I was Just wondering how everyone feels about the Sodomy laws. In more then 1/4 of the states it's illegal to perform oral sex on your partner. What do you think of this. It's sad that you can go to jail for something like this.
But the only thing about sodomy that tweeks my melon is my story:
When my mom was a teenager, her uncle (my great uncle) sodomized her best friend, who we'll call David, then strangled him to death. They later found out he had schizophrenia. He's now in prison for life for sodomy, and that's in Indiana.
I think that if people wanna perform oral or anal sex on their partner, then that's fine. You can do it in the comfort of your own home, and I think it is kind of stupid to have it be a "big deal" in AR, KS, MO, OK, & TX. Oral sex isn't a bad thing, neither is anal.
That's my opinion, I hope no one is mad at me if they have a different view on Sodomy than I do.
quote:Originally posted by LittleOneUSN: In more then 1/4 of the states it's illegal to perform oral sex on your partner. What do you think of this. It's sad that you can go to jail for something like this.
Actually, these laws were invalidated by last November's Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas. In it, the Supreme Court overturned a previous decision (1986's much-maligned Bowers v. Hardwick) which had affirmed anti-sodomy legislation. What's more, the Supreme Court used a standard which establishes a right to sexual privacy between consenting adults behind closed doors.
Translation? Every single one of these laws has been instantly invalidated. Until court challenges can be mounted on each and every one of them, they'll probably remain on the books...but they are not prosecutable now that the Supreme Court has made this ruling.
So fear not. Your consensual acts behind closed doors are no longer the domain of the long arm of the law.
Not exactly. Texan here. What happened in that case was that the police broke down the wrong door and found two males engaged in sexual relations. They were arrested for sodomy. This was the stupidest action ever. The flaw in the case was that the police never should have entered that particular apartment int he first place and then tried to make it look all okay by arresting people. I'm sure in the right case (probably an aggrivated assult/rape) sodomy could be used, and justly. I doubt that it could be used against any consensual adults, however. But we are talking about Texas, and while I love my state, it sure as heck has done some stupid things...
Posts: 50 | From: Austin, TX, USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KCallahan: The flaw in the case was that the police never should have entered that particular apartment int he first place and then tried to make it look all okay by arresting people.
If you want to get right down to it, the police had no choice but to enter the apartment because they were acting on a tip that there was someone being assaulted inside the room. Hearing noises, they forced entry and found what they found.
I agree with you completely that prosecuting the men for what was nothing more than a consensual act was a pretty heavyhanded and nonsensical tactic, but as for actually making entry into the room, the police officers onscene did not have a choice. Had they been given the tip and not acted upon it, they'd have been held liable if something nefarious had actually taken place. So at least for that much, I can't really fault them.
All the same, with the standards that the Supreme Court has used to strike those laws down, the odds of this sort of prosecution happening again and actually being upheld is virtually zero.
My info may have been wrong, but I seem to recall that it was still the wrong apartment. The tip was for another apartment entirely. I think that the police logic in the case was "If we broke into the wrong apartment and saw two inidivudals doing crack, ie breaking the law, then we would have arrested them too based on 'good faith'". Good faith is a protection measure so if police make a mistake accidentally (in "good faith"), they can still bring criminals to justice in what would seem on the face of it to be a violation of due process. Unfortunately, good faith can often be abused. This is one of those cases.
Posts: 50 | From: Austin, TX, USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KCallahan: My info may have been wrong, but I seem to recall that it was still the wrong apartment.
Well, the 911 call itself came from another apartment. The reporting party was a neighbor that lived in an apartment across the hall from Lawrence and Garner. He called 911 to report a "weapons disturbance" in their apartment. There are two schools of thought on this one, some folks feel that he had some sort of bad blood with Lawrence and Garner, others think he heard the noise coming from the room and legitimately feared for the safety of the occupants inside. Either one seems likely to me. Regardless, police arrived and heard the noise as well, which is why they forced entry.
(I see that Houston's PD webpage has taken down their account of this case, but there is an article here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2080746/ and I'm sure there is more out there on some legal websites)
The police logic you've mentioned seems right to me, bear in mind that police are legally obligated to act upon what they see in terms of lawbreaking. That which they do not see, they are not held accountable for...but any illegal activity they witness must be dealt with. That is part of the responsibility that comes with earning your badge and firearm. While none of us can crawl into the handling officers' heads, I'm sure if I were to come onscene I'd be worried about failing to take action and having the reporting party file a complaint against me. No police officer wants to "buy a day" or a week or a month, or worse, get fired outright for dereliction of duty!
So at least as far as they are concerned, I can't really see them handling it any other way. That doesn't lessen my amazement at the fact that a prosecutor would try such a case, but I suppose that now that the Supreme Court has had their say, we won't have to see something like that happen again and stand.
Because it's a bigger threat to the men of the religious right, because rape is generally about women, and thus, not a very big deal for them, and because it often involves homosexual men CONSENTING to sex.
Sodomy - which is NOT rape by defintion, but about certain sexual acts with NO part of the defintion including nonconsent -- is a big issue because some little brains feel if they can outlaw ceryain sexual activities, they can outlaw certain sexual orientations which are threateing to them and conflict with their personal agendas.
So really, even comparing the two is fellacious, as rape can include sodomy but sodomy need not be, and often isn't, rape nor about "predators."
This is an important issue to me. Unfortunately, I am new here, and therfore didn't participate in the conversation at the time, but I did want to put my two cents worth.
on 5-21-04 BruinDan posted the following (ommitted some for space): The police logic you've mentioned seems right to me, bear in mind that police are legally obligated to act upon what they see in terms of lawbreaking. That which they do not see, they are not held accountable for...but any illegal activity they witness must be dealt with. That is part of the responsibility that comes with earning your badge and firearm.
I would disagree with this primace on Just Cause. I am not a lawyer, but I have done some studying of the law, and I know many law enforement officers. If the police come into your property with a warrant, they can arrest you for anything listed on the warrant, or anything in plain site. For instance, if the warrant was for illegal drugs, and nothing else, they couldn't arrest you if they found an illegal gun hidden. Now if the gun is in open view (on a table, etc), thats different. If they are searching for the drugs, and find the gun, they can confiscate it, but can't charge you on that crime. Its a thin line. Most warrants for drugs do include illegal guns on it, because the two are often associated, but if its not on the warrant, there isn't much to be done.
Now this case was different, there was not warrant, because there was a current and justifiable threat (based on the 911 call). So I am not 100% positive on the legality. But assuming it was the same/simular to the warrant laws, it would also vary. If the two men were in there bedroom with the door closed, and the officers did not witness penetration, there isn't much to be done. If on the other hand, they break down the door and saw actual penetration (say from the sofa), that may be a different situation.. that may be considered in public view.
Either way, I am glad that the Supreme Court finally made a fair determination in this issue.
------------------ Mr X. -Newport News, VA
[This message has been edited by Sbarger (edited 10-19-2004).]
[This message has been edited by Milke (edited 10-19-2004).]
Posts: 10 | From: Newport News, VA, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now this case was different, there was not warrant, because there was a current and justifiable threat (based on the 911 call).
Exactly. Because this call came in via 911, the rules are different. This wasn't an investigation, it was an emergency response, and would therefore fall under the 'exigent circumstances' clause. During exigent cicumstances, no warrant is needed, no permissions are needed, and anything and everything is fair game. The point turns from following investigative rules and regulations to preserving and protecting life and property.
Much as an EMT at a car wreck is more concerned about getting someone out of their vehicle and stabilized, a cop responding to a 911 call is worried about the safety of the person they are responding to, before anything else. When someone is beleived to be in danger, everything else is secondary. Considering what sounds like an assault to be a private matter is about as ethical as considering domestic abuse something best kept in the family.
------------------ Milke, with an L, Mrs BD to you, RATS, TMNTP, MF, CWCD, WAOTA
I am no legal expert, but why does that Nov 2003 USSC ruling not prohibit regulatory actions like these?
From the 1st of Sept this year… BIRMINGHAM, AL - Overturning a lower court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, has ruled that the Constitution does not include a right to sexual privacy and that the State of Alabama has the right to ban the sale of sex toys… this is from http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/
“The Constitution does not include a right to sexual privacy…” What the heck???
Oh, I know what your thinking, hey no big deal, that’s the state that mandated the stickers in science books reminding all the little persons that “evolution is a controversial theory” and had tried to get the teaching of creationism given equal time in science.
It turns out they are not alone….in March 2004 you can find this story…
JACKSON, Miss. — The Mississippi Supreme Court yesterday upheld a state law that bans the sale of sex toys.
The justices also said the advertising of the sexual devices is not protected by the right to free speech. Such advertisements, the court said, promote an illegal transaction.
Hinds County Chancellor Bill Singletary ruled in 2003 that state law does not extend the right to privacy to the commercial sale of sexual devices. He said state government had an interest in "protecting public physical and mental health and supporting public morality."
Presiding Justice Bill Waller Jr., writing yesterday for the court, said state law provides that physicians and psychologists may prescribe sexual devices for their patients, and the patients may buy them from the physicians and psychologists.
The sex toys bans haven't struck me as nutty or unusual since I wrote about the one that first happened in Alabama.
Who is, hands down, the biggest buyer of sex toys? Women, no contest. In fact, that's the only area of the entire sex industry that's supported by women, even marginally.
So, of course your average male politician wants them as far away from women as possible: it might actually mean women figure out that they CAN be sexually satisfied and that they need more then four minutes of intercourse to do that.
I think the government needs to keep out of the bedrooms of America. I feel this way on all issues, including gay marriage and sodomy. If someone is forced into an act of sodomy, then it should be called a form of rape, but otherwise, it should be legal.
Also, sex toys are just toys with a... deeper meaning. Any law banning them is just stupid.
I was a little confused at first when I started reading this thread as I had always understood that sodomy was defined (narrowly I admit) as anal intercourse. I had several resources that strictly define sodomy as anal intercourse including the OED - peccatum Sodomiticum .
So being the dutiful type I checked the link to the sodomy bit and dang it, another well crafted really informative bit of writing. Really well done. Got me thinking and I found sodomy laws . org, a great site with worldwide stuff and current legal cases all over the world. They had a little review as well, but it was, IMHO not a nicely done as ST.
I know darn well those Justices are fussy about definitions(when it suits them), so I checked the USSC ruling from the 6/23/2003. In all several hundred pages the word sodomy appears um... a lot. It is never defined, at least as far as I looked in the opinion. Which leads me to believe the act of making an ATM deposit could be considered sodomy if done passionately and it serves the purpose of the court. In some states even if the ATM was consenting! The good news is I can't be prosecuted for it, at least not if done in privacy.
Thank you ST for making the opening in my mind a little bigger, again.
When I was a girl my aunt always said if you don't know it look it up in the dictionary and she always had one close by, we never needed to ask for it or tell what we were looking for. So being the precocious adolescent that I was of course I looked up all the "whispered" words I wasn't supposed to hear. Like a child is actually deaf <rolls eyes>
I have noticed few replies that seem a little confused as to the actual meaning of the word sodomy. So here in all it's glory is the Miriam-Webster online dictionarys definition of sodomy
One entry found for sodomy.
Main Entry: sod·omy Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11 1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex - sod·om·it·ic /"sä-d&-'mi-tik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
Just an FYI when I originally copied this passage and then tried to paste to my reply, my computer blacked out and restarted on it's own <shivers> I almost cringed waiting for the lightening bolt LOL.
Also isn't it strange that it mentions zoophilia and gay sex is the same sentance. I don't really consider myself an activist but isn't that going about a mile too far?
Posts: 4 | From: Louisville, Ky, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.