Certainly the sometimes but not always reported detail that all 3 men knew each other, at least one of them had dated the caller, and that they were all homosexual blows such commentary as follows out of the water:
It comes from a weblog site and the posters there assumed it be a homophobic neighbor that placed the call.
This comes from last month (found in an online search along with the rest of the articles in my previous post). The conversation drops in and out of the Texas case and the comments made by the Senator.
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/25303 Boltman: actually, if you look at the facts of the case before SCOTUS, it was almost certainly staged by people that were looking to challenge the law in court.
Sources?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:00 PM PST on April 24
Strange as it may seem, it is a legal contract between two people; as long as they choose to "make it official" they need to follow the official rules. If they don't want it to be a legal contract, they shouldn't marry - in that case their cheating on one another can't be considered a legal issue.
I agree, in relation to a marriage adultery is a legal matter. But is it a criminal matter or simply a civil one? Presumably Santorum was talking about adultery as a criminal matter as that was the context for all the other mentioned categories (as it is the context of the SC case).
For example, in Florida, if a man cheats on his wife and those were the agreed upon rules of their marriage, then it is a definite issue for a civil (divorce) court. But is it an issue for a criminal court? Technically, yes. Section 798.01 of the Florida Criminal Code:
"Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section."
Of course, I doubt this is ever enforced. But then most sodomy laws are rarely enforced.
posted by obfusciatrist at 1:04 PM PST on April 24
Boltman: The call that led to the arrest of the two Houston gay men came from Roger David Nance. Harris County Sheriff's Department officers responded to his report of an armed man in an apartment complex, and he directed them to the apartment where Garner and Lawrence were found. Nance pleaded no contest and served 15 days in jail for filing a false police report. David Jones, an attorney for the two men, cited Nance's motive as a "personality conflict between the caller and the people in the apartment." [SOURCE]
So, not only did they not choose to be caught in flagrante, leading to fines, jail time and a lifetime sex offenders registration, but their homophobic (Ok, I'm guessing there...but it's an edumacated one) neighbour did jail time too.
What do you have?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:19 PM PST on April 24
dash slot -- I have nothing beyond your link, I just find the defendants' version of events to be implausible. The article itself notes that gay activists have been trying to get rid of this law for a long time but haven't been able to come up with a good test case. The DA admits that the only reason he is prosecuting is because he wants to see the law declared unconstitutional. The defendants themselves seem pretty enthusiastic about defending themselves in court--a huge cost in terms of time, if not money. And honestly, it's hard for me to believe that Nance was a homophobic neighbor. I mean, that's about the most bizzare (and idiotic) way to harrass your neighbor that I've ever heard of, and it makes no sense that he would choose to serve jail time just to spite his gay neighbors. On the other hand, if he were a co-conspiritor that really believed in the cause of getting the law overturned, 15 days in jail seems a small price to pay.
Obviously, they're going to deny that it was staged because it makes their case look much weaker. But it all just smells way too fishy to me. And if I'm right that the door to the apartment was open when the police showed up (I'm sure I read that somewhere but now can't find it), then I'd say that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. But even if I'm wrong about the door, I still would bet money that it was staged in order to generate a good test case.
I still want them to win their case, of course, but that doesn't mean I have to accept their version of the facts uncritically.
posted by boltman at 2:40 PM PST on April 24
it makes no sense that he would choose to serve jail time just to spite his gay neighbors. On the other hand, if he were a co-conspiritor that really believed in the cause of getting the law overturned, 15 days in jail seems a small price to pay.
Wow. You must be out of breath after those leaps of logic, boltman. I'm breathless after just reading 'em.
posted by soyjoy at 2:47 PM PST on April 24
Principled people are usually willing to sacrifice for causes they believe in. Sometimes they even engage in civil disobedience and go to jail. People motivated by prejudice and contempt seldom are, because they're too busy looking out for number one. It's not really logic, just basic human nature.
Besides, there's (unfortunately) plenty of ways for homophobes to harrass gay people. Why choose a way that is almost certainly going to get you in trouble? On the other hand, if you're trying to manufacture some good facts for a test case, calling the police and telling them that someone's waiving a gun around in an apartment is about the only way your going to be able to do it.
posted by boltman at 3:16 PM PST on April 24
Update: Two republican senators criticize Santorum's remarks
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:21 PM PST on April 24
I'd also just point out that I don't think it matters at all, from a legal perspective, whether it was staged or not. My original point was simply that these laws are not enforced, so the arguments about whether to get rid of them should reflect that fact. (FWIW, I, personally, still think they should be struck down). Whether or not it was staged, the facts do suggest that these types of prosecutions are extremely rare, if they happen at all. Arguments about police breaking down the door, while rhetorically appealing, simply do not reflect what is really at stake in the debate and ultimately harm the credibility of those opposing the law.
posted by boltman at 4:27 PM PST on April 24
it's hard for me to believe that Nance was a homophobic neighbor. I mean, that's about the most bizzare (and idiotic) way to harrass your neighbor that I've ever heard of
Yes, and there are no bizarre idiots in Texas, or anywhere else. Especially those who have a psychologically disturbed obsession with harassing "different" people. *eyes*
The dead man matches the age of the man who made the call. I'd say that they are the same man. I've never seen it reported that one of the three figures in this landmark case is dead of assault. I did not find a match showing that these 2 names are an alias. Some of the sites are reporting bad/biased information (the police did not bust the door down, it was unlocked and possible even ajar) so it may just be an error.
It is possible that the man was sentenced to 30 days for the phone call and served 15. He may have even worked picking up trash or doing prison laundry to work his time off quicker.
The exact nature of the act (anal sex) and the detail about them continuing has come from radio interviews with law enforcement involved. I've never seen them in print but others on FR have also heard these details.
There was a lengthy interview with the DA on Houston radio but I did not get to hear more than a few minutes of it. My dad is conservative too but we were in the car and he didn't want to hear a lengthy discussion of anal sodomy.
What I like about FR as a resource is that some details about news stories can be learned here that slip by most other accounts.
Google and some other search engines can be used to find some of these elements but they don't always form a complete picture.
I've never seen the arrest report on the 2 men (explaining why they were arrested for a charge that only carries a fine) or the arrest/court report for the man who made the false phone call. If the police say that there were a history of calls between the men, what was the nature of those reports? I've never seen a followup if there were any leads on the murder. Some of these documents would seem to be on the web but Google doesn't find them.
Laugh if you want but the officers did observe the act (how else do you think that they charged the 2 men?).
Actually, putting the "[gay]" into the statement was bending over backwards to spin things in Santorum's favor. Without providing that context, it is even more obvious that Santorum favors a regime under which the police may investigate anybody's bedroom.
What real world views does this editoralist pretend to be representing? Certainly not the world we call Planet Earth.