http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mic...-years-prison/
Lololol Beacon of civilization and progress
Printable View
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mic...-years-prison/
Lololol Beacon of civilization and progress
Am I missing something? When I click on the link to the legislation it doesn't talk about buttsex at all. This bill is about animal abuse.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-SEBS-0219.pdf
http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdn...3.13.09_PM.pngQuote:
Sec. 158. (1) Any A person who shall commit COMMITS the
24 abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind
25 or with any animal shall be IS guilty of a felony , punishable by
26 imprisonment in the state prison FOR not more than 15 years, or if
27 such person THE DEFENDANT was A SEXUALLY DELINQUENT PERSON at the
21
S02304'15 (S-1) Final Page KED
1 time of the said offense, a sexually delinquent person, may be A
2 FELONY punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for an
3 indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the
4 maximum of which shall be life.
I'll concede that the reporting has been somewhat inaccurate and the law is in theory unenforceable, although that's never stopped a law from causing trouble for innocent buttsexers (eg. http://nation.time.com/2013/07/31/lo...ad-to-arrests/)
The key phrase of course is "with mankind OR with any animal"
But what is the "abominable and detestable crime against nature" ? I don't see any reference to sodomy, buttsex, anal in the text of the bill. (I didn't read it word for word just used Control F and skimmed).
Lewk: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dib...me=mcl-750-158
Although does this change anything? If I understand correctly, this just changes the wording of the section, but since that section has been there since, what, 1931, buttsex was illegal all along. It's just that now people finally have noticed that.
Sodomy is not an abominable and detestable crime against nature, the SCOTUS have already ruled that so Aimless's title is simply wrong.
That term has included, among many other entertaining activities, classic buttsex. The apparent vagueness of the term is deliberate, a feature rather than a bug.
So basically this thread is because someone found some dead code in the legal system that nobody bothered to ever repeal because it doesn't do anything, but it suggests that sodomy may have once been illegal?
Yes.
Those old laws are brilliant for quizzes etc, and pretty funny, but it's not like they even can be enforced even if they want to right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
In theory they could be used to make life difficult for individuals so it's better to get them off the books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
In theory yes. In practice, the benefit is marginal and US legislators rarely "waste" their time on things of marginal benefit that probably would not even be realized before they'd left office. If someone did get arrested and created an active controversy than sure but a legislator acting on this before such would be doing so preemptively and even the people it helped would never be aware of it. Not exactly a productive use of time from their perspective.
I would say yes if it weren't for the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
1. As far as I know, sodomy--defined in various ways--has been illegal in the US, even in Michigan, and has actively been prosecuted. To say that it "may have been illegal" is in that case inaccurate. At the very least it was illegal enough in other states to be taken all the way through the system up to the Supreme Court. If you have evidence showing that sodomy was not illegal then that would be very interesting to see. Based on the examples I've found from Michigan, anti-sodomy laws were inconsistently enforced in that state: http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sens...s/michigan.htm
2. I've seen at least two Michigan lawmakers state that the inclusion of acts between humans was not due to "not bothering" but rather an active decision motivated by the view that it would be too controversial to strike that line. They have cast it as a partisan issue. If that view is accurate, then it is inappropriate to characterise this as "some dead code in the legal system that nobody bothered to ever repeal".
These are the quotes about the perceived partisanship:
http://www.advocate.com/crime/2016/2...l-cruelty-bill
https://www.facebook.com/davidmkneze...68209583438258Quote:
the bill's author, Republican Senator Rick Jones, told The New Civil Rights Movement he could not oblige.
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done," Jones told the outlet. "Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."
3. An unconstitutional law that's on the books can still cause harm despite being unconstitutional. It does not appear as if this has been the case in Michigan. However, it has been the case in at least one other state:Quote:
It would have been easy to insert language that prevents animal abusers from adopting animals while simultaneously striking the language that banned oral and anal sex. However - to be forthright with you and this is where the partisanship comes in - that would have killed Logan's Law, leaving us with an unconstitutional ban on oral and anal sex still on the books plus zero laws preventing animal abusers from adopting animals.
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013...omy-law/67696/
http://nation.time.com/2013/07/31/lo...ad-to-arrests/Quote:
An investigation by The Advocate revealed a Baton Rouge sheriff's office has been arresting gay men after they've agreed to consensual sex with another man that does not involve any money changing hands. They're arresting them for having gay sex, essentially, because they're one of the few sheriff's offices enforcing a law thrown out by the Supreme Court ten years ago.
A task force with the East Baton Rouge Parish sheriff's office that's supposed to police prostitution and child predators have performed these stings on gay men at least a dozen times since 2011, The Advocate discovered. The District Attorney's office has refused to prosecute any of the cases so far, citing the Supreme Court's 2003 decision throwing out anti-sodomy laws. Despite the fact that anti-sodomy laws are illegal, the sheriff's office defended the task force operations:
“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” Hicks said. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”
And a majority of lawmakers in that state made an active decision to keep the unconstitutional and ostensibly unenforceable language in "crimes against nature" (the definition of which includes "unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex") law:Quote:
Such arrests also put taxpayers at risk. What if one of the men arrested in the Baton Rouge case, for example, decided to sue the city? According Justin Harrison, an ACLU attorney in New Orleans, no plaintiffs have come forward thus far. “This is the type of situation where people often don’t want the increased exposure that comes along with a federal lawsuit,” Harrison says. D’Amico says the man represented in Baton Rouge wants to stay out of the spotlight. The case has cost him enough already: D’Amico estimates that between bond and lawyer’s fees, his client was out $7,500. That’s no small sum for doing nothing wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us...ands.html?_r=0
Based on the above, I find it difficult to agree with your characterisation of the matter, even though I'll concede that Michigan isn't Louisiana. Sodomy has been illegal, "dead code" can have real consequences for both individuals and the public, and this unenforceable but potentially harmful law remains on the books not because people have busy schedules but because it is for some reason controversial in the US anno 2016.
You're really just confirming what I said: It doesn't do anything, and is only still there because it isn't worth the effort for them to repeal. I also don't think removing the law is going to do much in the way of stopping anyone who wants to abuse their power to 'punish' buggery.
*shrug* I think we'll have to agree to disagree. For my part, I think it's noteworthy that there seems to be deliberate opposition to changing unconstitutional and unenforceable anti-sodomy laws in a modern civilized western nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Problems with keeping these laws on the books are real. Perhaps they haven't affected you or anyone you know, but apparently others have been affected, and in ways I didn't initially expect: http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201108080012
While it's true that people who want to abuse their power to make life hell for LGBT people will find ways to do so, there are no good arguments for making it easier for them to do so eg. by giving them justification for arrests and fines and disproportionately harsh sentences. Having to pay a lawyer to fight a charge that isn't even supposed to be valid is a significant imposition on the individual.
Well, yes, but if it's not worth the effort to repeal it, because it comes with political opposition.. that's worrying/sad. I mean, if it's controversial to stop making buttsex illegal, that says something. But yeah, I'm not bothered by this. And yeah, people can otherwise probably still abuse power to punish buggery, I suppose on the bright side if they deliberately do it using known unconstitutional laws, they can get sued for it (I guess too bad that this is the kind of thing people might not want the publicity that comes with that). I for one hope that the Baton Rouge Sherriff that Aimless posted about gets in trouble for his unconstitutional acts.*Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
*Isn't it interesting that everybody seems to love the constitution only when it suits them :p
I didn't read much of this thread, butt I can say Michigan's government is embarrassingly fucked up. And that's all I'm gonna say about it right now.