Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Massachusetts burning: 'Gay marriage' leads to incest
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, March 26, 2004 | Kevin McCullough

Posted on 03/26/2004 10:41:42 AM PST by JohnHuang2

Massachusetts burning: 'Gay marriage' leads to incest


Posted: March 26, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Attention parents: "Do you know where your children are?" How about your spouse? If you have any doubts about the relationship between your children and a step parent and if you live in the state of Massachusetts, you have even more reason to worry now.

In a case determined on Tuesday of this last week, the Massachusetts high court nullified six indictments against a 60-year-old male for having had sexual intercourse with his step-daughter from the time she was 15 and 16 years of age.

The court said – in its most convoluted ruling – that the man could not be prosecuted because he was not a blood relative of the girl. The 4-3 majority said the words in the incest statute "cannot be stretched beyond their fair meaning in order to relieve against what may appear to be a hard case."

That doesn't even make sense.

Adopted children are supposedly protected, but they aren't blood relatives. The words shouldn't be "stretched beyond their fair meaning" under identical circumstances.

But making no sense and running roughshod over the voters and families of Massachusetts is what this same 4-3 majority has begun to get really good at.

I said earlier this year – when this same majority ordered by executive fiat that the acceptance of sexual unions of the same-sex (homosexual) "marriage" be mandated and recognized by law – that rulings like this were on their way. I just never believed that they would come so quickly.

Two observations of this are increasingly clear.

1. As the issue of "gay marriage" has advanced, children have suffered:

Despite the headline this week by the New York Times proclaiming how well children do in same-sex households – an obvious piece of pro-homosexual propaganda – this ruling demonstrates moral relativity as it now is applied to the protection of children. The great issue of "gay marriage" has turned the focus away from one of the key purposes of marriage: the nurturing of children.

The "gay marriage" movement is all about "me" and "why can't I get the same rights." The judges deciding these cases have so bought into the mindset that "there are no absolutes" that it has left children not only unprotected, but targeted. As long as the child is not a blood relative, its OK.

In Denmark, the legalization of homosexual "marriage" has led not to hoards of "gay marriages," but a plummeting of marriage. Children are now being born into unions increasingly without a mother and a father. The Marxian effect it is having on this state is that the government is burdened like never before with having to provide services. And if government is the hand that rocks the cradle ...

A disturbing side note on this observation is that the male homosexual-pedophile group NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) has desired to create a scenario whereby man-boy sex could be legalized. Judith Levine of the University of Minnesota added fuel to this fire in releasing her book in 2003 which advocated sexual intercourse between adults and children – minimizing any damages to the well-being of the child.

2. Americans are fed up and speaking out:

Rallies are occurring throughout the nation supporting the definition of marriage. Last Sunday, 50,000 New York City Latinos led a public rally. In Atlanta, a coalition of African American pastors declared support for President Bush's attempt to rescue marriage from the activists. In Oregon, Kentucky and Seattle, pro-marriage activists have called for the support of how the Creator designed and intends the family to be.

On March 31, in Illinois, people from across Chicago and the state are being asked to rally in the state's capital of Springfield – sponsored by Concerned Women for America, AM 1160 WYLL in Chicago, and the Coalition to Protect Marriage (Call Kathy Valente of CWA for more information: 708-371-7810).

And on Monday, March 29, in New York City, the City Covenant Coalition in partnership with "The Kevin McCullough Show" is hoping to rally 300 pastors in a press conference of solidarity on the steps of City Hall at 10 a.m., and at 12 noon we hope to rally 250,000 people to support marriage. (Contact Kevin McCullough of AM 570 WMCA for more information: kmc@wmca.com)

Join the cause to protect marriage today, because by not doing so, the courts are targeting our kids for the pleasure of those who mean them harm.

It's time to speak up!




Kevin McCullough is heard daily from 1 to 4 p.m. EST in New York City on AM 570 WMCA, and in New Jersey on AM 970 WWDJ. Additionally, you can read his daily postings at The KMC Blog. For information on how to bring "The Kevin McCullough Show" to a station near you, call Dave Armstrong at 201-298-5700.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; incest; judicialactivism; judicialrestraint; prisoners; samesexmarriage; slipperyslope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
Friday, March 26, 2004

Quote of the Day by kennedy

1 posted on 03/26/2004 10:41:43 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
That doesn't even make sense.
It makes sense that it doesn't make sense because it happened in MA.
2 posted on 03/26/2004 10:46:31 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Great comeback. Great cartoons too.
3 posted on 03/26/2004 10:53:52 AM PST by Argus (If you favor surrender to terrorism, vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
The only shortcoming of this article, is its regurgitation of the GOP talking point re "relativism" (young Zeiger's favorite line). These people aren't moral relativists; they just use moral relativism as a tactic, in order to destroy institutions. (If they were really relativists, they wouldn't idealize their own positions.) The hackery behind the "moral relativism" talking point obscures the truth, which does not help us fight the barbarians within the gates.
4 posted on 03/26/2004 10:57:33 AM PST by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
The real twist is that the Boston Globe thinks that the Mass. Supreme Court is "conservative".
5 posted on 03/26/2004 10:57:54 AM PST by theDentist (JOHN KERRY never saw a TAX he would not HIKE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
your headline is not logical. It seems based upon an adult having sex with 15 and 16 year olds, which is illegal under statuatory laws. How is have sex with a non-blood step-parent incest? It may be icky ala Woody Allen, but incest?

Children have not been able to legally enter into legal contracts in the states. The instance of adult incest is rare to the point that it has been very difficult to have enough samples to condut good research.

Could you explain how homo-marriage will lead to any more incest than we have now?

6 posted on 03/26/2004 11:00:06 AM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: breakem
should read instances of adult-adult incest is rare.
7 posted on 03/26/2004 11:01:11 AM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Sickos!
8 posted on 03/26/2004 11:06:24 AM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Was the man only charged with incest and not statutory rape?
9 posted on 03/26/2004 11:25:55 AM PST by Marauder (If God lived on earth, militant muslims would bomb Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marauder
Was the man only charged with incest and not statutory rape?

That's my question, too. If the incest statute does not cover sex between a step-parent and step-child, but only deals with blood relations and sex between a parent and their adopted child, then the Court ruled correctly.

If the prosecutor did not charge the guy with statutory rape, he really screwed the pooch on this one.

10 posted on 03/26/2004 11:52:04 AM PST by Modernman (Chthulhu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Can't they nail the step-dad for statutory rape? What's the age of consent in Fascistchusetts?
11 posted on 03/26/2004 2:44:35 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: breakem
It is what this and the ruling on homosexual marriage represent that is the problem: a gradual shift away from VERY IMPORTANT sexual taboos. NAMBLA or some other sick group could very well exploit it to push the limits even further. While there are many nice gay people, the infrastructure of the gay community as a whole is relentlessly perverse, and there is very little that I would put past it.

Also, I take issue with your contention that having intercourse with a non-blood step-parent might not be considered incest. What about intercourse with a non-blood, adoptive parent? Is that not incest?
12 posted on 03/26/2004 7:38:00 PM PST by MegaSilver (The Clintons left the lying, hypocritical mark on their party--just look at Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
The real twist is that the Boston Globe thinks that the Mass. Supreme Court is "conservative

It is.
Otherwise Judge Marshall wouldn't have to vote to break the ties. - tom

13 posted on 03/26/2004 7:45:52 PM PST by Capt. Tom (Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb republicans. - Capt. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
Nambla is already pushing the limits and I don't think it has much to do with incest. Do you see these nambla types going after their own kids?

My understanding of incest is that it was there to protect the gene pool and so that the kids weren't born with all kinds of defects. I don't think that relates to adoption. I'll stand correct upon reviewing other info.

Many here are sure that incest will be made legal, but there is no logic connection in my book.

14 posted on 03/26/2004 9:11:39 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Nambla is already pushing the limits and I don't think it has much to do with incest. Do you see these nambla types going after their own kids?

I'm not arguing that NAMBLA is an inherently perverse organization. But my point is, if something like homosexual marriage becomes legal, how much longer before we no longer view other traditionally taboo sexual behaviors as deviant? Groups like NAMBLA will not stop until pederasty is legal, and things like this only push them closer and closer toward that goal.

Many here are sure that incest will be made legal, but there is no logic connection in my book.

Well, true. I mean, for one thing, that connection assumes that our civilization can even survive long enough on its present course for that to happen.

15 posted on 03/26/2004 9:55:30 PM PST by MegaSilver (The Clintons left the lying, hypocritical mark on their party--just look at Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: seamole; scripter
`
16 posted on 03/26/2004 9:56:55 PM PST by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Tom
And how often does his vote fall in conservative favor?
17 posted on 03/27/2004 8:03:38 AM PST by theDentist (JOHN KERRY never saw a TAX he would not HIKE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
That is because the woman from South Africa on the Massachusetts Supreme court was put there by a Republican......
18 posted on 03/27/2004 8:12:18 AM PST by oldironsides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
And how often does his vote fall in conservative favor?

Rarely.
In this state any opposition to socialism or the gay agenda is reason to stamp out what few conservatives are around.

Apparently there are 3 judges who won't go along with the program, and they will ultimately be replaced.

This isn't about law, it is about the liberal socialist gay agenda, and the end justifying the means. - Tom

19 posted on 03/27/2004 8:25:00 AM PST by Capt. Tom (Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb republicans. - Capt. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Tom
Then, Capt., how is it you say the Court is conservative? If anything, it's 4/7 liberal.

BTW: I lived in Mass for some 40 years, having moved here (Va) just over 1-1/2 years ago. I know what you're up against.

20 posted on 03/27/2004 6:14:56 PM PST by theDentist (JOHN KERRY never saw a TAX he would not HIKE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson