An Alaskan conservative wants to prosecute people for having sex out of wedlock.
One blog post on the Eagle Forum Alaska site praised efforts at criminalizing adultery in Michigan, and Paskvan asked Haase if he thought it should be a felony in Alaska.
"I don't see that that would rise to the level of a felony," Haase said.
Paskvan: "Do you believe it should be a crime?"
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."
I understand not thinking that sex outside of marriage is acceptable. It's perfectly fine to feel that way, but how is it in any way feasible or desirable to attempt to outlaw it and prosecute people for it? Not to mention, aren't conservatives the ones always squawking about smaller, less intrusive government? How does this square with that? Healthcare reform and the individual mandate are a "threat to liberty", but trying to outlaw who people have sex with isn't?
This is why I have a hard time taking most conservatives at their word when they scream for less government. What most of them mean is, "I don't like Democratic policies (because they aren't on my team) and I don't like helping the poor."