“The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this [homosexual] lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.”
The quotation above is not from Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps, but from Alabama Republican gubernatoral candidate Roy Moore. The context is Ex parte H.H., where the former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice tackled the issue of whether homosexual parents have the same rights as their straight former partners. I added the emphasis.
In this case, Moore cited biblical passages as part of his concurrence:
Homosexuality is strongly condemned in the common law because it violates both natural and revealed law. The author of Genesis writes: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them…. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 1:27, 2:24 (King James). The law of the Old Testament enforced this distinction between the genders by stating that “[i]f a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 (King James).
From the passage in Leviticus 20:13, the early western legal tradition garnered its laws on homosexuality. The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. “It is Justinian’s collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English).” (9) The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris:
“‘Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,’ and [is] translated in a footnote as ‘Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.’ At common law ‘sodomy’ and the phrase ‘infamous crime against nature’ were often used interchangeably.”
In case any of you aren’t familiar with the passage Moore used, here’s the entire verse Moore quoted (NIV and emphasis added). It exposes the part of “early western legal tradition” that Moore purposefully omitted.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
As it’s an election year, one might expect Moore to waffle a bit on this one. It’s been reported that he’s done so in the past. There may be some argument over translation of the Leviticus verse (which is why I used a link which provides multiple translations) in question. There can be no argument that Moore also used this non-biblical argument to support his call for execution, though (emphasis added):
Sodomy was codified by statute as a serious crime early in England. “The earliest English secular legislation on the subject dates from 1533, when Parliament under Henry VIII classified buggery (by now a euphemism for same-sex activity, bestiality, and anal intercourse) as a felony. Penalties included death, losses of goods, and loss of lands.”
That Moore finds homosexuality abominable is Moore’s personal right. That Moore would write that the state has and “must use” the power of the sword to protect children from the influence of homosexuals clearly indicates that he’s not suitable to hold any public office — no matter your political party, philosophical ponderings or personal preferences.
If executing gay people isn’t bad enough, the situation could become even scarier if Moore is elected. To defend his position in this case, Moore wrote:
Lest there be any doubt, the Legislature made it clear that its definition of “deviate sexual intercourse” in Ã‚Â§ 13A-6-65(a)(3) “[made] all homosexual conduct criminal.” Commentary to Ã‚Â§ 13A-6-65 (emphasis added). (5)
Footnote (5) provides:
5. Section 13A-6-60 defines “deviate sexual intercourse” as “[a]ny act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.
In other words, he’ll likely stick it to heterosexuals, too. According to Alabama code (pertinent definitions here), it’s a crime for a 15 year and 11 month old teenager to receive oral sex from a 16 year and 1 month old. It’s also a crime, under any circumstances, for any person to give or recieve oral sex outside of the marital bedroom.
Some form of the word “moral” appears 32 times in a document supposedly about a decision based on the law, and not on Moore’s religious beliefs. Additionally, he finds no problems with laws dealing with “moral turpitude” and wrote that common law arguments from centuries ago (unless a state law has been passed which directly addresses the issue at hand) should be the basis for determining criminal responsibility in such cases.
Based on his own words, we now know that Moore would execute homosexuals if state law allowed for it. We don’t yet know how far he’d take it if our teenagers get caught engaged in some heavy petting or if an unmarried couple is exposed for having oral sex. I don’t wish to ever have to find out, either.
Earlier today, I outlined the key choices for Governor of Alabama. If you support killing fags, there’s but one choice for Governor. There are a variety of choices for the rest of you, though.
If you’re socially liberal, you can vote for Nall or perhaps Siegelman. If you’re economically liberal, vote for one of the three tax and spenders: Riley, Baxley or Siegelman. If you’re a true economic conservative who deplores the moral position taken by Roy Moore, Nall is the only choice available. What ever you do, please cast your vote (or your support, if you live outside of Alabama) against Moore.