AK Judicial Nominee: Premarital sex should be a crime

[Cave Johnson]

Fantastic.

http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html

According to the Anchorage Daily News, when Democratic state senator Joe Paskvan asked him if adultery and premarital sex should be illegal during a recent hearing, here's what he said:

Haase: "Yeah, I think it's very harmful to have extramarital affairs. It's harmful to children, it's harmful to the spouse who entered a legally binding agreement to marry the person that's cheating on them."

Paskvan: "What about premarital affairs — should that be a crime?"

Haase: "I think that would be up to the voters certainly. If it came before (the state) as a vote, I probably would vote for it ... I can see where it would be a matter for the state to be involved with because of the spread of disease and the likelihood that it would cause violence. I can see legitimate reasons to push that as a crime."

[blaise]

Look out, this idea will soon run rampant among judges and lawmakers.

[notorious]

JFC

:facepalm:



I am against anyone who wants to take away any of my existing freedoms.

[go bowe]

JFC

:facepalm:



I am against anyone who wants to take away any of my existing freedoms.yeah, we don't want to give up adultery do we?






j/k

[notorious]

yeah, we don't want to give up adultery do we?






j/k

:)


I bet a few people on here were more angered by the possibility of losing their freedom to cheat then losing pre-marital boom-boom.



Meanwhile, in future Alaska.......


Girl asks her new boyfriend as he makes his move,"What are you doing?!"

Guy answers with a smirk on his face,"Breaking the Law.......;)"

[listopencil]

What a load of crap.

Until a state allows every citizen to marry freely they have no business making a law that prevents pre-marital activity that is otherwise legal while married. As for adultery: The problem I see is that, once again, legislators are fumbling as they try to interpret religious/moral ideas and make laws concerning them. If legislators actually wanted to do something meaningful they would slowly transform the legal concept of marriage into a that of a binding contract. Something similar to a prenup but with "morals" clauses. Those clauses would be left up to the couple, more than likely with the help of a lawyer. Have both partners sign the agreement, and that document becomes the one and only legal representation of the marriage that the State recognizes. Everything else is just bullshit and politics.

[shirtsleeve]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MnTd9vS6wmU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Useful Idiot]

why is this even being asked? aren't there more pressing questions that need to addressed?

dumbass journalist.

[shirtsleeve]

why is this even being asked? aren't there more pressing questions that need to addressed?

dumbass journalist.

Actually, its pretty smart. It weeds out the religious right candidates who may let their personal religious beliefs creep into their decisions. From this guy's answers, I would be concerned.

[alnorth]

why is this even being asked? aren't there more pressing questions that need to addressed?

dumbass journalist.

I'm fine with the question. Anyone who flunks the dumbass test should be opposed for a lifetime appointment to the bench.