Michigan sodomy ban

[Pupalup]

The Michigan senate has just passed a bill that bans "sodomy". I honestly had no idea states still have these kinds of laws. These laws are obviously hard to enforce, so it's more symbolic, but it's still outrageous that people still believe the government has a right to control the sex lives of two consenting human adults who are not doing anything dangerous! 

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/michigan_senate_passes_bill_saying_sodomy_is_a_felony

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Must be very Constitutional. 

No protests about the ebil government taking away people's freedom? 

[sawasdee]

So - a covert attack on gays, AND on ebil non christians whose sex life is anything other than the missionary position? I am totally flabbergasted and gobsmacked that they even think of passing a law like this in 2016!  Total eejits wasting valuable time

[doggie]

well l hopefully women will protest this they will suffer too.

[samira_catlover]

Had a totally wicked fantasy some years back, around the time of Lawrence v Texas. 

It involved finding several ten-thousands of courageous, respectable, mostly middle-class, well-educated, married heterosexual couples in the US...who would Do Naughty Things JUST with each other, on videotape. (No fornication, no adultery, no public indecency---just two lawfully married hets getting their particular freak on.)

There would then be a Very Large Array of penitents heading down to the local prosecuting attorney, confessing their UnNatural Practices and violation of laws---complete with sworn statements and pictures, freely offered.

"OK, lawmakers and prosecutors, let's see you deal with jails and courts being totally slammed with hundreds of cases at once---especially if the defense demands speedy trial. Do you REALLY want to face processing all these people from your neighborhood, your community, your church? Or are you just going to drop all charges of criminal activity even with evidence and confessions, because the perps AREN'T the ones you've been trying to demonize?"

42 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Must be very Constitutional. 

No protests about the ebil government taking away people's freedom? 

You're not from around here, are you, honey? 

Evil perverts are hated by God, and also don't DESERVE any rights, freedoms, or protections, in the USA or anywhere. Go ask the PP and the Westboro Baptist crowd for details.

*Expecting a catastrophic failure, any minute now, of the sarcasm-detection-and-protection chip in the computer*

[sparkles]

Well, you know, there's really nothing terribly important going on in Michigan right now so I guess the senate needed something to do. 

I bet all that poking into people's private lives has made them very thirsty. Have a glass of water, Senator, straight from Flint.

[sawasdee]

@samira_catlover

Please, please, pretty please - can you start a campaign along those lines in Michigan? It would be epic.....

[Pupalup]

3 hours ago, sparkles said:

Well, you know, there's really nothing terribly important going on in Michigan right now so I guess the senate needed something to do. 

I bet all that poking into people's private lives has made them very thirsty. Have a glass of water, Senator, straight from Flint.

That was my first thought too, of course, a lot of politicians have known the water in flint was unsafe for quite a while they really just don't care, they'd rather try and control people's sex lives insted.

[sawasdee]

24 minutes ago, Pupalup said:

That was my first thought too, of course, a lot of politicians have known the water in flint was unsafe for quite a while they really just don't care, they'd rather try and control people's sex lives insted.

But the health and future of those poor and mainly black economically deprived kids is absolutely irrelevant when compared to the disgusting sexual practices some might indulge in in private! After all, many of their families won't have a vote, thanks to the felony=no vote, and the disproportional jailing of people of colour, so they don't really matter, no? Must keep the "christians" * happy - they vote for the right party...

*And I know there are real Christians out there as horrified as I am - that's why they are not capitalized.

That noise you hear is the apostles rolling over in their graves - Jesus would have joined them, but he rose again...........

Edit - because of spelling and brain fart.

[samira_catlover]

1 hour ago, sawasdee said:

But the health and future of those poor and mainly black economically deprived kids is absolutely irrelevant when compared to the disgusting sexual practices some might indulge in in private! After all, many of their families won't have a vote, thanks to the felony=no vote, and the disproportional jailing of people of colour, so they don't really matter, no? Must keep the "christians" * happy - they vote for the right party...

REALLY, now, hon: Filthy, corrupted, un-Biblical sexual practices will cause the Eternal to strike down an entire nation, don't you know---remember Sodom and Gomorrah? At the time of Obergefell, there were 21 other nations that allowed that hideous perversion. God is merely biding time and planning a dreadful judgment.

What's the health and well-being of some marginalized people who really don't count, anyway, compared to THAT?

OK, where the heck is the ever-useful, but difficult-to-find, Sarcasm Font? Can some darling computer-savvy soul please redflag it for me?

[PennySycamore]

@samira_catlover, I had that same thought about thousands of straight people turning themselves in for violation of South Carolina's buggery laws.  Yep, they were called buggery laws and anything other than het, married, missionary position sex was against the law.

This law is quite frankly unconstitutional.  Why in hell do state legislatures pass unconstitutional laws?  It just costs the state money if they try to defend the damn thing in court.

 

[Cleopatra7]

9 hours ago, samira_catlover said:

Had a totally wicked fantasy some years back, around the time of Lawrence v Texas. 

It involved finding several ten-thousands of courageous, respectable, mostly middle-class, well-educated, married heterosexual couples in the US...who would Do Naughty Things JUST with each other, on videotape. (No fornication, no adultery, no public indecency---just two lawfully married hets getting their particular freak on.)

There would then be a Very Large Array of penitents heading down to the local prosecuting attorney, confessing their UnNatural Practices and violation of laws---complete with sworn statements and pictures, freely offered.

"OK, lawmakers and prosecutors, let's see you deal with jails and courts being totally slammed with hundreds of cases at once---especially if the defense demands speedy trial. Do you REALLY want to face processing all these people from your neighborhood, your community, your church? Or are you just going to drop all charges of criminal activity even with evidence and confessions, because the perps AREN'T the ones you've been trying to demonize?"

You're not from around here, are you, honey? 

Evil perverts are hated by God, and also don't DESERVE any rights, freedoms, or protections, in the USA or anywhere. Go ask the PP and the Westboro Baptist crowd for details.

*Expecting a catastrophic failure, any minute now, of the sarcasm-detection-and-protection chip in the computer*

I could actually see all those heterosexual couples being arrested. A senate that would pass such a law wouldn't have any problem with throwing offenders, gay or straight, in prison for supposed indecencies.

[samira_catlover]

Cleopatra7, arrests would be quite possible.  What might make this work would be the terrific impact all those arrests would have on the criminal justice system.

Say you've got 100 people surrendering and confessing on just one day in, hmm, Detroit. A hundred people to book, print, do record searches upon, possibly put in holding cells or something, and then they're all asking about lawyers (watch the public defender's office cringe, praying that a lot will change to private attorneys). And this is all while the poor police are trying to handle routine operations.

Get 25-30 women in that bunch saying "well, I GUESS I had to confess my sins, my headship insisted on it, and ordered me to say this to the notary"---and the plausibility of some of those confessions being voluntary goes straight to hell. Have someone in full-on BEAM mode mention to the prosecutors that at least five of the evil acts occurred in the same motel room (more convenient for the video camera, you see), and doesn't that make the room a crime scene that needs fingerprint work and maybe DNA testing of sheets?

I can imagine a couple lawyers for the Ebil Pervs demanding that forensic testing be done to prove oral or anal intercourse, which likely means rape kits and the time and skill of a SANE (sexual assault nurse examiner)---and they are not exactly thick on the ground.

Bail hearings. Time and hassle, and what happens if 50-60 of your group decides NOT to pay bail? I suspect that the jailers would try and keep them together as possible out of the regular "criminal" population, but that's still gonna be 3-5 holding cells and beds tied up...to contain nothing worse that folks who have Interesting Sex with consenting legal spouses.

One source I found (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/speedy+trial) indicates that the right to a speedy trial is triggered by arrest, indictment, or formal accusation by the government. So, once all those folks are busted, the clock starts ticking. If the Ebil Pervs ask for---and get---severance on trials, that could mean up to 100 separate court hearings, juries to call and impanel, judges to obtain. If some of the defendants repudiate their confessions, or the validity of the videotape evidence is challenged ("Has this tape been forensically examined for tampering, for photoshopping?---can you demonstrate unbroken and accurate chain of custody?"), there could be even more fun in the courtrooms. 

I suspect that within a pretty short time, once the arrestees got frisky and lawyered up, prosecutors would be declining to seek indictments and sending down the word "just turn them loose, DON'T arrest, just smile nice, ask if they had fun, and bump them right out the door again"---and possibly hollering for help to the state's attorney and/or politicians for fast changes in the law to stop the flood.

[sawasdee]

@samira_catlover

I love the picture you paint!

[Miss M]

Except, that is not really what the Bill is all about, please before just believing one blog about it, read what the main sponsor Bill has to say!  Also, Federal law nullifies that this old "sodomy" law can/could be prosecuted in Michigan or any other state that still has laws like that on the books.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/no_michigan_sodomy_ban_bill.html

 

[47of74]

Jesus Fucking Christ.  You'd think these idiots in Michigan would attend to more important matters.  Oh I dunno.  Like the fact that one of the major cities has water that makes people sick.

[salex]

2 things

1) Kansas got rid of a bunch of stupid, out of date, old laws but kept their anti sodomy law, despite it likely being unconstitutional, more or less as a morality clause. 

 

2) I was on Fakebook when this was being discussed in a group that concentrates on marriage and is filled with Voddie and John Piper quoting youngish couples with bearded men and tattooed wives.... and more than one thought the law was valid and several suggested  the death penalty for people caught having oral or anal sex.  

I pointed out that laws that were more or less impossible to enforce were by their very nature only enforced against people who were the most vulnerable. Out of favor son in laws of powerful men, the poor and women.... I said who would turn anyone in for this, assuming it wasn't in public.  They said the wife-- I said "wouldn't she be punished too?" and someone from their ingroup had to point out to the confused guy (who apparently hasn't ever had a blowjob) that the woman/wife might be a willing partner in the evil deed.

 

[Cleopatra7]

12 hours ago, salex said:

2 things

1) Kansas got rid of a bunch of stupid, out of date, old laws but kept their anti sodomy law, despite it likely being unconstitutional, more or less as a morality clause. 

 

2) I was on Fakebook when this was being discussed in a group that concentrates on marriage and is filled with Voddie and John Piper quoting youngish couples with bearded men and tattooed wives.... and more than one thought the law was valid and several suggested  the death penalty for people caught having oral or anal sex.  

I pointed out that laws that were more or less impossible to enforce were by their very nature only enforced against people who were the most vulnerable. Out of favor son in laws of powerful men, the poor and women.... I said who would turn anyone in for this, assuming it wasn't in public.  They said the wife-- I said "wouldn't she be punished too?" and someone from their ingroup had to point out to the confused guy (who apparently hasn't ever had a blowjob) that the woman/wife might be a willing partner in the evil deed.

 

In pre-modern Europe, sodomy laws were enforceable, because everyone was spying on everyone else. I'm not being pejorative when I say that, because vigilant neighbors are the only way to keep order in a society where rule of law has yet to develop. Our modern notion of privacy didn't exist back then, as many families lived in small houses, bodily functions were attended to in public, and the sex life of the monarch was a matter for public discourse. In comparison, modern Americans, regardless of their political beliefs, expect their houses to be a mixture between a castle and a fortress. The only way to enforce sodomy laws now would be to break down people's doors, which very few people would support.

[lawlifelgbt]

So, as a lesbian in an exclusive, marriage relationship with a bisexual woman, I must ask...does sodomy include use of, er, objects? Probably, right? Well, if that's the case, then in a state with sodomy laws, I can't really have sex at all, you know? Because no penis. Way to deprive me of a fundamental right to intimacy! (see Lawrence, Loving).

I just went 10 shades of red writing this. But, point being, for the LGBTQ community, no sodomy = not able to have any sex. Which raises other constitutional problems.

[salex]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 11:58 AM, lawlifelgbt said:

So, as a lesbian in an exclusive, marriage relationship with a bisexual woman, I must ask...does sodomy include use of, er, objects? Probably, right? Well, if that's the case, then in a state with sodomy laws, I can't really have sex at all, you know? Because no penis. Way to deprive me of a fundamental right to intimacy! (see Lawrence, Loving).

I just went 10 shades of red writing this. But, point being, for the LGBTQ community, no sodomy = not able to have any sex. Which raises other constitutional problems.

I am pretty sure that was the goal of Kansas keeping their unconstitutional law-- to use against gays someday when God and Kobach are in their kingdom and Brownback is Pope of Kansas.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/23/409234/kansas-gop-keeps-criminal-sodomy-statute-on-the-books-during-purge-of-outdated-state-laws/

Quote

 

Gov. Sam Brownback created the Office of the Repealer to recommend the elimination of out-of-date, unreasonable and burdensome state laws that build up in any bureaucracy over time.

For gay men and lesbians, there seemed one particularly obvious candidate: Kansas Statute 21-3505.

That would be the “criminal sodomy” statute, which prohibits same-sex couples from engaging in oral or anal sex. The law was rendered unenforceable nearly a decade ago by a United States Supreme Court ruling, but it remains enshrined in the state’s legal code.

 

Beyond "the Office of the Repealer" sounding like something in a story written by a 4th grader OR a Monty Python Skit, the fact they kept this law as a law while getting rid of other obsolete laws just tells me Brownback thinks about Gay sex more than I do.  And he worries about it more than I do.  And gets his panties I a wad over it, more than I do....

 

[lawlifelgbt]

Just now, salex said:

I am pretty sure that was the goal of Kansas keeping their unconstitutional law-- to use against gays someday when God and Kobach are in their kingdom and Brownback is Pope of Kansas.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/23/409234/kansas-gop-keeps-criminal-sodomy-statute-on-the-books-during-purge-of-outdated-state-laws/

Beyond "the Office of the Repealer" sounding like something in a story written by a 4th grader OR a Monty Python Skit, the fact they kept this law as a law while getting rid of other obsolete laws just tells me Brownback thinks about Gay sex more than I do.  And he worries about it more than I do.  And gets his panties I a wad over it, more than I do....

 

I probably don't think about gay sex as often as Brownback! I mean, it sounds like a constant concern for him, whereas I only think about same-sex sex when I want to have it. And I'm the LGBTQ one! Also, I think straight sex is gross, because of my own orientation. But, do I think about it all the time and try to stop others from having it or talking about their straight relationships? Nope.

[Catey]

So does this now make it illegal to continue to try to fuck over all the people of Flint every chance they get?

Will there be random sphincter checks?

Will viewing anal porn be considered illegal?

How do they have the time and the hate available to think these things up and then actually pass them?

Did no one update the calendar to show that it is 2016?

 

[FloraKitty35]

On 2/17/2016 at 2:02 PM, salex said:

I am pretty sure that was the goal of Kansas keeping their unconstitutional law-- to use against gays someday when God and Kobach are in their kingdom and Brownback is Pope of Kansas.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/23/409234/kansas-gop-keeps-criminal-sodomy-statute-on-the-books-during-purge-of-outdated-state-laws/

Beyond "the Office of the Repealer" sounding like something in a story written by a 4th grader OR a Monty Python Skit, the fact they kept this law as a law while getting rid of other obsolete laws just tells me Brownback thinks about Gay sex more than I do.  And he worries about it more than I do.  And gets his panties I a wad over it, more than I do....

 

Office of the Repealer is down the corridor from the Ministry of Silly Walks.

[Cleopatra7]

On 2/16/2016 at 0:58 PM, lawlifelgbt said:

So, as a lesbian in an exclusive, marriage relationship with a bisexual woman, I must ask...does sodomy include use of, er, objects? Probably, right? Well, if that's the case, then in a state with sodomy laws, I can't really have sex at all, you know? Because no penis. Way to deprive me of a fundamental right to intimacy! (see Lawrence, Loving).

I just went 10 shades of red writing this. But, point being, for the LGBTQ community, no sodomy = not able to have any sex. Which raises other constitutional problems.

Going back to the medieval and Renaissance definitions of sodomy, sex between women was only considered a sin and a crime if "instruments" were involved. If this was the case, both parties would be executed. This probably stems from the phallocentric view of the men writing the laws, as they imagined that a penis or a penis-like object had to be present for sex to occur. Plus, due to the sex segregated nature of European society at the time, they probably had no idea what women were doing anyway, whether in terms of sex or anything else.