Murray v. State, 143 N.E.2d 290, 292 (Ind. 1957).The year is 1967 and DRob is hired by IPD. He, and his recruit classmates, are issued a 3 ring binder titled Criminal Law for Indiana Police Officers. There is a crime listed in that binder called Sodomy with partial wording as follows, "Whoever commits that detestable crime against nature with either man or beast is guilty of sodomy". Each listed crime included the essential elements (what you had to prove to get a conviction) as well as any related court opinions. I distinctly remember one of those court decisions was "A chicken is a beast as defined under this statute". Sorry I can't provide the specific case. I wonder who would have been called to testify on behalf of nature!
So, if I have this right:
1. Michigan had an existing criminal sodomy statute (as did Indiana until 1977) which was never enforced.
2. Michigan recriminalizes bestiality (as did Indiana).
3. There is some strange free-floating language left over by a staff attorney during the 17th rewrite that the True Guardians of Liberty fixate on.
4. Michigan removes the strange free-floating language.
5. Everyone overreacts and claims this is a blow (yes, yes I did) against Liberty.
Do I have it right?
Wait... choking the chicken is sodomy? Or animal cruelty?
I guess the truly less gentile version would have been: "freedom took a putz in the tuchus."
Close....very close.
I would have gone with the less gentile: "freedom took it in the *** ", but basically you're right.
Wait... choking the chicken is sodomy? Or animal cruelty?
I am shocked somebuddy on INGO caught my gay pun.
But notice how I removed the pic? Gotta reestablish my hetero street cred.
Take note that there haven't yet been any actual libertarians in here complaining about this.
indiucky said:Most Libertarians I have met believe in the whole "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" scenario because if rights are granted by man, then they can also be taken away by man...Atheiatarians struggle because Darwinian Evolutionary theory was the catalyst for Marxism and later National Socialism of Germany in the 1930's...Two ideologies that were (and are) at odds with individual liberty...It puts them in a quandary because they love freedom, but know there is no justification for freedom in a Darwinian sense...They need a boogeyman to justify their Bertrand Russell/Satre/Nietzsche style of Nihilism and vague "right wing, religious fundamentalists" fill the roll of a villain very nicely for them...
Who in this thread are you referring to? level.eleven may be an atheist but he certainly doesn't care about individual liberty.
IndyDave1776 said:I see the larger problem is that so many among us (INGO, not society in general) who profess liberty are interested in only their favored little cutout and beyond that are willing or even demand going full statist, indicating to my satisfaction a clear lack of understanding the principle of liberty.
Careful now, you're starting to sound like a purist.