Hey ya'll, "Do ya sodomize your ruca or vato?"

[ChicanoPwr]

Yes, you did read it correctly, and as we just found out it was a question that was asked to Supreme Court Justice Scalia Thursday the at New York University Annual Survey of American Law's conference. The word ruca is Spanish slang for wife or girlfriend and vato is bf or husband.

But to be honest, it was a fair question to ask Scalia, if you go by the true definition of sodomy.

From Wikipedia: Most commonly used to describe the specific act of anal sex, the term "sodomy" also may include non-coital sexual acts such as oral sex and other paraphilia.

Although Berndt was making a point for gay rights, but in the bigger picture sodomy laws will effect not just homosexuals but heteralsexuals. These laws are dangerous for our society because it can create a "sex police" and it even be used against each other. In the end, our society will be forced to monitor our neighbors, which then creating a voyeurisic society. A practice that is also considered a deviant sexual act. Just imagine the dangers if Scalia had his way, it can even go so far where people are able to blackmail each other just in the name of the law. The law will force neighbors to look into another persons home just to be sure they are having "proper sex."

As the religious right continue to preach moral values, will they also become concern about our sexual practices? Just like McCarthism, we could be asked "If you ever tried or thought about rimming? or "Ever received gave or received a bj?" or "Given or received oral pleasure?"

What about the youth of America who happen to be sexualy active and who happen to experiment? Should they also go to jail for non-coital sexual acts?

I know you may be thinking I am making it bigger than it is and it only applies to homosexuals. Not true, here are the views of our next Supreme Court Chief Justice on the descenting opinion Lawrence v. Texas:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1

We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers <"a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage"> when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana's public indecency statute furthered "a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality," ... State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding ... (noting "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex" (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional "morals" offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge....What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails.

-snip-

After discussing the history of antisodomy laws ... the Court proclaims that, "it should be noted that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter," ... This observation in no way casts into doubt the "definitive conclusion," ... on which Bowers relied: that our Nation has a longstanding history of laws prohibiting sodomy in general--regardless of whether it was performed by same-sex or opposite-sex couples:

"It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious." 478 U. S., at 192-194 (citations and footnotes omitted; emphasis added).

Was Berndt's question out of line? NO!!! Maybe Berndt should have used the street terms for the word sodomize. Maybe he should have asked, "Does your wife give you a blow job?" or "Have you ever practiced rimming with your wife?" or "Does your wife like for you ..... (you get me point)."

Maybe then Scalia would have answered Berndt's question, without NYU censoring Berndt.

But lets examine who else also thinks in the same line as Scalia, it should not be any surprise to know that Sen. Rick Santorum agrees with Scalia. During an Associated Press interview, Sen. Santorum commented on the same case and Sodomy laws:

AP: ...should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold - Griswold was the contraceptive case - and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you - this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Yes, I know this topic can be humorous, but this type of thinking also have other consequences that goes under the radar.

The reason for this danger is because this is straight Dominon Theology. Dominionist are interested in controlling human sexuality. Despite the fact that studies have shown if people are given the right information about sexuality it can be a natural and healthy part of life. I believe all people have the right to this information, skills, i.e., foreplay, caressing, etc, and services (i.e., sex education) needed to make responsible sexual decisions. However, the fundis do not consider this to be proper because they themselves believe that Puritan period is the best example of a Christian society. If recall, the Puritans are known for their repressive attitudes toward sexuality and what is forgotten, the Puritans also rejected democracy and was in favor of being governed by biblical law.

Thomas Ice, a Dominion author, wrote:
"The Puritans church and state into a theocratic government" (Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse, 1988, p 95).

The Puritan effort to build a Christian society… is being imitated today by a small and increasingly influential group of persons who believe that only through establishment of Old Testament civil law can America – and the world – be saved from destruction. (Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse, p. 15)

For more info on this line of thinking:
http://www.conservativeonline.org/articles/EschatologyOfCovenantTheology.htm

America's Providential History, is the current textbook that is used in most Christian schools and Christian homeschoolers. Children are being taught that the primary strength of the Puritan era was their "spirit of dominion" because they were able to recognize that there is a scriptural mandate required for a Godly rule, and that rule is to go and set out and establish this mandate in all aspects of society.

Scalia and all the other wongnuts goal is to delegitimize and censor all forms of human sexuality that don't fit into their narrow-minded mold: sex between a man and woman who are married. Other expressions of sexuality are sinful and must be repressed or even punished.

You probably are wondering where do they get this notion about proper sexual conduct. The ideology of this repressed sexuality mentality dates back to 5th Century. It was St Augustine whose concept of Original Sin that became the theological dogma: sexual desire is sinful; infants are infected from the moment of conception with the disease of original sin; and Adam and Eve’s sin corrupted the whole of nature itself.

Do not understitmate the goals of these Christian fascist when they want to seek to criminalize homosexuality, promote abstinence-only sex education, and advocate censorship. As I said, it is this line of thinking that will react the "sex police."

Is my line of thinking based on making a sexual mountain out of a mole hill? NO!!!

It has already started, are you aware that our elected officials helped lay the foundations of the "sex police" by creating the “indecency police.” Are you aware of the passage of Broadcast Indecency Act that was passed by the House with an overwhelming vote of 389 to 38 on February 16, 2005.

This Act calls for huge fines which can have a chilling effect on the media. The People for the American Way said it best:

The Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004 treads a thin line between regulation and censorship. The bill calls for a tenfold increase of fines for the broadcast of indecent, profane, or obscene content over the public airwaves. While such penalties would hardly be crippling for big media conglomerates, smaller independent broadcasters would be stymied in their creative process. Given a choice between censoring themselves and financial ruin, many may be forced to choose censorship. Lost will be programming that may be provocative and challenging but which falls short of indecency.

Even Republican Ron Paul understood the inherient dangers of the Act. Before the Defeat of the Act, Rep Paul called for the defeat of the this Act.

We will soon debate the "Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004" on the House Floor. This atrocious piece of legislation should be defeated. It cannot improve the moral behavior of U.S. citizens, but it can do irreparable harm to our cherished right to freedom of speech.

This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually provocative language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious police of Saudi Arabia, who control the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice." Though both may be motivated by the good intentions of improving moral behavior, using government force to do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of success.

Now that the House passed the Broadcast Indecency Act, the FCC will decide who gets fined. And with the passage of this bill, a bill endorsed by the White Houste, appointed Kevin J Martin to head the FCC on March 16, 2005.

Who is Kevin J. Martin and how dangerous can he be? In Dec 2003, Mr. Martin gave a speech at the 21st Annual Institute on Telecommunications Policy & Regulation. He said:

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/fcc/2003/martinremarks.htm
I am concerned that the Commission is not doing all it should in this area. We may be interpreting the statute too narrowly. We also may need to enforce our rules more stringently. For instance, I have been advocating counting each indecent utterance in a broadcast program as a separate violation, as the statute on its face appears to call for. In fact, in the clip I just showed, you might have noticed a counter in the corner adding up the number of times the swear word was used. Counting each utterance as a separate violation could significantly increase the amount of fines that we could levy.

If we were implementing our statutory mandate effectively, our rules would serve as a significant deterrent to broadcasters considering the airing of obscene, indecent and profane material, and our fines would punish violators sternly. I am concerned that we are failing on both fronts. Just this past quarter, for instance, indecency complaints increased from 351 to 19,920. Clearly, consumers are concerned.

-snip-

I have been troubled by this trend for some time now, and have been actively encouraging broadcasters and cable operators to offer more tools for parents to deal with this trend. For example, in an article I wrote at the end of 2002 and in my remarks before the National Association of Television Program Executives last January, I expressed my disappointment in the choices facing parents who want to watch television together as a family.

-snip-

But I would not place the burden on broadcasters alone; I also have called on cable and satellite operators to offer a family-friendly programming package, so that parents could enjoy the excellent family-oriented channels available without being forced to subscribe (and pay for) the channels they believe have less appropriate programming. Together, these steps would empower parents and enhance the value that television can offer.

And that is just the tip of "sex police" iceburg:

April 3, 2005
U.S. Is Asked to Close Site on Sex Issues
http://www.theocracywatch.org/hum_sex_siecus_complains_times_apr3_05.htm
WASHINGTON, April 2 (AP) - Advocacy groups are calling on the federal government to take down a new Web site offering information on sex issues because the groups say it presents biased and inaccurate advice to parents on how to talk to their children about sex and emphasizes abstinence.

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which also provides sex education materials, sent a letter to Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, supported by liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood.

"They've always opposed us on the issue of abstinence; that's fine," said a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, Bill Pierced. "One thing we do know about abstinence is that if you practice it, you will not have an unintended pregnancy or risk catching a sexually transmitted disease."

-snip-

The Human Rights Campaign said it was also concerned about sections of the Web site that focused on sexual orientation.

Faith-Based Gynecology???
http://atorrez.com/index.php?p=124
President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

Dr. Hager is the author of “As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now.” The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager’s practice. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as “pro-life” and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

SO WHO WILL BE LOOKING IN YOUR BEDROOM? :shrug:

[paineinthearse]

1. Well done

All I wish to add is Ron Paul is a rethug in name only; he is actually a libertarian.