Breaking News: Republicans Invoke Rule 60 to Force a Vote on Marriage
- Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 8:30
- Iowa, News Center
- 1,804 views
- 64 comments
House Republicans are expected to use a procedural rule today that would let them advance a bill that would allow the people of Iowa to vote on an amendment to the state’s constitution that would define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
Rule 60 allows House members to withdraw a bill that has been in committee for eighteen legislative days. The marriage amendment bill met that requirement this past Friday. For the actual bill to be placed on the debate calendar, it must receive at least 51 votes.
That means seven Democrats must join with the 44 Republicans for the bill to advance. The following Democrat State Representatives have either voted in favor of this procedure last year, or said that they support letting the people of Iowa vote on this critical issue. By the end of the day, we should know if Representatives really support traditional marriage or not.
Curt Hanson
Dolores Mertz
Mike Reasoner
Larry Marek
Geri Huser
Brian Quirk
Kurt Swaim
Wayne Ford
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 502 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
64 Comments on “Breaking News: Republicans Invoke Rule 60 to Force a Vote on Marriage”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
God bless all these House Republicans and the Democrats who are courageous enough to help advance this important bill.
Yop, the economy’s in the north hole of a King’s District two-holer but the rethugs in DesMoines are concentrated on fairy-tail regulation.
So you’d rather see the Dems ram through their union bought and paid for agenda? Yeah, lets just kill Iowa’s economy by gutting Right to Work and prevailing wage…..
Fairy-tail regulation? I don’t think homosexuals like to be called fairys anymore.
Fairy tale? Actually, the republicans are just trying to undo the fiction created by the Iowa Supreme Court.
> God bless all these House Republicans and the Democrats who are courageous enough to help advance this important bill.
— begin sarcasm
I can’t wait until all these dirty gays finally have all their rights taken away! You know…we better take away their right to vote too, because they are probably just gonna vote in favor of allowing gay marriage.
— end sarcasm
This is why I am often disgusted with religion. There could not be this much hate for other human beings without belief in the supernatural.
WOO HOO , One more step to my being a second class citizen again. So when do we start building those concentration camps for homosexuals like me? Do I get to have a number tattoo as well?
It’s interesting that we are still focused on the issue of gay marriage when a recent poll (as reported by yesterday’s DSM Register) shows that more Iowans are concerned with the issue of texting while driving than gay marriage:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100208/NEWS10/2080322/Iowans-rate-drivers%5C–texting-as-more-urgent-than-gay-marriage
Really, what is the issue here? Why does this issue bother so many people?
Vast: Did your life change after the ruling? Had anyone wanted to tattoo you before the ruling? Your premise is ridiculous. Stop spreading it on so thick.
Jeff: There is no such thing as gay marriage. There will never be gay marriage. God defined marriage and anything man does is not going to change it.
You’re only wanting validation of your sexual behavior and for some reason you falsely believe that “married” homosexuals are going to benefit financially. This also makes no sense. Why would you want to get “married” just in time to get full benefit of Obama’s and the Dims plan to put a huge marriage penalty on married people? I believe this is nothing more than bullying your way around.
For some reason, heterosexuals only want to live together without marriage and yet, homosexuals want to get married. Go figure!!
It also means YOU want to define marriage to your definition. Well,, doesn’t everyone. So do the polygamists and those wanting to marry sibilings, etc., and if you think you get to redefine it, so should others.
I want them to be equal with me, I never said I like em or wouldn’t crack one-liners about em.
And I think hcr1 ["So you’d rather see the Dems ram through their union bought and paid for agenda?"] may have cracked the door on why the rethugs are so intent on trying to dominate legislative agenda; it ain’t really to squash the heathen gay, it’s to prevent the demos from governing.
Jeff, people seem to be against it for 1 or 2 reasons.
1. They think it’s icky.
2. It goes against some moldy text written 2000 years ago by some men wanting to overthrow the Roman empire who claim it’s against God’s will.
DVFO, yes my life did change after the ruling. I felt free to be far more open about the person I was born to be.
As for the other comments I made about tattoos and such. those are not very far fetched. A Pastor in the UK has called for the tattooing of all homosexuals with at a minimum a health warning
And just last week, Peter Sprigg was on Chris Matthews and said that he wants to see homosexuality re criminalized in America and others have called for all homosexuals to be forceably sent through “re-orientation” therapy.
I’m happy about you “feeling” free. What about those who want to marry multiples? What about the NAMBLA people? What about the kelptomaniacs? What about the alcoholics? Everyone wants to feel free. No one wants to be told something they feel a compulsion about is wrong. Heck, let’s just say nothing is wrong. Of course, those who believe in global warming also believe they should be able to tell the rest of us if we can smoke or not and where we can do it. Now, they’re wanting to tell us what we can eat. Now they’re even getting down to telling us how much salt we can consume. They’re after our soft drinks. These people are trying to rule every aspect of our lives and yet YOU want to be able to define marriage to YOUR liking.
BTW, you don’t smoke or drink soft drinks or use transfats or eat sugar or salt, do you?
> There is no such thing as gay marriage. There will never be gay marriage. God defined marriage and anything man does is not going to change it. — [DVFO]
There is no such thing as god. There will never be god. Man defined god and anything man does is not going to change it.
> It also means YOU want to define marriage to your definition.
Yes, this is also known as LIBERTY. You are asking for someone else to define marriage for you. EFF that. It’s only good if you happen to agree with the definition. Do you not see this?
BTW, I happen to be heterosexual; which is sad that people assume I must be gay if I support gay people…but I digress.
It’s just that I understand what liberty means, and I truly desire small government…one where my state and federal government have no say over my personal life when it comes to consenting adults.
And once again, to be crystal clear, I’m a straight man, married to a good lookin’ lady. Also, she’s a minority…and at one time in THIS COUNTRY we would’ve felt the hatred you have for gays if we were to hold hands in public.
So, according to DVFO, his hate for homosexuals comes from his biblical belief that they are immoral.
> and if you think you get to redefine it, so should others.
That’s *exactly* the point you are missing. I don’t want marriage defined by the state at all. Why should the state have any interest in determining what a marriage is? What business is it of the state’s?
We don’t define or approve religion. The state, for the most part, keeps out of it.
DVFO, as I have stated over and over again, I don’t have a problem with polygamists getting married, although the comparison is disingenuous since being gay is something a person is born with and being a polygamist is a choice that is made generally for religious or economics reasons.
As for NAMBLA, I think anyone that abuses a child like that should be publicly executed. Also, there is a legitimate reason for the state to prohibit marriage with minors as a child generally has not developed enough to totally understand what they are getting into, while there is no legitimate reason for prohibiting same sex couples from getting married. In fact it would be to the states benefit to allow same sex couples to marry and has been proven as such in studies of the economic impact.
It’s odd that your so much against the state telling you what to do but your really ok with them telling me who I can and can’t get married to.
It’s AWESOME to have these Democrat lapdogs on record with this vote.
VAST,
THERE IS NO GAY GENE, NO MATTER HOW BADLY YOU WANT IT TO BE TRUE.
Your orientation is the result of multiple factors, none of which is genetic.
Peggy
That has never been proven one way or another.
Plain and simple. I did not ever choose to gay. No one ever simply chooses to be gay.
@DVFO
I’ll respond to everyone of the points in your unlettered response:
> I’m happy about you “feeling” free. What about those who want to marry multiples?
Who cares? As long as all parties involved are of legal age and consenting…who frickin cares?
> What about the NAMBLA people?
Well, NAMBLA involves the sexual exploitation of minors. This is already against the law, so they would be arrested because we have scientific data that demonstrates that children are not capable of providing consent.
> What about the kelptomaniacs? What about the alcoholics?
What about them? Yes, they are allowed to get married.
> Everyone wants to feel free.
No, everyone wants to *be* free.
> No one wants to be told something they feel a compulsion about is wrong. Heck, let’s just say nothing is wrong.
You can say things are wrong, you just can’t make consensual activities that don’t harm others illegal.
> Of course, those who believe in global warming also believe they should be able to tell the rest of us if we can smoke or not and where we can do it.
Now you are just all over the board. They are allowed to tell you this, but you don’t have to believe it.
> Now, they’re wanting to tell us what we can eat. Now they’re even getting down to telling us how much salt we can consume. They’re after our soft drinks.
Ya, they are *telling* you, not making it illegal.
> These people are trying to rule every aspect of our lives and yet YOU want to be able to define marriage to YOUR liking.
Again, YES. This is called Liberty.
> BTW, you don’t smoke or drink soft drinks or use transfats or eat sugar or salt, do you?
No, I don’t smoke, yes I drink the occasional soft drinks, and I do eat sugar, salt and the occasional trans fats. However, these are a collection of unrelated questions.
According to the Iowa Independent, both the attempt in the Senate and the House to invoke rule 60 have failed.
> THERE IS NO GAY GENE, NO MATTER HOW BADLY YOU WANT IT TO BE TRUE.
But it doesn’t matter at all. Let’s presume that there really is no gay gene…it doesn’t change my point. I still want liberty and freedom
What if I chose to be gay? What if me and 2 dudes decided (consensually) to have sex with each other? It *still* doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
What if I wanna get super-drunk every day and watch TV? Should that be illegal since it’s bad for me? Well, isn’t illegal because I have the right to do it as long as I don’t harm others.
Vast…
Now we know who supports giving a vote to the people..and who does not. The Dems can go on and on about how this was a “procedural” vote. They’re on the record now….and that record will be used against them in their campaigns.
Hawk, to no effect.
To no effect? Yeah right, Vast.. . Some of these Democrat legislators are in VERY socially conservative areas of Iowa….people like Larry Marek, Curt Hanson, Kurt Swaim…they’re going to find it very hard to explain to their constituents that they are now on the record as refusing to bring the issue of marriage forth for debate.
Especially in Hanson’s case..as he was quoted in the Des Moines Register on August 24, 2009 stating that he believed Iowan’s should be given the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment. Looks like that went out the window today……
Jeff: But Democrats ARE making it illegal for businesses to use transfats and too much salt.
They think they have the right to regulate every aspect of our lives. If they’re going to outlaw my eating too much salt, they can outlaw your engaging in risky homosexual sex.
Hawk
The majority of Iowans are far more concerned about the economy. Even TIR’s own polling shows that. Having government interfere in the lives of law abiding GLBT people is not high on the agenda of average Iowans.
On a statewide basis, Vast…your statement is correct… however, we’re talking about individual legislators in seats across the state. Dont fool yourself…there is a a WORLD worth a difference between places like Grinnell and Iowa City and districts in rural SE Iowa where for example, Larry Marek, Curt Hanson and Kurt Swaim are based out of.
Down there, people expect you to live up to your word. If you campaign telling people “I support giving people the right to vote on marriage”..and then go up to Des Moines and vote AGAINST putting that issue up for a debate, those constituents most certainly notice that.
And they don’t take kindly to getting deceived…
> They think they have the right to regulate every aspect of our lives. If they’re going to outlaw my eating too much salt, they can outlaw your engaging in risky homosexual sex.
This is a dumb argument. So you are saying that since they are defining laws on salt (which you will need to provide some evidence for this), they should outlaw “risky” behavior?
THIS IS CALLED TYRANNY. Eating fast food is risky…let’s outlaw it. Driving without a seatbelt is risky…let’s get rid of the fine and just throw you in jail if you don’t wear one. Smoking is risky…that should be illegal. Drinking too much is illegal. Let’s put some cops in the bars and make sure nobody is drinking more than 2 drinks an hour, and 4 drinks maximum…anything more than that is a risk to your health.
You see how this works? When you make a claim to legislate morality, you have to draw it out to its logical extremes. Your suggestion fails a test on logic and application to even most issues.
HawkCR1, they didn’t vote on anything. They simply choose not to put their names on a petition. There could be a lot of reasons for that, such as maybe they feel that Iowa has bigger issues to deal with right now.
Yes..they DID vote.. When Rule 60 is invoked..a vote is taken of the House body as to whether or not to put the particular bill on the debate calendar. The Senate is where a discharge petition is required. So it appears your don’t even know what you’re talking about.
Face the facts, Vast… today..we finally have an on the record vote of Democrats refusing to bring the issue up for a debate, much less a vote of the people.
Again.. I ask you Vast… how are people like Curt Hanson going to go back to people in their district with a straight face and tell them that the support a vote on the marriage issue..when today, they are clearly on the record against it.
Ultimately, the morality of gay marriage is completely and utterly irrelevant. As with all other ‘moral’ legislation (think murder, theft, drugs, etc.) it comes down to whether or not a majority of the population agrees with it.
We are a republic. We elect people to represent us. If they are doing their jobs they should be working for the things that are important to the majority o their constituents. If they are not doing that then they should be voted out of office.
Allowing the people to vote on the issue (We The People… remember?) is the appropriate way to address the matter. Whether I’m for or against gay marriage isn’t relevant, because I AM pro-constitution. If the constitution says one thing then that is the way things should be.
Take emotions out of it and realize that this is a legislative issue; are We The People for or against gay marriage? Once the vote happens, and it will happen eventually, we all need to abide by that We The People decision.
thinkingman, The constitution isn’t supposed to allow to the majority to vote away the rights of a minority group however.
Hawk, it works both ways in that case. We also now know who thinks it’s more important to impose government intervention into the lives of people than it is to fix the states economic problems.
For people to say that man invented God is at best, illogical. Anyone who believes this needs to be able to answer honestly this question: Why would men invent a God that restricts all of my evil desires? I mean, if we all invented a deity, wouldn’t we want our religion to allow us to do whatever we wanted? Who would ever invent a God that doesn’t allow us to do everything under the sun?
Vast: You’re one confused dude. It is the Dims who are imposing all kinds of government intervention in people’s lives. They want to regulate everything, including what we eat. They think they can tell businesses how to run their businesses and in the process kill jobs.
Now, these economic illiterates in DM are trying to give enough power to their labor union buddies that will drive business from the state and cause even more economic hardship on the state.
Surely, you can join with the rest of us and fight to thwart them from destroying our state even more.
These Dims do not have the Midas touch. Everything they touch turns to you-kno-what. They’ve destroyed the educational system here in Iowa and they’re not going to stop until there are only government jobs left in Iowa and no one left to keep the bloated government going.
cio sez: “Who would ever invent a God that doesn’t allow us to do everything under the sun?”
Gimminy, who invented a god who demanded that the hearts be torn from living people at the tops of pyramids in mexico?
A god who wanted live peoplethrown down a chute into firepits?
A god who demanded that jews in spain either convert or die . . . . or both?
> For people to say that man invented God is at best, illogical.
Hey that’s me! I’d argue that believing in a supernatural being that you have no verifiable evidence for is illogical.
> Anyone who believes this needs to be able to answer honestly this question: Why would men invent a God that restricts all of my evil desires? I mean, if we all invented a deity, wouldn’t we want our religion to allow us to do whatever we wanted? Who would ever invent a God that doesn’t allow us to do everything under the sun?
Ummm, nearly every major culture has invented this type of God. You really don’t give me the impression that you’ve study cultural beliefs much.
Just a quick list of religions that restrict people from doing everything under the sun:
* Islam
* Christianity
* Judaism
* Buddhism
* Hinduism
* Bahai
* Jainism
Of course, if you are a Christian, then you believe that all of those above religions are false, and that only Christianity is true….but then you can’t prove it.
Also, it is in our own self-interest as a culture to not do whatever we want, because in doing so we may alienate other people…which we need to accomplish our own goals.
DVFO, No I don’t like that Dems want to regulate everything and I’m especially unhappy with their pro-labor stance, but as long as Republicans want to take away my civil rights they will never get my independent vote. Today, state Republicans have once again shown that they are the bigger threat to my civil rights.
Honestly, if I had my way, we would vote all Democrats and Republicans out of office and replace them with 3rd party candidates that will uphold the constitution and significantly limit government interference.
Christian, the argument is made that man created God in order to explain the unexplained. While I believe in God, I don’t believe everything in the bible, as the bible is the work of man and not God.
Vast said, The constitution isn’t supposed to allow to the majority to vote away the rights of a minority group however.
Vast, just exactly which minority group are you talking about? The group that believes it morally acceptable to masturbate into another dudes rectum? The group that believes it morally acceptable for two women to engage in carpet munching? Or maybe its a group that believes its morally acceptable for mothers to do the nasty with their teenage sons as a sex-ed course? Or some old geezer who likes blowing little boys? Which group are your concerned about losing their rights? Maybe you think because you are a member of some small group of perverts, this makes you entitled to special rights? Or is it just special rights for sodomites that you are defending?
Your actions in the bedroom, under a bridge, in the sky walk,in the restroom of a bar,in your dorm room, through a glory hole or in the back seat of a car, do not make you a member of a special group, they just prove you’re a pervert.
Well..gee that last post didn’t make Republicans and conservatives sound tolerant there at all.
I’m neither a Repugnant nor a conservative, thank you very much!
An independent lover of the natural law would be a good description though.
What exactly is natural about the unnatural acts that Vast wants us to give special status for his group or any other pervert group. They are unnatural acts, perversions of the created order.
I am confused though why Vast and his pervert buddies are so interested in what goes on at this blog. They should be over at the Demoncrats site, singing the praises of the party of unborn baby killers and the sodomy lobby.
RE the “gay gene”, Vast Variety said, “That has never been proven one way or another.”
You mean, there is no gay gene? You can’t prove a negative, my friend. You’re truly grasping now.
Also, Vast said, “Plain and simple. I did not ever choose to gay. No one ever simply chooses to be gay.”
Did I SAY you chose your orientation? You’ve got a lot of homework to do.
I’m not even going to legitimize naturallawlover’s hate with a reply.
Peggy, If it’s not genetic I must choose it right? It’s a disease or mental disorder. I was born the way I am.
@naturallawlover
You are an idiot. Seriously.
Vast,
Yes, just like an alcholic is “born that way,” or a person who loves to smoke, or overeat, blah, blah, blah.
Why isn’t the Iowa Supreme Court acting to protect their weaknesses?
> Why isn’t the Iowa Supreme Court acting to protect their weaknesses?
Well, the issue is about marriage…and alcoholics, smokers, and fatties can all get married.
I’m not even going to legitimize naturallawlover’s hate with a reply.
Of course your saying that is actually a reply, but we’ll forgive you that one.
What I want to know is how what I said was hateful. It was a description of various sex acts which are abnormal. Perversions of the natural order. Describing them may cause some kind of revulsion from the icky factor, because every one is grossed out by the actual description of those acts, but nothing I said was hateful. It may have hurt your wiwwle feewwings, but it was not hateful.
Hateful would be saying that I want all sodomites to die and go straight to hell. That is not true. I want them to repent of their wicked ways, confess their sin and change their evil ways. Just like the rest of us have to do when we do something wrong.
You confuse telling the truth about your actions, with hatefulness. In fact, it would be hateful of me to say I don’t care it you engage in an activity that is harmful to your health,an activity which leads to a shorter life span than normal behavior. I don’t want you to die prematurely, nor do I want you to go to hell. What I want is you to recognize your sinful behavior, and stop doing that.
And I believe the only way you can stop doing that is through an act of God. So seek out what He has to say on the subject, then accept His help in changing from your former manner of life to a new life.
Silence, you are so right about this: “You may not believe this, but even church teachings evolve over the years,”
It has already happened but they’re just as guilty of playing pretend as the homosexuals who think they can get “married”.
We already have “churches’ who have decided they want to be “tolerant” and “open” and “welcoming”, etc., etc., etc., Heck, BVP even attends such a church. That doesn’t mean the church is following God’s word. The fact is God’s word NEVER changes.
DVFO, If God is all powerful, why would his word never change? What if he changed his mind on something? Do you know how many times the bible has been edited over the last 2000 years?
> In fact, it would be hateful of me to say I don’t care it you engage in an activity that is harmful to your health,an activity which leads to a shorter life span than normal behavior.
Can I assume you apply this policy uniformly throughout your life? Or, can I more correctly assume you pretty much apply it only to sodomy?
So you don’t mind then if 2 dudes give each other blowjobs, right? That doesn’t shorten their lifespan.
I’m calling BS on your supposed “I just care about people” crap.
I know. The first revision was by Martin Luther, and almost all the other denominations thereafter had one as well. There is only one ‘edition’ that has never been toyed with.
> because every one is grossed out by the actual description of those acts,
No, I was annoyed that you decided to be graphic for shock value. Men and women perform many of these same s-e-xual acts…many within the bonds of Christian marriage.
> The group that believes it morally acceptable for two women to engage in carpet munching?
So are you against men performing oral s-e-x with their wives?
> Or maybe its a group that believes its morally acceptable for mothers to do the nasty with their teenage sons as a s-e-x-ed course?
Incest is against the law. If you are a ware of this happening, you need to report it to the police. Their number is still 9-1-1.
> The group that believes it morally acceptable to masturbate into another dudes rectum?
So I understand you take a moral issue with this, but would you care it it was a woman’s rectum? Or vagina? And why do you care if both of the adults are consenting? Are you hoping to legislate “approved” sxual acts?
> Your actions in the bedroom, under a bridge, in the sky walk,in the restroom of a bar,in your dorm room, through a glory hole or in the back seat of a car, do not make you a member of a special group, they just prove you’re a pervert.
No, s-e-xual acts don’t make you protected. But decades (well, actually centuries) of hatred, discrimination, and violence against groups that engage in s-e-xual acts with members of the same s-e-x DOES make them a protected group.
Jeff,
What are you doing to reverse Iowa’s extreme anti-smoking laws, or the overreaching seatbelt laws?
Is the AEA going into public schools to instruct teachers and students to “accept” heterosexuality? Until they do, the LGBT pack is getting special treatment.
:”But decades (well, actually centuries) of hatred, discrimination, and violence…” – Jeff
You truly are clueless, Jeff. The pro-gay movement didn’t even have a pulse in this country until the late ’60’s. Quit while you’re way behind.
P:”I know. The first revision was by Martin Luther, and almost all the other denominations thereafter had one as well. There is only one ‘edition’ that has never been toyed with.”
Peggy, are you itching to get those religious wars going here in Iowa?
Not at all. Just stating fact.
> You truly are clueless, Jeff. The pro-gay movement didn’t even have a pulse in this country until the late ’60’s. Quit while you’re way behind.
Peggy, I agree that the pro-gay movement didn’t gain any notoriety until the 60’s…but they have been discriminated against as a group for much longer. It’s like saying that until women’s suffrage in the 1920’s, there really were no problems for women and had nothing to complain about.
Also, I never said that discrimination of homos-e-xuals was isolated to this country. I’m only going to go back 1,000 years, and I’ll stop at the end of the 1960’s…otherwise this post will be too long. Also, I’ll just hit the more notable official acts of hatred against homos-e-xuals.
# The s-e-xual Offences Act 1967 decriminalises male homos-e-xual behaviour in England and Wales;
# 1966 – The Mattachine Society stages a “Sip-In” at Julius Bar in New York City challenging a New York State Liquor Authority prohibiting serving alcohol to gays
# 1965 – Everett George Klippert is arrested for private, consensual s-e-x with men. After being assessed “incurably homos-e-xual”, he is sentenced to an indefinite “preventive detention” as a dangerous s-e-xual offender
# 1961 – Illinois becomes first U.S. state to remove sodomy law from its criminal code (effective 1962).[38]
# 1954 – June 7– World renowned mathematical and computer genius Alan Turing commits suicide by cyanide poisoning, 18 months after being given libido-reducing hormone treatment for a year as a punishment for homos-e-xuality
# 1945 – Upon the liberation of Nazi concentration camps by Allied forces, those interned for homos-e-xuality are not freed, but required to serve out the full term of their sentences under Paragraph 175
# 1933 – The National Socialist German Workers Party bans homos-e-xual groups. Homos-e-xuals are sent to concentration camps.
# 1921 – In England an attempt to make lesbianism illegal for the first time in Britain’s history fails.
# 1903 – In New York on February 21, 1903, New York police conducted the first United States recorded raid on a gay bathhouse, the Ariston Hotel Baths. 26 men were arrested and 12 brought to trial on sodomy charges; 7 men received sentences ranging from 4 to 20 years in prison.
# 1895 – The trial of Oscar Wilde results in his being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 for “gross indecency” and sentenced to two years at hard labor in prison.
# 1886 — In England, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, outlawing s-e-xual relations between men (but not between women) is given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria.
# 1836 – The last known execution for homos-e-xuality in Great Britain.
# 1835 – For the first time in history, Poland, under the Tsarist rule then, makes homos-e-xuality illegal.
# 1832 – Russia criminalizes homos-e-xual acts making them punishable by up to five years exile in Siberia under Article 995 of its new criminal code.
# 1721 – Catherina Margaretha Linck is executed for female sodomy in Germany.
# 1620 Brandenburg-Prussia criminalizes sodomy, making it punishable by death.
# 1533 – King Henry VIII passes the Buggery Act 1533 making all male-male s-e-xual activity punishable by death
# 1532 Holy Roman Empire makes sodomy punishable by death.
# 1483 The Spanish Inquisition begins. Sodomites were stoned, castrated, and burned. Between 1540 and 1700, more than 1,600 people were prosecuted for sodomy.
# 1327 – The deposed King Edward II of England is killed, allegedly by forcing a red-hot poker through his rectum. Edward II had a history of conflict with the nobility, who repeatedly banished his former lover Piers Gaveston, the Earl of Cornwall
# 1283 French Civil Code dictated that convicted sodomites not only were burned but that their property was forfeited.
# 1250–1300 – “Between 1250 and 1300, homos-e-xual activity passed from being completely legal in most of Europe to incurring the death penalty in all but a few contemporary legal compilations.” — John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homos-e-xuality (1980) p. 293
# 1232 Pope Gregory IX starts the Inquisition in the Italian City-States. Some cities called for banishment and/or amputation as punishments for 1st and 2nd offending sodomites and burning for the 3rd or habitual offenders.
# 1120 Baldwin II of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, convenes the Council of Nablus to address the vices within the Kingdom. The Council calls for the burning of individuals who perpetually commit sodomy.
The Christian Church outlawed same sex marriage in the Holy Roman Empire in 342AD. Although it has existed in some form or another through the whole of human history, sometimes as informal relationships and sometimes as highly celebrated unions.
I hear Nero played a mean fiddle…..
Incest is against the law. If you are a ware of this happening, you need to report it to the police. Their number is still 9-1-1.
Sorry Jeff, but by the logic of the Supreme Court of Iowa, behaviors are now protected by discrimination law. By what standard can you make consensual parent child sexual relationships illegal when you allow two dudes to do their thing and it was formerly illegal?
So incest is icky, does that mean it should be illegal? Cause there are a lot of Iowa who think sodomy is icky, and you seem to be saying that behavior is acceptable? What gives? Incest is ickier than sodomy? How about pedophilia, is that icky or since it’s behavior we give the NAMBLA crowd a pass?
The Supreme Courts lawless opinion opened a moral can of worms which will entangle every sexual act known to humanity. if sodomy is acceptable, by what standard can you exclude any other sexual deviancy from being acceptable?
Nat, sex with a minor child is still illegal, by what stupid stretch would you interpret otherwise?
Nat
The Iowa Supreme Court didn’t legalize Sodomy. The US Supreme Court did that several years ago.
“The Christian Church outlawed same sex marriage in the Holy Roman Empire in 342AD. Although it has existed in some form or another through the whole of human history, sometimes as informal relationships and sometimes as highly celebrated unions.” – Vast
I’m throwing the bullshit flag on that one!