Posted on 04/11/2013 1:13:50 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The woman who led the court battle to strike down a Montana law that made gay sex illegal knows that having the unconstitutional law struck from the books is a symbolic act.
All the same, Linda Gryczan began to cry when the state House finally brought the issue to the floor on Monday. …
Senate Bill 107, the measure that strikes from the state code the obsolete language criminalizing gay sex as deviate sexual conduct, passed its final legislative hurdle Wednesday with a 65-34 vote in the House. …
Gryczan was the lead plaintiff in a 1995 lawsuit that led to the unanimous 1997 Montana Supreme Court decision that ruled the law unconstitutional. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
What about sheep?.......
Obsolete?
No.
Homosexual sodomy is still deviant conduct, always will be.
Decriminalizing it doesn’t make it natural, moral, safe, or righteous.
Abetting
Presstitutes
I guess Age groups were not defined! Sheep are nervous in Montana what about Kids?!
These folks are not elected, but they’ve been significantly affecting the American legal system for decades, laying the groundwork for the judicial/legal disaster we see taking shape for the past few decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Law_Institute
To destroy a society, you don’t need to control everyone, just a significant portion of the leadership of the society.
Brokeback Montana
Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming....All will eventually go the way of Colorado, infected by the Kaliforiak carpetbaggers. (They leave they place the sh!t in to sh!t in somebody else’s place.)
Is “Linda Gryczan” a pseudonym or a real woman?
If a real woman, what possessed her to become the champion of anal sex?
Poor choice of words, no?
Do you remember the movie “ Sleepless in Seatle “. Well, the sequel is called “ Sheepless in Montana “
The phrase "deviate sexual relations" is defined at § 45-2-101(20), MCA, as "sexual contact or sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex or any form of sexual intercourse with an animal." "Sexual contact" and "sexual intercourse" are defined as:
"Sexual contact" means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of the person of another for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party.
Section 45-2-101(65), MCA.
"Sexual intercourse" means penetration of the vulva, anus, or mouth of one person by the penis of another person, penetration of the vulva or anus of one person by any body member of another person, or penetration of the vulva or anus of one person by any foreign instrument or object manipulated by another person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient.
How do you enforce it?
Respondents argue that, although they have never been arrested or prosecuted under the statute, they have been injured and continue to be injured by the mere existence of the statute. They contend that the damage to their self-esteem and dignity and the fear that they will be prosecuted or will lose their livelihood or custody of their children create an emotional injury that gives them standing to challenge the statute. For example, two Respondents are employed or are seeking employment in positions requiring state licenses. Because they engage in conduct classified as a felony, they fear they could lose their professional licenses. One Respondent is the mother of a five-year old boy. She fears that the statute could be used to limit her relationship with her son.
pedophilia is next I guess
It is no longer criminal. It is still perverted.
However, the court issued a permanent injunction forbidding the State to enforce the statute against Respondents or any other people in the State of Montana who engage in consensual, adult, private, same-gender sexual conduct. In addressing this issue we determine, first, whether Respondents' sexual conduct prohibited by § 45-5-505, MCA, is protected by Montana's constitutional right of privacy and then, if it is protected, whether the State has demonstrated a compelling interest for infringing that right.
They've got a case, particularly since homosexuality was removed from the DSM. How do you enforce it?
The one issue that never comes up is that homosexuality isn't private. It's pushed in public and in government schools as normal. It isn't normal, but is is criminal? I don't think the court erred with this one.
Fundamentally, we've allowed them to dominate and form the discussion. We're locked outside the bubble of information because you can't use God (which is very reasonable and American), but because it's a liberty issue you can barely get the statistics out there that show just how abnormal and unhealthy homosexuality is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.