vsp
Andouille
   
   
      
  
 
Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly
Since last post: 2543 days
Last activity: 265 days
|  #1 Posted on 27.3.03 1546.48 | Instant Rating: 0.00 | The case: Lawrence vs. Texas. Two gay men in Texas were in a private apartment belonging to one of them, when a neighbor called the cops claiming that someone in that apartment had a gun and was "going crazy." (The neighbor was subsequently convicted of filing a false police report.) Instead of a firearm, the cops found consensual anal sex in progress, and arrested the pair under violation of "deviate sexual behavior" statutes. Since Texas's sodomy laws sanction identical acts by hetero couples, they challenged the law.
The Supreme Court is hearing the case, and Dahlia Lithwick of _Slate_ reported on the festivities. REALLY fun quotes from all concerned.
And whaddya know? Even Andrew Sullivan writes a decent column once in a while.
Thoughts?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt | Promote this thread! |           | Cerebus
Knackwurst
Since: 17.11.02
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
| #2 Posted on 27.3.03 1551.31 | Instant Rating: 2.74 | I hope I am not the only one who found this all extremely funny...
Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.
"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much." | redsoxnation
Scrapple
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 4 hours
| #3 Posted on 27.3.03 1554.41 | I thought this was going to be about Roman Polanski.
If it wasn't for war, you wouldn't know what peace was. | MoeGates
Andouille
Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY
Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 43 min.
| #4 Posted on 27.3.03 1603.17 | Instant Rating: 6.28 | My wife actually went to hear the arguments for that case.
It looks like what is going to happen is that the Supreme COurt is going to hold that you can't have sodomy laws JUST for homosexual sodomy, but you can have sodomy laws for both hetro and homosexual sodomy.
If I were still in high school I'd probably be able to think up something pretty funny to go along with this. Sorry.
It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage. | vsp
Andouille
Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly
Since last post: 2543 days
Last activity: 265 days
| #5 Posted on 27.3.03 1614.18 | Instant Rating: 0.00 |
Originally posted by MoeGates
It looks like what is going to happen is that the Supreme Court is going to hold that you can't have sodomy laws JUST for homosexual sodomy, but you can have sodomy laws for both hetero and homosexual sodomy.
Nine states currently have laws for both. (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, the Carolinas, Virginia, Idaho and Utah, quoting from the article.)
Let me restate this: EIGHTEEN PERCENT of America's states, here in the "land of the free," feel the need to prohibit a consensual, married person from performing certain pleasure-inducing, non-harmful, non-health-endangering acts for or upon their consensual spouse, in the privacy of their bedroom with the shades drawn, the lights out, the doors locked and the webcam turned off. (Another eight percent say that some people can perform these acts together, but others can't, even if both parties in both cases are perfectly willing and the same level of privacy applies.)
It's the year 2003, and people are STILL petrified that somewhere, somehow, someone's getting his or her rocks off.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt | cranlsn
Liverwurst
Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI
Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 12 hours
| #6 Posted on 27.3.03 1614.51 |
I'd agree that that's where the court seems to be headed...this is a no-win situation for the court.
Many politicians are, or will proclaim at least, tolerance for homosexuals. They, after all, can vote.
But you won't find many proclaiming "Homosexual sex is great!". It just doesn't play well in Topeka. By the same token, you won't hear them saying "Homosexual's should be persecuted for acts committed freely by heterosexuals."
Making the law apply equally to hetro & homo effectively neuters (no pun intended) the law because selective enforcement is such a barrel of yuck these days.
"Common sense" cases like these don't seem to play well in the highest court in the land. They're so steeped in precedent of past cases, and also the precedent that their decisions can set, that they sometimes appear to be out of touch. Both liberal and conservative judges have this shortfalling, depending on the case subject matter before them.
It should be interesting to see how this plays out.
edit: I see vsp beat me to a post, let me reply here. As I stated above, common sense would dictate removing those laws. But...no politician is going to want to be seen as making the statement, "Butt sex is great...let's make it legal!".
(edited by cranlsn on 27.3.03 1618)
When all else fails, there's always the Simpsons.
|
| Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Since: 27.1.02
Since last post: 2054 days
Last activity: 157 days
| #7 Posted on 27.3.03 1628.02 | Originally posted by cranlsn
But...no politician is going to want to be seen as making the statement, "Butt sex is great...let's make it legal!".
(edited by cranlsn on 27.3.03 1618)
I'd vote for the politician who said that!
But seriously, all the hypothetical, worried-about-alienating-the-buttphobic-voters politician would have to say is:
"I don't endorse butt sex, but I DO believe the government should stay out of EVERYONE'S (consensual) sex lives."
Maybe I'm incredibly out of touch with America, but I can't imagine most voters wouldn't support that position.
edit: Actually, now that I think about it, my mother-in-law wouldn't support that position, but I really really hope she isn't representing the majority in this case.
(edited by Mr. Heat Miser on 27.3.03 1731)
-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown. | cactuspete
Blutwurst
Since: 22.9.02
From: Parts Unknown
Since last post: 3642 days
Last activity: 3641 days
| #8 Posted on 27.3.03 2059.47 | I started a "legalize sodomy" thread a couple months ago.
Basicaly people, we just need to get the word out. I encourage you to contact your congressional representative and tell them "I like Sodomy!" Enlighten your friends and neighbors on the all the benefits that sodomy has to offer. I'm working with Micheal Moore on some Sodomy PSA's right now. We also need sodomy education in our schools.
Unfortunatley, those damn fascist republicans would rather bomb Iraq than enjoy some good-ole sodomy!
"What do you mean 'Parts Unknown'? Are you telling me he doesn't have a social security number so we can track him down? How does he get a paycheck?" - G. Monsoon
| vsp
Andouille
Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly
Since last post: 2543 days
Last activity: 265 days
| #9 Posted on 27.3.03 2225.20 | Instant Rating: 0.00 | Actually, most Republicans _have_ enjoyed some good-ole sodomy, as have most Democrats, most Greens and most non-voters. It's all in how you phrase it.
According to the North Carolina definition, when I was a college student, I could have been convicted of not just a crime, but a CLASS I FELONY on multiple occasions. The evil deed in question? "Crimes against nature," which includes "consensual fellatio done in private." I had a steady girlfriend for a couple of years at N.C. State, which means not only did we both rack up potential felonies under that statute, but we also qualified for Class 2 Misdemeanors for "fornication" and for "opposite sexes occupying the same bedroom at a hotel for immoral purposes."
But all of the Fine, Proper and Moral people of North Carolina who'd NEVER consider legalizing "sodomy" have all saved themselves until marriage, never given or received oral sex even AFTER marriage, and never gotten a hotel room for nookie purposes, right?
(Could be worse. Idaho classes it as a felony with a minimum jail sentence of FIVE years. Somebody must've been doing funny things with the potatoes.)
Phrase it in common-sense terms, and most people will respond in kind.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt | Grimis
Scrapple
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 779 days
Last activity: 576 days
| #10 Posted on 28.3.03 0559.20 | Instant Rating: 7.29 | Here's my problem with the slate article...
This sort of Will & Grace ("gays are so cute, but don't show me what they do in bed") homophobia seems not only to be defensible according to the state of Texas
How is this homophobia exactly? Gays aren't cute, their just folks into knocking boots in a different manner than most of the population and that's fine. But I really don't want to see the act because the act itself repulses me. No harm no foul to anybody. But certainly not homophobia.
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915 | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 58 min.
| #11 Posted on 28.3.03 0624.03 | Instant Rating: 4.05 | most people have to remember that our laws are/have been based on the churchs views' on moral behavior.
are they out dated? yes.
do they need to be changed? yes.
but my girl and i break 4 laws when we have sex and i would be pissed if the sex police charge in and arrest us, but the law is the law, until it gets changed...
"Grabbin your butt? That's not very lady-like."
"I'm not a lady."
"Oh. Whatever."
力堵山 |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
