Planning vacations around sodomy
 

The Supreme Court is currently hearing <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2080746/">Lawrence vs. Texas</a>, an entertaining case concerning everyone's favorite crime against nature.

Two gay men are in a private apartment in Texas, minding their own business. An angry neighbor calls in a fake police report, claiming that there's a man with a gun "going crazy" in the apartment in question (a report he was later convicted over). The cops enter the apartment, discover the pair weaponless but locked & loaded in another manner entirely... _and arrest the men_ for deviant sexual behavior.

Since the law was specifically written in Texas to clamp down on homosexual sodomy, giving heteros a free pass, the pair challenged the law on discrimination grounds. The story linked above has all sorts of entertaining quotes from the situation and testimony, and you can just FEEL Judge Scalia squirming in his chair at the very thought of such illicit behavior.

Now, I'm a happily married man, so the local altar boys and sheep have nothing to worry about from me. Still, I thought it might be prudent to check out the laws around the country, so that I can avoid the wrath of the local constabulatories. Thirteen states still have <a href="http://www.sodomy.org/laws/">sodomy laws</a> on the books -- at least NINE of them applying to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, often to MARRIED couples. Some highlights:

* If my wife and I decide to drive down I-95 this summer and make some stops along the way, we're in trouble. Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina all consider many consensual acts (same- OR opposite-sex) felonies, while Florida considers them misdemeanors. Note to self: no going south-of-the-border while visiting "South Of The Border."

* Louisiana is right out; five years, with OR without hard labor. So much for Mardi Gras. But hey -- according to a 1927 case, sex with a dead body IS legal in Louisiana, so if my wife or myself gets hit by lightning or a bus, the survivor's even LUCKIER! Er... um... I'll move on.

* Mississippi frowns upon hummers (up to ten years), but returning the favor is apparently legal. Sex toys can get us up to a $5000 fine and six months in jail, however. It's a muscle relaxer, judge... really!

How ironic is it that if you commit sodomy, some states are liable to throw you in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison?

I read about this yesterday. It's an interesting quagmire, especially if you're a conservative. On one hand, if you favor Lawrence, you could be paving the way for laws protecting GLBTs from discrimination. On the other hand, consenting adults should be protected inside their home.

Of course, I support both issues there, but that's just me.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hmm, this thread caused me to look up 'Sodomy' in the dictionary for the very first time... I'm not sure what I think about that...
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On the other hand while my state has sodomy laws in effect, I'm not effected. It seems it's only actually sodomy with if it's same sex or an animal. Huh, I didn't know oral gratification with an animal was sodomy... Of course I'd never given the subject any thought whatsoever, so that's no surprise. Still, good to know that my state gives me free reign to do anything I'd actually want to do. Forget I said that, there's probably some county or city laws that make it illegal look at a person with sexual desire.

Don't feel bad, I had to look up hummer. Thank god for everything2.com! Sounds interesting, but I'd feel like a big ol' dork asking for it. "Umm.., while you're down there, could you.. ahmm.. hum?"

Hey, maybe that's what that dude wanted! That he couldn't ask for! You know, from the other week.

The important thing is not the dictionary definition of "sodomy", but the legal definition. As far as I can tell, there have been lots of different legal definitions in lots of different places over time. (I might characterize it as "any stuff that's so disgusting no normal person would consider doing it.")

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I always had associated Sodomy with anal sex, usually either homosexual or a rape situation. I had no idea oral was included, heck I never knew that one chic going down on another was sodomy. Never made the connection. I also had thought of bestiality was a thing onto itself, not part of sodomy. Go figure.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I was glad to hear that my state's sodomy laws are restricted to things I wouldn't do anyway. That doesn't mean that I don't object to telling two consenting adults what they are allowed to do in the privacy of their own home. I don't really like my Gov dictating morality outright. They enjoy it,nobody's involved that doesn't want to be and it's their business. (remeber legal age restrictions apply to this as well) Why make it illegal?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As far as you characterization goes, is getting a blow job from your girlfriend/wife to disgusting to consider? What about returning the favor? These are both sodomy though. By many legal as well as the technical definitions.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;My point is that until I looked it up I agreed with your characterization. I'd also like to think that the legal are at least somewhat based on the technical definitions.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;By the by, by legal definition Clinton did not have sexual relations with Monica, just sodomized her. Heh. Anyway we see how well sticking to the legal definitions worked.

Hey, maybe whatever that dude jmf wanted from his wife was actually illegal! We should have pointed him to a guide to state laws.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Heh, or if it wasn't illegal he could have used that to, "See honey? It's not likes it's illegal in this state!" I mean who hasn't used that line once or twice?

Well, no, but we're not talking about me, we're talking about legislators! :eek:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Dude, I started laughing my ass off about that idea 'till I realized that alot of those guys really need a blowjob. Deeply disturbing mental image, Newt Gingrich's 'O' face. Sorry, that was wrong.

Heh -- too much Opie & Anthony for me. Not that they were the first to adopt it, but "hummer" was their on-air slang for the act of fellatio, with or without actual humming. 'Twas one of their many circumventions of FCC regulations.

Is anyone else particularly well versed w/ the sex laws of their locality? I'm not too sure about MN, but, in TN, where I went to jr. high and high school, it was fairly common knowledge that "The Law" proscribed _everything_ except the missionary position w/ lights out, shades drawn, and doors locked. Does anyone else think that we should just start over?

Yes.

I'm taking a wild guess here but I'd say that there is about a zero percent chance any of these laws would ever be the cause of any law abiding citizens arrest, let alone would these laws not stand up in court. There are plenty of outrageous laws in the books, they all had a reason at one time or another, and the lawmakers never got around to removing them.


[edit] crap this has already been said, that's what I get posting on 3 hours of sleep. :( [/edit]

Read that first post by vsp again, Cam.

Supreme Court and Sex
 

One case I remember from Constitutional Law class (no I am not a lawyer) was in Connecticut. The court basically struck down the law because it was silly. This case was used in a dissenting opinion in the next case, which is from 1986 and addresses a law against sodomy, which the court upheld. It was actually argued that a married heterosexual couple is entitled to greater protection and that the law might be more constitutional if it excluded married couples.

BTW, the site for this is at

Supreme Court Decisions Archive at Cornell University Law School

If Sen. Santorum (T)*Pa had his way we'd have national laws against private behaviors. As we bag on Radar for believing that individuals have inalienable "natural" rights lets consider the alternative, a country where a simple majority of elected officials can make consensual activities illegal.
















*Taliban

Yeah, I read that. What a tard.

Nothing new here. Santorum's far from alone in believing that states have a valid interest in enforcing "traditional" sexual mores.

From the Slate article I originally quoted:

<i>Smith explains that fundamental rights are understood to apply to decisions about "sexual relations in the home" and decisions about "procreation and non-procreation." Rehnquist interjects that the laws at issue have little to do with "non-procreation." Smith says these laws say "you can't have sexual activity at all" if you are gay and Scalia objects: "They just say you can't have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex." See? No problem. Homosexuals remain perfectly at liberty to have heterosexual sex in Texas. </i>

Rick Santorum and Antonin Scalia, working together to build a better America...

BTW, I was impressed by who stepped up to the plate _first_ to denounce Santorum's remarks. Not Arlen Specter, not Ed Rendell, not John Street, not anyone from Pennsylvania... but _Howard Dean_. (Kerry threw in a me-too soon after.) If you hear a cha-CHING in the distance, it's a small donation going to Dean's campaign fund.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Er, actualy I think most people were bagging on him for acting like he was the one that decided what our "inalienable natural rights" are. I know I'm splitting hairs but I think the distiction is important.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The subject of this thread is a good example. Why the hell does the goverment care what people do in their bedrooms? Oh, because it will lead to general badness in the world. Of course! How could I have missed that?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Seriously though, this is a case of goverment overstepping. Fortunately a lot of legislators agree that it's not their place. So, however slowly, this kind of law is being removed from state after state. If you clic on the link telling about what state sodomy laws are in place you'll notice several have been repealed. I think it's a trend.

Admittedly, I wasn't following the arguement to closely. From what I read, I thought you both were intentionally misunderstanding each other (Radars personality makes that inevitable). There are lottsa holes in the natural rights argument, yours about which rights are counted among them is especially important. I'd add my own doubts about natural rights in a godless universe which is Radars angle.

What I'm left with is the Bill of Rights and the original restrictions on government found in the constitution. I don't much like the alternative to strict constitutionalism, which is todays reality, that all activity is the perview of the government. We may think its not because of the positive trend you note at the state level, but if its a choice politicians can make it is governments business. Anyway I'm rambling so I'll just stop.

Rush is defending Rickey today, spinning his comments as best he can. Can anyone supply a link to the original interview, so we can put it all in context?

I'm REALLY looking forward to Rush trying to defend <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL">the rest of the interview</a>.

A few choice bits:

<i>SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual.</i>
...
<i>SANTORUM: That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.</i>
...
<i>SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society. </i>
...
<i>SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. </i>

Priests nailing altar boys == "a basic homosexual relationship."

Oh-KAY then.

FWIW, the whole notion of natural rights is pretty young. In historical terms the whole notion of freedom is rather young.

But we who love individual rights have great reason to be optimistic, because in the big picture, the world is really converting to our viewpoint.

Economically, the advantages are just too obvious now. The whole war in the future will be over what level of mixed economy is ideal, not whether a centrally-planned economy is better than a mixed one. Amazing as it seems now, people used to wonder whether the tyrants might be right, but a century of social experimentation only led to about 100,000,000 deaths...

As far as individual liberties go, it's a harder fight, but I also believe the trend has been towards them for a long time. It's just hard to see because we are in the middle of it.

There are two really cool trends going on worldwide. One is the end of scarcity. The human race is really getting good at providing for itself AND its planet; new numbers say we are more productive AND pollute less. The other is the end of the population boom predicted in the 70s. Birth rates are declining even in the third-world.

As we find we have enough, it lowers our desperation to control in order to guarantee access to resources. Look at how the Arabic culture became tribal: it did so as a result of living in a place with few resources. Now that this is no longer a problem, in the long run people's attitudes will become less tribal, less warlike, more civil.

As we increase our capability for communication, we virtually guarantee a decline in concentration of power. Simple statements - not even actions - of people like Lott and Santorum lead to actual losses in their power. (Santorum's loss will not be losing the 2006 election, which would be very unlikely, but in being taken less seriously on the national level; he's now a "marked man" of sorts for a while. Just you watch.)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Am I the only one that dislikes the term "moral relativism?" It just seems like morals are relative by nature. The Spanish Inqusition were following their moral code after all. The use of this term fell like it's pigeon holing the idea. As well as suggesting that it's wrong, in context...
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Wow, if you're gay you are inherently non-nurturing it seems. Huh, I've met some gay guy's that I thought were awfully girly about trying to take care of everything and everyone. I realize that this isn't nurturing per se, but I do think it's related. Go figure.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I would agree that if you let people do whatever they want in private then they will. Often times it'll be something that I'd not want to be involved with in any way. I just don't see why I should I assume that my way is noble and theirs is wrong. Even if my way is traditional that doesn't make it "right". It just makes it traditional. At one point human sacrifice was traditional. Doesn't mean it's the way to go? 'Sides, there's a lot of homosexual activity in history and it hasn't destroyed the Earth yet.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hey Griff, for the record I wasn't intentionaly misunderstanding him, I was just being a dick about not accepting "Facts" which were actually opinions. Even if I agreed with the opinion. I'm not the only one either.

I wouldn't cater Santorum's 2006 victory dinner just yet. Not that this specific scandal will be what sinks him (though people like me DO take notes and don't forget things like this), but he didn't exactly blow Ron Klink (a relatively weak Dem candidate) out of the water last time. The margin of victory was something like 2.4M-2.1M, with around 100K voting for other parties.

Now figure in that Rendell will be running at the same time as Santorum, and will help bring Democratic voters to the polls in 2006. It can't hurt. A lot depends on who runs against Santorum then.

And there are little ways of keeping Santorum's charming position statements in the public eye in the meantime. If press releases from the North American Man-On-Dog Love Association start popping up, I know NOTHING. ;)

"Moral relativism," of course, being a code word for "people who don't think like _WE_ do" to religious conservatives.

After all, Santorum knows that right and wrong are binary states and that the Bible -- excuse me, the law -- doesn't allow for shades of gray. Just ask him!

Aw man..give me a minute. Lemme have a smoke and then I'll be ready. Are you sure the web cam's off?:blush:
AND for being a pompous ass.:shotgun:
I feel one reason is a lot of people are less afraid of being ostracized and more willing tospeak out.:thumb:

Really? All I see around me is the walls of a handbasket, and it's getting mighty hot.

As far as I can tell, the trend has stopped, reversed, and is heading inexorably the other way. Most people don't _WANT_ individual liberties any more. As long as they've got the illusion of safety, they don't care what the authorities do, and they don't mind being told what to do -- they can't even imagine how it would have worked any other way.

As for Santorum; he's a Republican, did you expect him to say NICE things about homosexuality? I don't agree with his views but I hardly think that having disagreeable views should be an automatic bar to holding office -- it's too easy to apply that one in the other direction.

On another subtopic: Disagreeing with moral relativism does not mean taking a moral stand on every issue. It's perfectly reasonable to believe in moral absolutes without thinking they must apply in any way to sexual preference or to certain sexual acts. It's not moral relativism to say that certain things are morally neutral.

One sees what one looks for.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html">Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law</a>

Not only was the Texas law ruled unconstitutional, but <i>Bowers vs. Hardwick</i> is now _toast_, and its reversal eliminates sodomy laws in the other twelve states that had them.

Somewhere, Rick Santorum and Antonin Scalia are calling Suicide Prevention, and hopefully being put on hold.

I'm not sure how many of you here read Dan Savage's column, but for the past few months Santorum has been a frequest discussion topic. He decided to name something awful after santorum, and the readers obliged with thousands of recommendations. After the selection of a few, voters picked the winner. So now, that mixture of feces and lubricant after one engages in anal sex is called "santorum". Spread the word.

(Savage's column next week will include a bit about using the word in conversation. If you'd like to read it, check out http://www.theonionavclub.com)

Man, that is so much better than the word I've been using all these years! Let's hear it for the living, breathing, dynamic English language! And thanks for keeping us all abreast of sodomy laws. I just wonder if spontaneous stays at the local 'No-Tell-Motel' ("Rooms by the hour -- clean linens $6.50 extra") will be anywhere near as fun, without the thrill of knowing you could get arrested at any moment.

On a P.R. Note
 

Could that photo of Ruth Harlow (in the CNN piece linked above) be any more awful? This was a big opportunity to get positive publicity in heartland America. Instead, this is what they'll get:

Jethro: Damn, Lurleen, lookit how ugly this dyke at the Supreme Court is!

Lurleen: Now, I am all for everyone's rights 'n' all, but if they're allowed to teach in the schools 'n' stuff, all our kids'll start to look like that!


Couldn't the folks at Lambda have at least advised her to use a little less hair gel, and maybe lose the Elvis Costello glasses?

In the meantime, New Zealand joins a growing list of countries getting rid of another morality only based law - prostitution.

I think prostitution will eventually be legalized in the United States. In the meantime, I'll have to settle for only four simultaneous sex partners.

Yeh, its pretty boring having a sexual history that fits on your hard drive.

Okay, this is getting too good. All within twenty-four hours:

* The Supreme Court invalidates sodomy laws nationwide
* Strom Thurmond dies
* The new "Ren & Stimpy" features a gleeful, blatant act of dog-on-cat sodomy.

Now, THAT's comedy!

Ding Dong the witch is dead.:p

He he right on vsp!

Ya know from the thread name somebody might think we're talking about airport security.

this is from the same country that legalized prostitution?:confused:

I would anticipate a protest from PETA, insisting that human flatulence be taxed as well.

This could well kill the baked bean market.

Just thought it would be appropriate to note the latest salvo fired in this battle royale:

Frist Backs Putting Gay Marriage Ban in Constitution

That may be the dumbest quote from a pol I've ever heard. Oh, until the next one:

Understand what the guy wants to do: he wants to Constitutionalize the debate.

First he wants to Federalize the issue -- make it one ruled upon from Washington D.C. and applying universally to all the states, no matter what the states say. Then he wants to tie it into the document that establishes the government of the country, a document we hope is there to guarantee rights, a document we don't want to change easily. And he does it on the basis of religion; that's what he's saying with the word "sacrament".

Taking the culture war to the Constitution on behalf of religion is an abomination. This man is unfit to govern.

Agreed, though I still think the first quote is the stupidest. I read this when I got to work, and I thought "Huh?"

"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually -- or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

That's the quote. Now, what he's saying is, the zone of privacy is being eroded....

And his solution for this is to make private consensual acts illegal?

He and I have very different views on what the word "privacy" means.

The article on MSNBC has more detail, including this gem:

Okay, you think it should be on the local level, but then you want a Constitutional amendment?

Dummy.

The gay marriage issue is an odd duck, because marriage is a civil institution with civil implications (custody, taxation, divorce, inheritance, etc.) that also has religious implications and traditions wound into it.

For one thing, it's not as if one needs to be religious at all in order to get married, to belong to any particular religious faith, or to have a member of some clergy perform the act. A Justice of the Peace, a captain at sea, or some guy in an Elvis suit in Reno all qualify to certify the deed, if the relevant paperwork is in order. About the only governmental restrictions on marriage are that (a) you can't be married to someone else already, (b) you are old enough, sane enough and sufficiently unimpaired by drink to provide legal consent, and (c) the government gets its license fee and all the papers are filled out.

Therefore, it's the _governmental_ function of marriage (the "civil union," so to speak) that should be the important and relevant part. Whether the Catholics recognize Jewish marriages, the Methodists recognize Buddhist marriages or any church recognizes atheist marriages should be secondary to whether the _state_ recognizes them as being valid. I am an atheist, myself -- if Church X disapproves of my marriage, why should I give a rat's ass? They're not my church, they're not my problem.

So why should a union of two people be restricted to particular gender combinations, once the religious implications are removed from the debate? The answer is obvious -- there is no good reason why it should. Let the legal definition be inclusive, and let the churches decide for themselves who they'll marry and who they won't. If the Catholics or the Baptists declare homosexual marriage to be blasphemy, fine -- they don't have to perform them themselves. The homosexual couple can then go shopping for a church that better fits their beliefs and lifestyles, or just go to the Justice of the Peace and avoid that contention entirely, and if the Baptist He-Man Homo-Haters Club has a problem with that, that's _their_ problem.

Yet our Senate Majority Leader not only believes that the decision of who can and cannot be state-recognized belongs in the churches' hands instead of the state's, but that the very notion of non-church-approved unions is so catastrophic that the Constitution needs to be amended to prevent it. Again -- WHY? I keep hearing the "destroying the integrity of marriage" argument from religious and conservative pundits, and I just... don't... get it. Why does what someone _else's_ church (or lack thereof) believe about marriage inherently threaten what _you_ and _your church_ believe about it?

Not to mention that the vast majority of Constitutional amendments _defend_ and _enumerate_ rights, not restrict them. About the only similar "no laws shall be passed allowing this" amendments that come to mind are the thirteenth (abolishing slavery, which was a no-brainer) and Prohibition... and we saw how well _that_ went.

OK. "marriage is a sacrament." "Sacrament" is a very specific religious term that in my opinon has no place in a political discussion like this. (Frist may be fascinated to know that some Christians denominations don't actually recognize marriage as a sacrament. Of course, he probably considers members of denominations like that such as myself as decadent moral relativists who aren't really Christian at all.)

Now, the other thing is... if you're going to offer this line of argument about marriage....... isn't the logical conclusion that sexual activity between a man and a woman who are not married should be made illegal? I mean come on, if we have the attitude that people should be married because it's a Good Thing(tm), then surely the LAST thing we want is for folks to think they can just do the deed with no wedding license. I'm waiting to watch one of our friends in Congress introduce this one!! :cool:

OK, now, one more thing I'll just post here instead of starting another topic. Look at Justice Scalia's dissent. He complains that if you follow the majority's reasoning we'll no longer be able to outlaw bestiality, bigamy, pedophilia, masturbation... MASTURBATION??? Oh come on! What jurisdictions have laws against masturbation? :rolleyes:

In some states, it _was_ illegal. (I say "was" because I'm not _entirely_ sure if Lawrence invalidated fornication laws as well as sodomy laws. There may well be another court challenge down the road.)

Looking at this <a href="http://www.sodomy.org/laws/">handy chart</a>, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia all had anti-fornication statutes on the books. North Carolina even banned "opposite sexes occupying the same bedroom at a hotel for immoral purposes, falsely registering as husband and wife," for cryin' out loud. I believe some other states still had laws that prohibited having sex with someone who believed that they'd be marrying you, and then breaking off the relationship. Potentially tacky, yes, but illegal?

Heh. Okay, THAT church was a problem, but screaming at the PUC and the utility company itself has kept the calls away for a while now. ;)

In 1971 I tried to register at the Stone Mountain, Georgia campground. I wrote my name and address and number in party 2. the woman handed it back and said I couldn't have a campsite unless I wrote Mr and Mrs on the card.:rolleyes:

In _1998_ or so, I attempted to rent a room in upstate PA. When the clerk asked me if I was married and I said "no," I was refused the room, and given a brief lecture about how his was a "family establishment." Since I hadn't specified who would be joining me or for what purposes, I found this quite amusing, as did the motel owner across the street who had no problem taking my money.

The "marriage is a sacrament" comment is a very disturbing view into the mind of a statist. In Frist's world the government sanctifies the bond between two people. Good thing we're sending troops around the world to fight people who want to combine religion and government.

I hereby advocate the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. And by violent overthrow, I mean throwing wet peas at them until they step down from office.

More on the "marriage sacrament" item (via here):

^-- Yeah, and atheists can just wait out in the hall until all this is worked out...

Just because your an atheist doesn't mean that God doesn't love you.:D