This should be fun. Ohio Talibangelist Rod Parsley, one of the infamous Patriot Pastors who backed homophobe GOP candidate Ken Blackwell for governor in last year’s election, is beating the drum to have dust-laden state adultery laws enforced.
Parsley, head of the pious Center for Moral Clarity, practically had a boner over a recent case in Michigan, where its second-highest court ruled that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct — a felony that could land you in prison for life.
[Note to Michiganders: it’s your unfortunate turn in the headlines this time, given this and the news yesterday that the Court Of Appeals ruled the state’s marriage amendment language voids DP benefits for gay couples working for the state — benefits they had prior to the amendment’s passage.]
Back to salivating Rod — he sent out an email update to his supporters extolling the good work of the Michigan court regarding punishment for adultery. Read and weep, GOP:
“Adultery is a violation of biblical instruction as well as an offense against the other partner in what should be a sacred relationship. Furthermore, the breach of faith is disastrous to children - as well as the broader society,” said Pastor Rod Parsley. “Too many men and women are willing to surrender to passion and desires of the flesh without considering the repercussions of those fleeting moments of pleasure.”Think hard about that. In Ohio, a critical state where the Patriot Pastors got out the vote in numbers that helped put Dear Leader over the top in the last presidential election (more on that later), is calling for all those golden peepees to go to the slammer for straying.It’s one thing to pass a law and something else entirely to enforce it. Although Michigan has adultery on the books as a felony, until recently, no one had been prosecuted under that law since 1971. The rest of the nation should take a look at the Michigan statute.Criminal laws are designed to force people to conform to certain acceptable standards of personal behavior. Most of society’s code of conduct has its roots in the 10 Commandments.
…Adulterous behavior is just as wrong - just as much a sin - as lying, cheating, stealing and murder. Yet in 21st century America, there seems to be few consequences for a “harmless” fling on the side….Perhaps court systems across the nation should treat adultery for what it truly is: lying, cheating and stealing.
I think Rod’s adultery criteria thins the ranks of prospects he can support in the GOP primaries…
These adulterers, in Parsley’s worldview, should be in the Big House Instead of the White House. Here are announced and widely mentioned GOP candidates — who will make the cut for Rod?
Sen. John McCain (affair, divorce), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair, divorce, affair, divorce), and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (divorce, affair, nasty divorce). Together, they form the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history.
* Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback
* Attorney John H. Cox of Illinois
* Former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III
* Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
* Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia
* Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel
* Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (this Baptist minister’s peepee is locked up in a covenant marriage, right?)
* California Rep. Duncan Hunter
* Arizona Sen. John McCain
* Former New York Gov. George E. Pataki
* Texas Rep. Ron Paul
* Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (this flip-floppers is probably a safe bet for Rod)
* Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo
* Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy G. Thompson
Speaking of moral (and legal) clarity, Rod beats his bible from the pulpit of World Harvest Church, which was the subject of a complaint to the IRS because of alleged questionable politicking in 2004. Parsley and Rev. Russell Johnson of Fairfield Christian Church were charged in the complaint with allowing “their facilities to be used by Republican organizations, promoted the candidate, J. Kenneth Blackwell, among their members and otherwise violated prohibitions on political activity by tax-exempt groups.”
Hat tip, Right Wing Watch.
95 Responses to “‘Patriot Pastor’ Parsley calls for the imprisonment of adulterers”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Considering my present situation- I could almost get behind this one. I wonder if there’s a law in Kentucky about this? It might be fun to try it out.
Anyone know how many states still have adultery laws? MA does (up to three years in prison, two years in jail, or a $500 fine), and our SJC ruled in the 1980s that it was probably constitutional. I can see some enterprising anti-gay prosecutor like Phil Kline hopping on a place like ManHunt to try and nail married gay male couples with that law.
Well, but jeff (always enjoy your posts, by the way) married gay male couples aren’t necessarily committing adultery are they? Even if they were previously married heterosexually as long as they got divorced they are ok. And one wonders when equal protection considerations would kick in. Its not really possible to use the anti adultery laws as anything but a pretty serious attack on women as well as men and heterosexuals much more than homosexuals. I say do it! Way more people in this country have committed adultery or have thought about committing adultery than have ever thought about something political. There is a huge mass of people out there to be organized and if fear is the motivating force, well, so be it. I think people will vote in droves against criminalizing adultery when they can’t get out of ot heir barcaloungers to vote against war–although I frankly think most of them wouldn’t actually get out of their barcaloungers for adultery.
aimai
Well, but jeff (always enjoy your posts, by the way) married gay male couples aren’t necessarily committing adultery are they?
If they’re on Manhunt (which was part of my scenario), looking for another person, they’re sure as hell trying to. Adultery in MA is simply sex by a married person with someone not their spouse. So, if a couple invited in the third, conceivably, since both are having sex with someone not their spouse, they’re both committing adultery.
jeff (always enjoy your posts, by the way
[blush] thank you
Well, true. I hadn’t understood the manhunt reference. But the same argument could be made for any site that is supposed to attract some kind of alternative or jeebus, I don’t have any words for this that doesn’t make me sound like I came of age in the fifties so I guess I’ll just say that pretty much any kind of modern dating site includes plenty of married heterosexual couples, the activities though sexual) may or may not fall under the exact definition of sex used by the adultery statutes (what about voyeurism?) and, again, I think equal protection laws might make any sane AG think twice about trying to apply it differentially. I realize we aren’t talking sane when we talk about phil kline. But anyway, you are quite right and my limited understanding of all these things makes my original post incorrect.
aimai
Also depends on how biblical they want to be about it. Being divorced doesn’t count in the eyes of most of these wingnuts, so anyone who has been divorced for 10 years and finally goes out on a date is, by their reckoning, still committing adultery.
So, next are they going to go after the 10 year old girls who tell someone she’s her best friend forever and then the next week sleep over at another girl’s house instead? Because if you’re going to start prosecuting infliction of emotional pain caused by being supplanted by someone else, that’s where it would logically lead.
In fact, I would argue that from the viewpoint of the state, divorce would be more of a threat that needs punished than adultery. Adultery simply involves emotions, whereas divorce entails legal and monetary arrangements that sap both time and energy from the court system and often ends up with one partner on state assistance. At least with adultery the monetary and legal ends of the bargain are still being adhered to. I don’t understand why the state should spend money on who’s shagging who.
Ah, but, car, adultery statues guarantee paternity. One of the things that our ex-governor, Willard, freaked out about in regard to marriage equality was that two mothers would be listed on the child’s birth certificate. Marital legitimacy coupled with adultery statutes are legal mechanisms for guaranteeing that hubby is daddy. Patriarchy all the way! Having two moms interferes with that big time. The man isn’t getting his due!
We see adultery today as more of an equal opportunity violation, but historically it has been used as a mechanism for ownership and control of women’s reproductive sexuality. That’s the root of these laws. I’m assuming that the origin of these statutes is during the era of coverture marriage and not the more contemporary era of companionate marriage.
My guess is that it would also be up to a court challenge to attack them, because no legislator is going to come out in favor of adultery. It’s also my guess that such laws would be upheld. After all, the state sets the conditions of and is a party to marriage, and it can probably set monogamy as a contractual condition. Whether that should be a criminal or civil concern is another issue altogether.
I’m surprised that no one emphisized this bit “Perhaps court systems across the nation should treat adultery for what it truly is: lying, cheating and stealing.”
Stealing. Anyone want to bet on what, exactly, he meant by that? Sounds to me like the old “pussy is a man’s property, so adultery is stealing another man’s pussy” BS. Always nice to see that the right wing nuts still think of women as non-human, and marriage as a form of ownership.
That’s good though, right? There’s no way that the loss of rights will survive the inevitable challenge to the amendment. Sucks for now, but it’s almost ironclad that it’s going to be overturned.
“Anyone know how many states still have adultery laws? MA does (up to three years in prison, two years in jail, or a $500 fine), and our SJC ruled in the 1980s that it was probably constitutional.”
Lawrence v Texas would probably lead to a different result today.
And sooner rather than later.
rea, see my comment above. The state does not just enforce, but is also a party to, the marriage contract. The state sets the entrance requirements and contractual obligations. I see no necessary reason for Lawrence to affect that. Hell, if you look at the Goodridge decision here in MA, which used Lawrence, Justice Marshall mentions the “exclusive” aspect of marriage no fewer than five times. And that exclusivity is clearly meant to be sexual. I think Lawrence would have a much larger impact on fornication laws, but not quite so much on adultery. It does involve different issues.
Anyone want to place bets on how long it will be before Rod gets caught in a seedy motel with a hooker?
Oh, the hooker comment brought up another point: if a single person fucks a married person, have they both committed adultery? When a hooker gets hauled in for that offense, will the cops also look up all of her/his johns to see how many extra penalties can be applied based on how many of them were married?
Dick Morris, in a rare moment of cleverness, said a few weeks ago “the biggest irony of the Republican field for 2008 is that the only one who hasn’t had multiple wives is the Mormon.”
Still the funniest line I’ve heard this whole cycle so far.
OK, so adultery is “first-degree sexual conduct” and can earn you life in prison. You know what else qualifies as first-degree sexual conduct in Michigan? Yup, rape. Because, of course, having an illicit but consensual fling and forcing someone to have sex against their will are equally bad, right? (Well of course they are, if the basis for the law is male ownership of pussies.)
On a TMI note: I personally would much rather have my wonderful stepmother in my life regardless of when she met my dad than have both of them spending their lives in prison. How on earth would that sentence be less “disastrous” to teh chillrens?
In the unlikely event anyone cares about Tommy Thompson, you can cross him off too. I’m not sure how you go about Googling a 7-year-old rumor, but when he was governor of Wisconsin TT was notorious for cheating on his wife.
It’s also their day in the sun for ruling on whether or not saying “goddamn” at a public meeting is an arrestable offense.aimai:
So they’re committing adultery in their Barcaloungers, then? Who knew?Hoo-hah on Thompson..,so are there any others we can cross off of the list for Rod?
Guy’s like this are more valuable than gold for us. Extremists like him push the fence sitters our way.
Oh, fertheluva…. look, as far as I’m concerned, the last word on criminal penalties for consensual adultery was something some Jewish carpenter said, along the lines of “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
But I guess all that Jesus talk is too liberal for the he-man woman-owners club.
As one who was born and raised a Michigander, this just adds to my fear that my former home state is going down the drain ever faster. Unless this setback can be turned around; the state ACLU says they’re going to appeal.
MAJeff — “companionate marriage” means, or used to mean, a formal, legal marriage which however, by agreement, involved no sexual relationship, and neither party was going to seek to annul the marriage on the grounds that it hadn’t been “consummated.”
I understand the distinction you’re trying to make though, and I wonder if perhaps a lot of the problem is that some people are still confused about the exact nature of marriage. That is, they still think it has, or should have, elements of the coverture marriage. And they imagine that this can coexist peacefully with a more companionable form.
you do know that his name is now a slang term for male pubic hair, don’t you?
Yeah, pretty much anything Jesus actually said is liberal frenchy-talk to those who most invoke his name in politics.
It is interesting that, in your sidebar of politicians who have had affairs, you failed to list the most prominent example of all: Bill Clinton.
Are you biased? The answer seems to be: certainly and unapologetically.
Kevin’s not too bright, is he?
Thank God we are under grace instead of law. Otherwise we would all be in jail with no one to guard or judge. Jesus said it Paul taught it. Of course we do have to decide just how far we will let lawlessness go.
Kevin, I’d like to know where you got the idea Clinton and/or Democratic-leaning folks are the ones trying to outlaw and shame adultery for everyone else, while they get to go on committing it.
The question isn’t “who committed adultery,” it’s “who’s trying to outlaw adultery?” The answer to that would be wingnut Republicans who commit adultery en masse, then want to hold themselves up as Righteous Upstanding Christian Examples who get to tell the rest of us who, how, and when to fuck.
IOW, the problem is hypocrisy, not adultery. Like someone upthread said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Well, these nutjobs are plenty dripping in sin, as is Clinton, but Clinton isn’t the one flinging the stones around.
So, you’re defending stone-casting sinners, because you still can’t get over ten-year-old Republican dislike of Clinton. Are you biased? The answer seems to be: yes, certainly and unapologetically. Worse, not only biased, but hypocritical, as well. Nice job, there, wingnut.
GreyLadyBast,
it’s no use addressing Kevin with a rational argument. Until he can tell us when Bill Clinton announced that he would be, or has been seriously discussed as, a Republican candidate for the Presidency, we know that he paid no attention to the actual substance of the post and instead came here to stir shit. Either that or he’s so stupid that he thinks his comment is actually relevent.
Don’t forget Henry Hyde, the Respected Elder Statesman of Conservatismâ„¢, and his “youthful indiscretion”!
Um, Kev?
Last time I checked, President Clinton is not on the list of “announced and widely mentioned GOP candidates.”
That’s why he’s not on the list.
Try reading a little more carefully.
Adulterous behavior is just as wrong - just as much a sin - as lying, cheating, stealing and murder.
Is this guy serious?
Right Mark:
Even the Bible draws distinction and penalizes according to the offense.
GreyLadyBast wrote:
> The question isn’t “who committed adultery,�
> it’s “who’s trying to outlaw adultery?
McCain, Gingrich, or Guiliani are not trying to outlaw adultry. So why include them in a post about outlawing adultry?
One answer: bias. You, Greylady, demonstrate it as well.
MAJeff wrote:
> it’s no use addressing Kevin with a rational argument.
> Until he can tell us when Bill Clinton announced that he
> would be, or has been seriously discussed as, a Republican
> candidate for the Presidency,
What crap. This isn’t about presidential candidates. It’s about outlawing adultry. To that end, Pandagon listed prominent politicians who were adulterers. They failed to point to the most obvious example: Bill Clinton.
Bonnie wrote:
> Last time I checked, President Clinton is not on
> the list of “announced and widely mentioned GOP candidates.�
Gingrich is neither announced nor widely discussed, either. Yet pandagon included him. Why not include Clinton? Because he’s a democrat and because pandagon is biased.
One answer: bias. You, Greylady, demonstrate it as well.
Only because it flatters my curves so much better than a cut with or against the grain. What’s your excuse?
And it’s GreyLadyBAST to you.
Yes, Kevin, Pandagon doesn’t like Republicans. You may also be surprised to learn that Jews don’t like Nazis, mice and birds don’t like cats, the sun rises in the East and two plus two makes four.
Think God there are some Democrats who do not hate Republicans and some Republicans who do not hate Democrats. Otherwise we would make no progress in learning to live in the same country. Hatred of others solves nothing and only gets in the way of serious dialogue.
Paul wrote:
>The basic idea of the law is, I think, a good one — it means that if a perp kidnaps >someone and then has (penetrative) sex with them, or beats them up or threatens >them with bodily harm and then has sex with them, or (add criminally coercive scenario >of your choice here) and has sex with them, the prosecution doesn’t have to get into >the ugly testimony about consent in order to get a conviction equivalent to a rape >conviction. The problem is that the law was written so that the penalty kicks in for >crimes that aren’t directed against the other person involved in the sexual act, even for >ones in which they’re co-conspirators.
>And of course there’s a fair chance that the legislature, rather than tightening up the >wording, will just ditch the law completely, so that many rape victims will get raped >again on the witness stand.
I have to agree with Paul here. The problem isn’t the law under discussion, which makes criminalizes sex when it occurs during the comission of a felony. I can see lots of reasons why this would help rape prosecutions and rape victims for exactly the reason Paul suggests.
The real problem is that adultery is a FELONY. The Legistature could easily fix this mess by just repealing the laws against adultery, but who wants to take bets on that happening?
Quoth Kevin:
Quoth Pam (aka Pandagon):
Now, why would this focus on Republicans? Because Parsley is a Republican operative, and this might create a problem for him in deciding which Republican candidate for President to support. (And yes, Gingrich has been discussed)
Say, isn’t Kevin the same troll who claimed that black folks need to get over slavery simultaneously claiming it was we liberals who were using slavery to explain black “failure” to realiize their manly will.
Here we go again. As we’ve discovered, the depths of Kevin’s mendacity are only exceeded by those of his stupidity.
The far left and the far right lob bombs at each other. Thank God there are calmer minds in this country.
Yeah, Pam, why not include Bill Clinton? And why not include FDR, JFK, and LBJ, all Democrats and all adulterers? Your bias is shining through.
JB, you be funny. And so calm and centrist. We’re blessed to have you here.
Wow enough mud to sling on everyone. Suprise.
seriously, JB. Kevin is being blatantly dishonest. He has a history of doing so. And by pointing that out, and using direct quotes to do so, as well as drawing on previous experience, and by doing so strongly, I’m throwing mud. Yet, all you’ve contributed to this contribution is “at least i’m not one of those extremists.” Well you know what, I may be an extremist, but I’m not lying. And that’s what Kevin’s doing. But you’re one of those cute “moderates” who thinks it’s nothing more than a “difference of opinion” and that, apparently, opinions should always be voiced in the most namby-pamby way. Kevin is a liar. That’s not flinging mud, it’s an accurate assessment. Sorry if it’s not nice enough for ya.
MAJeff,
If the last couple years of reading wingnut commentary has taught me anything, it’s that liberals being mean is much, much worse than anything conservatives do. Pointing out when a conservative is being dishonest or deceitful is just as bad as a conservative saying that all liberals are the moral equivalent of, say, Osama bin Laden for disagreeing with said conservative. And though he’s never wished death or harm or even much discomfort on his ideological opponents, Michael Moore is exactly as foul and disruptive as Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly. Don’t ask me why that’s so, it just apparently is.
MAJeff, My mud slinging comment was aimed at the increasing list of adulterers. The post just before yours added to that list. I do think both far left and far right with incendiary vindictive rhetoric tend to sink instead of float solutions that will work in the midst of diverse opinions. For sure you two are not coming together.
JB, here in MA we’ve had Kris Mineau, head of the Massachusetts Family Institute, call for a “civil” dialogue about an amendment to take away my rights as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He has refused to criticize pastors who say such things as marriage equality for same-sex couples is the work of Satan himself. Apparently, that’s civil dialogue. However, when someone like myself points out that such commentary is bigoted, well, then we’ve passed over into incivility. that’s the same kind of thing you’re attempting to impose. How on earth is it possible to “come together” to find solutions with someone who willingly and openly makes shit up, who refuses to even deal honestly? You seem to be of the silly opinion that this is two sided; that my pointing out someone is acting in bad faith is the same as their bad faith activity. You’re drawing a false equivalence.
Hey, I have a great idea: Why don’t these guys propose that adulterers be taken out into the public square and stoned instead of being sent to prison?
Next they could propose that those who curse in public should have their tongues cut out, that thieves should have their hands cut off and that people who say naughty things about the Christian god should be hanged. I mean, while we’re trying so hard to emulate oppressive theocratic regimes, why not go all the way?
MAJeff, I thought the liberals wanted dialogue and negotiation with those who historically have never dealt honestly in carrying out negotiated settlements.
JB,
Now you’re just being silly. Liberals wanted dialogue and negotion with those who have historically been big fat liars? Whatever does that mean? Does anyone of any political ideology seek out those they know they can’t trust? Would you please clarify this, because as it is, it don’t make any sense whatsoever.
And for whatever it’s worth, I personally feel no need to have any sort of dialogue with the wingnut end of the conservative spectrum, be they homobigot, racist asshole, woman-hating MRA, nationalist xenophobe, them driven mad by The Clenis or Teh Gay, or sufferer of Irrational Bush Worship. Anyone who argues that dissent from the status quo should be quashed, either via government fiat or physical violence, ain’t gonna listen to what I have to say anyway.
Wow, just wow. Where did that non-sequiter come from.
JB, maybe you’ll understand this. the world is a complex place. different conditions call for different responses. Kevin has demonstrated himself to be a troll. He should be treated as such.
and think about this: if dialogue and negotiation had been utilized during the aftermath of 9/11, we probably wouldn’t have invaded and occupied a nation that posed no threat to us (leaving us to concentrate more fully on the very real threat posed by the return of the Taliban). Indeed, we might have been better able to target resources to investigative, law enforcement, and other anti-terrorism efforts that might have, ya know, lessened terrorism on the planet. But, no, we decided that global dialogue and negotiations are for pussies, that making false claims in the State of the Union and to the United Nations Security Council in order to justify the invasion and occupation of a non-threatening sovereign state.
I can understand why folks woouldn’t want to dialogue and negotiate with our goverment, though. It hasn’t exactly been acting in good faith. But, again, criticizing the bad faith action of the Bush administration is equivalent to their bad faith activities.
Matt T, I refer to negotiation with notoriously lying Iran. And I am not against negation with them but I would never trust them one inch. Everything would have to be verified every step of the way.
JB,
Ummm, dude, calling a liar out on his lying or mocking outrageous bigots, charlatans and sycophants is a long, long way from dealing with a hostile nation on the geopolitcal stage. They’re not even in the same ballpark. I was right the first time, you’re just being silly.
But for what it’s worth, healthy skepticism is a very good idea when it comes to two nations trying to hash out their differences. From what I understand, that’s a part of the diplomatic process, checking an opponent’s claim and holding them to promises made. You’ll have to elucidate me on times when any argued explicitly for taking such claims and promises at face value without any sort of back-up, though, and forgive me my skepticism that anyone has seriously argued for such a thing.
Sorry, everyone, for the thread drift. Bad, MAJeff.
The post just before yours added to that list. I do think both far left and far right with incendiary vindictive rhetoric tend to sink instead of float solutions that will work in the midst of diverse opinions.
No, c’mon. That’s bullshit.
Invariably, the liberal position is the the compromise that works in the midst of diverse positions, and the conservative/Republican position is “you better do exactly what we tell you.”
Diverse opinions on whether or not abortion is a proper response to circumstance? The liberal position is “you can get an abortion if you want, or you can not get one if you don’t want.” The conservative position is “no one can have an abortion, regardless of what they think.” How do you compromise when one of the positions is already a compromise?
Diverse opinions on whether or not sex outside of marriage is good or bad? The liberal response is “adultery isn’t illegal, so you can act as your conscience allows. Do it or don’t do it, it’s on you.” The conservative position is “let’s make adultery a felony so nobody can do it ever.” How do you compromise when one of the positions is already a compromise?
There’s this centrist, down-the-middle myth that there’s never any compromise between right and left, but that’s 100% bullshit. Liberal positions are invariably compromises that give you the freedom to determine what’s best for your circumstances - and conservative positions invariably either tell you exactly how their religion says you’re supposed to act whether you believe that way or not.
JB, you need to wise up. There’s one side that offers compromise, and one side that has absolutely no interest in compromise.
All negotiation is with corrupt government, with corrupt officials and with corrupt persons. If there was ever an incorrupt government I don’t know of it. It is a matter of degree. When it comes to voting for politicians it is always choosing the lesser of evils or which one will give me what I want.
I also apologize for creating the drift.
Chet says, “”The conservative position is “let’s make adultery a felony so nobody can do it ever.â€? How do you compromise when one of the positions is already a compromise?”"
That is not a conservative proposition that is far right.
Are there any prominent, powerful conservatives any more who are not either far right themselves or pander to it at every opportunity?
Or let me put it this way: Can you name any prominent conservatives who would go on public record as opposing Parsley’s position?
That is not a conservative proposition that is far right.
That’s what I said - “conservative.”
Chet says, “There’s this centrist, down-the-middle myth that there’s never any compromise between right and left, but that’s 100% bullshit. Liberal positions are invariably compromises that give you the freedom to determine what’s best for your circumstances - and conservative positions invariably either tell you exactly how their religion says you’re supposed to act whether you believe that way or not.”
Sounds like Legalism verses Antinomianism with each side claiming they are at the limit beyond further compromise.
Car says, Or let me put it this way: Can you name any prominent conservatives who would go on public record as opposing Parsley’s position?
I don’t think He will garner any support for this proposition from any more than the far right. Watch and see
States could use a statute against adultery to soak the rich, as the first Roman emperor Augustus did. He created legislation that criminalized adultery: the adulterous partners, if convicted, were exiled to islands — different islands — and their property was confiscated. This law affected mainly the aristocracy, and scholars think that the emperors kept it on the books, despite its obvious unpopularity, because it brought in extra revenues.
I expect someone like VDH (the classicist turned right-wing war pundit) to propose something like this, joining the ranks of Benito Mussolini, who also admired the Augustan legislation.
This legislation also required men and women within a certain age range to be married (heterosexually), or suffer financial penalties.
But, in the U.S., there’s really no influential “far left” equivalent to the “far right.” Mainstream conservatives are pandering to their extremists, mainstream liberals are not.
Although it leaves me open to charges of hypocrisy, I’d like to go on record in favor of adultery.
Mark S.
Kevin:Did either of these commenters actually read the post? To educate the feeble, we’re talking about …
1. Rod Parsley’s condemnation of adultery — and thus his litmus test — for GOP candidates running for president.
2. Rod’s church has openly supported GOP candidates, not Dems
3. Bill Clinton is not a candidate for president, and he’s a Dem
4. The subject of adultery re:prez candidates is about Rod Parsley’s worldview and the candidate options he has left, thus the sentence “Here are announced and widely mentioned GOP candidates — who will make the cut for Rod?”
Does that help you two out, or do you troll for sport?
Pam, my comment was facetious.
anonymous says, Mainstream conservatives are pandering to their extremists, mainstream liberals are not.
The propositon discussed here will not even get off the ground. Even the mainstream Church will give this idea the time of day. The far right has lost issues again and again. Your brush is too broad.
Correction “will not”
Even the mainstream Church will not give this idea the time of day.
“#
Chet says, “â€?The conservative position is “let’s make adultery a felony so nobody can do it ever.â€? How do you compromise when one of the positions is already a compromise?â€?”
That is not a conservative proposition that is far right.
# 64 “– said JB.
JB, then you must admit that this thread is about an EXTREMIST position, by your definition. Why do you object to us objecting to extremism? Or all you only pretending to be a moderate?
Samantha Vimes ,
I do not object to those objecting to an extreme position. The idea that this could get traction in the ranks of even mainstream conservatives let alone moderates is what is ludicrous.
[…] Seems that the only worry for Rudy right now is the wrath of Rod Parsley. […]
Does he plan to use the Matthew 5:28 definition of adultery?
MAJeff re: Kevin: Or Kevins’s following the thesis (was it Michael Moore’s?) that Clinton was one of the most successful Republican presidents.
Ah, yes, (Matt 5:28): the “Jimmy Carter” definition of adultery.
As someone wayyy back in this thread mentioned, those bandying about the name of “Jesus” as justification for all this anti-adultery nonsense probably aren’t too interested in what Christ actually said - and should probably start invoking Moses and the OT, if they want to be honest. Just my two bits.
Just a little note: Oral sex is considered sodomy in MI law, and is also a felony. Thus any adultery involving oral sex (technically) also invokes the commission of a felony clause in the criminal sexual misconduct law and creates a second felony.
Happy times here in MI…
Shell Goddammit,
The sodomy law is unenforceable. See Lawrence v. Texas.
pablo Feb 3rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Guy’s like this are more valuable than gold for us. Extremists like him push the fence sitters our way.
Worked like a charm in 2006 - Ohio got a full Dem slate in Ohio’s front office, replacing the inept and corrupt Rep slate that gave the state away to Preznit Cuckoo Bananas in 2004. And we also got a new Dem US Senator in the deal.
Go, Rod, go!
-GFO
Wait!
In defense of Michigan’s Supreme COurt:
This wasn’t a ruling, but a REMARK by a justice who said that since the legal definition of 1rst degree CSC can be any sex crime committed during a felony, then adultery, as an on the books felony, can be a 1rst degree sex crime. I read it as a justice giving a heads up. I believe that this all came about because of a scandal with our Attorney General Mike Cox and his feud with Jeffery Fieger. This was not a ruling on an adultery case.
My aunt once did some contract work w/ an interior designer that was rigging out both Pastor Rod’s house & church. She described all the staffers at World Harvest as the “Stepford secretaries”–young, pretty, & totally brainwashed, viewing Rod as God’s voice on earth.
So I have a very strong suspicion that Pastor Rod may have his own private harem. Guess it wouldn’t count as adultery, since Rod probably believes God ordered him to sleep with all the lasses as a way to bring them to heaven.
OK Kev, Google “Gingrich President” - he is discussed as a candidate, whether or not you believe it.
And in any event, as sooo many others have pointed out to you, the issue, the point if you will, of Ms Spaulding’s post, is to point out hypocrisy, not to point out that Democrats have also committed adultery. That’s the tipping point between “Do as I say” (you know, “I say do not commit adultery ‘cuz if you do you should go to jail”) and “Not as I (and those in power in the party I support) do” (you know, commit adultery and NOT go to jail).
Yes, we know (we ALL know - everyone on the d*mn planet with a TV knows) that President Clinton got a blow job. In the White House. While still married. Is that a hypocritical position AS FRAMED BY THE POINT OF THE POST?
No.
Why “No”?
Because he is not simutaneously advocating jail time for adulterers (although had he gone directly to jail it might have spared him that nasty black eye . . .).
No hypocrisy there.
Ms Spaulding points out that this group of GOPers who are or have been mentioned as presidential candidates and who are probably supported by the good pastor and his bible-beatin’ flock have committed adultery.
That’s the tipping point into hypocrisy.
See the difference yet?
And I betcha that if there was an identical situation on the left, Ms Spaulding would be equally disposed to point it out.
It’s not “Us against Them” - it’s about (all together now) HYPOCRISY. It is not about adultery.
MAJeff:
The laws against profanity are also, apparently, unenforceable; still, people still keep getting arrested.
From 2002:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/michigan/minews14.htm
and from 2004:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/michigan/minews021.htm
These kind of laws seem almost to be MADE for selective enforcement…hmmmm.
Though I personally **like** being a multiple felon; it’s part of the thrill. But then I have that luxury, being unlikely to be arrested on account of being white, middle aged, middle class, and heterosexual.
I’ll try to avoid getting a job in Michigan, as I swear like a sailor.
“Hey, I have a great idea: Why don’t these guys propose that adulterers be taken out into the public square and stoned instead of being sent to prison?
Next they could propose that those who curse in public should have their tongues cut out, that thieves should have their hands cut off and that people who say naughty things about the Christian god should be hanged. I mean, while we’re trying so hard to emulate oppressive theocratic regimes, why not go all the way?”
Exactly. It’s skewing waaay too much to the right for my liking.
MAJeff - me, too.
[…] ‘Patriot Pastor’ Parsley calls for the imprisonment of adulterers at Pandagon This should be fun. Ohio Talibangelist Rod Parsley, one of the infamous Patriot Pastors who backed homophobe GOP candidate Ken Blackwell for governor in last year’s election, is beating the drum to have dust-laden state adultery laws enforced. […]
The case in question involved a guy swapping drugs for sex.
Thus any adultery involving oral sex (technically) also invokes the commission of a felony clause in the criminal sexual misconduct
No, it wouldn’t. The statute refers to penetration.
Trust me, you don’t even know a thing about Rod Parsley. I grew up about a mile from the guy. Even most christians can’t stand him or his cult following. I had the unfortunate experience of having to work with some of his “harvest patch kids” as we called them a while back, and they are the most judgemental people on earth, not to mention the fact that they can’t talk about much else other than Jesus, regardless of the topic. Parsley and his ilk are bona-fide nuts and hardly indicative of most people that go to church. I’m still trying to figure out how he’s brainwashed that many people. (kinda funny, but one common denominator I noticed with the HPK’s I met was that they were all very screwed up individuals before joining the cult. Perhaps he preys on vulnerable individuals.)
Just thought I’d give y’all some insight into Parsley and World Harvest.
I know this comment comes much later but I have to give my opinion on this one.
I think you all are missing the point. It’s not about being judgemental. Yes everyone has made some mistakes in there lifetime. I know I’ve had my share.
I believe the point is this. There are no consequences for peoples actions these days. We live in a “if it feels good do it society”. Bet if you had a cheating spouse that broke your heart and tore your life away, you might feel different.
Here’s the deal. No one forced you to get married. When you married, you signed a legal binding contact. In that, you commited to be faithful to your spouse and in your vows you willfully spoke, you agreed til death you would be commited to them.
I know biblically divorce is not smiled upon in the sight of God, but since most of you don’t care about the “God Aspect” why not consider this . . . If you want to be with someone else - get a divorce! Why cheat? Get out of the relationship and move on.
Basically what I believe is if there were consequences, such as what Pastor Parsley spoke of, people would be a lot slower to make decisions like having affairs. Maybe they would take seriously the contract that they entered into.
I’m not sure why we look at marriage differently. If you entered into a contract for a business deal and didn’t not stick to the terms and conditions listed therein, you would be held liable and have to pay whatever consequences neccessary. And a marriage contract shouldn’t be taken any less seriously.
If a man commits murder, he’s going to suffer the penalty. Even if everyone forgives him, even God himself, according to the laws of the US - he is still going to have to pay for what he did. So the judgemental excuse does not play in to me. No one is saying if someone commits adultery they should not be forgiven. I’m just saying, even though their forgiven, just like a murderer, a theif, etc., because they broke a law, they still have to pay.
I’m not saying I think adulterers should be lockup. If they were, sadly over 50% of our population probably would be. However, I do believe if there were consequences such as these, the problem would be a lot less.
Just my thoughts. I know it goes against what most of you believe but that doesn’t matter to me. We live in a society with no discipline, no boundaries, and no moral regard, because of that (no matter what you blame in on) we are where we are today.
Bottom line - Don’t cheat! If you want out, get out. And if you don’t want to commit to one person for the rest of your life - DON’T GET MARRIED! Simple as that.