control, excellent conservative position.

Throughout the history of the US rights have been upheld by court cases because people try to limit the rights of others based upon, religious belief, prejudices, or just plain ignorance.

A flat out lie if you are suggesting that engaging in sodomy is a "Right".

No. 85-140
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
478 U.S. 186
March 31, 1986
June 30, 1986

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.

Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 190-196 .

(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191 .

(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 191-194 .

(c) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 194-195 .

(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 , distinguished. Pp. 195-196 .

(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 196 .

760 F.2d 1202, reversed. [p*187]

Opinions

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., post, p. 196 , and POWELL, J., post, p. 197 , filed concurring opinions. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 199 . STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 214 .

WHITE, J., Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Sodomy is not a right. States have the right to ban Sodomy.

PERIOD. End of Story.