« another book on the nightstand | Main | i knew they were reading my website »

your god's law is not everyone's law

Let's see what the people of Louisiana have to say about that recent Supreme Court ruling:

Jessie Alexander of Jonesville: "Why would they do that?" she asked. "I don't think heterosexuals have oral or anal sex. Only homosexuals do it."..Alexander said no one should practice sodomy, regardless of sexual orientation..."It should be illegal for everybody...Basically, it's the homosexuals that do that, and that's why the law reads that way, but it should not be for anybody."

The Rev. Jake Palmer: "You can vote these laws into effect and you can say that it's all right, but the bottom line is God has never accepted homosexuality." Palmer advocated removing the judges who ruled in favor of removing the ban.[The Good Rev. might think about forcibly removing the person who decided to use this photo of him]

Milton Welch: "God's going to do something to this country. They better wake up."

Robert Britt: "It's time to pray, and I mean that with all my heart."

Sherman Wilson: "That type of activity is totally against the natural law of God. I feel that the participants and those judges are going to be held accountable."

Good old religion-based family values. The kind where they teach you how to be disgusted by someone who isn't like you. I wonder why some people care what others do in their own homes. Is it really going to effect your life if someone in your neighborhood is having consexual gay sex in their own bedroom? No, it's not.

What offends me is people who think that morality should be legislated. Morality is a vague notion; it's different to everyone. How can you legislate something that everyone defines differently?

If someone's lifestyle bothers you that much, shutter your door, sit yourself on the couch and don't go outside again, because you're only going to give yourself a stroke by getting all flustered about the people who aren't exactly like you.

Someone needs to alert these folks that not everyone follows the laws of their specific god, or any god at all for that matter.

Also, Jessie Alexander needs to get out more.

[via Jonno, who lives in LA., which he says isn't as bad as the above quoted neanderthals might lead you to believe]

Ed note: I don't mean to imply that everyone from the great state of Louisiana thinks like this. I really was just astounded at some of these views. And I couldn't read a quote like Jessie Alexander's and not blog about it, could I?

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference your god's law is not everyone's law:

» Legislating Morality from Deinonychus antirrhopus
Over at the Daily Rant, Jay takes to taks Michelle at A Small Victory over this post about legislating morality. [Read More]

» A Fundraising Idea from The World Wide Rant - v3.0
After reading Michele's post on how some folks in Louisiana are reacting to the Supreme Court decision to strike down anti-sodomy laws, I think a fundraiser is in order. But, first, a little background: at least a couple people down... [Read More]

» Why, yes, I do support the ruling... from dcthornton.blog
What goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is nobody's business -- and that goes for the prying eyes... [Read More]

Comments

So, they're not like you. What follows?

They're reported for your entertainment value, which is another moral question too.

Mostly, moral questions are one that you can take a position on, and see whether you can respect the other guy's, or have to cut him off as a moral idiot. Moral arguments aren't settled because it isn't their point. The moral judgments are.

Deciding to listen anyway because there's always a chance that you've done the other guy an injustice is thought to be enlightened; not on TV news though.

Open mind for a different view
And nothing else matters

"I don't think heterosexuals have oral or anal sex. Only homosexuals do it.".
Wow, she's pretty out-of-the-loop. Wasn't there a statistic that something crazy like 80% of highschoolers participate in oral sex because they think it's safer than intercourse? Something like that anyways.

The big stink is about over writing the Constitution and over riding State's Rights. These people are loon bats and unfortunately are taking away from the main premise. Period.

Jesse Alexander's viewes are echoed by the Bros Judd - they refuse to believe any heterosexual would indulge in nasty sex, and refuse to believe any homosexual would refuse to indulge. 'S a crazy world some of these people live in ....

Speaking for the Zomby-based Baptist contingent of Denver, Colorado, I would like to note that a) I am straight, B) I like anal sex (giving, not recieving), C) oral sex (giving and recieving) is even better, and D) it's fine for people to have goofy-ass opinions that disagree with mine.

I really don't mind.

Now, where did I leave that Evil Monkey recipe?

God damn, I wouldn't want to be Jesse Alexander's husband.

I wonder if Milton thinks our "veil of protection" is going to be lifted.

These people live in the same state as New Orleans? And they still don't get it?

You know, I was born and raised in Louisiana, and this doesn't surprise me a bit. Which also makes me more ashamed than ever that I did live there.

They still think homosexuality is evil. They still think blacks and whites should be segregated.

Even sadder still, I was molested by someone in my family for 5 years (when I was alot younger)...And every time I tried to fight back or get away, other people in my family would be angry at ME for "not being grateful for all the years that he TOOK CARE of me".

To this day they still think I'm the evil one, because I moved far away and found happiness with someone who ISN'T a "good upstanding Christian" boy from my hometown. He's not even American...And if they found that out, they'd probably burn me at the stake.

It all just makes me sick to my stomach. And yet SO very glad that I finally found the courage to get away from it all.

p.s. btw, i've been reading this blog for a while now, and I LOVE it.... michele, you rock :D

The big stink is about over writing the Constitution and over riding State's Rights.

That's funny -- the people up currently up in arms over the Texas sodomy ruling were, by and large, eerily silent when the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the power to tell states how to count their votes in the Presidential race. Nor were they much heard from when John Ashcroft decided he had the power to overrule states' legalization of assisted suicide.

The simple truth here is that probably 90% of the people complaining about how the ruling violates states' rights are perfectly happy to let the Feds whip the states into line, as long as a political ally is holding the whip. Just like a lot of people who normally claim to favor strong federal control over the states suddenly lost their enthusiasm for the idea during Bush v. Gore, and during Ashcroft's little euthanasia crusade.

The reason people pissed off about this ruling are pissed off about it is that, deep down, they liked the fact that homosexual activity was illegal in Texas. Sure, maybe they didn't necessarily want the police enforcing the laws (much), but they liked that gays were, pretty much by definition, criminals. After all, if gay people were normal and law-abiding, then we might have to recognize them as people deserving of the full rights of a US citizen... and, well, we can't have that, now can we. :)

OK, let me get this straight (pun not intended). The Bible (specifically the Old Testament) says that same-sex marriage is against God's will. I suppose that many of these same people also allow women out in daylight during their menstruation, tithe (that's right, 10% of their income) their church and also lift up burnt offerings dipped in goat's blood to God.

I wonder if those same people stopped to think about Jesus. Here is a man (or diety) who never got married in a time when the average marrying age was 16 - it was Catholicism that didn't want it's priests to be married, not Judaism. Of course we don't hear much about his teenage and early twenties except in the non-canonized Apochrypha. Apparently he was a virgin when he died; hey, if a hottie like Mary Magdalene (a well-known prostitute) can "throw" herself at him and he can resist temptation, they he probably never did "it". Also, he was homeless, relied on the good will of others, all while living this itinerant lifestyle with 12 other men. Women were pretty much off limits to them as well (at least you never read about them in the New Testament) And what was Jesus' most important teaching? The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Apparently many in the state of Louisiana would have all people throwind stones and being hateful and disrespectful.

Such rulings are "cancerous to the very foundation our nation was built upon," he said.

I guess he forgot about that separation of church and state thing. Pesky, ain't it.

when you (plural) a're all done with the sanctimony and the self-congratulations, let me know.

what's this evil monkey recipe?

Oh, woe is me! I didn’t realize I lived in the only place in the world with small-minded people around. Lets see — ignorance means I’m unclean until the next sundown? Gotta sacrifce two spotless doves. I don’t have any, natch.

Whatever. I’ll get around to it after I finish cleaning up after Tropical Storm Bill. Ciao.

The absurdity of anti-sodomy laws in 2003 ought to be self-evident, at least to anyone who's not a religious zealot or a KKK member. I don't mind people having an opinion that's different from mine - that's what this country is all about. It's the wanting to have the legal right to snoop into bedrooms and throw people in jail for consensual adult sex that's a wee bit problematic.

All the folks who are hot and bothered about this decision need to realize that this is a conservative Supreme Court - that's not nine Jimmy Carter nominees up there. Even Scalia didn't sound particularly enthusiastic is his expected dissent. If you're a supporter of a right-wing cause and Scalia isn't shouting fire and brimstone on your behalf, you're up sh*t creek, both because you're going to lose and because you're a real fruitcake.

"They're reported for your entertainment value, which is another moral question too."

Okay, Ron Hardin kind of beat me to this, but: let's not forget that taking a handful of tight-lipped busybodies as representative of "the people of Louisiana" doesn't exactly contribute to reasoned debate--especially since the article linked to quotes several people from the same community who supported the ruling. You can find wacko queer activists saying equally appalling things about civil liberties and any day of the week.

On the other hand, at least the queer theorists know that straight people have oral sex.

"Why would they do that?" she asked. "I don't think heterosexuals have oral or anal sex. Only homosexuals do it."..

- does that mean that every guy i've gone down on is really a homosexual? man, someone sure is naive!

I think it's a little hypocritical for you to state this...

"If someone's lifestyle bothers you that much, shutter your door, sit yourself on the couch and don't go outside again, because you're only going to give yourself a stroke by getting all flustered about the people who aren't exactly like you."

..while complaining about people expressing their honest opinion in response to a direct question. Aren't you yourself getting flustered because some people aren't exactly like you?

I don't think Jessie Alexander (no relation, believe me) needs to get out more. I think she needs to stay in more, if you know what I mean and I think you do....

"...and after the spanking, the oral sex (THE ORAL SEX!!!)..."

Name that movie, then try to tell me (with a straight face) that those connotations weren't purely heterosexual.

What people do in their bedrooms is their fucking (pun intended) business.

Note to Tina: you shouldn't feel ashamed of where you came from. Other people's opinions aren't your fault. Anyway, a few opinions from a few people are not indicative of an entire population. There will always be someone to disapprove of something. Besides, those who are all hot under the collar about what these Louisiana natives have to say can just close their eyes and think of Mardi Gras.

That's funny -- the people up currently up in arms over the Texas sodomy ruling were, by and large, eerily silent when the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the power to tell states how to count their votes in the Presidential race. Nor were they much heard from when John Ashcroft decided he had the power to overrule states' legalization of assisted suicide.

Dan, if you're going to argue the states rights issue, then you should at least use examples that have merit.

The election decision was based on equal protection grounds. This case (aside from O'Connor) was not decided on that basis. It based it's decision more on social change and a narrow right of privacy that really does not exist. For the record, I don't support sodomy laws, and I agree with Justice O'Connor that this particular law was in violation of the Constition on equal protection grounds. However, this decision strikes down ALL sodomy laws, and we had better get ready because there are going to be challenges to a lot of different laws based upon this 'privacy' decision.

As for what Ashcroft did, he was well within the scope of his power to do that. The state was using a drug that is regulated by the FDA, and therefore, it became a federal issue.

The reason people pissed off about this ruling are pissed off about it is that, deep down, they liked the fact that homosexual activity was illegal in Texas.

Oh what horseshit. I could say the reason some people are happy about this decision is that, deep down, they're all dirty sodomites.

What's important here are the constitutional questions, and people can disagree with a decision and still accept that sodomy laws are wrong. However, just because a law is wrong, doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.

What offends me is people who think that morality should be legislated. Morality is a vague notion; it's different to everyone. How can you legislate something that everyone defines differently?

Hate to break the news to you, but ALL laws enforce someone else's moral views on you. If the state thinks driving over 55 is wrong, it makes a law against speeding. That you may disagree that driving above 55 is wrong is irrelevant - the majority of the people in the state who elected the officials who passed the law disagree with you.
Whether or not you happen to believe in God (I happen to), remember that if you feel the need to murder someone or rob a bank, someone's "vague notion" of morality was legislated to keep you from doing so or punish you if you did.

jim, can you stand a little peril?

all I have to say on this matter is.... God, Schmod.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reporter who filed the story had a rolodex of potential "religious yahoos" to call on for quotes in just these types of cases. It's as old as H.L. Mencken and not extremely helpful for any sort of reasoned debate. But hey, it's a rant, right?

I have to disagree with your line that morality shouldn't be legislated. It is morality that is the basis for nearly all law and society's definition between right and wrong.

However, basing morality solely on what is in the bible, or the koran, or any other book written X centuries ago is ignorant. Times change and progress is made--sensible debate and a living, changing body of law are what we need to regulate society. Not some fixed relic from the past that hasn't been amended or updated for centuries.

So why do these supposedly religious, conservative folks sound like Cuban Communists?

Hmm. The link didn't work right, it's

http://www.blacklightonline.com/ordeal.html

Um, I was under the impression that the speed limits were imposed for public safety reasons. (Which it is within state rights to address.) Similarly, murder is an infringement on a person's right to pursue "life", which I believe is in the Constitution.
Laws that prohibit when alcohol may be sold are morally-driven, however.

I think the Supreme Court made a mistake in revoking this law but not because I'm in favor of it at all. I think it was a rediculous law that needed to be repealed, but the Supreme Court had no right to do it. The legislature in Texas should have gotten rid of it, and the people in Texas should have elected officials that would. The law was stupid and wrong, but it wasn't unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court doesn't exist to act as a check for the judgement of a state. It only exists to make sure that state's judgement doesn't go against the constitution. The fact is we do legislate morality on a number of issues. Prostitution is illegal because a majority of peole believe it's wrong. Do you think that is unconsitutional? Gambling is illegal because a majority of people believe it is wrong. Is that unconstitutional? The fact that a specific moral code isn't popular any longer or it happens to agree with a religious belief doesn't in itself make it unconstitutional. We all consider Murder to be wrong, and I don't think anyone is going to fight to try to repeal the laws that ban it. The fact that one of the Ten Commandments says that murder is wrong, doesn't make a law prohibiting it a violation of the 1st ammendment. I don't believe that people participating in homosexual sex are evil or bad or wrong, and I believe they should be able to do that legally. I just don't think it was the Supreme Court's place in this instance to do what they did.

Um, I was under the impression that the speed limits were imposed for public safety reasons. (Which it is within state rights to address.) Similarly, murder is an infringement on a person's right to pursue "life", which I believe is in the Constitution.
Laws that prohibit when alcohol may be sold are morally-driven, however.

There is still a moral judgment that is made when making a law regulating speed. The values judgment that is used determines that human life has greater worth than vehicular speed.
Legislating morality is inevitable. Justice is a moral category, as are equity and fairness. We outlawed slavery because it's immoral and we wanted it stopped.
And if you're going to backstep to the Constitution, remember that the Founding Fathers attributed the rights you hold dear to a Creator, and that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are moral objectives.
If we hold to no moral standard, then we have no right accusing anyone, say Castro or Saddam Hussein, of violating anyone's human rights - since human rights are a concept based on moral values.

There is still a moral judgment that is made when making a law regulating speed. The values judgment that is used determines that human life has greater worth than vehicular speed.

I think the moral aspect is actually irrelevant to the laws. What is relevant is that it has a very real potential for protecting property. The speed limit is a good example. Driving 100 MPH in a residential neighborhood will likely increase the amount of property damage and loss of life dramatically.

Imposing a speed limit is probably a cheaper way of reducing this social loss than letting individuals pursue individual court cases.

My view is that for a law to work that also has a moral aspect to it must also have a property rights aspect to it. Hence laws against drinking alcohol for the most part are doomed to failure. And so are most of the current drug laws. A law that prohibits somebody from getting drunk as a skunk in their living room didn't work, and the social impact was very large. Similarly with drugs.

Everyone keeps talking about this as if it's a 'state's rights' issue--some delve a bit deeper and get to complaining that there's no 'right to privacy'--all things that were discussed in the opinions.

But very few point out WHY the damned law was unconstitutional.

Sodomy was illegal for same sex couples. Not for straight couples. Therefore, a behavior that was not criminal for one part of the population WAS criminal for another.

This violates the 'equal protection' amendment and renders the law unconstitutional.

hope that helps...

Sodomy was illegal for same sex couples. Not for straight couples. Therefore, a behavior that was not criminal for one part of the population WAS criminal for another.

Actually, as per the original post, oral and anal sex were considered sodomy regardless of the genders of the involved parties. It did not discriminate against homosexuals as it included heterosexuals in the same category. Unfortunately for homosexuals it left them little or no alternative.

Perhaps you could call it discriminatory for that reason, but you can't claim that heterosexuals couldn't also commit sodomy as it was defined.

Pardon the intrusion...

1) I e-mailed the journalist to find out how she keeps a straight face when talking to people like Ms. Alexander. She says that after a few years of interviewing people, little surprises her (but this did).

2) I also asked her if she knew how I could contact Ms. Alexander so that we could ship her a book on oral sex, but apparently it a proactive phone interview (on the part of Ms. Alexander) and I wouldn't expect her to give me private info anyway.

So, if anyone wants to help with the fundraiser for oral education with either money or contact info for her, that'd be great! Thanks! :)

people tend to conveniently forget about "free will" in regards to christianity however i don't feel any responsibility to change people's views unless they advocate violence towards a certain group. i don't foresee a society that unconditionally accepts homosexuality as normal. whether it's genetic, natural, or normal is beside the point. people have the right to defy nature and not be a slave to it. that's what the birth control pill was all about. i could care less whether individuals in some backwoods place morally object to my sexual practices, i don't need their validation.

in regards to the south i once heard a black actor that was filming on location in the deep south say something to the effect of "at least here you know where you stand" i find that to be very telling. i don't believe in this day and time that southerners are anymore prejudice than anyone else. i just think that people in other places tend to keep their prejudices behind closed doors more. also, i can tell you that those prudish examples that michele listed are hardly the norm. (which i am well aware that michele realizes) they don't call it the "dirty south" for nothing.

tina.... i'm sorry to hear about your experiences. i was molested by a close family member at a young age and have went through years of therapy that never went anywhere but more or less kept me obsessed with it. current american attitudes seem to perpertuate an endless victim mentality that tells people this is so horrific that you will never be able to get over it. when i stopped buying into that attitude things got a lot better for me. that's not to say that will work for you. just something to think about. i certainly don't want you to think i am trying to downplay the hurt you have experienced.

Dar,
Are you talking about the Texas or Louisiana law?
The Texas law (the one SCOTUS ruled on) did specifically ban homosexual sodomy without banning heterosexual sodomy.

Hmmm, heterosexuals don't have anal sex? Then call me a homosexual because i loves me some anal sex.

Dan, if you're going to argue the states rights issue, then you should at least use examples that have merit. The election decision was based on equal protection grounds.

As was the sodomy ruling. You point?

Dan, if you're going to argue the states rights issue, then you should at least use examples that have merit.

My argument was that no arguments will have merit to people like yourself (and your liberal counterparts), because you simply ignore Constitutional arguments whose results you disagree with, and blindly support those you do. Your response is a classic example of this phenomenon.

For example, you claim that the Supreme Court decision was based on "equal protection" and the sodomy ruling was not. This is completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the decisions. The truth, of course, is that both rulings based part of their reasoning on the right to equal protection. The Texas law made it illegal for homosexuals to do something that heterosexuals were allowed to do. Any honest person is forced to concede that the sole purpose of the law was to discriminate again homosexuals. That's not Constitutionally allowable.

As was the sodomy ruling. You point?

No, it was not. Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurrence ruled in that regard, but the majority decision was based upon privacy rights, not equal protection.

There is no god when someone uses metallica's lyrics to try and make a profound statement. i suddenly feel ill...

I'm from Louisiana, but luckily I'm from New Orleans, and aisde from corruption and a city where the mayor cared more about its unwashed masses than the middle- and upper-class people that actually funded the city, it is a good place.

I just hope all those idiotarians quoted are bible-thumping fundies from up North. The fundies are useful on Election Day and they have good fiscal views, but their moral notiosn are as bad as the anti-capitalist social justice monkeys that infect College campuses.

I went to Catholci school from Kindergarten until I finished College and I wasn't taught some hateful view of homosexuals. In fact, my Catholci College had a group for homosexual students and some student writer at the newspaper (who loves stirring up controversy) cirticized the Organization's role in a Catholic College, and everyone criticized him, including one of the group's members who was a practicing Catholic. Also, the Dean of Campus Ministry criticized this view.

Of course, as much as I love New Orleans, I'm thinking about moving to Nevada when I leave the Army (unless I get some cool state dept job taking me acorss the world), and Nevada is more my style of conservative, with legalized prostitution, gambling, and no taxes. Of course, the state is teeming with Union activity, but it's a right to work state, so at least the Union members are doing it volunatrily.

The entire SCOTUS decision can be summed up as follows:

"The most important thing in my life is my orgasm.

The least important thing in my life is YOUR orgasm.

I don't care if you need to tape a 9-banded armadillo to your ass in order to get off, I don't really want to hear about it, and don't ask to borrow my armadillo."
--Dennis Miller

Man. You people are all in need of pie.

Psssst! Yvonne!

yes?

Now, why can't more women answer me that way...?

;-)