Man On Dog

Over at WorldNetDaily, they're taking issue with Massachusett's Senate Bill 938, which eliminates or changes laws relating to a number of "archaic crimes." Being as they're sex-obsessed lunatics, WND naturally focuses on the bill's reduction of anti-bestiality penalties. Being as they're pathological liars, they misrepresent the extent of that reduction:

While the bill would keep bestiality technically illegal, it gives the option of less severe penalties. Previously, those convicted of "a sexual act on an animal" could receive up to 20 years in prison.

Oh, the animality! Here's the actual text of the bill:

Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Perhaps there's some stark difference between "up to" and "not more than" that eludes me, but it certainly sounds as though you can still spend up to 20 years in jail for pitching woo at Ol' Yeller.

WND also reports that

Even the left-wing Weekly Dig can't believe that the Massachusetts Legislature is poised to go this far.

The left-wing Weekly Dig, eh? Here's what those wild-eyed pinko radicals have to say about the bill:

"More than two and a half years ago, the nation laughed as pro-family crusader Rick Santorum predicted the consequences of legalized gay marriage: If man-on-man marriage was sanctified, man-on-child and man-on-dog unions might not be far behind.

Those who jeered Santorum were silenced last Tuesday....The new measure would give activist judges the option of slapping perps with a mere two and a half years in plush local jails, or even letting zoophiliacs walk with a $5,000 fine. How badly has Massachusetts' moral compass suffered since dudes started honeymooning with dudes? Not one legislator, nor a single member of the God-fearing public, appeared before the judiciary committee to denounce the proposed changes."

"Pro-family crusader"? "Activist judges"? "Moral compass"? Where have I heard those terms before?

This America-hating leftist rag also includes a droll satirical story titled "Students Deprive Themselves of Education, Bring War Machine to Halt." Another piece begins:

Tired of having their electoral asses handed to them by home-schooled, anti-Darwinist God warriors, two of the Democratic Party’s most notorious pro-sodomy baby-killers, Bay State Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, have suddenly caught religion.

To be fair, some of this stuff is possibly intended to be ironic and humorous; my brief perusal of the Weekly Dig suggests that it's geared more towards iconoclastic, anti-PC 'tude than a blatantly partisan political agenda. And that's fine; more power to 'em. But it's clearly not "left-wing" in the sense WND would have you believe.

Bestiality is pretty rare by anyone's standards, and it doesn't tend to meet with approval from even the most flamboyantly perverse liberals (as Dan Savage says, "If you're going to have a closed mind about just three things, fucking animals, molesting children, and eating poop are good picks, don’t you think?").

America's most well-known practitioner of bestiality is, of course, the ultraconservative anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley, whose primary sexual motivations - like that of so many on the far right - seem to involve power and domination. I discussed Horsley a few months back, in terms that WND should probably read as cautionary:

Horsley eventually jilted his equine paramours, and became the great and godly man we all admire today. In Plymouth Colony, he would've suffered a very different fate; the world would never have learned that his perverted, self-centered mistreatment of animals could be transmuted by the alchemy of dominionism into perverted, self-centered mistreatment of women.