Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Activist Judges Won't Let Good Christian Men Have Sex With Corpses

Posted by General JC Christian, Jesus' General at 1:53 PM on July 15, 2008.


So says the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, going against lower courts who had ruled nothing in state law banned necrophilia.
48d56e1241e24251a47ed46b968120fb.hmedium

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Once again, the black-robed fascists of our activist judiciary have handed down a decision that deepens the sad, sorry plight of the white, Christian male. In Wisconsin v. Grunke, the state supreme court emasculated the men of Wisconsin by denying them the right to have intimate relations with a corpse.

The case sprang from an incident in which "three men, carrying shovels, a crowbar and a box of condoms, went to a cemetery in southwestern Wisconsin" in order to dig up a date who might be more amenable to the idea of "gettin' lucky" than the living young women they knew in their daily lives.

The Court based it's decision on the concept of "consent," arguing that the deceased are not capable of saying, "yes." It's the kind of argument that passes muster in places like Wisconsin, and that's a shame. If these young men from good Christian stock* had attempted this somewhere deeper in the Heartland, the issues of the corpse's provocative dress and failure to say "no" may have come into play.

*Apparently, two of the young men are the sons of a Methodist minister.


Broken Glass
This is no doubt one of the ugliest periods in American political history.
Post by DCap. October 11, 2008.
Bipartisan Concern About the Dangers of McPalin’s Hate-Mongering
"I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate ..."
Post by Emptywheel. October 10, 2008.
Stock Market Drops 107 Points During Bush's Speech on the Economy
That's the kind of confidence Bush inspires these days.
Post by Amanda Terkel. October 10, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Go Badgers!
Posted by: Xynyx on Jul 15, 2008 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yoo Rah Rah, Wis-con-sin!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh. My. Gawd.
Posted by: Blondinista on Jul 15, 2008 3:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps the judge should let them go for it -- but ONLY with corpses. If they had sex with a live one, they would be in serious danger of reproducing. This gene pool needs to be stopped!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh. My. Gawd. Posted by: zipper696
» RE: Oh. My. Gawd. Posted by: Blondinista
» RE: Oh. My. Gawd. Posted by: Blondinista
» RE: Oh. My. Gawd. Posted by: photony
» RE: Oh. My. Gawd. Posted by: Axiom69
some razor sharp legal minds there in Wisconsin...
Posted by: lexicon on Jul 15, 2008 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not go with something like "trespassing", or "unauthorized taking/theft", "desecrating a grave", "creating a public-health hazard", or just plain old "grave robbing"?

How about just "ruining the grass"?

ANY of those are better than "consent".

PUH-LEEEEZZZE!

OMG!

Besides...anyone ever tried to dig a grave with a shovel? It has to be hours and hours of back-breaking, intensive work. It even takes a little while with a backhoe. then there's this big concrete cover on the mausoleum, and then the casket is screwed shut. (I think).

They always skip those parts in the movies.

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That Straight and Narrow's Kinda Tough!
Posted by: talkville on Jul 15, 2008 11:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suppose this kind of behaviour needs to be legally re-inforced as 'Inappropriate'. Sexual and Erotic Urges are to be completely blocked and if such relations are acted on, it is ONLY in Marriage for the Purpose of Begetting the Begatten. Period.

The 'Appropriate' thing for these young, virile, robust individuals seems to be to: be patient, wait until marriage, and then Pretend that the Wife is Dead. That's ok by the Judge, I suppose, and of course to be encouraged. That's Family Values!

Plus, by blocking and channeling all physiological and psychological processes occurring in development, all that Energy can be dedicated to One End: convert all the rest of us to that Way of Life, the Straight and Narrow. Win-Win.

Judges in droves seem to be moving Offices: from the Courthouse to the Pulpit. Now that's where Judgments can be rendered!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well as my daughter would say...
Posted by: Mr. Terrific on Jul 16, 2008 12:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um, yeah.

Terrific

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just wondering
Posted by: Axiom69 on Jul 16, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why did they bring the condoms? LMAO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just wondering Posted by: photony
» RE: Just wondering Posted by: Mr. Terrific
» RE: Just wondering Posted by: Blondinista