Top Massachusetts court refuses to throw out anti-sodomy laws but limits enforcement

AP ^ | 2-21-02

[Oldeconomybuyer]

BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts' highest court on Thursday upheld two anti-sodomy laws but limited enforcement to cases when specific sex acts occurred in public or weren't consensual.

Gay activists said the Supreme Judicial Court ruling clarified for the first time that anti-sodomy laws don't apply to private, consensual sex.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

"It really takes all the sting out of these laws"

I presume, the pun was intended.

[DallasDeb]

Gay activists had argued the laws violated freedom of expression and other constitutional rights and could be used by prosecutors to intimidate anyone arrested for sex activity.

Wouldn't heterosexuals be arrested if they had sex in public?

[Waco]

Full cooperation/collusion of church and state. Slop wher you told to slop, suck what your told to suck. (State Motto)

[RJCogburn]

Private and consenual is none of my business.

Mass. is pretty screwy anyhow. As late as the 50s and into the 60s, condoms were illegal as a method of contraception.

[Bella_Bru]

Massachusetts' highest court on Thursday upheld two anti-sodomy laws but limited enforcement to cases when specific sex acts occurred in public or weren't consensual.

Well duh. Who wants a big brother government knocking on doors to see what is going on behind closed doors? If it isn't in public, then who the hell cares?

[Leisler]

Calling Gerry Studds, Barny Frank, Patches Kennedy....

[tpaine]

I think you would be surprised how many here at FR claim that the constitution allows such restrictive state law on private behaviors, regardless of the near impossibility of enforcing such law with any semblence of due process.

I've never under stood the motivations of those who want the state to criminalize sin.

[counterrevolutionary]

I think you would be surprised how many here at FR claim that the constitution allows such restrictive state law on private behaviors, regardless of the near impossibility of enforcing such law with any semblence of due process.

Please quote the Constitutional provision which forbids a state legislature to pass a law against sodomy.

[tpaine]

14th, sec 1

[patlaw_guy]

And let's not forget the Ninth Amendment.

[counterrevolutionary]

I don't see anything about sodomy in there. Care to give me a list of everything that Amendment 14, Sec. 1 forbids states to outlaw, and everything it doesn't?

[tpaine]

"life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

[tpaine]

Watch out. -- You may be required to list all those rights 'retained'. -- And you MUST obey.

[counterrevolutionary]

You seem to be rambling. Certainly neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual can be punished without due process. But that has literally nothing to do with the point at issue.

You have clearly fallen into the leftists' trap of believing that whatever you want to be the case must be in the Constitution, whether you can find the actual words in there or not, as if the Constitution was somehow meant to establish God's Justice (or at least your justice) on earth.

[oldtimer]

What does "Gay" mean. They were queers until the rats figured out they could turn them into a voter bloc.

[JMJ333]

I see the relativists are out in full force. Oh no! Can't have sodomy laws because the acts are between consenting adults! No word yet on what they think about incest, but to remain consistant they'll have to say the same thing.

[counterrevolutionary]

Watch out. -- You may be required to list all those rights 'retained'. -- And you MUST obey.

I understand why my question upset you. But it is certainly legitimate, if you claim that certain unnamed activities are protected from state legislation, for me to expect you to tell me precisely which activities they are.

And it would, in fact, be perfectly reasonable to ask patlaw_guy which activities are to be considered protected rights under his interpretation of the Ninth Amendment, given that the language of the amendment itself does not specify.

[JMJ333]

You have freepmail.

[zoyd]

I see the relativists are out in full force. Oh no! Can't have sodomy laws because the acts are between consenting adults! No word yet on what they think about incest, but to remain consistant they'll have to say the same thing.

So should we arrest heterosexuals for sodomy?