'Gay' Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause

'Gay' Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause 12/4/2002 By Allyson Smith

"I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her." – "Iris," in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum.

"Quite frankly, if anyone in this case was being ‘persecuted’ it was Mr. Gutierrez. Unfortunately for the victim this was a lesson that she learned too hard and too late. Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to ‘help’ homosexuals." — "Silence Dogood," on ACLU Online Forum.

In the three weeks since Mary Stachowicz was murdered by homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez in Chicago, some pro-homosexualists have reacted with much more sympathy for the ‘gay’ killer than for his Christian victim. In fact, several even have gone as far as saying that Mrs. Stachowicz deserved to die for questioning the man’s lifestyle.

Predictably, the mainstream media and homosexual advocacy organizations have reacted to Mary Stachowicz’s murder the same way they did to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising’s torture-murder at the hands of two homosexual men in 1999: by avoiding it. As of December 4, no formal condemnations of Mrs. Stachowicz’s murder have been issued by leading groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Soulforce, a group that works in churches to oppose the traditional Christian view of homosexuality, issued no press statement, but a spokeswoman did give a quote to The Washington Times:

"We condemn this murder, like we do all murders," said Laura Montgomery Rutt, spokeswoman for Soulforce. "A hate crime needs to have an intent to intimidate a whole class of people. If in this case, it was directed at this person and intended to intimidate Christians, that would be a hate crime in my mind."

A devout Catholic, Mary Stachowicz met her martyrdom while working at the Sikorski Funeral Home on Chicago’s northwest side, where she got to know Gutierrez, 19, who lived in a second-floor apartment above the funeral home. On the afternoon of November 13, Stachowicz attended Mass at St. Hyacinth parish across the street, then returned to the funeral home and went to visit Gutierrez in his apartment.

According to Chicago police, an argument broke out when Mrs. Stachowicz lectured Gutierrez about his lifestyle and his lack of direction in life. Gutierrez later told police that he had issues with his mother and that the way Stachowicz was talking to him gave him flashbacks of his mother that angered him.

When Stachowicz asked him, "Why do you [have sex with] boys instead of girls?" Gutierrez snapped. In a fit of rage, he punched, kicked, stabbed and strangled the 51-year-old wife and mother of four. Gutierrez then stuffed her body into a crawl space under the floor of his apartment, where it remained for two days until he confessed to police.

Family members were baffled by Stachowicz’s disappearance. They posted fliers in neighborhoods, and her daughter made a public plea for her safe return.

"My sister is very healthy. She's very stable. She has the closest family you can imagine," Stachowicz’s younger sister, Alice Kosinski, told NBC5.com. "Her faith would not allow for anything out of the ordinary."

After learning of Gutierrez’s confession, Stachowicz’s loved ones agreed that the circumstances of her murder were in keeping with her character. Kosinski told The Chicago Tribune, "Because she's so Catholic, there's no room for being gay in the Catholic Church."

Friend Mary Coleman said, "Those of us who knew her immediately hear her soft voice saying something like, 'God wouldn't approve of the way you're living your life.’ That's how Mary did things."

Rev. Francis Rog of St. Hyacinth Church told ABC 7 Chicago news, "She was a very intense person, concerned about the good of the parish, always seeking things for the poor as well as spiritual welfare for people."

Police recovered Stachowicz’s body on November 15 and charged Gutierrez two days later with first-degree murder, concealing a homicidal death, and burglary for attempting to steal money from Stachowicz’s purse.

Chicago local media reported these events, choosing headlines devoid of the words "gay" or "homosexual." In contrast, several homosexual publications – including Gay.com/PlanetOut.com, Gay People’s Chronicle, and the Washington Blade -- did use "gay" in their headlines.

Gay.com began running the story on November 19, a full week before the first mainstream news story appeared in The Washington Times.

The same day, National Review Online columnist Rod Dreher published a commentary titled These Victims Are People, Too" wherein he lamented "the deafening media silence around the savage murder of Mary Stachowicz" and speculated on its cause:

"One cannot help wondering if the upright citizens who report the news don't privately share the view of gay blogger James Wagner, who said of Stachowicz’s strangling:

The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother.

Dreher added, "I believe many, and probably most, journalists share the unspoken assumption that Christians bring such trouble on themselves."

That assumption appears to be shared by pro-homosexual cyber citizens. A search for "Mary Stachowicz" on message boards, e-mail lists, and Web logs (blogs) turned up several people who reacted viciously toward Stachowicz and Christianity.

For example, James Wagner’s boyfriend, Barry, expressed the hope on his blog that "maybe [Stachowicz’s murder] will strike fear in the hearts of a few fundamentalists" and then asked, "Where do I send a check for his (Gutierrez’s) defense fund?"

James and Barry’s statements drew the following response from fellow homosexual Michael Benedetto:

"I think that if gays are going to continue to have any credibility in politics, our sympathies in cases like this are going to have to lie first and foremost with the victims. And that's one upsetting thing about Barry's and James' posts: Until the criticism started to roll in, the only sympathy they expressed was for the wrong person."

Elsewhere, Benedetto wrote, "[Y]es, the woman (Stachowicz) was clearly a meddlesome b---- who didn't understand that the lives of her co-workers were none of her business. That does not make her any less the victim, or absolve her killer of any of his guilt."

Several posts implied that Stachowicz had brought on her own death. One man wrote to a Yahoo discussion forum, "It's Sad Someone Was Murdered, BUT... ...I do wish the Religious Wrong would learn to mind their own business."

"Iris" wrote to the ACLU Online Forum: "I am in no way condoning this man's behavior. Murder is murder. He should receive life or the death penalty for his actions. But one fact remains ... if she would have been minding her own [expletive] business instead of attempting to ram her religion where it didn't belong, none of this would have ever happened. I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her."

"Silence Dogood" agreed: "I won't go so far as to say that she deserved what she got, no one deserves to die, but I won't exactly be shedding any tears for her. Quite frankly, if anyone in this case was being 'persecuted' it was Mr. Gutierrez. Unfortunately for the victim this was a lesson that she learned too hard and too late. Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to ‘help’ homosexuals."

Other discussions centered on the characteristics of hate crimes. "Real" hate crimes, explained ACLU Online Forum member "morningstar," must be like Matthew Shepard’s murder; they must be premeditated and target a group.

"KingFred" wrote to the MacAddict Forum: "Since (Gutierrez has) already admitted he did the crime, there's no question he should do the time. But ‘hate crime’? Don't see it here. He didn't go out to get himself a Christian. He did in a person who may have been berating him, using her Christian beliefs as ‘weapons'. That doesn't justify what he did by any means, but it may explain it."

Catholic League President William Donohue summed up the problems with hate crimes statutes as illustrated by Mary Stachowicz’s murder in a November 26 press release:

"A few thoughts on this matter: a) this (Mary’s murder) will not be listed as a hate crime, thus showing how useless this category of crime is; b) the killer is going to be charged with a capital offense, thus showing once again how useless this category of crime is; c) Mary Stachowicz will never be remembered the way Matthew Shepard is, thus showing how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is. The fact is she was murdered for having a Catholic-informed conscience."

Others blamed the Roman Catholic Church for Stachowicz’s murder. On the Naked Writing blog, "JodyW" commented, "Gutierrez is responsible for what he did. So the RCC [Roman Catholic Church] is responsible for continuing to put forth a silly, stupid and factually wrong doctrine of ‘objective disorders’ and ‘intrinsic moral evil’ regarding homosexuality. For all that that evil that that doctrine has done and continues to do, they have a lot to be held accountable for."

Perhaps the cruelest comment of all was this from a San Francisco man on Yahoo: "The b---- had it coming to her. I'm glad he killed her. Too bad he'll probably spend the rest of his life in prison getting his little butt pounded, but still, I'm glad he killed her. The b---- deserved to die."

Mary Stachowicz, nee Frank, devoted wife of Jerry; beloved mother of Peter, Christopher, Angela (Louie) Ruffolo and Daniel; loving daughter of Agnes and the late Rudolf Frank; dear sister of Irene (John) Rog and Alice (Mark) Kosinski. Funeral Tuesday, 9:30 a.m., from Cumberland Chapels, 8300 W. Lawrence Ave., Norridge, to St. Hyacinth Church, Mass 11 a.m. Interment St. Adalbert Cemetery.

Four pages of condolences accompanied the obituary, where former classmates, co-workers and other family friends left messages of sympathy for Mary’s tragic demise.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that, after Mary’s death, Alderwoman Vilma Colom (35th) introduced a city council resolution in her memory. "She lost her life in an unselfish attempt to help a very disturbed young man, and for that she should be remembered," said Colom, who goes to the same church Stachowicz did.

Mary’s sister, Alice Kosinski, told the Chicago Tribune that her sister's death is difficult for everyone in her family to fathom.

"We're not doing that well," she said. "It just doesn't make any sense, and somehow we're going to have to make our peace with it."

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.

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.