babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Texas sodomy law still on the books

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Texas sodomy law still on the books
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 27 March 2003 06:01 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And still used to persecute gay people leading their private lives :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4634216,00.html


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 27 March 2003 06:21 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Opponents of the appeal held signs saying "Aids is God's revenge" outside the court.

Ain't conservatives wonderful?


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 07:11 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder how many heterosexual married couples get prosecuted under this law? Gays aren't the only ones who have anal sex. Oh, never mind. It says that it's only illegal between gay men.

At least lesbians don't have to worry!

[ 27 March 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 27 March 2003 12:22 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder if a special tactical team pounds down the door, switches on the lights, and says, "Gentlemen -- disengage...immediately!"
It all sounds so stupid.

From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 12:27 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know. I was trying to picture the scene too. Trying to imagine how they could prove in a court of law that there was penetration. Did they take pictures or something?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 March 2003 12:31 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The "hetero" exemption is one of the arguments against the law. Under the Constitution's "equal protection" clause, Texas will have to show a rational, if not compelling, reason why gays are prosecuted, while heteros engaging in the same act are not.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 12:36 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But do gays have constitutional protection against discrimination in the US the way other minority groups do? Couldn't Texas just say that homosexuality is act-based rather than identity-based and then say that they have the right to outlaw whatever actions they see fit to outlaw?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 March 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If it was "act-based," then there wouldn't be any equal protection problem. The claim would then be that it is a violation of their "right to privacy," which is drawn from the "due process" clause of the Constitution.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But do people have a "right to privacy" if they're committing an act that is illegal? I'm not sure I'm following your argument.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 March 2003 12:52 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well that's the question. Whether their "right to privacy" makes the statute unconstitutional. The illegality is a given.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 12:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why would they have a right to privacy to commit an illegal act though? Would they have a right to privacy to snort cocaine together in their bedroom? I don't see how the constitution would protect their right to privacy in this case if homosexuals are not constitutionally protected from discrimination.

[ 27 March 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 March 2003 12:55 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Where's Jeff when you need him?

My understanding would be that you do not specifically have a right to privacy while breaking the law, but you DO have that right until it's been demonstrated that you are, or until there is reasonable grounds to believe that you are. In many cases this proof that you're breaking the law could only come about as a result of violating your privacy... and so you, not the state, should benefit from this logical "bootstrap". In other words:

You have a right to privacy UNTIL it's been shown that you're breaking the law, and since this can't be shown without violating your privacy, you can basically do as you please... just don't give anyone "reasonable grounds" or the whole thing comes crashing down.

At any rate, how totally backwards is this? As far as I'm concerned, this should mandate the use of an asterisk in phrases like "The Land of the Free*, and the Home of the Brave".

*Note: freedom may be contingent on heterosexuality. Some conditions apply. See your Constitution for details.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 March 2003 01:06 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Should the Court strike down the law on privacy grounds, they would in effect be saying that homosexual conduct was entitled to some protection. It would depend on how the opinion is written. If they struck it down on equal protection grounds, they would simply be saying you can punish this conduct, but you have to (in theory) punish everyone who engages in it.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 27 March 2003 01:11 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
At least lesbians don't have to worry!
Ever hear of a strap on!


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 01:13 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But that's my point about the equal protection argument, josh. There are lots of acts that are legal between certain groups of people but not others. It is legal for an adult to have sexual contact with an adult of the opposite sex, but not with a child. It is legal for an adult to hit a child, but not an adult.

Why would it be any stretch to say it's legal for a man and a woman to have anal sex but not for a man and a man to do so? You can punish selectively based on age - what would be the legal justification for not allowing selective punishment based on sexual orientation?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 March 2003 01:36 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Five votes on the Supreme Court is all the justification you need. As someone once remarked, "the law is what the court says it is."
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 March 2003 01:37 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Minors and adults are entirely separate classes under the law. That's why it's legal to forbid a 5 year old from driving, but would be illegal to forbid single mothers from driving (for example).

quote:
what would be the legal justification for not allowing selective punishment based on sexual orientation?

That you create now two categories of people, on arbitrary (and likely "moral") grounds. If we can specify, for example, that homosexuals can't have certain types of sex, then what would prevent us from saying that single mothers can't rent apartments, or blacks can't drive with more than one passenger in their car? Someone's just as sure to find a "rational" reason for those too, and I really, really don't think we should be going down that road.

Funny thing that the "backwards" lawmakers always forget: if, unlike race, homosexuality is a "choice", then so is every religion. If the answer to persecution of homosexuals is "then just stop choosing to be gay", then the similar answer to persecution on the grounds of religion would be "then stop choosing to believe in an invisible superhero who lives in space".


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 02:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's my point, Mr. Magoo. What prevents us from saying a black person cannot rent an apartment is that black people have constitutional protection against discrimination, as do women (oh wait, do women? they do in Canada, not sure about the US). But it is not illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

P.S. Just to be clear, I don't think we should be going down that road either. I'm just trying to think of what the legal arguments might be.

[ 27 March 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 March 2003 03:06 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Blacks and women do, but do single mothers or black kids who choose to dress like "gangbangers"? Nobody's born a single mom or an NWA fan

In a perfect world, the law would regard religion as a choice too. That alone wouldn't stop lawmakers from making special laws for special choices, but it would at least put right-wing Xtianity on a level playing field with homosexuality as far as "choice" goes, and they'd be just as vulnerable to persecution based on their choice. But of course in the U.S., and nowhere moreso than the south, religion is NOT regarded this way, but as a sacred system... or "certain" religions anyway.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 27 March 2003 03:22 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In Texas I think that sodomy doesn't just refer to just anal sex but to any non-vaginal/penis act. So oral sex is verboten too. I think Georgia and Minnesota has this defination as well, so that clause could apply to hetros.

Its all the height of stupidity though. Using that defination we should all be under house arrest.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 28 March 2003 12:12 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It just kinda dawned on me that the charges should have been dropped due to being "fruit of the poisoned tree."

The police obtained the evidence through what proved to be illegitimate means.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tyler S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3631

posted 28 March 2003 02:49 AM      Profile for Tyler S     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ain't conservatives wonderful?

Thankyou for painting an entire group of people with one big brush.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 28 March 2003 02:52 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're welcome.

I thought it as good for the gander as well as the goose.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
rbil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 582

posted 28 March 2003 02:52 AM      Profile for rbil     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Damn it, someone should have told Blair that this was illegal. Had he known, he probably wouldn't have visited Bush in Camp David. Oh I forgot! Blair doesn't understand legalities very well.
From: IRC: irc.bcwireless.net JOIN: #linuxtalk | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2934

posted 28 March 2003 10:00 AM      Profile for Steve N     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It seems to me that the discrimination is unconstitutional, not because of sexual orientation but because of sex.

It's essentially illegal to RECEIVE anal sex if you are a man, but not if you are a woman.

It is not illegal to be a homosexual. It is illegal for a man to engage in anal sex with a man.

You don't need constitutional protection for sexual orientation in order to argue that this law is discriminatory, in other words.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 March 2003 10:07 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I was thinking that too, Steve N., as I was pondering this last night.

This could really be gender discrimination, couldn't it? And how ironic that it could be classified as that great favorite of right-wingers everywhere, REVERSE discrimination. Women get all the breaks. They're even allowed to take it up the butt while it's illegal for men to do so! I'm surprised those Republican types aren't chomping at the bit to rectify this injustice against men.

Rbil, I almost spit out my water - through my nose - when I read your post.

[ 28 March 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 28 March 2003 11:21 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good article on the Supreme Court argument:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/03/graff-e-03-27.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 28 March 2003 12:49 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
rbil, Michelle: Camp David is in Maryland, whose Sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional in 1999 .

The invalidated Maryland law prohibits "Blair Jobs", but the 1999 court ruling puts them in the clear, no matter how Blair backed Bush at their Camp David rendez-vous.

[ 28 March 2003: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 28 March 2003 02:11 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
(oh wait, do women? they do in Canada, not sure about the US).
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, you sure don't know much about the USA. From your threads, I thought you were an expert on US history.

From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 28 March 2003 02:20 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gee, and here I thought you were the expert on irrelevant ad hominems.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 28 March 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anyone else get the feeling bellows has some bone to pick with Michelle? That's the second time he's taken a shot at her out of nowhere. Weird.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 28 March 2003 02:30 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That or a needed med change.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 March 2003 02:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
US history? What does that have to do with it? I was talking about US constitutional law, which, yes, I will admit, I'm not an expert on. But josh, being a government lawyer, IS, which is why I asked him for information.

Unlike you - who was it who was claiming to be a military strategy expert because he had served in the forces? Gee, guess having tea with the Generals really gave you lots of insight, huh?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 28 March 2003 02:37 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey! it's all in fun.If you can't stand the heat stay away from the fire.
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 March 2003 02:41 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hardly. Takes a lot more than what you dish out to faze me.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 28 March 2003 02:50 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bellows:

PLURAL NOUN: (used with a sing. or pl. verb) 1a. An apparatus for producing a strong current of air, as for sounding a pipe organ or increasing the draft to a fire, consisting of a flexible, valved air chamber that is contracted and expanded by pumping to force the air through a nozzle. b. Something, such as the pleated windbag of an accordion, that resembles this apparatus.

[ 28 March 2003: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 28 March 2003 02:53 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
...the pleated windbag...

Oh, man...
I'm SO using that!

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 28 March 2003 03:07 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ALBIREO. One of the great small-telescope showpieces of the sky
--------------------------------------------------
Somehow I knew you were spaced out!

From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 28 March 2003 04:46 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed: Albireo is Beta Cygni, a beautiful double star at the nose of the Constellation Cygnus the Swan, consisting of a gold star and a fainter blue companion. Anyone who doubts that stars have colour should take a look at this star through a telescope. Color difference is exaggerated in the photo on this page.

Now that's thread drift: from Sodomy in Texas to a binary star about 380 light years away.

[ 28 March 2003: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tyler S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3631

posted 29 March 2003 12:02 AM      Profile for Tyler S     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're welcome.
I thought it as good for the gander as well as the goose.

There you go, painting with a broad brush again.

Since other 'right wing' people have come here and stereotype all of you, you go and assume that I have done the same thing.

Where and when did I ever say that all of the 'left wing' people are a bunch of "hippie, granola chewing, baby killing, tree hugging, commie scum"? It's just as absurd as calling all of us 'right wingers' a bunch of "racist, homophobic, religious fanatics"

C'mon man, give me a break.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca