Sex Law Retained Bible Quoted In California (Press, 8 October 1971)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Sex Law Retained Bible Quoted In California (Press, 8 October 1971)
On 7 October 1971, the California Assembly voted on a bill aimed at repealing outdated laws against homosexuality and other "unnatural acts" between consenting adults. The legislation, introduced by Assembly member William Brown from San Francisco, sought to change sections of the California State Penal Code that could potentially lead to the imprisonment of couples for engaging in consensual activities in their own homes. Brown argued that these laws were antiquated and unjust, as they could target any married couple involved in what the law deemed “unnatural acts.” However, the bill failed to pass, garnering only 29 votes in favour compared to 38 against. The opposition primarily came from conservative Republicans in southern California. These lawmakers voiced strong objections based on their interpretation of Biblical doctrine, arguing that the repeal would effectively legalise homosexuality in private settings. Richard Barnes, an Assembly member from San Diego, quoted the Bible, stating, “Thou Shalt not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination,” while his colleague Frank Lanterman proclaimed that California's capital should not resemble “Sodom and Gomorrah.” The debate highlighted the tension between progressive and conservative values in California at the time. Some Democrats, like Richard Burton, who represented a district with a significant homosexual population, acknowledged the harshness of Biblical mandates but noted the extreme nature of endorsing capital punishment for such activities, implying a more moderate stance on the issue. Ultimately, the Assembly's decision reflected the prevailing societal attitudes and resistance to change, illustrating the complexities surrounding the legal and moral discussions around homosexuality during that period.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand