Wyoming State Senator Has Novel Argument In Favor Of Death Penalty

Wyoming State Senator Lynn Hutchings has some interesting views
on the death penalty, Jesus and sexual orientation.

The Wyoming legislature just debated whether to abolish the death penalty in that state. In the end, they decided to keep it. No surprise there, really. It's a pretty conservative state.

There are fairly reasonable, or at least understandable arguments on both sides of the death penalty debate, but one argument for the death penalty by a Wyoming State Senator was, um, novel.

As Patheos explains:

"Sen. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne argued that without the death penalty, Jesus Christ would not have been able to die to absolve the sins of mankind, and therefore capital punishment should be maintained.

'The greatest man who ever lived died via the death penalty for you and me,' she said. 'I'm grateful to him for our future hope because of this. Governments were instituted to execute justice. If it wasn't for Jesus dying via the death penalty, we would all have no hope.'"

I don't know where to begin to unpack this. I guess she's saying that since Jesus was given the death penalty, it's OK to impose the death penalty. Never mind that Jesus was innocent of any crime. So is it OK to impose the death penalty on innocent people, because that's what happened to Jesus?

For such a "Christian" she's not really up on how this works. Jesus is said to have risen from the dead, and that moment was atoning for the world's sins. In other words, Jesus could have died for any reason, so long as he rose from the dead.

The Romans wanted Jesus dead. Are we really going to design state law enforcement as Pontius Pilate would have?

And just how is death "hopeful"?

Hutchings has been on a roll this month anyway.  She met with a Gay-Straight Alliance group at Central High School in Cheyenne to discuss a state bill that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, notes the Huffington Post, among many other media outlets.

Hutchings, who doesn't like the legislation, was reported to have said, "If my sexual orientation was to have sex with all of the men in there and I had sex with all of the women in there and then they brought their children and I had sex with all of them, and then brought their dogs in and I had sex with them, should I be protected for my sexual orientation?"

Um, being a nutjob is not a sexual orientation, but nice try, Lynn!

That she said this weirdness to a group of 14 and 15 year olds makes this all the more yuckier, too.

Hutchings later tried to explain these were just rhetorical questions and that sexual orientation "can be defined in so many ways."

Uh-huh.

Anyone want to try explaining to Hutchings that pedophilia and bestiality aren't sexual orientations? Anyone?

Nah, Hutchings is a lost cause. But an entertaining one, in a sick sort of way.