You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #86: Reread the post - I was referring to adultery. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #81
86. Reread the post - I was referring to adultery.
But, I was wrong. It's 20 states, not seven, in which laws against adultery still exist.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20031216.html

According to a report in the Washington Post, a man in Luray, Virginia recently pled guilty to adultery, a crime for which the maximum penalty is a $250 fine. Ironically, it wasn't his wife who complained; it was apparently his lover. (He reportedly has reconciled with his wife.)

This case is a potent reminder--particularly for the man charged--that adultery is in fact a crime in more than twenty states. Though the laws are seldom enforced, their existence still affects the way people behave.


You may be able to sleep with whomever you choose, but you can't marry them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Twenty states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. On May 18 2006, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit states to recognize same-sex marriages. The measure passed in committee by a party line vote. The measure was subsequently debated by the full United States Senate, but defeated in a 49-48 vote on June 7, 2006. <1>

My point being that condemning Sharia law is all well and good, but we "enlightened" westerners have more than a few
holdovers from "biblical" law that we can hardly be proud of.

Unless you believe that the laws against same-sex marriage, abortion, etc, have nothing to do with the power of our own religious fundamentalists in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC