American Taliban: Family Group Calls for Laws To Be Strengthened That Criminalize Sex Outside of Marriage

There is an interesting fight in Minnesota where State Senator Ellen Anderson made the modest suggestion that the state repeal laws making it illegal for a married woman to cheat on her husband and another statute that makes it a crime for single women to have sex at all. The response of the powerful Minnesota Family Council is to call for the law not to be repealed but strengthened to make it a crime for men to have sex outside of marriage.

An adulterous woman today can charged with a gross misdemeanor with a prison sentence of one year, plus a possible fine of up to $3,000. This was once a standard “morality law” in the states. For a prior column criticizing such laws and questioning their constitutionality, click here.

Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council insists that “they’re important. They send a message . . . When you are dealing with a marriage, it’s not just a private activity or a private institution. It’s a very public institution. It has enormous consequences for the rest of society.”

These laws are presumptively unconstitutional. However, it is the continued use of criminal law to force people to comply with religious values that is troubling. This is precisely the view of the law enforced by religious extremists throughout the world. This is, as Mr. Prichard suggests, a matter of great symbolism even if the laws are not enforced. It stands for the proposition that consenting adults can be jailed in the United States for failing to maintain the moral principles of their neighbors.

For the full story, click here.

45 thoughts on “American Taliban: Family Group Calls for Laws To Be Strengthened That Criminalize Sex Outside of Marriage”

  1. Gynes,

    Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear in the opening statement of my first post on the topic when I said the right being violated is the right of property (money). Promiscuity (the offspring created by it) leads to higher crime rates. That crime is costing us a bundle. It wasn’t always that way.

    Let me save you some trouble too, I’ve been married to an atheist for decades. Said spouse is the best person in my fundamentalist Christian life. And I don’t know what you mean that you could run theological circles around me, but it seems that you have run them around yourself, since a true believer (or even a “damn good one”) does not leave the faith.

    The only thing that offends me about your being godless and me saying so, is that I didn’t say you were godless. But, suit yourself.

    If I need your permission to call a spade a spade, a leftist a leftist, or a Marxist a Marxist I’ll make sure to contact you.

    Hell will be freezing over by then.

    Believe it or not, the sun doesn’t revolve around you and just because something no longer has any meaning to you, whether it’s your religion or your understanding of political terms, that does not mean others have to abandon those things to satisfy your standards.

    Most people seem understand the general meaning of the terms liberal, leftist, conservative, and right winger. I have a sneaking suspicion that people don’t want me to use these terms BECAUSE they go too far in accurately defining or characterizing what kind of people they are. And since the terms on the left have become practically swear words, I can understand there might be a great hullabaloo made up portraying these words as old fashioned, or too imprecise. These words are the best we can do.

    The reason I called the original statement a red herring is because religion doesn’t have to have anything to do with reviving these old “sex” laws if the case can be made that widespread promiscuity ruins a civilization, or at a minimum leads to crime and undue burdens on the taxpayer.

    I never learned formal logic, and I’m more of the rhetorical type appealing to the heart. So perhaps it wasn’t a red herring.

    I am quoting from a book called “The Fallacy Detective” which is a book about logic written from (horrors!) a Christian viewpoint. It sits on a shelf next to me:

    “A red herring is the introduction of an irrelevant point into an argument….”

    In my view, the issue of religion is irrelevant in this discussion even though the religious people themselves are using religion to defend their position, and a distinguished lawyer is helping them along with it.

    I love being on the internet and interacting with folks. I’m very rough around the edges and tend to get rowdy. But I don’t hate anyone, never threaten anyone, and relish the challenge of examining differing ideas and defending my own.

    I look forward to talking with you again.

  2. Gyges:

    great link. But the final evolution was watching a pole dance while enjoying a good brew. As a pacification for Tootie, I will say while single.

  3. Mike S:

    “Some even think Jesus would be a Republican.”

    unlikely, most Jews are democrats.

  4. Tootie,

    Let’s save you a little trouble. I’m an atheist. Before I was an atheist I was a Fundamentalist Christian, and a damn good one. I’d be willing to bet I could still run theological circles around you, with scriptural references and all. That’s not a challenge by the way, and on the off chance that I’m wrong, I’m glad you have an understanding of your faith.
    The only thing that offends me about being called godless by you is that it’s symptomatic in your reliance on words that have long since ceased to have a meaning to you other than just being bad. While, throwing in a “leftist” here, a Marxist” and the occasional “godless” might make for a good cathartic rant, it makes for really lousy conversation.
    So let’s establish what makes a good conversation: You say something, I listen to it, think about it and respond. Hopefully my response is rational and well thought out. You then listen to my response, and give it the same thoughtful consideration that I gave yours, leaving out any gratuitous insults, especially those who have become rote and meaningless. Deal?
    You said that Religion was a Red Herring. A Red Herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject. Since the subject is an attempt by an admittedly religiously motivated group to strengthen a law based on religious beliefs (see JTs prior post ), I’d say that religion is included in the subject. Wouldn’t you? My favorite example of a Red herring is bringing up nationalized health care in a discussion about laws against adultery.
    Further more the basis for a law DOES matter. That’s the first prong of the Lemon Test.
    Also, I hope you’ll respond to my earlier questions regarding the trillions of unconstitutional taxes you’ve paid part of since the sexual revolution.

  5. “What the godless often think……..”

    So sad how many people who consider themselves Christian are themselves Godless in that they don’t even follow the dicta of their own savior. Some even think Jesus would be a Republican.

  6. Gyges:

    Do you think those same people at the website you told me to visit oppose murder? If so, does that make murder a religious issue which you would then oppose on a constitutional bases simply because it is motivated by their religious beliefs?

    I doubt it.

    Whatever is their motivation, it is irrelevant to you and I. It is only relevant to them. Either a case can be made for or against the proposed law or it cannot. Either they persuade the public and the public acts, or they do not. Whatever happens in the court after that is up for grabs because there is so much widespread corruption throughout our civilization, espeically among those at the highest levels and those from the Ivy League schools.

    I suggest to the religious folks who propose criminalization of some sexual conduct, that a case ought to be made by them without religious references, they are unnecessary.

    What the godless often think (and I’m not saying you are) is that religious people don’t have the right to lobby for their ideas BECAUSE they are religiously based. It doesn’t matter why a person (religious or not) supports a law, all that matters is if it is allowed.

    The picture at the top of this post showed Carrie Nation who lobbied and won a constitutional amendment against selling and making booze. I believe it was unconstitutional. That power to regulate only belongs to the states at the most, and certainly to the people to regulate in their own homes.

    It will get tricky if the democrats succeed with their Marxist proposal to seize the health care industry. It is a set-up for totalitarianism.

    Already, there is talk about taxing folks for sugary drinks and fast foods (because it will cost the tax payer more when bad foods lead to bad diseases and big medical bills). How is it then possible that those who are promiscuous and get pregnant will get their irresponsible act covered by government provided abortion (if they are allowed? Isn’t it just as irresponsible to be promiscuous as it is to eat french fries, if not more so?

    I can just imagine the political debate about that: well abortion saves money because we won’t incur the additional costs of bringing another human being into the worl….uh…I mean by getting rid of the fetus….um……(cough)….oh just shut up you stupid Christians. We insist on freedom of sluttery for both sexes and making the tax payer foot the bill for it.

    Yeah, right.

  7. Buddha:

    I think I can “guess”.

    I actually cant believe they would stoop that low. I mean that is bad form to the nth degree.

    I wonder what the uppercrust ancestors would think of that? I bet Biff and Tripp are rolling over in their graves.

  8. Gyges:

    come on man, dont you know that what is good for the “Family” is good for America?:-)

  9. Byron,

    I cannot answer your questions with conclusory certainty. But considering the range of suspects it two, I think the following facts may be indicative.

    1) They used a female identity. One of those in question is a female and the other would claim to be that “inferior” sex just about when Hell froze solid based on his past (and current) actions.

    2) The focus was disjointed. In the extreme. Somehow Phil Spector, thinking Scientology is a fraud, calling the DOJ “jackasses” – which I will continue to do until they prosecute Yoo, thinking Tibet should have its sovereignty recognized and not doing as some citizen approves somehow means I’m a criminal for expressing my opinion. Riiiiiigggghht. Who else had a problem with my opinions but couldn’t string cogent facts together? Just disjointed insults and whine? Did I mention she copied a bunch of Buddhist monks on this mail too? Yeah. She’s not happy with trying to just cause me Earthy problems but spiritual as well. Who have we run into that’s just that nuts? (Insert mocking puzzled look here.)

    3) BTW, welcome back from your former exile.

    But that is all I can suppose on that topic. I’ll let you connect the dots.

  10. Tootie,

    Red Herring? Have you been to the Minnesota Family Council’s website?

    From their Pastor/church Network link:

    “The Minnesota Familiy Institute Pastor /Church Network is designed to partner with pastors and churches in sharing and finding successful ministries that deal with family issues. This network is designed to provide resources about successful ministries and assist in cooperation on issues facing families, everyday in every church and community in Minnesota. These can range from government interference in families and churches to individuals’ sins that harm and weaken families.”

    From their Mission statement:

    “The Judeo-Christian principles in which America’s founding is rooted, support strong and stable families.

    Yeah, it sure looks like religion has nothing to do with this issue. Nobody trying to legislate their religious ideals here.

    What specific programs do you think it violates your rights for the Government to spend “countless trillions of dollars” on “since the sexual revolution of the 1960s began?” Please give me an explanation of how that law is unconstitutional. Further more, what does that have to do with a law regulating someone’s sex life?

  11. BIL–

    We’ll have to sic the Third Billy Goat Gruff on said troll.

    From The Three Billy Goats Gruff by P. C. Asbjornsen & J. E. Moe–taken from the translation of G. W. Dasent:

    “…and so he flew at the troll, and poked his eyes out with his horns, and crushed him to bits, body and bones, and tossed him into the river.”

    Too severe a punishment???

  12. Buddha:

    are you serious? who the f . . . would do that?

    What a scumbag punk. That is lower than having sex with cows.


    PF and BiL are indeed two separate people.

    Considering I’ve just had one of the unstable trolls (in an e-mail to my blind, roflmao) try to report me to the IRS, the DOJ and the Treasury Department for being guilty of having and expressing an opinion here, I’m thinking PF should take the advice that being mistaken for me is not a thing he should desire.

    I’ll be glad to post the entire rambling nonsensical e-mail if any of you wish to see it. Fair warning. When I say rambling, I do mean exactly that. Long tortured examples and illogic.

  14. Buddha:

    who doesnt approve of sex? You know people like that? In all my years I have never met someone that didnt approve of sex. What the hell kind of crowd you hang out with?

    Must be them liberals, we conservatives approve of sex, but only within the confines of a monogamous relationship. Other than that restraint all bets are off.

  15. rafflaw:

    “You must be correct because the first thing that I thought of when I read this thread was global warming and forced abortions and sterilization!”

    they do it in China. That is why I am against making abortion illegal, what the state gives it can also take away. I am personally anti-abortion but the state has no business one way or the other in that issue. Bdaman makes a valid point about the possibility of forced abortions for the good of the state. And good is defined by those in power.

  16. Having sex can cause unintended consequences.

    So can leaving the house.

    Taking a shower.

    Eating a peach.

    Blowing your nose.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the error of false cause. Correlation is not causation. Sex, a natural phenomena that almost all life experiences, is causative of reproduction. Anything else is a byproduct of man’s design. Like prudishness, which is a personal choice and directly causal to your constant bitter ranting about the evils of sex. Project much?

    If you don’t approve of sex? Simple. Don’t have it.

    The world will thank you.

Comments are closed.