Effort to Clear Out Old Blue Laws in Massachusetts

Jonathan Finer, in the Wash Post (12-4-04) :

In the 17th century, this city's high-minded settlers labeled anyone a criminal who "willfully blasphemes the holy name of God," a crime perhaps punishable by an afternoon in the stocks being pelted with rotten fruit.

Today, while the penalty for such an egregious breach of the social order has changed, that law remains on the books in Massachusetts -- along with a host of other long-ignored vestiges of the puritanical past. But maybe not for long.

Last month, Mayor Thomas M. Menino said he would lift a 329-year-old requirement that Native Americans be escorted in the city by "musketeers." And this week, state Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem (D) introduced legislation to repeal bans on blasphemy and adultery.

Commonly referred to as "blue laws," the collection of restrictive statutes implemented or inspired by New England's devout earliest residents included bans on such things as lacy shirt sleeves, birth control, and hunting or buying alcohol on Sundays. They have come under increased attack in recent times; in the past two years Massachusetts and 10 other states have scaled back restrictions on liquor sales.

"The Puritans wanted almost a theocratic state, with no clear separation between the church and government, but the world began to change a long time ago," said Peter Drummey, a librarian at the Massachusetts Historical Society. "Now you see what's left of the traditional blue laws slowly fading away."

The Puritans began arriving in the Boston area from England in the early 1600s and left a legacy of statutes designed to protect their community from sacrilege. In a famous 1656 example, a Captain Kemble was convicted of "lewd and unseemly behavior" when he kissed his wife in public after returning from three years at sea.

According to Drummey, the phrase "blue laws" was coined by Samuel Andrew Peters of neighboring Connecticut, who mocked the rigidity of such rules in a history of that state written in 1781. (Other accounts say the name refers to the blue wrapping that accompanied printed documents during that period.)

Critics of the remaining regulations say they are not just anachronistic but also potentially harmful -- and, in some cases, unconstitutional. While several, such as the criminalization of sodomy, have been found unconstitutional in recent years, they officially remain the law of the land.

Creem's "archaic crimes" bill would repeal bans on blasphemy, adultery (which, on paper, carries a sentence of up to three years), fornication (defined as sexual intercourse out of wedlock), and some acts listed as "crimes against nature," including sodomy.

"It's not just that they are no longer relevant, but some of these could be used for the purpose of targeting or embarrassing someone for political or other reasons," said Sean Kealy, Creem's legal counsel. "The only time these things rear their head is when somebody has it out for somebody else."

Several religious organizations oppose Creem's bill. Earlier versions have failed in the legislature at least twice since 2000....